Bp Fellay says total VII acceptance no longer a prerequisite!

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;9402901:

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.”

His Eminence was speaking in his private capacity as a personal theologian; not in his official capacity as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (as his comments were never published in the official Acta Apostolicae Sedis). Besides, precisely where in Cardinal Ratzinger’s Address [of 13 July 1988] to the Chilean Bishops does he explicitly state the ecumenical pronouncements from Vatican II were not authoritative?

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

It’s how they are successfully resolved that is emblematic of the correct approach.

SanctusPeccator;9402901:

“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!

Curious as to precisely where the Magisterium has specifically designated Vatican II solely as a “non-binding pastoral council” that would implicitly minimize its authority? Dolendum profecto clearly elaborates upon more than the proper response to the dogmatic pronouncements of Vatican I; the papal letter also gives assurance even non-dogmatic pronouncements (note the crucial bolded terms in blue) are guided by divine assistance minimally requiring religious assent:
“To this paragraph belong all those teachings on faith and morals - presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings are, however, an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect. They are set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or lastly to warn against ideas incompatible with these truths or against dangerous opinions that can lead to error” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Doctrinal Commentary [of 30 June 1998] on the Concluding Formula of the ‘Professio Fidei’, n. 10, §1).

SanctusPeccator;9402901:

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.

By that dubious inference, gather your loved ones should not have any issue with withholding consent when they perceive apparent contradictions in your parenting?

 

[Dom_Passeri]

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.

There have been volumes written pro and con. As far as excommunication goes I just quoted two canons that should diminish that sentence. Obviously both sides had their canon lawyers look into it, and apparently they didn’t agree with each other. But we never hear of a schism, just a schismatic act etc.

Anyway, my point was that the excommunications were lifted without any concessions on the sspx bishops’ part. That says something, to me anyway.

Perhaps the most hilarious thing of all is the one person attempting to remain as orthodox as possible (whether you agree with his means and his ends) was pretty much the only one who was ever censured in a sea of truly heretical and schismatic clergymen who are still spewing garbage, even to this day.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

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

I don’t think that is the point. Rather, it was pastoral on already existing dogma and acting as a modern voice to a great deal of history. Though when it came to things that it was acting pastorally on non-dogmatic issues, such as religious freedom and relations towards non-Christian religions, there is room for theological discussion as Cardinal Brandmuller pointed out. Such positions are changeable, and if it can be demonstrated that the existing position doesn’t convey the fullness of the faith (not to say the existing position contains errors but rather it is incomplete) then such healthy debate should be heard and encouraged. An example is the widely misinterpreted position of the Church concerning monogenism and ploygenism. The false interpretation is that it is dogmatic and unchangeable; the truth is that if there is an apparent theory that can reconcile the dogma of original sin then that theory is acceptable for belief.

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;9397776:

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)

Conditionally granted with the provisional stipulation listed below…

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.
Just because Vatican II did not solemnly define infallible dogma via the Extraordinary Magisterium does not logically infer its pronouncements lack any magisterial authority. While the pontiff rightly acknowledges the pastoral character of Vatican II, nowhere does His Holiness specifically state it was to be categorically defined as a pastoral council per se. Moreover, where do any of these statements specifically state the faithful are allowed to publicly withhold religious assent from the ecumencial pronouncements of Vatican II? Pope Paul VI certainly believed otherwise:
“We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, **all efforts contrary to these things **by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on” (Pope Paul VI’s Apostolic Brief [of 8 December 1965] for the Closing of the Council In Spiritu Sancto, n. 3).
StThomasMore1;9417169:

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, August 6, 1975)
Are you aware this English quotation from the Italian original is inaccurately translated? “a differenza d’altri Concilii, non fu direttamente dogmatico, ma dottrinale e pastorale” correctly translates as “differing from other councils, was not directly dogmatic, but doctrinal and pastoral" vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/audiences/documents/hf_p-vi_aud_19750806_it.html ]

 

[thistle]

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;

What credit is due to Bishop Williamson who is a nazi sympathiser and holocaust denier??

 

[SanctusPeccator]

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;

This neglects the distinction that in Canon 1323, §4 the penalty would be entirely excused while in Canon 1324, §1 - §5 the penalty is merely diminished. As stated above, Canon 1323, §4 would also not be applicable if the violation which incurred the penalty is intrinsically evil or injurious to souls while Canon 1324, §1 - §5 could still be applicable in such instances. Nevertheless, the authentic interpretation of Canon Law necessarily rests with the Supreme Legislator and those officially delegated in such matters (cf. Canon 16, §1):
“However, doubt cannot reasonably be cast upon the validity of the excommunication of the Bishops declared in the Motu Proprio [Ecclesia Dei] and the Decree [of excommunication against Lefebvre]. In particular it does not seem that one may be able to find, as far as the imputability of the penalty is concerned, any exempting or lessening circumstances (cf. CIC, can 1323-1324). As far as the state of necessity in which Mons. Lefebvre thought to find himself, one must keep before one that such a state must be verified objectively, and there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops. This would, in fact, imply the possibility of ‘serving’ the Church by means of an attempt against its unity in an area connected with the very foundations of this unity” (Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts’ Explanatory Note [of 24 August 1996] On the excommunication for schism which the adherents to the movement of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre incur, n. 4).

 

[Hunter53]

What credit is due to Bishop Williamson who is a nazi sympathiser and holocaust denier??

He never denied the holocaust, just the number of jews killed and the manner in which it was done.

 

[mytruepower2]

It’s a shame, but this seems to have become another SSPX vs Pope debate.

As a member of the authentic Church Militant, I side with the Pope if it comes to that.

Still, it’s good news that negotiations may soon be finalized. I’ve come to view Marcel Lefebvre as being well-intentioned and generally-moral in most respects, with the exception of his attempt to appoint bishops, so I think only good things can happen if his institution reunites with Rome. They certainly have a lot of important things to offer.

 

[thistle]

He never denied the holocaust, just the number of jews killed and the manner in which it was done.

You are deluding yourself if that’s what you think.

 

[MarkThompson]

He never denied the holocaust, just the number of jews killed and the manner in which it was done.

Well, he also believes that it was orchestrated by the Jews as part of their plan to gain sympathy for the creation of a Zionist state in Israel, on their way to world domination as outlined in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so that they could “prepare the Anti-Christ’s throne in Jerusalem.” This is the same global Jewish conspiracy that he believes has secretly planned everything from Pearl Harbor to 9/11.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

He never denied the holocaust, just the number of jews killed and the manner in which it was done.

That fits under the definition of “holocaust denier”.

Holocaust Denial, a Definition

 

[ProVobis]

Are you aware this English quotation from the Italian original is inaccurately translated? “a differenza d’altri Concilii, non fu direttamente dogmatico, ma dottrinale e pastorale” correctly translates as “differing from other councils, was not directly dogmatic, but doctrinal and pastoral" vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/audiences/documents/hf_p-vi_aud_19750806_it.html ]

Fair and valid point. Are you aware also that Trent’s Session XXII documents were also marked “Doctrine”?

 

[ProVobis]

Are you aware this English quotation from the Italian original is inaccurately translated? “a differenza d’altri Concilii, non fu direttamente dogmatico, ma dottrinale e pastorale” correctly translates as “differing from other councils, was not directly dogmatic, but doctrinal and pastoral" vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/audiences/documents/hf_p-vi_aud_19750806_it.html ]

Fair and valid point. Are you aware that many of Trent’s documents were also titled “Doctrina”?

 

[ProVobis]

This neglects the distinction that in Canon 1323, §4 the penalty would be entirely excused while in Canon 1324, §1 - §5 the penalty is merely diminished. As stated above, Canon 1323, §4 would also not be applicable if the violation which incurred the penalty is intrinsically evil or injurious to souls while Canon 1324, §1 - §5 could still be applicable in such instances. Nevertheless, the authentic interpretation of Canon Law necessarily rests with the Supreme Legislator and those officially delegated in such matters (cf. Canon 16, §1):
“However, doubt cannot reasonably be cast upon the validity of the excommunication of the Bishops declared in the Motu Proprio [Ecclesia Dei] and the Decree [of excommunication against Lefebvre]. In particular it does not seem that one may be able to find, as far as the imputability of the penalty is concerned, any exempting or lessening circumstances (cf. CIC, can 1323-1324). As far as the state of necessity in which Mons. Lefebvre thought to find himself, one must keep before one that such a state must be verified objectively, and there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops. This would, in fact, imply the possibility of ‘serving’ the Church by means of an attempt against its unity in an area connected with the very foundations of this unity” (Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts’ Explanatory Note [of 24 August 1996] On the excommunication for schism which the adherents to the movement of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre incur, n. 4).

I’m not a Canon lawyer but If Canon Law did not apply as has been suggested, then logically neither did the “latae sententiae” excommunications nor any of the penalties associated with them.* The excommunications were then AT LEAST ones of “ferendae sententiae” (as well as “latae sententiae” as the Pope said) and subject to the Pope’s and only the Pope’s lifting of them. That said, it is all a moot point now, though it’s a good history exercise.

• and incidentally, nor does the “odia restringi, et favores convenit ampliari” principle of Canon Law. (Fr. Z had an interesting explanation of this principle)

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t think that is the point. Rather, it was pastoral on already existing dogma and acting as a modern voice to a great deal of history. Though when it came to things that it was acting pastorally on non-dogmatic issues, such as religious freedom and relations towards non-Christian religions, there is room for theological discussion as Cardinal Brandmuller pointed out. Such positions are changeable, and if it can be demonstrated that the existing position doesn’t convey the fullness of the faith (not to say the existing position contains errors but rather it is incomplete) then such healthy debate should be heard and encouraged. An example is the widely misinterpreted position of the Church concerning monogenism and ploygenism. The false interpretation is that it is dogmatic and unchangeable; the truth is that if there is an apparent theory that can reconcile the dogma of original sin then that theory is acceptable for belief.

Then why make a fuss about it? If it teaches something that has already been taught before, then there shouldn’t be a problem about accepting it. Councils decide the direction of the Church. The entire Church should follow what the council decides. Its the same with Eastern Churches and their synods. Our bishops in the Ukrainian Catholic Church held a synod last year, and they will hold another one this year here in Canada. They make decisions for the entire Church, that is why it is a synod. There is no opt out of it. Nothing dogmatic is defined in those synods.

 

[Mike30]

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.

If it is true, then it is what the Vatican has decided. It really doesn’t concern us at all.

 

[JReducation]

What credit is due to Bishop Williamson who is a nazi sympathiser and holocaust denier??

He never denied the holocaust, just the number of jews killed and the manner in which it was done.

As you nice folks will realize, a bishop who is in the limelight as is Bishop Williamson has to be very careful not to undermine the Pope and the Pope’s personal ministry. It is no secret or should be no secret that Pope Benedict headed the dialogue and reconciliation between Jews and Catholics and Muslims and Catholics. The apology from Pope John Paul II to the Jews was a joint idea between then Cardinal Ratzinger and Bl. John Paul II. Both felt strongly that the best that Catholicism could do was to apologize for those Catholics who looked the other way or for those who participated in the Holocaust.

Now, Cardinal Ratzinger is pope. He is German and this is an apostolate on which he has worked for almost 25-years. And has been very successful. The relationship between Israel and the Vatican warmed up. The relationship between the Vatican and the Palestinians and other Muslim nations also warmed up. The important thing was that neither the Muslims nor the Jews held it against the Vatican for having diplomatic relations with the other side.

Now along comes Bishop Williamson and sings the same song that Radical Muslims have been singing. That’s not good for the Vatican on a number of fronts.

1. 
   *]It sounds too much like Radical Islamic politics.
   *]It jeopardizes the Catholic presence in Israel which is 800 years old and without complications.
   *]It calls into question something that the pope himself believes very wholeheartedly.
   *]It’s foolish to the extreme to say that no one was killed in the gas chambers. How does he explain the death of St. Edith Stein? What purpose did the gas chambers serve? They still exist and they were not used for baking pizza.
   *]It does not score points with the Muslims. They could care less what a Catholic bishop says.
   *]It infuriates the nations of the world, especially those who have an ax to grind with the Catholic Church.
   *]It adds to the fragile relationship between the German Conference of Bishops and the Vatican.
   
   For this reason, the Holy Father said, had he known the day before he lifted the excommunications, he would not have lifted Bishop Williamson’s. You cannot allow a bishop to return to the Church who undermines the pope’s personal ministry. We already have enough inside the Church. We don’t need to bring in more.
   
   This, along with a few other issues has placed Bishop Williamson on the Holy Father’s “Persona Non Grata List”. I would not be surprised if this is one reason why the Holy Father has said that the other three bishops have to negotiate their own regularization independent of the SSPX. It would look badly for Bishop Williamson, if the Holy Father took in the three and told him that he has to work out his own regularization. The three of them are guilty of some pretty nasty statements, but Bishop Williamson is the more aggressive of the three. At least he comes across that way. He seems to be in the media more often. He’s the only one of the three who has been in legal trouble and was deported from a country.
   
   That one statement has cost him and the Holy Father many unnecessary headaches. It calls into question his ability to discipline himself and to think it and not say it, which is an important attribute for anyone in a leadership position. You can’t say everything that goes through your mind.
   
   Fraternally,
   
   Br. JR, FFV

 

[ProVobis]

Anyway, my point was that the excommunications were lifted without any concessions on the sspx bishops’ part. That says something, to me anyway.

If memory serves me correctly, the bishops were asked not to badmouth the Vatican any more, or something to that effect.

 

[JReducation]

If memory serves me correctly, the bishops were asked not to badmouth the Vatican any more, or something to that effect.

Actually, this was repeated during this dialogue. Bishop Fellay said so. Part of the requirement for regularization is that they may not say that Vatican II contains errors or that it is wrong. They must accept that it must be looked at within a hermaneutic of continuity.

While Bishop Fellay did say that those who were at Vatican II would never admit that they were wrong, he stopped short of saying that they are, because the pope is a big supporter of Vatican II and the SSPX’s biggest ally.

He announced it in a rather interesting way, I thought. It was as if he were saying, “Think anything you want, but don’t say it.” That’s fair. Only a religious superior can order his subject not to think certain things. He’s not a religious superior. The most he can command is reserve.

They cannot badmouth the CCC or the OF. They can certainly point to weaknesses that were not intended by the Church and have crept in. It would be ridiculous not to allow that. It is what is allowed by the Church that they may not ciriticize. Even there, they can certainly ask, “Is this such a good idea?” There is a difference between that question and saying, “This is so Protestant” or “This is heresy.” Even with the CCC, there is nothing wrong with asking for or suggesting alternate wording. Often, there is disagreement between what we think and what makes it to the paper. It’s good to have someone else ask, “Did mean to say this this way?”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Hesychios]

ConstantineTG;9416869:

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.

If it is true, then it is what the Vatican has decided. It really doesn’t concern us at all.

Why wouldn’t it concern you?