Bp Fellay says total VII acceptance no longer a prerequisite!

[cspb56]

I would agree with the previous poster. If any type of exceptions are made we are headed for a huge mess.The council was valid and it’s teaching have to be followed. Certainly there have some poor interpretations of what the council documents have called for and these need to be addressed but an outright rejection cannot happen. If they cannot accept the council then as the Old Roman Catholics did they need to separate and maybe down the road things will change. What I see hear is troubling. Liberal dissention is called on the carpet right away but if your traditional you can pick and choose…cafteria catholic??

 

[TrueLight]

Apparently a “traditionalist” group (more properly called a schismatic group) gets the benefit of a doublethink mindset when it comes to questioning / doubting / challenging the teachings of a Council.

They’re not more properly called a schismatic group, because the Church does not call them that.

Maybe our Holy Father understands more than you think about the good they can bring to the Church if they are reconciled to Rome.

 

[wasserfall]

No point in discussing it.
Just wait. We’ll find out soon enough.

 

[Big_Feet]

No point in discussing it.
Just wait. We’ll find out soon enough.

Agreed!

 

[Dom_Passeri]

Admitting we cannot personally determine what is authentically “catholic” apropos of an ecumencial council further begs the question left unanswered: what objective authority allows the faithful to publicly withhold assent from the authoritative pronouncements of Vatican II?

I have already answered all of your questions, even when you switched them up on me.

It’s not our job to determine. We are part of the “learning church”. Anything the “teaching church” wants to teach needs to be Catholic and coherent. That doesn’t mean that bishops can’t err, though, as you know. We can and should withhold consent when (as I’ve stated several times), on the face of it, something a bishop or group of bishops is claiming appears to not be Catholic. At that point, it is the duty of the teaching church to show how it is Catholic, or recant. We are given the powers of the soul (including intellect and will) in order to use them. Should I throw the name “Arius” in here for emphasis?

Here are these:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

and:

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

 

[Smiley_Catholic]

Unfortunately, Bp. Fellay is quite confused, Here’s what he said to SSPX Friends and Benefactors: “the Secretariat of State … set as a necessary condition of our canonical existence that we fully accept what we consider the principle source of the current problems (Vatican Council II) and to which we have always been opposed…” (Letter #74, Easter, 2009).
As the whole world was told, and certainly Bp fellay knows, Swiss Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews and a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, spoke to reporters May 16, 2012.Cardinal Koch had just left the meeting of the doctrinal congregation examining Fellay’s latest " Preamble" response.
“There are questions to clarify in discussions with this community. I can’t say more than that,” he told reporters, echoing a Vatican statement saying the reconciliation talks are ongoing, that public statements by the SSPX superior general, Bishop Bernard Fellay, leave in doubt whether the SSPX as a whole accepts the entirety of “Nostra Aetate,” including its condemnations of anti-Semitism and of the idea that the Jews were to blame for the death of Jesus.
“All the doctrinal decisions of the church are binding on a Catholic, including the Second Vatican Council and all its texts,” Cardinal Koch said when asked if the SSPX would be expected to accept all the teachings of Vatican II.
Bp. Fellay knows full well that The Roman Cardinals , and the world’s Bishops insist on total acceptance of the Vatican Council II decrees.Why he is allowing this confusion is quite mysterious. He is either trying to fool Rome, or he is trying to fool the SSPX faithful. The Archbishop said many times-- we have nothing to do with thie Rome-- it is a new faith-- when they come back to the faith, we will talk.www.sossaveoursspx.com/

 

[Dom_Passeri]

Don’t hold your breath.

The Church owes no one an explanation about anything, and no one has the right to demand proof of anything from the Voice of Christ, nor from the Vicar of Christ.

The Church can proclaim dogma and we must say “ok”…I’m not disagreeing with you there. But there weren’t any new dogmas of VII, so in that sense I and every Catholic can ***ask ***for an explanation of the statements that are…you know, odd, or whatever. I’m not demanding. I’m not saying they “owe it to me!”…But the less confusion sewn, the better. Look at the disasters that have already befallen since the 60’s. I would like to believe that it in the best interest of everybody to be clearly, staunchly, unapologetically CATHOLIC. After all, let us not forget the supreme law of the church. Would a sailor dare set sail without his maps and compass, or throw them overboard along the way?

Proof that the Barque of Peter floats is when it pushes away from the dock and sails out of sight.

Yes, that happened shortly after the ressurection (except that it **didn’t **sail out of sight).

You either punch your ticket and get on the boat or you don’t.

Bad analogy. People regularly get on and off, and, and some do so several times.

No matter what anyone thnks about error in the Church

Error, which can and has been real in the form of people with episcopal powers teaching falsely…

or who anyone thinks they are that they need to save the Church from itself,

Like St. Catherine of Siena…

the fact is that the Holy Father has announced that the boat is leaving soon, that it won’t be sitting at the dock indefinitely.

Wait…the boat is still docked!?

I wouldn’t wait too long to get on board.

I got on in the early '80s.

 

[Dom_Passeri]

“All the doctrinal decisions of the church are binding on a Catholic, including the Second Vatican Council and all its texts,” Cardinal Koch said when asked if the SSPX would be expected to accept all the teachings of Vatican II.

VII didn’t make any new doctrinal decisions, and the sspx already assents to all the dogmas of the Faith. Therefore, any doctrinal decisions of VII must necessarily be things to which the sspx assents. Don’t forget, the sspx has never been said to be heretical except by detractors who are clearly false, not to mention mud-slinging. You’d think that if the sspx was heretical the previous pope or the current one would have said so…

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;9398997:

Admitting we cannot personally determine what is authentically “catholic” apropos of an ecumencial council further begs the question left unanswered: what objective authority

allows the faithful to publicly withhold assent from the authoritative pronouncements of Vatican II?
I have already answered all of your questions, even when you switched them up on me.

While it its true several replies have been provided, your comments indicate a continual evasion at directly answering the fundamental question.

It’s not our job to determine. We are part of the “learning church”. Anything the “teaching church” wants to teach needs to be Catholic and coherent. That doesn’t mean that bishops can’t err, though, as you know. We can and should withhold consent when (as I’ve stated several times), on the face of it, something a bishop or group of bishops is claiming appears to not be Catholic. At that point, it is the duty of the teaching church to show how it is Catholic, or recant. We are given the powers of the soul (including intellect and will) in order to use them. Should I throw the name “Arius” in here for emphasis?

Then what objectively authority (let alone canonical right) allows the faithful to implicitly demand how the ecclesia docens should perform its mission?

Here are these:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

and:

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

This is additional evidence of the elephant in the room: what objective authority entrusts the faithful to personally usurp the teaching purview of the ecclesiastical hierarchy for themselves?

 

[Mike30]

Because the Marks of the Church are that it is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, NOT “choose any 3 out of 4.” Because “our Catholic traditions” don’t include the freedom to pick and choose among the declarations of a valid Ecumenical Council. Because allowing one group - and a dissident, schismatic one at that - the right to choose certain Magisterial teachings to ignore is a move down the most slippery of slopes. Were a “liberal” group to make such demands, it would rightfully be decried around here. Apparently a “traditionalist” group (more properly called a schismatic group) gets the benefit of a doublethink mindset when it comes to questioning / doubting / challenging the teachings of a Council.

Funny that you call them a schismatic group when the Church Herself does not. Oh well, I suppose that you know better than the Holy Father on this one.

Rest easy though. No official pronouncements have been made on this issue so we don’t really know what is going on. Yet it seems that some people, hum wonder who:shrug:, seem to be on the verge of self rightious apoplexy over the whole affair.

 

[catharina]

I have already answered all of your questions, even when you switched them up on me.

**It’s not our job to determine. We are part of the “learning church”. ** Anything the “teaching church” wants to teach needs to be Catholic and coherent. That doesn’t mean that bishops can’t err, though, as you know. We can and should withhold consent when (as I’ve stated several times), on the face of it, something a bishop or group of bishops is claiming appears to not be Catholic. At that point, it is the duty of the teaching church to show how it is Catholic, or recant. We are given the powers of the soul (including intellect and will) in order to use them. Should I throw the name “Arius” in here for emphasis?

Here are these:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

and:

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

The “learning” church???
What is that???
I’ve never heard the term nor
have I seen term in print - until your post.
Th learning church?
What is that???
Then you throw a few Scriptures to back
your point of view - and you think you’ve
hit The Essential Truth.

We are the pilgrim Church, for certain.
We are to follow the ways of the Church -
we have appointed, consecrated leaders who will lead us.

Better to judge ourselves than to judge the CHURCH!

 

[Dom_Passeri]

While it its true several replies have been provided, your comments indicate a continual evasion at directly answering the fundamental question.

I answered. It’s no evasion to qualify statements. As a matter of fact, that’s what I wish the hierarchy, the teaching authority of the Church would do! Qualify. Clarify. Meanwhile, souls are becoming tepid, falling into hell while we wallow in muddied waters.

Then what objectively authority (let alone canonical right) allows the faithful to implicitly demand how the ecclesia docens should perform its mission?

Again, you are changing it! I never said “demand”. That’s your word. I said ask and I meant it, because we have the RIGHT to ask for the graces necessary for our salvation. “Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses” are petitions we ask of God. They’re not demands. And speaking of it, the Church’s mission is the salvation of souls, but again, I’m not “implicitly” demanding anything. I believe I used the phrase “in the best interest” (for the sake of souls, i.e. the supreme law of the Church). No implicit demand there. I’m “just sayin’”. I’m not going to be held responsible for the souls of my diocese when I die in the same way my bishop will be. All I can do is pray for him and pray he do the will of God.

This is additional evidence of the elephant in the room: what objective authority entrusts the faithful to personally usurp the teaching purview of the ecclesiastical hierarchy for themselves?

My friend, I never said anything about usurping anything! Please go back to my last post and read the two bible verses there.

As far as having mental reservations in regard to “preach[ing] a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you”, well, that goes back to St. Paul.

If V2 is fine, it ought to be a cinch for Rome to show how. After all, that’s their job.

 

[TimothyH]

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?

My post was in response to someone who insisted that the Church has a responsiblity to prove how everything now reconciles with everything previous.

That’s sheer fantasy.

-Tim-

 

[Dom_Passeri]

The “learning” church???
What is that???
I’ve never heard the term nor
have I seen term in print - until your post.
Th learning church?
What is that???

It just means we, the “lambs” learn from the “sheep”. We are not authorized to teach in the way bishops are because the bishops are the ones with the teaching authority, in union with the bishop of Rome. Even priests are considered part of the “learning” church as they don’t have the authority to “teach” except by the authority of the men above them from whom they themselves learn. I’ll have to think about the actual terms and sources, but you get the idea.

Then you throw a few Scriptures to back
your point of view - and you think you’ve
hit The Essential Truth.

Um…what can I say? I’m simply backing up my point of view. I didn’t say anything about “The Essential Truth”, whatever that is.

We are the pilgrim Church, for certain.
We are to follow the ways of the Church -
we have appointed, consecrated leaders who will lead us.

Quite right. And thank you for affirming so clearly that those men consecrated to lead, have a divine commission to lead. Hey, if they refuse to do their job, well, that’s their business, really, but you can’t be surprised when people start jumping ship in the confusion…which is what we have experienced these last 40+ years.

Better to judge ourselves than to judge the CHURCH!

Hmmm, correct me if I’m wrong, but it sure sounds like you’re saying I’m judging the CHURCH(!)…I assure you, I’m not. I’m simply standing fast and holding to the traditions of the Church. If several popes can make statements on religious liberty etc, and then recent popes can apparently contradict them it makes me wonder. Sorry for trying to understand! Sheesh.

 

[TimothyH]

I have already answered all of your questions, even when you switched them up on me.

It’s not our job to determine. We are part of the “learning church”. Anything the “teaching church” wants to teach needs to be Catholic and coherent. That doesn’t mean that bishops can’t err, though, as you know. We can and should withhold consent when (as I’ve stated several times), on the face of it, something a bishop or group of bishops is claiming appears to not be Catholic. At that point, it is the duty of the teaching church to show how it is Catholic, or recant. We are given the powers of the soul (including intellect and will) in order to use them. Should I throw the name “Arius” in here for emphasis?

Here are these:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

and:

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

Exactly the opposite is true.

Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves. (Romans 13:1-2)

We should give the benefit of the doubt and the assent of faith to our God given leaders.

-Tim-

 

[Dom_Passeri]

My post was in response to someone who insisted that the Church has a responsiblity to prove how everything now reconciles with everything previous.

That’s sheer fantasy.

-Tim-

Something either can or can’t be reconciled with previous statements. If the pope (in the realm of faith and morals) *apparently *says black is white, whatcha gonna do?

a) scratch your head and wait for the “aha” moment to come when it is explained
b) just say ok you guys can’t err under any circs

There are certain religions that can do this, but the Catholic Church is not one of these. Imagine how embarrassing it would be for future generations to say “Until 1965 this was the teaching of the Church, but after that time, it was quite the opposite, but we don’t know why and nobody can explain it, including the hierarchy”

 

[Dom_Passeri]

Exactly the opposite is true.

Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves. (Romans 13:1-2)

We should give the benefit of the doubt and the assent of faith to our God given leaders.

-Tim-

This is the old Lefebvre contention. I am subordinate to the higher authorities. I’m not resisting authority (i.e. I acknowledge the authority 100%) and I’m not denying others’ authority over me. That doesn’t mean I must do everything they say because they are authorities over me. Would you willfully endanger your own life because your superior gave unclear instructions? How about your soul?

Would you have been one of the faithful who adhered to the Arian heresy because your bishop, who had 100% authority over you, said so? Even if you had known better?

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;9401819:

While it its true several replies

have been provided, your comments indicate a continual evasion at directly answering the fundamental question.
I answered. It’s no evasion to qualify statements. As a matter of fact, that’s what I wish the hierarchy, the teaching authority of the Church would do! Qualify. Clarify. Meanwhile, souls are becoming tepid, falling into hell while we wallow in muddied waters.

Qualifying statements is still not answering though. Since when is the Magisterium expected to elucidate the Deposit of Faith according the the personal timetable of a select minority of the faithful? We are called to be primarily concerned with our own salvation instead of needlessly fretting over the the generic salvation of others.

SanctusPeccator;9401819:

Then what objectively authority

(let alone canonical right) allows the faithful to implicitly demand how the ecclesia docens should perform its mission?
Again, you are changing it! I never said “demand”. That’s your word. I said ask and I meant it, because we have the RIGHT to ask for the graces necessary for our salvation. “Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses” are petitions we ask of God. They’re not demands. And speaking of it, the Church’s mission is the salvation of souls, but again, I’m not “implicitly” demanding anything. I believe I used the phrase “in the best interest” (for the sake of souls, i.e. the supreme law of the Church). No implicit demand there. I’m “just sayin’”. I’m not going to be held responsible for the souls of my diocese when I die in the same way my bishop will be. All I can do is pray for him and pray he do the will of God.

Seems your replies on this topic have indicated an apparent pattern of insisting the Magisterium correct the perceived errors since the conclusion of Vatican II? As the Magisterium operates according to the spiritual dictates of the Paraclete, why should the faithful even consider they would be inspired as to what is the “best interest” of the Church Militant? Curious as to why you would believe yourself personally responsible for the souls of your diocese in the first place?

SanctusPeccator;9401819:

This is additional evidence of the elephant in the room: what objective authority

entrusts the faithful to personally usurp the teaching purview of the ecclesiastical hierarchy for themselves?
My friend, I never said anything about usurping anything! Please go back to my last post and read the two bible verses there.

As far as having mental reservations in regard to “preach[ing] a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you”, well, that goes back to St. Paul.

If V2 is fine, it ought to be a cinch for Rome to show how. After all, that’s their job.

Your response fails to grasp the central point of contention: the faithful are not entrusted to authoritatively question the timing of when the Magisterium acts upon her divine mission to elucidate the Deposit of Faith.

 

[TimothyH]

This is the old Lefebvre contention. I am subordinate to the higher authorities. I’m not resisting authority (i.e. I acknowledge the authority 100%) and I’m not denying others’ authority over me. That doesn’t mean I must do everything they say because they are authorities over me. Would you willfully endanger your own life because your superior gave unclear instructions? How about your soul?

Would you have been one of the faithful who adhered to the Arian heresy because your bishop, who had 100% authority over you, said so? Even if you had known better?

I don’t see a superior giving unclear instructions, nor do I see a bishop endangering my soul, nor do I see an arian or any other heresy.

What you see is up to you. I hope you find what you are looking for.

-Tim-

 

[Dom_Passeri]

Qualifying statements is still not answering though. Since when is the Magisterium expected to elucidate the Deposit of Faith according the the personal timetable of a select minority of the faithful?

Look at the Code of Canon Law. Qualifying statements everywhere. It’s all about clarity and being as succinct and concise as possible. These are good things.

My friend, you and I aren’t theologians. Thank God! Let’s leave the finer and foggier points for them to wade through. Nevertheless, we ought to at least know the basics of our Faith, and many of us may even be interested in more than just “basics”. If you don’t see any problems between certain revelations in the documents of VII and everything that came before, then count your lucky stars. For those who do, contradictions will look like…contradictions until the competent authority elucidates them. If there are contradictions they need to be fixed. Why? Because, as I’ve said about 230492304958 times, ON THE FACE OF IT, certain statements of VII CONTRADICT what came before. Do you see the problem? Do you believe it should be clarified or explained, or are you one of those persons who mistakenly places obedience above faith? This is a serious question, so please don’t take it as an insult.

We are called to be primarily concerned with our own salvation instead of needlessly fretting over the the generic salvation of others.

I am primarily concerned with my own salvation, and that of my wife and children, however, the salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church, and I try my best to assist as I may. How do you propose instructing the ignorant without yourself knowing what the Faith teaches? How do you answer the questions of astute protestants and others who say that VII contradicts what came before?

Seems your replies on this topic have indicated an apparent pattern of insisting the Magisterium correct the perceived errors since the conclusion of Vatican II? As the Magisterium operates according to the spiritual dictates of the Paraclete, why should the faithful even consider they would be inspired as to what is the “best interest” of the Church Militant?

Perceived…Heh. If you don’t perceive any contradictions, then God bless you! Truly! Perhaps your faith AND your obedience are greater than mine. In that case, please pray for me. As far as the Paraclete…I wasn’t aware that His guarantees were invoked at the Council, but then again…I’m no theologian, and I wasn’t there.

Curious as to why you would believe yourself personally responsible for the souls of your diocese in the first place?

I never have. I was making a point using an example. The supreme law of the church is the salvation of souls. My bishop will be judged on many things that I will not be judged on. I have 4 other souls directly under my care. He has tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands). If he is deficient in his duties toward the supreme law of the Church…I guess he’ll hear about it at his particular judgement.

Your response fails to grasp the central point of contention: the faithful are not entrusted to authoritatively question the timing of when the Magisterium acts upon her divine mission to elucidate the Deposit of Faith.

Oh, now it’s all about questioning the timing!?!? Hmmm, things keep changing in this thread!

As far as timing goes, it’s already too late! They should have started clarifications as soon as they realized there was a problem with the “new springtime”.

The main point was whether one must give full consent to things that, by all appearances are, first of all, non-binding documents, and secondly, contradictions compared with the rest of the deposit of faith.

Listen, I’m more than willing to change my opinions. I have had to many times over the years. I love learning about the faith, even if it’s not my line so to speak. So far, however, I don’t see a problem in withholding full consent from teachings that are…(you guessed it) on their face, contrary to previous teachings. If you think this is unimportant then…(you guessed it again), God bless you.

Pray for me.