But with such people, questions need to be open ended, if you want to know what they think instead of putting your words in their mouth. Bishop Schneider sees a need for greater precision of language in some key areas of doctrine. The worst way to achieve any precision is to phrase questions in the form of a complex position the interviewer want to advance.Might as well get used to it. Most of the English speakers in the world speak it as a second or third language. That means they probably think in another language. Just sayin…
For example?But with such people, questions need to be open ended, if you want to know what they think instead of putting your words in their mouth. Bishop Schneider sees a need for greater precision of language in some key areas of doctrine. The worst way to achieve any precision is to phrase questions in the form of a complex position the interviewer want to advance.
“What do you think are some of the biggest, most important misinterpretations of the documents of the council?”For example?
The SSPX bishops do not oppose any defined doctrine AFAIK. Yet they are not accepted in the Catholic Church.The short answer is that disagreement is possible about many things. However, opposing defined doctrine is not.
The question you asked was about the Eastern Orthodox. The SSPX does not, at least as a group, oppose any defined doctrine that I know of.The SSPX bishops do not oppose any defined doctrine AFAIK. Yet they are not accepted in the Catholic Church.
OK, so I watched the video finally. I generally agree with your conclusions. Here are the topics I heard him discuss:It is impossible to agree with every bishop, as they are not all in agreement on everything. In this we can see that there is actually room for disagreement without error.
The whole interview is suspect. It is the worst type of journalism. An English-speaking interview gives incredibly lop-sided and loaded questions to someone who seems to be struggling with English. Why a Bishop from Kazakhastan? Why put so much personal view in every question? Why fill in the blanks with your own words?
I do not see how any conclusions can be reached, except for the ones one wants, from what was said. I could just as easily make the point that he supported Cardinal Dolan in his view of the Muslims, as any other. One could also say that Vatican II has already been clarified (St. John Paul on religious liberty) I know if I was the interview I could make it look many ways. I have to say that I was not very impressed. It was too “yellow” for my liking.
Yet I did pull out the a couple of answers. Some of the areas that he said needed clarifying where the nature of collegiality, the difference between supernatural worship and natural worship as it applies to non-Christians, that ecumenism is where non-Catholics take good things from the Church and use them.
I don’t think that is true. My understanding is that they were asked to agree to the authority of Vatican II and the documents produced by the Council, and they refused. So they must disagree with the doctrines in those documents and/or disagree on the authority of Ecumenical Councils.The SSPX bishops do not oppose any defined doctrine AFAIK. Yet they are not accepted in the Catholic Church.
I believe there were only two dogmatic documents of Vatican II and each referred back to an earlier council. So if there were any new “doctrines” defined by Vatican II, I would like to hear of them.I don’t think that is true. My understanding is that they were asked to agree to the authority of Vatican II and the documents produced by the Council, and they refused. So they must disagree with the doctrines in those documents and/or disagree on the authority of Ecumenical Councils.
Bp. Schneider mentions just after the 15:25 mark how Guadium et Speis 12 in particular is ambiguous and needs clarifying, and why. Before that he explains why the section on the Muslim worshipping the same God is problematic as well, though he doesn’t use the term ‘ambiguous’ to describe it.Good interview. Consistent with the Popes’ recent statements concerning the rupture of continuity, to put it mildly.
They are not. They are able to receive the Sacraments just like any other Catholic.Are they excommunicated or not?
All of the documents of the council are teachings of the Church. Only two are “dogmatic,” but all are authoritative, are they not? More broadly, if Vatican II introduced nothing new, why does the SSPX and some others refuse to acknowledge its authority?I believe there were only two dogmatic documents of Vatican II and each referred back to an earlier council. So if there were any new “doctrines” defined by Vatican II, I would like to hear of them.
With all due respect, I think we have to be careful on how to argue this point. Ambiguity itself may be subjective, or in some cases, relative. Compared to Trent, for example, which specifically enacted anathemas for non-compliance with the doctrines of the Church, Vatican II provided alternatives if its “suggestions” (organ, Latin, Gregorian chant, etc.) were not deemed to be accepted by those outside the council. Thus so-called liturgical committees were given the power to enact reforms which the council fathers may not have desired or were unsure of.Again, I’ll watch it when I can. But are you saying you don’t know what the supposed ambiguities are? If they are important enough for whole groups of people to separate themselves from the Church, I would think that they would be readily identifiable.
Indeed they are, but so are the Apostolic Constitutions and document material repeated by the Popes.All of the documents of the council are teachings of the Church. Only two are “dogmatic,” but all are authoritative, are they not?
Well, I disagree, at least as to the point on Muslims. The statement in Lumen Gentium is clear - Muslims and Christians worship the same God. It seems to me he is simply saying that LG is wrong on that point–that he does not agree that Muslims worship the same God as Christians.Bp. Schneider mentions just after the 15:25 mark how Guadium et Speis 12 in particular is ambiguous and needs clarifying, and why. Before that he explains why the section on the Muslim worshipping the same God is problematic as well, though he doesn’t use the term ‘ambiguous’ to describe it.
Fair enough.With all due respect, I think we have to be careful on how to argue this point. Ambiguity itself may be subjective, or in some cases, relative. Compared to Trent, for example, which specifically enacted anathemas for non-compliance with the doctrines of the Church, Vatican II provided alternatives if its “suggestions” (organ, Latin, Gregorian chant, etc.) were not deemed to be accepted by those outside the council. Thus so-called liturgical committees were given the power to enact reforms which the council fathers may not have desired or were unsure of.
I have heard varying explanations of why he signed the documents, including that he signed in the hopes that they would be later amended. In my view, we can’t rely on what we guess at his motivations, but only on the statements and actions of his successors/followers.It has been reported that the AB had signed all the documents, so if his followers have now stated they don’t accept Vatican II, something must have gone wrong in the interpretations and/or translations.
Indeed they are, but so are the Apostolic Constitutions and document material repeated by the Popes.
Yes. Not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting they are in conflict? To the extent they are, can we not rely on the Council itself, and later the Popes, to guide the Church as to the Church’s current teachings?
My take is that the Popes since the council have expressed a desire to go back to the council teachings, and not relied so much on those who managed to implement their own agendas after the council.To the extent they are, can we not rely on the Council itself, and later the Popes, to guide the Church as to the Church’s current teachings?
It’s my understanding too that the Archbishop signed the documents, and that he hoped that they would be interpreted in the light of tradition. Or maybe he assumed that they would be (there’s a difference between the two, maybe). It may not be known as to what his specific thoughts were, exactly, or why he signed them.It has been reported that the AB had signed all the documents, so if his followers have now stated they don’t accept Vatican II, something must have gone wrong in the interpretations and/or translations.
.
They accept Vatican II as interpreted in the light of tradition.It’s my understanding too that the Archbishop signed the documents, and that he hoped that they would be interpreted in the light of tradition…
No, I don’t think so. They believe that Vll is a break with tradition. Even though the Archbishop signed the documents initially. He (Archbishop Lefebvre) must have changed his mind at some point.They accept Vatican II as interpreted in the light of tradition.
They may be willing to accept Vatican II under their own interpretation. To be in full communion they must accept the Church’s interpretation. Is that not the reality of the situation?They accept Vatican II as interpreted in the light of tradition.