Bishop Fellay: SSPX Seeks Return to the Past

[Silverburg]

I am sure that Bishop Fellay realizes that Pope Benedict is the one holding the Keys. What would be the point of the discussions otherwise?

Publicity.

 

[CradleCath]

Now, when I learned about the excommunication and the other controversies (about a year after converting), I backed away from the SSPX so that I could look into the matter objectively. It took me a year or two to work through everything. After a few years, I was satisfied that the position taken by the SSPX was justified, although there was some wavering back and forth for a few more years.

Today I attend mass at an SSPX Church sometimes (particularly for daily Mass), but the Church I am registered with is an Order that is in normal relations with Rome, and we almost always attend that Church on Sundays.

Thanks for the explanation, Ultima. It explains much. As I said, before, I’m learning from this thread, so I won’t make a comment yet. However, I do pray that relations between the SSPX & the Roman Catholic Church lead to a reconciliation.

 

[JReducation]

Thanks for the explanation, Ultima. It explains much. As I said, before, I’m learning from this thread, so I won’t make a comment yet. However, I do pray that relations between the SSPX & the Roman Catholic Church lead to a reconciliation.

I agree with Cradel that the hope and prayer is for reconciliation. But the laity can do a great deal for reconciliation too. Sometimes, even the leaders kiss and make up, as long as the followers are still stuck in their trenches, there is not cease fire or it takes way too long.

The laity has demonstrated a tendency to be very pessimistic about the other side and at times very adammant about their position. We have to bend or we will snap. When that happens, the Church’s credibility with the world suffers. We look like another Protestant tradition that splits up everytime one group does not like what the other groups says or fails to say.

The point is to accept what the Church decides and move on. No one is ever going to get everything they want. The only thing that we’re going to get out of this is what God wants, not what we want. Bashing the SSPX or the Council is not going to get us what God wants. God is good and will do what he will do.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Thanks for the explanation, Ultima. It explains much. As I said, before, I’m learning from this thread, so I won’t make a comment yet. However, I do pray that relations between the SSPX & the Roman Catholic Church lead to a reconciliation.

There are many misunderstandings about the SSPX. They are within the Roman Catholic Church.

Here’s a link to a radio interview with John Salza. John is an attorney and well known mainstream apologist. In this interview, which was recorded just after the “excommunications” were lifted, he gives a history of the SSPX and its relations with John Paul II and Paul VI.

relevantradio.streamguys.us/Asx%20Files/SW%20Archive/SW20090226.asx

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

TMC:

This thread had devolved, as so many here do, into a debate over the validity of what I would call “Ancientism,” which I would define as the assumption that old things and long dead people are necessarily better than newer things and the more recently living.

This is just as dangerous an error as any breed of “Modernism.” The idea that people “these days” are necessarily less worthy than those that came before is akin to a kind of self-loathing and as no place in our Faith. I know that the Ancientists can and will say its not just about newness, that there are specific things they find to be error. But underlying most of the arguments is the idea that the bishops sitting at Trent (or Lateran or Constantinople or whatever council that person thinks was the last, best council) were necessarily better or more holy or better inspired or whatever than the bishops sitting at the Vatican councils. Simply put, there is no reason to believe that to be true. If anything, I believe the opposite to be true.

But to admit that the Church has changed the way it understands and explains the Faith is not the same as saying the faith has changed, or even that the old way was wrong. The Truth does not change, but our understanding of Truth does change and grow. Sometimes it is not even that our understanding has changed, but that we are sufficiently different that it is helpful to describe the same Truth in different terms so that it is easier to understand. Anyone that seriously believes that the understanding (and explanation) of our Faith cannot change and grow must necessarily believe that the Church has been in serious error since at least 381, because the Church has communicated changes in the understanding of the Faith at every ecumenical council. And virtually every council has been followed by claims by some that it was wrong and a break with the past….

First of all, it is not about “old things and long dead people” being better than “the more recently living” people. It is about the unchanging deposit of faith, and those today who claim that truth – the deposit of faith - changes over time due to a deeper and more profound understanding.

While it is true that our understanding can increase, never can there be an admixture of change. The meaning of dogmas must always remain exactly the same. The doctrine must be believed in the same sense and with same understanding – even though the understanding may increase.

Let’s consider an example of our understanding of doctrine increasing over time without there being any change. Catholics have always believed that the Eucharist is the body of Christ under the appearance of bread.

At the Last Supper, Jesus held up what appeared to be bread and said *“This is my Body”. * It looked like bread, but Jesus said it was His Body. Some years later, St. Paul taught the same when he declaredd: *“the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?” *In both cases, what appeared to be bread is said to be the body of the Lord.

About 300 years later, St. Cyril of Jerusalem taught the same thing when he said: ‘Wherefore with full assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ . . . Having learned these things, and been fully assured that what appears to be bread is not bread, though sensible to the taste, but the Body of Christ; and that what appears to be wine is not wine , though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ.’

Once again we are told that what appears to be bread is not bread, but the body of Christ

Now moving forward about a thousand years, St. Thomas Aquinas developed this doctrine further by distinguishing between the “substance” and the “accidents” of the Eucharist. The substance is what the thing is of itself, while the accidents are what the senses perceive.

After the consecration, the substance of bread changes into the substance of the body of Christ, while the accidents remain the same. The Council of Trent defined the doctrine by utilizing this distinction of substance and accidents.

With this developement, the same exact understanding remained from the time of Christ. What appeared to be bread was the body of Christ, just like Jesus taught, even though the understanding increased with the explanation of St. Thomas. Here we see a good example of our understanding of a doctrine increasing, with no admixture of change.

But what do the modernists today say about the Eucharist? Many of them claim that it merely “represents” the body of Christ. They claim their belief is a “development” of the doctrine, whereas in reality it is an evolution of doctrine. We know that because the understanding has changed.

continue…

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

continuation

We could give another good example of the understanding of doctrine increasing, without any change in the understanding, by showing what the Bible says about Jesus being God, and what the early Councils taught. What had always been believed was still believed, but great precision was added as a result of the doctrinal definitions. There was no change at all in what was believed, but only an increased precision in the understanding.

The same is true with everything else the Church teaches. Understanding may indeed increase, but never will the increased understanding result in a change in understanding, or a change of meaning.

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."/**INDENT]

The belief that our understanding of doctrine changes as it increases is condemned by the Church. It is a typical error of the modernists. Modernism is a philosophical system rooted in evolution – evolution of everything. They believe that everything evolves in changes over time, including dogmas. That is why Pope Pius X made all the clergy taken the Oath Against Modernism; and this Oath was taken by every single Father of the Second Vatican Council.

Oath Against Modernism: "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."​

 

[srp643]

The old rite has been allowed, once again. The excommunications of their Bishops have been rescinded. They are now having discussions about regularisation. Looks like they’re doing OK.

Women’s ordination has been formally ‘shot down’, I understand. Even if it wasn’t, the practical problem with novelty in religion is whether you can take enough people with you to maintain your cult. If they drift out the doors, or don’t show up at all, then it’s moribund or dead.

I think cults take three generations to show their worth; the founders die off and their children and grandchildren continue with it, or don’t. I’m not sure the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ sub-set of the Catholic Faith will last. I think it contains the seeds of its own destruction; religious liberality leading to indifference and ignorance.

The parents select what they want to believe and how they practice their faith and the children decide, on that basis, that it’s not that important or that their opinions trump Tradition and so don’t bother.

All the SSPX and traditionalist Catholics have to do is to keep going and wait.

I’m not an SSPXer but I’d have to agree with you based on the results. Time is actually on the SSPX side. It appears a lot of the “progressives” in the Church and the Vatican are galactically nervous about all these developments to the point of paranoia. It’s clear the whole Williamson thing was a smear campaign against traditionalists, anyone could see that. Incredibly childish behavior, even desperate. But in the end, Truth always wins, given enough time. If one has Truth, there is no reason to be nervous. I don’t see the SSPX nervous at all with respect to their positions on VII. In fact their leaders for the most part appear quite calm and confident. Someone mentioned we need to “bend” so we don’t appear divided like the Protestants - sorry, Truth doesn’t bend. It’s either the Truth or something else.

With respect to the main points of contention between the SSPX and the Vatican (religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality), can someone summarize the documents (and verses if possible) each side uses for its position and whether the particular document invoked the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church?

 

[JReducation]

I’m not an SSPXer but I’d have to agree with you based on the results. Time is actually on the SSPX side. It appears a lot of the “progressives” in the Church and the Vatican are galactically nervous about all these developments to the point of paranoia. It’s clear the whole Williamson thing was a smear campaign against traditionalists, anyone could see that. Incredibly childish behavior, even desperate. But in the end, Truth always wins, given enough time. If one has Truth, there is no reason to be nervous. I don’t see the SSPX nervous at all with respect to their positions on VII. In fact their leaders for the most part appear quite calm and confident. Someone mentioned we need to “bend” so we don’t appear divided like the Protestants - sorry, Truth doesn’t bend. It’s either the Truth or something else.

With respect to the main points of contention between the SSPX and the Vatican (religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality), can someone summarize the documents (and verses if possible) each side uses for its position and whether the particular document invoked the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church?

It was I who suggested that we bend so as not to break. But I’m not referring to bending truth. I’m referring to bending in negotiations and manner. Not everything is a point of truth. Some things are disciplines and other points are just matter of how you present it or reject it. In those cases, one can and should be flexible. If you’re rigid on everything: discipline, protocol, the agenda, the tone of the discussion, and so forth, you enter with a disadvantage. You have not whee to more and no way to show your good faith. Those are the areas that I believe both sides have to be flexible and bend.

Hope that’s clearer.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SemperFidelis]

Does the fact that they haven’t mean that they don’t?

Where have you been? Summorum Pontificum wouldn’t exist if not for the SSPX. For years members of the hierarchy said the TLM was abrogated. The SSPX said this wasn’t possible. Who was right here? I’m sure you’ll say the SSPX had nothing to so with SP but that’s sticking your head in the sand. Now we have the Doctrinal Discussions starting. What you have implied is that they don’t have the Truth on there side and that they haven’t made any progress in getting the Truth “out.” That certaintly doesn’t seem so in this case.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

There are many misunderstandings about the SSPX. They are within the Roman Catholic Church.

Here’s a link to a radio interview with John Salza. John is an attorney and well known mainstream apologist. In this interview, which was recorded just after the “excommunications” were lifted, he gives a history of the SSPX and its relations with John Paul II and Paul VI.

relevantradio.streamguys.us/Asx%20Files/SW%20Archive/SW20090226.asx

Cradlecath:

Here’s another interview with John Salza discussing the SSPX. This interview was conducted on a more Traditional radio show and goes further into some of the details surrounding the consecrations, what led up to them, and some of the reasons the Archbishop went forward with without the Papal Mandate.

voiceofcatholicradio.com/walk,090419,j_salza,_re_sspx,_j_bagnoli_final,34_min.mp3

 

[SemperFidelis]

It shows one result link from some site called “true restoration” on a book review by an author, you guessed it, Lefervre.

That book was not written by Archbishop Lefebvre, but Bishop Tissier de Mallerais. It was the two of them together who authored the “Dubia” that Cardinal Ratzinger requested in the 1980s. Cardinal Ratzinger’s response was documented in the above book with a picture of the letter provided by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais. Does the above quote by Cardinal Ratzinger seem any different from this one:

“If one is looking for a global diagnosis of the text [of Gaudium et Spes], one could say that it (in connection with the texts on religious liberty and the world’s religions) is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter-Syllabus."

A “counter-Syllabus” that has no basis in Tradition, is “incontestably a novelty.”

 

[pnewton]

That book was not written by Archbishop Lefebvre, but Bishop Tissier de Mallerais.

I stand corrected. It is Lefebvre’s biography. Still, it illustrates the point quite well how misinformation and inaccurate quotes circulate among these groups from site to site.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Still, it illustrates the point quite well how misinformation and inaccurate quotes circulate among these groups from site to site.

You have not proven anything. If you are making the above claim, then the burden of proof is on you. I admit that I have not researched the quote, (I pulled it straight from Bishop de Mallerais’ book) but it does not in any way seem to be at odds with the well-documented quote I provided by the then Cardinal Ratzinger in my previous post. So my point still stands.

 

[JReducation]

That book was not written by Archbishop Lefebvre, but Bishop Tissier de Mallerais. It was the two of them together who authored the “Dubia” that Cardinal Ratzinger requested in the 1980s. Cardinal Ratzinger’s response was documented in the above book with a picture of the letter provided by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais. Does the above quote by Cardinal Ratzinger seem any different from this one:

“If one is looking for a global diagnosis of the text [of Gaudium et Spes], one could say that it (in connection with the texts on religious liberty and the world’s religions) is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter-Syllabus."

A “counter-Syllabus” that has no basis in Tradition, is “incontestably a novelty.”

It is true that Cardinal Ratzinger called it a counter syllabus, but he did explain why it was necessary and why it was consistent with tradition. He did not call the texts on Religious Freedom and Gaudium et Spex novelties. If he truly believed them to be novelties that are out of context with religious tradition, he would not refer to them so often in his ecumenical writings or his ecclesiological writings. The man is not dumb. Let’s give him some credit.

If he uses them, then it is OK for the rest of us to use them too.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[CradleCath]

Where have you been? ** Summorum Pontificum** wouldn’t exist if not for the SSPX. For years members of the hierarchy said the TLM was abrogated. The SSPX said this wasn’t possible. Who was right here? I’m sure you’ll say the SSPX had nothing to so with SP but that’s sticking your head in the sand. Now we have the Doctrinal Discussions starting. What you have implied is that they don’t have the Truth on there side and that they haven’t made any progress in getting the Truth “out.” That certaintly doesn’t seem so in this case.

Actually, I’m sure that the effort to bring the SSPX completely back into the fold, influenced the Pope to bring the TLM. back. How much it influenced that, I don’t know. I’ll also admit that, while the Roman Catholic Church (at least in the west) has been looking at lower & LOWER attendance since Vatican II. We’ve lost our nuns, closed many schools & our priesthood has suffered tremendously…fewer ordinations, we have a clergy that is disproportionitely homosexual, the sexual abuse scandal…all of this has happened within the last 40 yrs. During that time it seems to me that the SSPX has grown from an infancy of a few who followed Lefebvre, to a group that makes a significent difference in our own faith.

As far as the “truth on our side” inference…I’d say that BOTH the Latin Church & the SSPX have truth & a love of God on their side. but the differences, though small are complex. I feel that a lot of the tension that has kept us from addressing those differences & creating solutions to them is partly due to attitude & pride on both sides. If ANYONE can heal that, it’s Pope Benedict, with God’s help.

I am, of course, especially concerned about the “no salvation outside the Church” thing, our differences concerning Baptism of Desire & Feeneyism…so I’m just praying.

 

[pnewton]

Correlation does not imply causation

This is a re-occuring theme and a fallacy that refuses to go away. Maybe I have my head in the sand, but at least I am able to avoid logic quicksand.

 

[JReducation]

Just becasue multiple things happen at the same time, does not mean that they are responsible for each other. That would have to be proven. I was just watching a rerun of Fr. Benedict G. I reminded the audience of some pope, whom I can’t recall. He was saying that this particular pope would look at the current crisis in the Church and would explain that there is a crisis in the Church about every 500 years.

Fr. Benedict G. proceded to explain how one must deal with each issue one step at a time and keep trusting that everything will be well again, for a while. The issue is not so much that there is a crisis, but that we must all dealwith it without losing our calm and our trust in God.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I am, of course, especially concerned about the “no salvation outside the Church” thing, our differences concerning Baptism of Desire & Feeneyism…so I’m just praying.

Of course we have to interpret this the way tha the Church interprets it. We can get too rigid and tighten it more than the Church meant for it to be tightened and then we do more harm to Catholics than anyoneone else. Afterall, it’s Catholics who are going to read this and listen to it.

On the show that I refered to in my previous post, Fr. Benedict G. and his guest discussed this doctrine. Both agreed that the doctrine goes back to the early years of the Church. But they also warned the laity to interpret it the way the current pope interprets it, not how it’s written. Their point was that the Church has the right to interpret doctrine and the final current pope is the supreme authority.

Fr. Benedict closed by reminding everyone to keep in mind that the only one who knows the mind and heart of man is really God.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[CradleCath]

Correlation does not imply causation

This is a re-occuring theme and a fallacy that refuses to go away. Maybe I have my head in the sand, but at least I am able to avoid logic quicksand.

Are you?? Scientists now agree that a **causal connection probably does exist **
if we can establish that:

1. there is a reasonable explanation of cause and effect,
2. the connection happens under varying conditions, and
3. potential confounding variables are ruled out.

The best way to determine these factors is through a designed experiment in which groups which are strongly similar to one another in terms of certain important variables are exposed to different approaches (treatments) and analyzed to see whether the variable of interest performs differently among the treated groups.

As for #1., That would be a “reasonable explanation” of cause & effect. Cause:Vatican II; effect: our Church in disarray. Cause: Vatican II, effect: Schism, yet survival & even growth for those who left the Church.

I’ve heard so often that the 60’s were a time when everything changed, society changed &, as a result, the Church changed. I don’t believe that for a minute, as the Church does not FOLLOW society. During the tumultuous 20’s, while the Ku Klux Klan burned crosses on the lawns of Catholic Churches & organized crime was on the upsurge…when heretofore farm girls found their way to speakeasies & flapper clothes that, during that period, were considered scandalous…when illegal alcohol flowed freely… during these times the Church grew, the Catholic school system was second to none & the we saw the first Roman Catholic candidate for President, Al Smith.

#2. Concerning “the connection happening under varying conditions”, I’ll admit that I can’t claim that. You see, both the SSPX & the Latin Church were once fellow believers belonging to the same Church. However, the connection ends there. One Bishop & a few followers were ultra-Traditional & our own Church followed a more liberal path. One grew, one lost it’s nuns, so many of it’s faithful Mass attendees, it’s seminaries became “pink palaces” & that small group of SSPXers can boast of 160 Seminarians this year.

#3. I have ruled out the usual excuses long ago. The confounding variables…that so
many call "reasons"just don’t hold up for anyone who knows the history of the Church.

Make no mistake about this…I have never been inside of an SSPX Church & I don’t approve of some of their rhetoric & downright anger over their position about Pope John Paul II’s visit & performance at Assisi…or…
the signing of the Joint Declaration, etc. However, I believe that they are devout in their love of God. I hope & pray that we can completely reconcile & in order to do so, we have to listen as well as talk. Our own attitudes…& by “our own”, I don’t mean just the hierarchy & the Pope, but us, the laity. We must be loving & caring…**and… **firm & steadfast. I think that Pope Benedict is just the man for this job.

 

[Silverburg]

I’m not an SSPXer but I’d have to agree with you based on the results. Time is actually on the SSPX side. It appears a lot of the “progressives” in the Church and the Vatican are galactically nervous about all these developments to the point of paranoia. It’s clear the whole Williamson thing was a smear campaign against traditionalists, anyone could see that. Incredibly childish behavior, even desperate. But in the end, Truth always wins, given enough time. If one has Truth, there is no reason to be nervous. I don’t see the SSPX nervous at all with respect to their positions on VII. In fact their leaders for the most part appear quite calm and confident. Someone mentioned we need to “bend” so we don’t appear divided like the Protestants - sorry, Truth doesn’t bend. It’s either the Truth or something else.

With respect to the main points of contention between the SSPX and the Vatican (religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality), can someone summarize the documents (and verses if possible) each side uses for its position and whether the particular document invoked the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church?

I don’t think that’s clear at all. Not in the least. Not sure why you offer that opinion as if it was proven fact. I think it’s a matter of the Church not knowing about Bp. Williamson otherwise it would have taken a different tack.