Regarding
The Joint Declarations with the Lutherans: The reason Traditionalists rose up immediately against this document is because it contained errors that were almost word for word contrary to what the
Council of Trent taught.
They rose up in defense of the Catholic faith in order to warn people not to be misled by this misleading document. The danger with this particular document was increased by the fact that it was so highly praised by John Paul II himself.
Now, after this document was released, there was a long debate between a Traditionalist and another highly educated and well meaning Catholic. The latter felt it his duty to defend what was taught in the
Joint Declaration since it expressly stated the following:
Joint Declaration: “The present Joint Declaration has this intention: namely, to show that on the basis of their dialogue the subscribing Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church are now able to articulate a common understanding of our justification by God’s grace through faith in Christ… Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they relate to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light:
The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent.
Therefore, since this document was approved by the authorities, and so highly praised by the Pope, he felt it is duty to defend it as not being contrary to what the Council of Trent taught. The Traditionalist warned him at the outset that if he defended this “compromise-of-a-document”, as he called it, he would fall into error. As the debate went on, sure enough he ended up defending errors that were exactly contrary to what the Council of Trent taught. How can I be so sure of that?
The
Clarification: What many people may not know is that Rome later issued a “clarification” for the
Joint Declaration wherein it stated that certain parts were simply “not acceptable”.
With respect to one point in particular, it said the following:
Clarification: “So, for all these reasons, it remains difficult to see how, in the current state of the presentation given in the Joint Declaration, we can say that this doctrine on “simul iustus et peccator” is not touched by the anathemas of the Tridentine decree on original sin and justification".
It then went on to say this:
Clarification: “These remarks are intended as a more precise explanation of the teaching of the Catholic Church with regard to the points on which complete agreement has not been reached;… The level of agreement is high, but it does not yet allow us to affirm that all the differences separating Catholics and Lutherans in the doctrine concerning justification are simply a question of emphasis or language. Some of these differences concern aspects of substance and are therefore not all mutually compatible, as affirmed on the contrary in n. 40.
If, moreover, it is true that in those truths on which a consensus has been reached the condemnations of the Council of Trent no longer apply,
the divergencies on other points must, on the contrary, be overcome before we can affirm, as is done generically in n. 41, that these points no longer incur the condemnations of the Council of Trent. That applies in the first place to the doctrine on “simul iustus et peccator” (cf. n. 1, above).
So with that the “clarification” reversed what the original document stated. In the above quote where it references “n.41”, this refers to the section of the *Joint Declaration *quoted above, which says
“the teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent”. In other words, some of the teachings of the Lutheran churches presented in the Declaration
DO fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent.
One of the errors contained in the Joint Declaration that was addressed in the “clarification” was a point that was argued over in great detail during the debate. In the end, the “clarification” confirmed exactly what the Traditionalists said in the debate. Just as was predicted, the other Catholic fell into error by defending that document.
Now, when the Traditionalists rose up in defense of the Catholic Faith by condemning the errors contained in the Joint Declaration, it appeared that they were acting “against the Pope” (since the Pope gave such praise to the document), whereas in reality the Traditionalists were acting in defense of the Catholic Faith, as was later proven true by the “clarification”.
This is the case over and over again. The Traditionalists defend the faith, and are said to be “against the Pope” - since the Pope gives the impression of being in favor of the various errors. As time goes ont the Traditionalists are proven right again and again. Why is that the case?
Because the Catholic faith does not change; therefore, as long as one holds fast to what the Church has always taught, they are on safe ground.
One final point: In one of your earlier posts you mentioned something about the SSPX and Feeneyism. I couldn’y understand exactly what you meant, but I did want to clarify that the SSPX are not Feeneyites. In fact, they could be described as anti-Feeneyites, as some of the best refutations of that position have been published by the SSPX.
