Bishop Fellay's (SSPX) response to reunification

[maurin]

I believe i would also like to add that even though Pius XII toyed with the idea of calling another Council, but was talked out of it by his advisors, many of the Traditionalist Bishops at VII were looking forward to it. In more than one of his books, Archbishop Lefebvre, a missionary Bishop in Africa, saw the need for better ways for the Church to meet the challenges of the modern rising tide of secularism, and the modernist ideas circulating under cover by the propagators of the nouvelle theolgie, already condemned.

So maybe yes, there was this need for a general council.

However, what we got certainly did not stem the tide of liberalism outside, nor even inside the Church. What we got facilitated the tide, in my opinion. And there are plentyof examples in the posts above which corroborate this opinion.

To stress 2 points: yes, the general council may have been necessary. No, the general council did not stem the tide of secularism and liberalism and modernism , but facilitated it, both outside and inside the Church, in my opinion.

 

[casual_visitor]

No one in the Church has ever made this claim. In any case, we obey Christ because He commands, not because we understand.

Ok, but if you were a doctor, and I told you no one is sick and that they are all healthy, what is the need to give medication?

As a matter of Faith, I do not believe that to be possible.

Exactly. So if it did happen, what would it mean?

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

To say that the Church teaches a new religion is to say that the Church has ceased to be. It’s to say that the Catholic Church that Jesus Christ gave us is no longer a visible institution. This is anathema to a Catholic mind.

 

[casual_visitor]

To say that the Church teaches a new religion is to say that the Church has ceased to be. It’s to say that the Catholic Church that Jesus Christ gave us is no longer a visible institution. This is anathema to a Catholic mind.

Well the Church would argue that it is not a new religion but one that has arisen through doctrinal development and a different perspective of things.

Would such a defense be valid?

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

Exactly. So if it did happen, what would it mean?

It cannot happen. It’s impossible. There’s no point in speculating on something that is impossible in every sense of the world. The Church cannot teach error. If that did happen it would mean that the Church we know was never the true Church. Such an idea is repugnant to the Catholic mind.

 

[casual_visitor]

It cannot happen. It’s impossible. There’s no point in speculating on something that is impossible in every sense of the world. The Church cannot teach error. If that did happen it would mean that the Church we know was never the true Church. Such an idea is repugnant to the Catholic mind.

So how do I reconcile what JR Education is saying with Mystici Coporis Christi?

He is saying that Protestants are part of the Mystical body of Christ. But Mystici Coporis Christi says otherwise.

 

[jam070406]

I believe i would also like to add that even though Pius XII toyed with the idea of calling another Council, but was talked out of it by his advisors, many of the Traditionalist Bishops at VII were looking forward to it. In more than one of his books, Archbishop Lefebvre, a missionary Bishop in Africa, saw the need for better ways for the Church to meet the challenges of the modern rising tide of secularism, and the modernist ideas circulating under cover by the propagators of the nouvelle theolgie, already condemned.

So maybe yes, there was this need for a general council.

However, what we got certainly did not stem the tide of liberalism outside, nor even inside the Church. What we got facilitated the tide, in my opinion. And there are plentyof examples in the posts above which corroborate this opinion.

To stress 2 points: yes, the general council may have been necessary. No, the general council did not stem the tide of secularism and liberalism and modernism , but facilitated it, both outside and inside the Church, in my opinion.

I have heard, but can’t verify, that there were many Traditional schemas discarded and replaced by more liberal leaning ones at the council. One that was discarded was a new dogma of Mary as Mediatrix of all graces, which liberals thought would impede Ecumenism. Is this true?

 

[maurin]

Let me just clarify this and let the rest go. It was a back and forth thing and I have nothing to add. However, please understand that I did not mean by the above statement that you though otherwise. I was stating something that is a fact, as a starting poing, one that I believe most agree with, so that we can then recognize where the facts end and opinions take up.

thank you for your clarification, pnewton, it is appreciated.

I am disappointed though, that you do not wish to continue the conversation. I am interested in your response to what I wrote about there being nothing new under the sun, and how St Paul met similar circumstances in the societies he evangelized.

I respect your decision to let it go. Fraternally, and respectfully yours, maurin.

 

[pnewton]

Exactly. So if it did happen, what would it mean?

That God did not exist, that He does not keep His promises, perhaps that He really is not om(name removed by moderator)otent.

 

[casual_visitor]

That God did not exist, that He does not keep His promises, perhaps that He really is not om(name removed by moderator)otent.

So you know… sort of how I feel. I said sort of since you seem to postulate some conclusions like ‘God does not exist’ or ‘not omnipotent’ which do not logically follow as far as I can see.

 

[maurin]

I have heard, but can’t verify, that there were many Traditional schemas discarded and replaced by more liberal leaning ones at the council. One that was discarded was a new dogma of Mary as Mediatrix of all graces, which liberals thought would impede Ecumenism. Is this true?

please read "The Rhine Flows Into The Tiber"m by Fr Ralph Wiltgen, SVD, a journalist present at the Council. I believe you will find answers there. I believe the book is an acceptable reference for many on both sides of these issues.

 

[Sirach2]

Casual Visitor:

I am not concerned with what they have. I am merely asking about what is written in Mystici Corpus Christi versus saying that they are part of the mystical body of christ.

This is nothing more than cherry-picking documents in the manner of sola scriptura, for in doing so, you neglect to observe the whole of Catholic teaching. I refer you to the same document iin which you place all of your assurance of correctness, and read this section:
He [Jesus] also determined that through Baptism those who should believe would be incorporated in the Body of the Church

Confirming this teaching, we read in Lumen Gentium, from the V-II Council:

1. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized,

are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ’s disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.

Baptism being the most important sacrament whereby man receives the Holy Spirit, we recognize that the Church never baptizes a convert who was previously baptized in another denomination. They are very definitely part of the Mystical Body, yet not in full communion.

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

So how do I reconcile what JR Education is saying with Mystici Coporis Christi?

He is saying that Protestants are part of the Mystical body of Christ. But Mystici Coporis Christi says otherwise.

We recognise Protestant baptisms as valid. Even an atheist Jew can baptise someone in danger of death. It’s baptism that gives Protestants a mystical connection to the Body of Christ.

 

[jam070406]

To say that the Church teaches a new religion is to say that the Church has ceased to be. It’s to say that the Catholic Church that Jesus Christ gave us is no longer a visible institution. This is anathema to a Catholic mind.

I have heard a theory. The theory went something like this: in the OT some Jews wished to change the law of divorce, so God said, give them what they want. As judgement God gave a law that was ambiguous on divorce. The more Traditional minded Priests could read the law in light of the way divorce has always existed and the liberals read it in a way that was almost an anything goes mentality of divorce. Those that didn’t interpret it in light of Tradition were led to their own sin and destruction as punishment. That is why Jesus said God allowed divorce because of the hardness of your hearts.

God does not change. Therefore the theory goes that He allowed ambiguous text in some documents of VII that could be read in light of 1900 plus years of Tradition but could be twisted by liberal modernists, who wanted to change the Church, for their own sinful desire, and ultimately judgment.
Therefore the Faith was indeed protected by the Holy Spirit.
Unfortunately, there we will be those that will be lead astray by the modernists.

What are your thoughts on this theory?

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

I have heard, but can’t verify, that there were many Traditional schemas discarded and replaced by more liberal leaning ones at the council. One that was discarded was a new dogma of Mary as Mediatrix of all graces, which liberals thought would impede Ecumenism. Is this true?

62. This maternity of Mary in the order of grace began with the consent which she gave in faith at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, and lasts until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this salvific duty, but by her constant intercession continued to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation.(15*) By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and cultics, until they are led into the happiness of their true home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix.(16*) This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator.(17*)

It stops short of saying Our Lady is Mediatrix of all graces (which I believe she is). However if anyone actually reads what the Council documents say regarding Our Lady, they will see that they are staunchly Marian.

The problem wasn’t with the Council. Marian devotion has always had hot and cold spells. That’s just a truth. Sometimes she is more popular than others. That’s why when God sends His great saints and servants of Our Lady out into the world to spread her praises and give her honour they make such a noise that it resounds through the Church and all ages.

Saint Louis wasn’t born into a great Marian age. The most consistent thing I have noticed in all my readings of Our Lady is that every single saint who has taken pen to try and give her due honour always state, without fail, that the people of their time do not love her as she deserves to be loved.

People have always failed in their duty towards Our Lady. The Council, if anything, was more supportive of Our Lady.

The failure lies firmly with the people who tossed aside their rosaries.

 

[casual_visitor]

This is nothing more than cherry-picking documents in the manner of sola scriptura, for in doing so, you neglect to observe the whole of Catholic teaching. I refer you to the same document iin which you place all of your assurance of correctness, and read this section:

Confirming this teaching, we read in Lumen Gentium, from the V-II Council:

Baptism being the most important sacrament whereby man receives the Holy Spirit, we recognize that the Church never baptizes a convert who was previously baptized in another denomination. They are very definitely part of the Mystical Body, yet not in full

I appreciate your bluntness in asserting that I am practicing a sort of Sola Scriptura/ Sola Tradition. But I would also like you to first rethink what you said. I am not discarding Scripture or Tradition. I am not even discarding Authority. I am merely pointing out that there is a discrepancy.

Now as for your explanation, you are only bringing more factors in to the matter to convolute the whole thing.

The point of mystici corporis christi is that one has to belong the visible church to be part of the mystical body of christ. Now there may well be people with implicit desire. But who are you or even the Pope to identify such people? So our duty, as Catholics was always to evangelize everyone to become Catholic.

But JR Education states that we know that Protestants are part of the mystical body of Christ. But since they are neither part of the visible church and such a postulation will require us to abandon the idea that Unity is present at the moment, this seems to directly contradict what is taught before.

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

What are your thoughts on this theory?

I’ve never heard it stated in so many words, but I have come across the theory that God has allowed the ambiguities in the Council documents. My thoughts? I’m not so sure. There are no ambiguities in the documents if they are read properly. In light of the entire history of the Church. You’re not meant to read them any other way. They are not meant to be divorced from their context.

But even if this theory is correct, what do you think God wants you to do? He gave you a rock… a firm anchor that you may not go adrift… so stick with Rome and you wont go wrong. The indefectibility of Rome is a dogma of our faith. You’re fine when you’re sailing with Peter.

 

[jam070406]

I’ve never heard it stated in so many words, but I have come across the theory that God has allowed the ambiguities in the Council documents. My thoughts? I’m not so sure. There are no ambiguities in the documents if they are read properly. In light of the entire history of the Church. You’re not meant to read them any other way. They are not meant to be divorced from their context.

But even if this theory is correct, what do you think God wants you to do? He gave you a rock… a firm anchor that you may not go adrift… so stick with Rome and you wont go wrong. The indefectibility of Rome is a dogma of our faith. You’re fine when you’re sailing with Peter.

Indeed! I love Pope Benedict.

I find many things in the Church today confusing. Many times it brings me down. I’m trying to make sense of it.

 

[casual_visitor]

We recognise Protestant baptisms as valid. Even an atheist Jew can baptise someone in danger of death. It’s baptism that gives Protestants a mystical connection to the Body of Christ.

But thats now what Mystici Corporis Christi states:-

Actually only those are to be included () as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body …

So how is baptism by-it-self only sufficient?

 

[maurin]

I have heard a theory. The theory went something like this: in the OT some Jews wished to change the law of divorce, so God said, give them what they want. As judgement God gave a law that was ambiguous on divorce. The more Traditional minded Priests could read the law in light of the way divorce has always existed and the liberals read it in a way that was almost an anything goes mentality of divorce. Those that didn’t interpret it in light of Tradition were led to their own sin and destruction as punishment. That is why Jesus said God allowed divorce because of the hardness of your hearts.

God does not change. Therefore the theory goes that He allowed ambiguous text in some documents of VII that could be read in light of 1900 plus years of Tradition but could be twisted by liberal modernists, who wanted to change the Church, for their own sinful desire, and ultimately judgment.
Therefore the Faith was indeed protected by the Holy Spirit.
Unfortunately, there we will be those that will be lead astray by the modernists.

What are your thoughts on this theory?

I think it’s spot on, but what do I know?