Another SSPX superior speaks on Rome/SSPX

[1AugustSon7]

Are all its documents binding on the faithful?

Theoretically, yes.

Does this include the documents that call for the continued use of Latin, Gregorian Chant and Sacred Polyphony?

Again, theoretically yes.

The Church’s Magisterium, however, cannot contradict itself, and neither can it produce any new doctrine. Therefore, anything that would contradict past teachings is null and void, and anything that is demonstrably new (either no precedence of the teaching at any time before or not a logical deduction from dogma or Revelation) is likewise null and void and the faithful cannot be bound to it nor are they bound to accept it.

 

[Melchior_1]

The Church’s Magisterium, however, cannot contradict itself, and neither can it produce any new doctrine. Therefore, anything that would contradict past teachings is null and void, and anything that is demonstrably new (either no precedence of the teaching at any time before or not a logical deduction from dogma or Revelation) is likewise null and void and the faithful cannot be bound to it nor are they bound to accept it.

Then it’s very good news that Vatican II didn’t contradict anything previously taught by the Church.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Then it’s very good news that Vatican II didn’t contradict anything previously taught by the Church.

I would argue Vatican II can be reasonably demonstrated to contradict itself at points.

For example, it is manifestly contradictory (owing to its impossibility) to promote both more Latin and more use of the vulgar tongue in the liturgy; indeed, you cannot possibly do both without doing what elsewhere Vatican II also decried: i.e., duplicating prayers or ceremonies needlessly (redundantly).

I would also argue that in practise Vatican II is frequently and manifestly interpreted in a contradictory manner so as to give license to novel practises that are manifestly not in keeping with the Church’s universal practise. Many modern ecumenical practises have absolutely no basis anywhere in the Church’s history and have even been explicitly condemned.

For example, partaking in ecumenical gatherings involving common prayer with non-Catholics, or giving the impression that the Church isn’t already one, or that Our Lord’s prayer that the faithful may all be one has somehow never happened and is, as it were, a work in progress.

 

[Melchior_1]

For example, it is manifestly contradictory (owing to its impossibility) to promote both more Latin and more use of the vulgar tongue in the liturgy; indeed, you cannot possibly do both without doing what elsewhere Vatican II also decried: i.e., duplicating prayers or ceremonies needlessly (redundantly).

Sure you can. Encourage parishes to have one Mass in the vernacular, another Mass in Latin. Done and done.

I would also argue that **in practise **Vatican II is frequently and manifestly interpreted in a contradictory manner so as to give license to novel practises that are manifestly not in keeping with the Church’s universal practise.

The bolded would indicate that the issue lies in practices, not the theory or what’s written down.

Many modern ecumenical practises have absolutely no basis anywhere in the Church’s history and have even been explicitly condemned.

For example, partaking in ecumenical gatherings involving common prayer with non-Catholics, or giving the impression that the Church isn’t already one, or that Our Lord’s prayer that the faithful may all be one has somehow never happened and is, as it were, a work in progress.

Several modern ecumenical examples reflect the writings of a few of the Popes. This was discussed when we were talking about the revised Good Friday prayers on these very boards. Further, ecumenism and praying with those from other faiths who profess in the God of Abraham has been around for 900 years (well, praying with Protestants hasn’t, but you know what I mean).

 

[1AugustSon7]

Sure you can. Encourage parishes to have one Mass in the vernacular, another Mass in Latin. Done and done.

You evade the needless duplication point, however.

The bolded would indicate that the issue lies in practices, not the theory or what’s written down.

The practises, however, are justified from Vatican II documents. I agree that it is not impossible that the texts do not or did not intend to warrant such practises; nonetheless, this ties back to my primary point that, regardless, the faithful are not bound to accept such things.

Several modern ecumenical examples reflect the writings of a few of the Popes.

This is specious. Writings are not practises. People can pull quotes from texts of Papal letters, etc., and say that these things were at some point taught; however, the problem remains that they were not practised and, therefore, it can be argued that the texts themselves are being misinterpreted because - if the modern interpretation were correct - then there would have been some corresponding practise; however, the practise was the opposite.

This was discussed when we were talking about the revised Good Friday prayers on these very boards. Further, ecumenism and praying with those from other faiths who profess in the God of Abraham has been around for 900 years (well, praying with Protestants hasn’t, but you know what I mean).

I have never heard of any historical example of prelates or others being permitted to participate in common prayer with heretics, schismatics or those of other religions. Indeed, there are no shortage of anathemas against it.

 

[Melchior_1]

You evade the needless duplication point, however.

Not really. A EF parish can encourage the vernacular by having on Mass a weekend in English. Vice-versa at a parish that uses the If you’re going to have three Masses on a Sunday. Unless you’re prescribing it needs to be an either/or position. To me, it seems the documents are calling for a balance.

The practises, however, are justified from Vatican II documents.

I’m assuming you’re also unhappy with certain groups who justify their actions through quoting Canon Law, despite when the Pope says “the Law doesn’t apply”, The groups that do this discredit themselves, not the Law. Just like there’s nothing inherently wrong with the documents from Vatican II, the groups that do things discredit themselves.

Vatican II is a convenient scapegoat. I’m sure if the Church said “lets scrap everything about Vatican II!” that there would be something else which would take the blame.

This is specious. Writings are not practises. People can pull quotes from texts of Papal letters, etc., and say that these things were at some point taught; however, the problem remains that they were not practised and, therefore, it can be argued that the texts themselves are being misinterpreted because - if the modern interpretation were correct - then there would have been some corresponding practise; however, the practise was the opposite.

**I have never heard of any historical example of prelates or others being permitted to participate in common prayer with heretics, schismatics or those of other religions. **Indeed, there are no shortage of anathemas against it.

What exactly have the Franciscans been doing in the Holy Lands for the last 700 years? And Benedictine Abbys who invite anyone to enter their walls?

 

[1AugustSon7]

Not really. A EF parish can encourage the vernacular by having on Mass a weekend in English. Vice-versa at a parish that uses the If you’re going to have three Masses on a Sunday. Unless you’re prescribing it needs to be an either/or position. To me, it seems the documents are calling for a balance.

Fair enough.

I’m assuming you’re also unhappy with certain groups who justify their actions through quoting Canon Law, despite when the Pope says “the Law doesn’t apply”, The groups that do this discredit themselves, not the Law. Just like there’s nothing inherently wrong with the documents from Vatican II, the groups that do things discredit themselves.

I agree to actively participate in such things is to discredit oneself.

What exactly have the Franciscans been doing in the Holy Lands for the last 700 years? And Benedictine Abbys who invite anyone to enter their walls?

I certainly hope not anathematizing themselves. The aforementinoned anathemas and Canons are usually fiercest with the Bishops, however; and the Holy Land was a site of pilgrimage for Christians occupied by historically hostile powers. Hardly a world-wide norm.

Notice, for example, that it was only in the Holy Land. Further, to what extent was there common prayer? Seeing as the Catholics would have prayed in Latin and the Muslims in Arabic; also, whose prayers were used? Or were some created for the purpose? Lastly, what were the rules that regulated the practice?

 

[Melchior_1]

I certainly hope not anathematizing themselves. The aforementinoned anathemas and Canons are usually fiercest with the Bishops, however; and the Holy Land was a site of pilgrimage for Christians occupied by historically hostile powers. Hardly a world-wide norm.

Yet millions of people follow Francis’ example, and throughout the years people have. Franciscans do as Franciscans do, so what happened there with St. Francis would have hardly been kept in the Holy Lands.

 

[tradcathusa]

Have you noticed how many SSPX superiors are speaking out in terms and in a tone that seem to be pro-reconciliation? It appears to me as if they are preparing the society. Yes, it is speculation, but something feels good and right. Let’s keep praying that God’s will be done.

Here’s an excerpt from an editorial written by the SSPX superior for Belgium and surrounds:

(full text here)

Ecce Agnus Dei, I agree with you. I get the feel that there is a growing pro reconcilliation movement in the SSPX. I am not SSPX, I am FSSP, so I have no inside info. I was SSPX and I remember in 1988 being at the SSPX mass when the priest told us at the sermon that the Archbishop would consecrate the Bishops and they would be excommunicated and we had to decide do we stay or leave. I am so excited that it looks like there is a real chance at healing this rift. I’d love to hear from people in the SSPX now and see what they think about all of this.

 

[ProVobis]

Sure you can. Encourage parishes to have one Mass in the vernacular, another Mass in Latin. Done and done.

Except that doesn’t work when everyone wants everything in the vernacular. You obviously don’t need to encourage the vernacular. Just like you will usually get more Hispanics than Anglophones at a Spanish Mass, you will get more Anglophones coming to an English Mass than one in Latin, although that wasn’t always the case in the history of the Church.

 

[Moore11]

Rhetoric aside I think this is a sign of things to come. This month.
praying…

 

[1AugustSon7]

Yet millions of people follow Francis’ example, and throughout the years people have. Franciscans do as Franciscans do, so what happened there with St. Francis would have hardly been kept in the Holy Lands.

From what I have heard the Franciscans in the Holy Land had a special mission in the Holy Land, which makes them exceptional. Therefore, it would appear you are trying to equivocate things that are simply unanalagous.

 

[ProVobis]

But anathema is a disciplinary penalty and is not indicative of whether the matter is doctrine or discipline.

We had a recent thread on the Trent anathemas. A lot of questions were asked (not necessarily on that thread) as to how high must one be in the Church to be exempt from those anathemas. If everyone is exempt, then obviously the whole issue falls apart and Trent wasted its time. But Trent did address at one point “any pastor whomsoever” so I’ll leave the reader draw his own conclusions on that.

Another question is how exactly are these anathemas, if still in effect, are removed.

But that aside, if I am to accept the current Pope’s statement that there are doctrinal problems with the FSSPX as he has indeed stated, then certainly I have to accept what an infallible council has clearly stated as doctrine. And with the same weight, I would think.

 

[pnewton]

Another question is how exactly are these anathemas, if still in effect, are removed.

That is one of the few canon law questions that I do know. None of these are in effect as of 1983. A new code of canon law does not have to abbrogate each point of the old canon law point by point, but rather supercedes it with its adoption. I am doubtful about elevating Latin to a doctrine, as this would cast doubts on the teaching of Jesus who failed to teach in Latin. But that is just me. The one thing that is clear here is that there is a need for authority in the Church so that folks like you and I (and the SSPX bishop here) do not differ on items, or at least that we have to acknowledge that our opinions might be wrong, something I have not often heard out of the SSPX.

 

[pnewton]

We had a recent thread on the Trent anathemas. A lot of questions were asked (not necessarily on that thread) as to how high must one be in the Church to be exempt from those anathemas.

I think there is truth that underlies even the disciplines we use. In this case, for example, we are universal. There is no “the vernacular” language, so there is a necessary purpose of a single language that changes only slowly with time, not because the language is important, but because orthodoxy and univerality are important. In this case, language is the tool of thought. We can no more use local vernaculars to be unified than mechanics could each use their own units of measurement.

 

[Cristiano]

These are not doctrines.

I thought that Latin was doctrine from Trent. I mean that saying that Latin is not necessary or that it could be excluded was condemned at Trent.

 

[Melchior_1]

From what I have heard the Franciscans in the Holy Land had a special mission in the Holy Land, which makes them exceptional. Therefore, it would appear you are trying to equivocate things that are simply unanalagous.

Not quite. Francis and his sons and daughters took what they did in the Holy Land, and applied it elsewhere as well. Francis himself didn’t stay on the Holy Land, but what he learned there he took with him. Things like placing the Tabernacle in the middle of the Sanctuary was something he picked up on from the Jews, for example. He also took with him the lessons learned in having dialogue and certain shared activities with other faiths.

All of this is all well and good, but until the right people say things it’s all speculation. And the rhetoric in the excerpt in the OP doesn’t sound encouraging.

 

[pnewton]

I would also argue that in practise Vatican II is frequently and manifestly interpreted in a contradictory manner so as to give license to novel practises that are manifestly not in keeping with the Church’s universal practise.

The practises, however, are justified from Vatican II documents.

I do not think one can fight the human capacity to find justification for the greatest of absurdities. The deviant practices seen in some Churches do not spring from Vatican II, but rather from sin. The SSPX is not alone in defying authority. They just do it differently. At least they are honest about it and trying (mostly) to reconcile differences. These priest that go their own way and try to twist some justification into their actions by the changes of Vatican II have little hope.

But I would never underestimate the potential of the sinner to justify their sin.

 

[ProVobis]

I am doubtful about elevating Latin to a doctrine

We are not elevating Latin to a doctrine. Trent said nothing about Latin. But Vatican II did. If anything Vatican II strengthen the doctrine against making the vulgar tongue being the norm. You can’t allow Church teachings and liturgy to be freely interpreted and translated, which the Reformers claimed should be the case.

And if you think the vernacular or translations are simple practices, consider this. On the Vatican website, an English translation of one of the Vatican documents (I presume it’s approved since it’'s on the Vatican website) there is a reference to “worshipping” Mary. The Latin (colere) is authoritative but the Anglophone is vulnerable to Protestant attack. This is something a Polophone, for example, doesn’t have to worry about. Point is the Church teachings shouldn’t be left to those with only linguistic skills. The early Church had enough problems between teachings in Greek vs teachings in Latin; for example, the Nicene Creed. We don’t need this compounded 500 times.

 

[rben20]

Provobis:thumbsup: