Bishop Fellay: SSPX Seeks Return to the Past

[pnewton]

Again, you don’t know his heart, so why pray that he have a change of heart? These last 20 years have been nothing but attempting to work toward normalization while simultaneously zealously and carefully guarding their lambs in a manner most other bishops of the world would do well to emulate.

I know that the SSPX has not resolved their conflict. Basing my judgement on results, I would say they have failed.

I know what the SSPX bishops have said over the last years. In my opinion only, the tone lacks humility, rather speaks of obstinence, pride and control.

 

[TMC]

There is no source more fraught with misinformation and disinformation about theological points than the secular media.

For them to say that SSPX wants to “return to the past” is grossly unfair and unjust–to say nothing about inaccurate.

That’s why I said above that I hoped there is a misunderstanding here, either by Bishop Felay or us. I would not doubt it, if the secular media has misunderstood the Bishop. What a novel idea.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

One can never underestimate the media’s ability to misunderstand, but the article says that this is a direct quote from Bishop Fellay:

The solution to the crisis is a return to the past.

 

[TMC]

Third misconcpetion: Pope Benedict has already written a clarification for the Council’s position on the condemnations made by Pius IX and X. He stands by that. He is not one to give up ground on theological territory, especially when we all have to admit that he is a far superior theologian than is Archbishop Fellay and the other members of the committee. They would have to prove him wrong. Will Pope Benedict even allow that discussion? I highly doubt it. He will repeat himself, but I really doubt that he will budge.

This is the aspect of this debate that has long puzzled me. I continually hear that the problem is that the Vatican II documents are unclear or that the Church has never explained them. I don’t find the councilar documents particularly unclear. But even if they were the Church has written a great deal about what they mean. I am hopeful that these discussion will be helpful, but I fear that the problem is disagrement, not confusion or misunderstanding. Many in the SSPX need to decide whether they can reconcile their disagreement with renewed submission to the authority of the Church (like millions of others that disagree with the Church in matters large or small), or whether their beliefs require they go a separate way (like millions before them).

Despite the unhelpful public posturing, I see no reason that they cannot reach reconciliation. But the reconciliation has to be based on how SSPX either gets comfortable with current Catholic teaching, or how SSPX gets comfortable submitting to the authority of the Magisterium despite some continuing misgivings. It certainly won’t be based on how Church teaching should be changed to accomodate the SSPX.

 

[JReducation]

Could you please refer me to this? Thank you and God Bless.

Ultima Ratio has a good quote from it, on post 9.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

This is the aspect of this debate that has long puzzled me. I continually hear that the problem is that the Vatican II documents are unclear or that the Church has never explained them. I don’t find the councilar documents particularly unclear.

There are a few reason why people often claim the documents are ambiguous. The main reason is not so much that they are hard to understand. Instead, the problem is that the obvious understanding of them is actually heresy. What I mean is, what the documents appear on the surface to say, is often times formally condemned error. The ambigiuty enters in when a person tries to interpret them in accord with what the Church has always taught.

Fr. Brian Harrison has spent many years trying to reconcile Vatican II with what the Church teaches. In other words, he has spent many years trying to show how the documents - which appear on the surface to be heretical - can be interpreted in accord with what the Church has always taught. This is a monumental task that even he has been unable to fully accomplish.

I’m going to give just one example, but MANY, MANY more could be given. This example is one of the points that the SSPX and Rome will be discussing. This example deals with religious liberty. Before providing the quotes, let me briefly explain what the Church has always taught on this point.

The Church has always taught that both man as an individual, and man as a social group (the state, for example) has a moral duty to profess the true religion. This is because Jesus Christ is the King of the human race by essense, nature, and aquired right resulting from the Redemption of man. This duty of submitting to Christ is not only a duty of the baptized, but of the entire human race. This is explained very cearly in the document Quas Primas of Pope Pius XI

For clarification, the Church does not teach that man should be forced to convert; or that a state must profess the true religion; it only say that man has a moral duty to convert, just as the state has a moral duty to profess the true religion. In other words, man should be a Catholic, and the state should profess the true religion; and since “rights” are a moral power (Libertas, of Leo XIII), no man has the right to profess a false religion. In fact, the following two propositions were condemned by the Church:

[it is an error to say that] “every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true” (Syllabus of errors #15, Pius IX)

[it is an error to say that] “The Church ought to be separated from the state, and the state from the Church” (Syllabus of errors #15, Pius IX).

So, man is not morally free to profess whatever religion he choses, but only the true religion; and likewise the state should profess the true religion since it has a duty to do so. This is all explained very clearly in many magisterial documents, such as Libertas, for example. Here’s one more error from the Syllabus:

[it is an error to say that] " In this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever.” (Syllabus #77)

Now, Vatican II teaches the contrary (at least as it is interpreted by virtually the entire hierarchy, including the Pope). Not only does it teach that those who belong to a false religion should not be forced to convert (which is what the Church has always taught), but it goes further by saying that such people have a “right” to openly profess their false religion; and that the state has a duty to permit them to profess their religion. This is exactly contrary to what the Church has always taught. It is one thing to say it may be beneficial for a state to tolerate error, but quite another to say the one in error has a “right” to profess his error, and that the state has duty to protect this “right”.

Before going on let me make one more important distinction. While the Church says no one should be forced to convert, it does not follow that they should be allowed to practice their false religion in public. These are two different things altogether, and the latter is another formally condemned error. In other words, it is a formally condemned error to say that a person has the right to **publicly practice **a false religion. Men only have a right to publicly practice the true religion.

Now, here are two quotes to consider. The first is from Quanta Cura of Piux X (this is the document that accompanies the Syllabus of errors); and the second is from Dignitate Humanae of Vatican II. It should be noted that the first quote (from Quanta Cura) is exactly what many other magisterial documents have taught.

**Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura: **“From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, namely, that 'liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society… But while they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are preaching liberty of perdition… Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines specifically mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobate, proscribed and condemned."

Now, if that does not meet the requirements for Papal Infallibility, I would like someome to explain why. It has all the requirements for an infallible document, and the teachings it defines are in accord with what the Church had always taught.

Now, compare that with Vatican II - which, like you said, seems very clear:

Vatican II: "This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom… The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person, as this dignity is known through the revealed Word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed; thus it is to become a civil right.”

Now, the SSPX refuses to accept formally condemned errors; and since Vatican II appears to teach exactly what has been condemned by the Church - and is interpreted in that manner by virtually everyone including the Pope - the SSPX is asking Rome to reconcile the two teaching by showing how they are not in opposition.

continue

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

continuation

TMC:

Despite the unhelpful public posturing, I see no reason that they cannot reach reconciliation. But the reconciliation has to be based on how SSPX either gets comfortable with current Catholic teaching,

The SSPX has no problem with “current teachings”, unless, of course, the current teachings have been formally condemned. If the “current teachings” are formally condemned error, they refuse to accept them. Why? Because they believe in the infallibility of the Church, and therefore refuse to accept as true errors that have been formally condemned.

For the modernists this is not a problem, since they believe in the condemned heresy of “evolution of doctrine”, which means that truth evolves. For them, a contradiction is not a problem. But the real Catholic knows that truth does not evolve into its contrary. This is not only another formally condemned error of the Church (the first Vatican Council), but it is contrary to reason.

These doctrinal discussion should be interesting since, on the one hand, we are told that “Vatican II didn’t change anything”, while on the other hand we are told that we must accept “current teachings”, which are in direct contradiction to “previous” teachings.

Now, re-read the quotes I posts in post #9. I quoted Cardinal Ratzinger admitting that the formally condemned errors no longer apply, and have been “corrected” by Vatican II. This is to call into question the infallibility of the Church, which the SSPX refuses to do.

But does the SSPX call into question infallibility by refusing the accept novel teachings of Vatican II? No, because infallibility only applies to what the Church has always taught. Therefore anything “new” and contrary to what has always been taught, can never be the object of infallibility.

 

[pnewton]

The SSPX has no problem with “current teachings”, unless, of course, the current teachings have been formally condemned. If the “current teachings” are formally condemned error, they refuse to accept them. .

Without getting sidetracked into this arguement, let me address the topic.

Why, as in, what is the motivation, does Bishop Fellay bring this or anything like it into the current discussions? After all, it is not heretical to hold the opinions he holds, even if they in different than the Holy Father. The reasons for allowing religious freedom are that new data has changed what is the most prudent course of action. In such matters one is totally free to disagree with the Holy Father.

Rather it is not conscience that binds him but a de facto rejection of the leadership God has place in the Chair of Peter and a desire to usurp that throne that should be given only at the direction of the Holy Spirit. The proper course would be to resolve the division first, then as a faithful member of the Catholic community he would be in a better position to argue the lesser matters. He would not have to change one single belief he holds. All he would have to do is give up on changing the Pope.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Without getting sidetracked into this arguement, let me address the topic.

Why, as in, what is the motivation, does Bishop Fellay bring this or anything like it into the current discussions? After all, it is not heretical to hold the opinions he holds, even if they in different than the Holy Father. The reasons for allowing religious freedom are that new data has changed what is the most prudent course of action. In such matters one is totally free to disagree with the Holy Father.

You bring up another very important distinction that needs to be made. The distinction is between principles and practice. Due to circumstances, sometimes the practice will have to deviate from the principle, but when this happens the principle can never be denied.

For example, as I mentioned above, it is the teaching of the Church that both man and the state has a moral duty to profess the true religion; and it is also the teaching of the Church that the Catholic state has the complete right to forbid any public profession of a false religion. Those are principles that must be held by all Catholic.

On the other hand, it will sometimes happen that the circumstances make it more prudent for the Catholic state to tolerate the public practice of false religions - especially when a large percent of the poplulation is non-Catholic. Here we have a deviation between principle and practice: the principle is that all men are morally bound to profess the true religion, and the practice is that men are permitted to profess a false religion, which is a sin against the first commandment. This distinction is clearly explained in the encyclical Libertas, and the SSPX is fully aware of this distinction.

This brings us to the heart of the problem. What is taught today by virtually everyone in the hierarchy, thanks to Vatican II, is that the principle itself is false. Vatican II is interpreted by just about everyone as saying that man has a “right” to practice whatever religion he wants. This “right” is said to flow from his “dignity”. They claim that the dignity of man means that man should be able to do just about whatever he wants in religious matters; and that if he is prevented from doing whatever he wants, it is an affront to his “dignity”. This is a totally false understanding of human dignity.

This false understanding of human dignity is linked together with a false understanding of human liberty. True human liberty is the freedom to do what we ought to do. It is an interior freedom that enables us to live according to right reason, and not as slaves to our lower nature. False human liberty says that man should be able to do as he pleases, as long as he does not harm anyone else.

The false understanding of human dignity is, as I said above, linked together with the false understanding of human liberty. Today they claim that if a person is prevented from doing what he pleases in religious matters (as long as he is not harming anyone else) his “dignity” is harmed.

They fail to distinguish between natural liberty (free will), and moral liberty. Natural liberty is what man is capable of doing (anything), and moral liberty is what man is *allowed *to do. Sin harms the dignity of man. Therefore, preventing a person from publicly practicing a false religion does not harm his human dignity, but rather safeguards the human dignity of men living in society.

The denial of the Catholic *principle *is rooted in these misunderstandings; and all these misunderstandings have been clarified by the Popes. We are not in uncharted territory here. All these errors were condemned over and over again by the Popes during the 19the and first half of the 20th century.

The SSPX refuses to accept as true false principles - principles that were condemned clearly infallibly in the Syllabus of Pius IX, which Cardinal Ratzinger said were “corrected” by Vatican II. That is the heart of the disagreement.

In rejecting religious liberty, the SSPX is not saying that the Church should try to force non-Catholics to convert. No, not at all. They are simply holding to the principles taught by the Church, even though they realize that the practice today will deviate often deviate from the principles. The principles are the doctrinal truths that must be maintained, regardless of the circumstances and practice.

pnewton:

Rather it is not conscience that binds him but a de facto rejection of the leadership God has place in the Chair of Peter and a desire to usurp that throne that should be given only at the direction of the Holy Spirit. The proper course would be to resolve the division first, then as a faithful member of the Catholic community he would be in a better position to argue the lesser matters. He would not have to change one single belief he holds. All he would have to do is give up on changing the Pope.

In your opinion, it would be best to sign an agreement first, and then resolve the doctrinal disputes. You are certainly entitled to that opinion. However, the opinion of Bishop Fellay is that the doctrinal points must be clarified first, or else the SSPX will end up right back where they are now. The SSPX has come very close to doing what you said they should do; namely sign an agreement first, and then clarify the doctrines. Through their discussions with Rome, however, they have deemed that to be the wrong course, since Rome always does their best to avoid the doctrinal disputes. Rome would never engage them in doctrinal discussions. Why? In my opinion the answer is clear: Rome realizes full well that the SSPX is simply holding fast to what the Church has always taught, while they have deviated from it. Read the quote I provided in post #9 from Cardinal Ratzinger, who basically admits to the change.

Now, based on some recent comments from Bishop Fellay, it may happen that an agreement is reached prior to the doctrinal points being clarified. Rome has wanted an agreement for years, and made several offers to the SSPX. My guess is that they will ask Bishop Fellay to sign an agreement now, since the doctrinal discussions have begun. Maybe Bishop Fellay will agree to this. Time will tell.

But to answer you question: The motive for the SSPX holding out on an agreement is that they want the doctrinal points clarified for the good of the Church. If they were to sign an agreement without clarifying the doctrinal points, the doctrinal chaos in the Church would continue; and many souls would be lost to adhering to formally condemned errors that they think the Church now officially teachings.

 

[JReducation]

I believe that we have two problems here that are causing stumbling blocks.

1. People are saying, “The Church has always said this and that.” But we tend to forget that the Church has made only two Ex Cathedra statements in the last 100 years. And that the other teachings my popes and councils in those years have not all carried the weight of infallibility. In some cases there were parts of the teachings that did, but other parts did not. Cardinal Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith has presented a very good dissertation on this matter. You can Google his doctoral dissertation for his STD when he speaks of Evangelium Vitae and he points to what is infallible and not infallible. He points to the criteria that is used to determine infallibility, when something is not pronounced Ex Cathedra. The criteria is not simply the words of the pope or the bishops saying some such phrases as “we solemnly decree . . . henceforth. . . . for all time” He explains that these are ceremonial words that an be applied to almost anything without intending to have the binding force that they appear to have. There are other criteria that have to be met. That’s why Pope Benedict selected him as his successor to the Sacred Congregation and he will be overseeing the discussions with Fellay. He does not buy into “the Church has always taught.”. Like the Holy Father, be too believes that this is over simplifying the Church.

Were I in Bishop Felly’s situation, I would take PNewton’s advice and go for the unification and faculties. I wuold not try to take on an entire committee that has been deliberate stacked against him. Let’s look at that committee: Dominicans, Jesuits, Opus Dei, Cardinal Levada and the Ecclesia Dei is now under the jurisdiction of the Congregation of the Faith, so it can’t be a real defending attorney.

1. The second issue is close to the first. The Holy Father has already said that many points on the syllabus of errors are no longer applicable and has received and conceived of reasons that are acceptable to him. He has no moral or legal obligation to ensure that his reasons for saying so are acceptable to others, on either side of the aisle. It’s like when Pope John Paul said “We can’t ordain women.” It did not matter how unacceptable the position was for those who stand for women’s ordination. It is what it is, because the pope says so and he’s happy with it. Unless you can prove him a heretic in a council of bishops, there is really no reason to even attempt to challenge him on this. He has the upper hand.

Bishop Fellay and the other bishops of the SSPX know that they do not have a canonical edge on the Holy Father, unless they threaten to leave. At some point, parents have to give their children that choice. “ff you’re going to live in my house, there are some things that are negotiable and others are not. If those that are not negotiable pose a problem for you, I’m sorry to see you go. Just leave.” I doubt that Bishop Fellay wants to leave or wants to convert the Holy Father.

He may use that rhetoric, but sometimes I wonder if the poor man has cornered or been cornered by the laity of the SSPX. I have met more mellow SSPX priests and very militant SSPX laity. NOT ALL, but many SSPX laity try to stir the pot and almost derive pleasure in instigating the leadership to mouth off against Rome. MANY of our more left-win laity do the same toward the SSPX. They want to mouth off to see the SSPX brought down to its knees.

I believe that at some point, Bishop Fellay has been cornered by both the radical SSPX laity and the radical left-wing laity in the rest of the Church. And he often comes off sounding like a challenger to the established Church. I believe that in private he’s probably very moderate. He is an honest man. He knows that he cannot win a debate against the likes of Benedict XVI and those theologians and prefects whom Benedict holds in high regards for being almost as good as he is in theology. Going in as a challenger is like a light weight entering a heavy weight match. You may get lucky, but your chances are slim.

The best advice, again, is what Newton said God for reunification. He’ll have plenty of time to discuss this other questions with his peers an a less antagonistic environment once he’s on the inside.

My suggestion to the laity on both sides of the aisle, keep your extremist and conspiracy ideas to yourself. These only add fuel to the fire rather than help. THINK IT, BUT DON’T SAY IT.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

I believe that we have two problems here that are causing stumbling blocks.

1. People are saying, “The Church has always said this and that.” But we tend to forget that the Church has made only two Ex Cathedra statements in the last 100 years. And that the other teachings by popes and councils in those years have not all carried the weight of infallibility. In some cases there were parts of the teachings that did, but other parts did not.

The Catholic faith does not change; and doctrines that are condemned by the Church will never become true simply because the calendar reads a different date. To claim otherwise is to deny the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium.

Before Vatican II, Catholics were never asked to accept doctrines that had previously been condemned by the Church. On the contrary, the Popes always taught what the the Church had always taught.

In the face of the new errors of Liberalism which began to gain ground in the 19th century, the First Vatican Council taught the following:

First Vatican Council: “All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith, which are contained in the word of God, written or handed down, *, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed.” Vatican I, Session III (ratified by Pope Pius IX in 1870).

Notice what Catholics are bound to believe: All that has been handed down, whether in writing or tradition, and taught by the Church, whether by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary magisterium.

The problem we have today is that *new *teachings are being proposed by the ordinary magisterium. Teachings that were not handed down by the apostles, and which are often exactly contrary to what the Church has taught, not only by her ordinary magisterium, by in some cases by a solemn judgment (such as the Syllabus). But whether by solemn judgment or by the ordinary magisterium, we are required to accept all that has been handed down to us and taught by the Church.

Now, why did the Church make this declaration at the first Vatican Council? Because the Liberals were introducing new teachings that we contrary to what the Church had always taught. These new teachings were compiled and condemned by the same Pope who reigned over that Council - Pope Pius IX. These condemned propositions make up the Syllabus of errors that I have been quoting.

Now, how did these Liberal heretics defend their new teachings, which were in contradiction to what the Church had always taught? Answer: They defended them by claiming that the truth evolved through a deeper understanding. Therefore, the First Vatican Council taught the following:

First Vatican Council: ". For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.

Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding…

If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema."

Not even the Pope has the authority to teach anything new. The Pope, like all other Catholics, is bound to accept all that the Church teaches. The job of the Pope is to safeguard the deposit of faith, not teach anything new - or, much less, anything contrary to what the Church has always taught.

First Vatican Council: “For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.”

That is the key. The deposit of faith was transmitted to us by the apostles. Over the years points of doctrine have been clarified and defined; but never has the deposit of faith changed. On the contrary, the faith is the same today as it was at the time of the apostles. The only difference is that more points of doctrine have been clarified and defined, but the meaning has always remained one and the same.

Continue…*

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

continuation

But this is something that the modernists do not accept. They erroneously believe that the deposit of faith evolves over time. This is completely false, which is why Pope St. Pius X made all of the clergy take the Oath Against Modernism, in which they swor the following:

Oath Against Modernism: " . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day… Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God."

In Testem Benevolentiae, Pope Leo XIII wrote the following:

Pope Leo XIII: **"The sense of the sacred dogmas is to be faithfully kept which Holy Mother Church has once declared, and is not to be departed from under the specious pretext of a more profound understanding. ** Nor is the suppression to be considered altogether free from blame, which designedly omits certain principles of Catholic doctrine and buries them, as it were, in oblivion. For there is the one and the same Author and Master of all the truths that Christian teaching comprises: the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father. That they are adapted to all ages and nations is plainly deduced from the words which Christ addressed to His Apostles: Go therefore teach ye all nations: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world. Wherefore the same Vatican Council says: ‘By the divine and Catholic faith these are to be believed which are contained in the word of God either written or handed down, and are proposed by the Church whether in solemn decision or by the ordinary universal magisterium, to be believed as having been divinely revealed.’ Far be it then, for anyone to diminish or for any reason whatever to pass over anything of this divinely delivered doctrine; whosoever would do so, would rather wish to alienate Catholics from the Church than to bring over to the Church those who dissent from it. ” Leo XIII - Testem Benevolentiae (1899)

But this is something that the modernists do not accept. They erroneously believe that the deposit of faith evolves over time, and is perfected by science and human reason. This is completely false, which is why Pope St. Pius X made all of the clergy take the Oath Against Modernism, in which they swor the following:

Oath Against Modernism: " . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day… Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers **in **exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God."

Infallibility extends, not only to the defined dogmas, but to what the Church has always taught as well; and that is why people such as myself always say “this Church has always taught this and that”. Because the “this and that” make up the deposit of faith to which all Catholic are bound.

 

[JReducation]

You bring up another very important distinction that needs to be made. The distinction is between principles and practice. Due to circumstances, sometimes the practice will have to deviate from the principle, but when this happens the principle can never be denied.

For example, as I mentioned above, it is the teaching of the Church that both man and the state has a moral duty to profess the true religion; and it is also the teaching of the Church that the Catholic state has the complete right to forbid any public profession of a false religion. Those are principles that must be held by all Catholic.

On the other hand, it will sometimes happen that the circumstances make it more prudent for the Catholic state to tolerate the public practice of false religions - especially when a large percent of the poplulation is non-Catholic. Here we have a deviation between principle and practice: the principle is that all men are morally bound to profess the true religion, and the practice is that men are permitted to profess a false religion, which is a sin against the first commandment. This distinction is clearly explained in the encyclical Libertas, and the SSPX is fully aware of this distinction.

This brings us to the heart of the problem. What is taught today by virtually everyone in the hierarchy, thanks to Vatican II, is that the principle itself is false. Vatican II is interpreted by just about everyone as saying that man has a “right” to practice whatever religion he wants. This “right” is said to flow from his “dignity”. They claim that the dignity of man means that man should be able to do just about whatever he wants in religious matters; and that if he is prevented from doing whatever he wants, it is an affront to his “dignity”. This is a totally false understanding of human dignity.

This false understanding of human dignity is linked together with a false understanding of human liberty. True human liberty is the freedom to do what we ought to do. It is an interior freedom that enables us to live according to right reason, and not as slaves to our lower nature. False human liberty says that man should be able to do as he pleases, as long as he does not harm anyone else.

The false understanding of human dignity is, as I said above, linked together with the false understanding of human liberty. Today they claim that if a person is prevented from doing what he pleases in religious matters (as long as he is not harming anyone else) his “dignity” is harmed.

They fail to distinguish between natural liberty (free will), and moral liberty. Natural liberty is what man is capable of doing (anything), and moral liberty is what man is *allowed *to do. Sin harms the dignity of man. Therefore, preventing a person from publicly practicing a false religion does not harm his human dignity, but rather safeguards the human dignity of men living in society.

The denial of the Catholic *principle *is rooted in these misunderstandings; and all these misunderstandings have been clarified by the Popes. We are not in uncharted territory here. All these errors were condemned over and over again by the Popes during the 19the and first half of the 20th century.

The SSPX refuses to accept as true false principles - principles that were condemned clearly infallibly in the Syllabus of Pius IX, which Cardinal Ratzinger said were “corrected” by Vatican II. That is the heart of the disagreement.

In rejecting religious liberty, the SSPX is not saying that the Church should try to force non-Catholics to convert. No, not at all. They are simply holding to the principles taught by the Church, even though they realize that the practice today will deviate often deviate from the principles. The principles are the doctrinal truths that must be maintained, regardless of the circumstances and practice.

In your opinion, it would be best to sign an agreement first, and then resolve the doctrinal disputes. You are certainly entitled to that opinion. However, the opinion of Bishop Fellay is that the doctrinal points must be clarified first, or else the SSPX will end up right back where they are now. The SSPX has come very close to doing what you said they should do; namely sign an agreement first, and then clarify the doctrines. Through their discussions with Rome, however, they have deemed that to be the wrong course, since Rome always does their best to avoid the doctrinal disputes. Rome would never engage them in doctrinal discussions. Why? In my opinion the answer is clear: Rome realizes full well that the SSPX is simply holding fast to what the Church has always taught, while they have deviated from it. Read the quote I provided in post #9 from Cardinal Ratzinger, who basically admits to the change.

Now, based on some recent comments from Bishop Fellay, it may happen that an agreement is reached prior to the doctrinal points being clarified. Rome has wanted an agreement for years, and made several offers to the SSPX. My guess is that they will ask Bishop Fellay to sign an agreement now, since the doctrinal discussions have begun. Maybe Bishop Fellay will agree to this. Time will tell.

But to answer you question: The motive for the SSPX holding out on an agreement is that they want the doctrinal points clarified for the good of the Church. If they were to sign an agreement without clarifying the doctrinal points, the doctrinal chaos in the Church would continue; and many souls would be lost to adhering to formally condemned errors that they think the Church now officially teachings.

Bishop Fellay and any one-star theologian know the rules of St. Alphonsus Ligouri. You must meet all three conditions to be guilty of grave sin that can deprive you of sanctifying life.

1 The matter must be grave.

Assuming that the SSPX is right and that the syllabus of errors and other statements are still binding, this would be appliecable. But the Holy See is the ultimate authority on whether these are still binding, since they are not infallible dogmas, but ordinary and serious teachings.

1. The person must know that the matter is gravely sinful.

If the matter is gravely sinful, but the person does not know, because he or she is following the teachings of the Church today, the culpability is diminished or void. Because there is failure to meet one of the conditions.

1. The person must have true freedom of choice.

If you don’t know, you don’t have much of a choice. We already addressed that in number two.

In other words, we have to stop the rhetoric tha the current teaching of the Church is going to lead souls to be lost. It’s not that easy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Bishop Fellay and any one-star theologian know the rules of St. Alphonsus Ligouri. You must meet all three conditions to be guilty of grave sin that can deprive you of sanctifying life.

1 The matter must be grave.

Assuming that the SSPX is right and that the syllabus of errors and other statements are still binding, this would be appliecable. But the Holy See is the ultimate authority on whether these are still binding, since they are not infallible dogmas, but ordinary and serious teachings.

1. The person must know that the matter is gravely sinful.

If the matter is gravely sinful, but the person does not know, because he or she is following the teachings of the Church today, the culpability is diminished or void. Because there is failure to meet one of the conditions.

1. The person must have true freedom of choice.

If you don’t know, you don’t have much of a choice. We already addressed that in number two.

In other words, we have to stop the rhetoric tha the current teaching of the Church is going to lead souls to be lost. It’s not that easy.

The faith must be defended. No one is subjectively judging the guilt of individual Catholics who may be adhering to errors, but the faith must be defended!

During the Arian crisis I’m sure there were a lot of Catholic who denied that Jesus was God, since this is what most of the Bishops at the time taught. But if you lived at that time would you have told St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Gregory and St Hilary to stop defending the faith and refuting the errors? It was thanks to them that the truth survived.

Those saints I just mentioned are now considered heros for standing virtually alone in the defense of the truth. Today, those who know the faith have a similar duty to defend it.

Thank heavens there are still a few Catholic left who will stand up for the truth, and defend the Catholic Faith. They may be suffering ridicule and contempt now, as St. Athanasius and other did during the time of the Arian crisis, but to them it is worth it. They love the Catholic faith and are willing to suffer in defense of it.

 

[JReducation]

The faith must be defended. No one is subjectively judging the guilt of individual Catholics who may be adhering to errors, but the faith must be defended!

During the Arian crisis I’m sure there were a lot of Catholic who denied that Jesus was God, since this is what most of the Bishops at the time taught. But if you lived at that time would you have told St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Gregory and St Hilary to stop defending the faith and refuting the errors? It was thanks to them that the truth survived.

Those saints I just mentioned are now considered heros for standing virtually alone in the defense of the truth. Today, those who know the faith have a similar duty to defend it.

Thank heavens there are still a few Catholic left who will stand up for the truth, and defend the Catholic Faith. They may be suffering ridicule and contempt now, as St. Athanasius and other did during the time of the Arian crisis, but to them it is worth it. They love the Catholic faith and are willing to suffer in defense of it.

NO NO NO, please don’t misunderstand me. If one believes that there is an error, one should by all means pursue it to calirify. But do not go around saying that souls are going to be lost because they follow the Church. That is not true. That’s why I brought up the Ligourian formula. I keep seeing how the SSPX is protecting souls from being lost by following erroneous Church teachings. The fact is that if the Church is teaching it, and you follow, you are not culpable, except in rare cases where your conscience tells you differently. This statement should not be made as an objective truth. It is not objective. It is subjective.

But my all means, seek answers until you run out of places to do to for them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Califman831]

1. The person must know that the matter is gravely sinful.

If the matter is gravely sinful, but the person does not know, because he or she is following the teachings of the Church today, the culpability is diminished or void. Because there is failure to meet one of the conditions.

I see that that congregation not knowing that their priest is preaching heresy or allowing it on the altar they are innocent from committing a sin. Given that most priests are indoctrinated in Vatican II and are never or rarely assigned the catechism of Trent, he is also a victim of the liberal movement. No wonder modernists have changed the mass, the catechism, the canon, and other articles of faith. Whats next on their agenda, to eliminate the priesthood and replace it with lay ministers? As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved by those with good intentions.

To leave this post on a positive note, parents encourage your children to enter traditional catholic universities that still maintain strong ties to the faith. We are in serious need of strong traditional Priests, nuns, and teachers.

Glory be Jesus our King.

 

[pnewton]

During the Arian crisis I’m sure there were a lot of Catholic who denied that Jesus was God, since this is what most of the Bishops at the time taught. But if you lived at that time would you have told St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Gregory and St Hilary to stop defending the faith and refuting the errors? It was thanks to them that the truth survived.

Godwin’s Law of Traditionalism. All arguments are reduced to St. Athatnasius.

I was so intrigued by this that I did some considered the similarities and the differences of St. Athanasius and LeFebvre (or Fellay) other than the obvious one that one is a Saint and one is not. I believe the comparison to be so different that the use of St. Athanasius is nothing but a continual begging of the question. It assumes a connection and then uses the connection to make a point. This is similar to the way “modernism” is used, except in a negative way. People or ideas are labeled as modernist that have nothing to do with the philosophical modernism that was condemned by St. Pius X. When we see such terms used and re-occuring it is a use of rhetoric over substance, like “liberal”, “heresy”, etc.

 

[JReducation]

I see that that congregation not knowing that their priest is preaching heresy or allowing it on the altar they are innocent from committing a sin. Given that most priests are indoctrinated in Vatican II and are never or rarely assigned the catechism of Trent, he is also a victim of the liberal movement. No wonder modernists have changed the mass, the catechism, the canon, and other articles of faith. Whats next on their agenda, to eliminate the priesthood and replace it with lay ministers? As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved by those with good intentions.

To leave this post on a positive note, parents encourage your children to enter traditional catholic universities that still maintain strong ties to the faith. We are in serious need of strong traditional Priests, nuns, and teachers.

Glory be Jesus our King.

We also have to rember what both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have said several times. The Curch did not stop at Trent. This was clearly stated by Pope Benedict when he wrote in defense of lifting the excommunication of the SSPX bishops.

If we read the intro and forwad to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we read how it is a expansion of the Catechism of Trent. They go as far as giving references not oly to Trent, but to other Church documents as far back as the scriptures and the early Fathers.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JaMc]

Godwin’s Law of Traditionalism. All arguments are reduced to St. Athatnasius.

I always thought Godwin’s Law of Traditionalism was that the longer a thread on TC (or other traditional boards, i.e., Angelqueen and Fisheaters) gets, the probablility of a poster (or a priest, bishop, or the Pope) being called a “Modernist” approaches 1.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Godwin’s Law of Traditionalism. All arguments are reduced to St. Athatnasius.

I was so intrigued by this that I did some considered the similarities and the differences of St. Athanasius and LeFebvre (or Fellay) other than the obvious one that one is a Saint and one is not. I believe the comparison to be so different that the use of St. Athanasius is nothing but a continual begging of the question. It assumes a connection and then uses the connection to make a point. This is similar to the way “modernism” is used, except in a negative way. People or ideas are labeled as modernist that have nothing to do with the philosophical modernism that was condemned by St. Pius X. When we see such terms used and re-occuring it is a use of rhetoric over substance, like “liberal”, “heresy”, etc.

Speaking of “substance”, that was a profound and elightening reply you had to the points I addressed in my last few posts. I like the way you completely ignored the substance of my arguments, and the magisterial documents I quoted in support of my position, by pretending that my argument was nothing but a parallel between the Arian crisis and today, and the use of a few choice words. That was an interesting use of rhetoric over substance you displayed.

BTW, regarding the Arian crisis and today, here’s what Bishop Graber of Regensburg had to say in his book Athanasius and the Church of our Time.

Bishop Graber: “What happened over 1600 years ago [at the time of the Arian heresy] is repeating itself today, but with two or three differences: Alexandria [the patriarchal see of St. Athanasius] is today the whole universal Church, the stability of which is being shaken, and what was undertaken at that time by means of physical force and cruelty is now being transferred to a different level. Exile is replaced by banishment into silence of being ignored; killing, by assassination of character.”

And here’s what Saint Athanasius, who was “outside” the visible Church, being banned from his dioces 5 times and suffering an unjust excommunication from the Pope, told his loyal followers, who refused, against all odds, to have anything to do with the heresy found at their local Churches

St. Athanasius’ letter to his flock:

Letter of St. Athanasius to His Flock

May God console you!.. What saddens you … is the fact that others [the Arian heretics] have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. ** It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith.** You remain outside the places of worship, but the faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously.

Who has lost and who has won in the struggle – the one who keeps the buildings or the one who keeps the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. That therefore the ordinances which have been preserved in the churches from old time until now may not be lost in our days,… rouse yourselves, brethren,… seeing them now seized upon by aliens.

True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way.

You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis.

No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, Beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.

Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray.

Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ. --Apud Caillau and Guillou, Coll. Selecta Ss. Eccl. Patrum, vol. 32, pp. 411-412

“Athansius against the World” was the saying on those days, yet he was proven correct St. Athansius realized that the faith does not change, even if most of the Bishops (up to 99% according to Fr. Jurgins) no longer believed it. Therefore, by holding fast to what the Church had always taught, he was assured in holding fast to the true faith. That he did, and today he is the Defender of the Faith, while the Pope who excommunicated him is the first Pope not to be canonized.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Ultima Ratio has a good quote from it, on post 9.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

So, the then Cardinal Ratzinger explicitly states that we have a contradiction between GS and DH and the constant teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium and you don’t find this to be problematic?