Bp Fellay says total VII acceptance no longer a prerequisite!

[catharina]

Exactly that is a point of debate.
But I’m sure Bishop Fellay will be glad to know that you have made the authoritative pronouncement on the matter.

Excuse me, but the CHURCH has already taught that.
thistle has merely stated his agreement with the teaching of the CHURCH.
Here’s hoping that Bishop F will soon do the same.

 

[PJM]

=TrueLight;9399763]That sounds good, but that is not what is happening is it?

The Vicar of Christ has decided that it is worthwhile to engage in conversation and negotiation with the SSPX. We can only guess at the reason why. My guess is that even though the SSPX is wrong in certain ways, they are right in their desire to maintain our Catholic traditions.

So the Vicar of Christ is not taking this all or nothing approach.

Why should we?

WELL SAID!

Thanks,
Pat

 

[ConstantineTG]

Isn’t it a major concern that a group in communion with Rome is allowed not to accept ALL councils that Rome accepts? How it that even called “communion”?

 

[thistle]

Isn’t it a major concern that a group in communion with Rome is allowed not to accept ALL councils that Rome accepts? How it that even called “communion”?

You and I don’t know the facts so its pointless speculation based on hearsay.

 

[Dom_Passeri]

And what specific quotations from the Code of Canon Law allow the faithful to publicly withhold external assent from the authoritative pronouncements of an ecumencial council?

I believe the entire question is whether they are authoritative at all. As the then Cardinal Ratzinger said in 1988 “The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of super dogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.”

Apparent contradictions are not necessarily actual contradictions. Throughout the course of ecclesiastical history, reverential obedience in conjunction with prayerful study has often successfully resolved any supposed contradictions by painstakingly situating the controversy within its proper historical and theological context.

Funny, I thought that throughout the course of ecclesiastical history resolving the contradictions is what resolves the contradictions

“If they believed firmly with other Catholics that the Ecumenical Council is governed by the Holy Spirit, that it is solely by the impulse of this divine Spirit that the Council defines and proposes what must be believed, it would never have occurred to them that matters which have not been revealed or which could be harmful to the Church could be defined in its sessions and imposed upon their faith; and they would never have imagined that human maneuvers could arrest the power of the Holy Spirit and impede the definition of revealed truths or truths helpful to the Church” (Blessed Pope Pius IX’s Letter [of 12 March 1870] to the Abbot of Solesmes Dom Prosper Guéranger Dolendum profecto).

From EWTN:

The Second Vatican Council teaching states that four conditions must be met for an
infallible exercise of the ordinary magisterium of bishops around the world. These are:

1. That the bishops be in communion with one another and with the pope.
2. That they teach authoritatively on a matter of faith or morals.
3. That they agree in one judgment.
4. That they propose this as something to be held definitively by the faithful.

(ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/SHAWINFA.TXT)

I don’t see that #2 applies since they didn’t and weren’t intending to teach any new dogma. #4 doesn’t work because they intentionally held a non-dogmatic, non-binding pastoral council for the purpose of “opening a window into the Church” and bringing a “new springtime”. Vatican II was meant as a contemporary pastoral council, not a dogmatic one. Bl. John XXIII, Paul VI, Bl. JPII and the current pope have all said this. If you look hard enough you can probably even find JPI agreeing!

Hardly unimportant, but is withholding external consent from the non-infallible teachings [of the Ordinary Authentic Magisterium] the sanctified response to these crises afflicting Holy Mother Church? Should your loved ones withhold “full consent” from your authority if they personally believe your fatherhood is “on their face, contrary to previous teachings” within your immediate family?

Why should a person not withhold consent from a non-infallible teaching if it *apparently *contradicts 2000 years of perennial teaching, and is also apparently scandalous? I don’t have a problem with that.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You and I don’t know the facts so its pointless speculation based on hearsay.

The only fact that we need to confirm is if indeed they are exempt from accepting Vatican II. If they are, for whatever reason, then it is a major concern.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

The only fact that we need to confirm is if indeed they are exempt from accepting Vatican II. If they are, for whatever reason, then it is a major concern.

Prior to 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre was in full communion and his position about Vatican II never changed before or after the excommunication (which was over unlawful consecration of four bishops, not his stance against Vatican II documents.) Shouldn’t that be a greater concern?

 

[Dom_Passeri]

I agree. Its sad, though, that the SSPX bishops either did not have the common sense or humility at the time to discuss everything fully with Rome instead of committing a schismatic act and running away like cry babies.

This post is basically a fallacious slur. It’s your opinion that they didn’t have common sense or humility. They defended their actions very well, theologically, legally, and with common sense. If you don’t find that in the writings of Lefebvre you either haven’t read any, or you read it through colored lenses. That’s not to say that the Church’s side of the argument didn’t also defend their position well…I’m just talking about the society, since you’re on the attack, and very uncharitably so.

Also, keep in mind that “schismatic act” doesn’t necessarily mean schism.

“running away like cry babies”…Lol. That’s nonsense because they didn’t make any move at all. They stayed right where they always were. Even today and over the last several years, the only side of the Rome/SSPX argument that has been doing any backpedalling is Rome!

If you’ve participated in the “traditional” debate for a while (I’m talking about real life, not this forum, obviously, since I’m new) you may recall some major contentions over the last few decades fueled both by people in the hierarchy and lay people:

SSPX supposedly in schism. SSPX disagreed. SSPX was right.
TLM supposedly abrogated. SSPX disagreed. SSPX was right.
Priests supposedly need permission to say TLM. SSPX disagreed. SSPX was right.
SSPX bishops excommunicated. SSPX disagreed and asked for their removal. Rome removed excommunications without any repentance etc by SSPX bishops.

Nice attempt at trying to paint the society as a bunch of whiney, angsty, selfish kids.

The adjective that should probably come first to mind when one thinks of the society, whether you side with them or not, is “courageous”.

 

[ConstantineTG]

SSPX bishops excommunicated. SSPX disagreed and asked for their removal. Rome removed excommunications without any repentance etc by SSPX bishops.

I think you’re overselling this. How do you know that they did not repent? The Vatican, or any priest for that matter, shouldn’t be telling other people about other people’s confessions including the fact whether they made a confession or not. Just because you never heard an announcement that they made a confession doesn’t mean they didn’t.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Prior to 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre was in full communion and his position about Vatican II never changed before or after the excommunication (which was over unlawful consecration of four bishops, not his stance against Vatican II documents.) Shouldn’t that be a greater concern?

I am a little confused, what should we be more concerned about?

 

[Dom_Passeri]

The only fact that we need to confirm is if indeed they are exempt from accepting Vatican II. If they are, for whatever reason, then it is a major concern.

Everybody keeps saying that the sspx needs to accept VII, but everybody also keeps saying that VII didn’t say anything new.

In that case, the sspx already accepts all the teachings of the Catholic church, so what’s the big deal?

 

[Dom_Passeri]

I think you’re overselling this. How do you know that they did not repent? The Vatican, or any priest for that matter, shouldn’t be telling other people about other people’s confessions including the fact whether they made a confession or not. Just because you never heard an announcement that they made a confession doesn’t mean they didn’t.

The sspx bishops were very open about the fact that the removal of the excommunications was a unilateral move, and I don’t think anybody in the universe disputes the fact. The pope did this thing of his own charity, justice, and authority. God bless him!

 

[ConstantineTG]

Everybody keeps saying that the sspx needs to accept VII, but everybody also keeps saying that VII didn’t say anything new.

In that case, the sspx already accepts all the teachings of the Catholic church, so what’s the big deal?

Every council, every synod of the Church is important. Of course if there is no dogmatic teaching out of a council, it only means that you adhere to the decisions of the council until someone overturns or changes any of what came out of it. The practice of saying, “I only need to believe what is de fide” is overly legalistic and contrary to Christianity as professed by the Apostles.

 

[Dom_Passeri]

Every council, every synod of the Church is important. Of course if there is no dogmatic teaching out of a council, it only means that you adhere to the decisions of the council until someone overturns or changes any of what came out of it. The practice of saying, “I only need to believe what is de fide” is overly legalistic and contrary to Christianity as professed by the Apostles.

I didn’t say there wasn’t any dogmatic teaching from VII. There was. It’s just that anything VII said had already been said before.

The decisions of VII were pastoral, and anything from VII that appears to conflict with the Faith from the 2000 years of Ordinary Universal Magisterium just needs to be sorted out: clarified or thrown out.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I didn’t say there wasn’t any dogmatic teaching from VII. There was. It’s just that anything VII said had already been said before.

Then why make a fuss out of it. If there is nothing new, then there is no problem accepting it. If Vatican II teaches the same thing taught before, then rejecting it means you reject those that was taught before.

The decisions of VII were pastoral, and anything from VII that appears to conflict with the Faith from the 2000 years of Ordinary Universal Magisterium just needs to be sorted out: clarified or thrown out.

Appears to be in conflict. But that is one’s own opinion. As stated by Vatican I, what the Pope says, goes. So if the Pope says it isn’t heretic, then we cannot say otherwise, right? None of us, even the Bishops, are above or even equal to the Pope.

 

[thistle]

This post is basically a fallacious slur. It’s your opinion that they didn’t have common sense or humility. They defended their actions very well, theologically, legally, and with common sense. If you don’t find that in the writings of Lefebvre you either haven’t read any, or you read it through colored lenses. That’s not to say that the Church’s side of the argument didn’t also defend their position well…I’m just talking about the society, since you’re on the attack, and very uncharitably so.

Also, keep in mind that “schismatic act” doesn’t necessarily mean schism.

“running away like cry babies”…Lol. That’s nonsense because they didn’t make any move at all. They stayed right where they always were. Even today and over the last several years, the only side of the Rome/SSPX argument that has been doing any backpedalling is Rome!

If you’ve participated in the “traditional” debate for a while (I’m talking about real life, not this forum, obviously, since I’m new) you may recall some major contentions over the last few decades fueled both by people in the hierarchy and lay people:

SSPX supposedly in schism. SSPX disagreed. SSPX was right.
TLM supposedly abrogated. SSPX disagreed. SSPX was right.
Priests supposedly need permission to say TLM. SSPX disagreed. SSPX was right.
SSPX bishops excommunicated. SSPX disagreed and asked for their removal. Rome removed excommunications without any repentance etc by SSPX bishops.

Nice attempt at trying to paint the society as a bunch of whiney, angsty, selfish kids.

The adjective that should probably come first to mind when one thinks of the society, whether you side with them or not, is “courageous”.

Please remember SSPX is NOT the Church. It is a schismatic movement disobedient to Rome.

 

[Dom_Passeri]

Please remember SSPX is NOT the Church. It is a schismatic movement disobedient to Rome.

I’ve never been one to think that the sspx IS the Church. On the other hand, I’ve always been one to give credit where credit is due. People maintain that the sspx is nothing but loathesome, yet put to the test, it appears that Rome is the one giving ground.

The sspx is NOT a schismatic movement, and I hope you didn’t buy anything else from the person who sold you that line. No matter how many times the truth is told, there’ll always be somebody on here using that false, tired line.

The sspx is NOT disobedient to Rome (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church). The founder of the sspx disobeyed Bl. John Paul II with regard to consecrating bishops, but he had his reasons, and he backed those reasons with canon law, and according to canon law published under said pope, the punishment should have been less than it was.

Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:

4/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;

Can. 1324 §1. The perpetrator of a violation is not exempt from a penalty, but the penalty established by law or precept must be tempered or a penance employed in its place if the delict was committed:

5/ by a person who was coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience if the delict is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;

 

[StThomasMore1]

And precisely where are the faithful free to publicly withhold total recognition from the authoritative pronouncements of an ecumencial council?

The declaration was published as an addendum to that text. It says that as the Council was intended to be “pastoral”, it should not be understood to be infallibly defining any matter unless it openly says so (which it never did).

*“In view of the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.” (Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 98)
*
Paul VI again highlighted the non-infallible, non-definitive character of Vatican II in a general audience a year later.

“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964.* In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility**.” *(General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L’Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)

That is plain: Vatican II “avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority”; it “avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility”. The documents were intended to be of the ordinary but not universal magisterium, called the merely “authentic magisterium” in the 1983 Code.

Paul VI confirmed again in 1975 that Vatican II was pastoral and not an infallible dogmatic council.

“Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic,* but disciplinary and pastoral.” (General Audience, Au**gust 6, 1975)*

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’ve never been one to think that the sspx IS the Church. On the other hand, I’ve always been one to give credit where credit is due. People maintain that the sspx is nothing but loathesome, yet put to the test, it appears that Rome is the one giving ground.

The sspx is NOT a schismatic movement, and I hope you didn’t buy anything else from the person who sold you that line. No matter how many times the truth is told, there’ll always be somebody on here using that false, tired line.

The sspx is NOT disobedient to Rome (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church). The founder of the sspx disobeyed Bl. John Paul II with regard to consecrating bishops, but he had his reasons, and he backed those reasons with canon law, and according to canon law published under said pope, the punishment should have been less than it was.

Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:

4/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;

Can. 1324 §1. The perpetrator of a violation is not exempt from a penalty, but the penalty established by law or precept must be tempered or a penance employed in its place if the delict was committed:

5/ by a person who was coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience if the delict is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;

Sorry but this is just a very poor excuse. Canon Law also said anyone who consecrates Bishops without the permission of Rome is excommunicated. The fact that he disobeyed that, and the fact that he was told beforehand not to do it, means there is complete disregard to the authority of the Pope. And you cannot wave Canon Law at the Pope and tell him he is wrong. As the final interpreter of the law, the Pope can say if Canon Law is supposed to be interpreted one way or another, which canon applies and which doesn’t. Last time I checked, the SSPX are only against Vatican II, not Vatican I. So they should know clearly and accept (since they do not contest V1) this authority of the Pope.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The declaration was published as an addendum to that text. It says that as the Council was intended to be “pastoral”, it should not be understood to be infallibly defining any matter unless it openly says so (which it never did).

*“In view of the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.” (Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 98)
*
Paul VI again highlighted the non-infallible, non-definitive character of Vatican II in a general audience a year later.

“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964.** In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility**.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L’Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)

That is plain: Vatican II “avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority”; it “avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility”. The documents were intended to be of the ordinary but not universal magisterium, called the merely “authentic magisterium” in the 1983 Code.

Paul VI confirmed again in 1975 that Vatican II was pastoral and not an infallible dogmatic council.

“Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic,** but disciplinary and pastoral.” (General Audience, Au**gust 6, 1975)

So what does “pastoral” mean? That we can all pretend that it never happened?