Does the FSSP accept all of Vatican II?

[NickVA]

Please stay on topic.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

**

Does the FSSP accept all of Vatican II?

**
Yes; however, I don’t believe they agree with the way in which some have chosen to celebrate the Holy Mass in the “spirit of Vatican II”.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Yes, they do. However, they take an extremely dim view of how it was implemented–or not…–in many (most?) cases.

 

[corsair]

I have attended the FSSP for some 3 years now and I have never heard a discussion about Vat II. Its like it never happened. There is just the Mass of 1962 and the Sacraments.

 

[midori]

When I was near a parish served by the FSSP, they offered a series of lecture/discussions about the Tridentine Mass, so I went so I could have a better understanding/appreciation of what we were doing. They were held at the priest’s home, and there were about 10 or 12 of us who took advantage of the series.

One of the things that was brought up was that previously, changes to the Mass had taken place in a very organic manner. An issue came up-- a change was implemented to solve or address that issue. But with Vatican II, it was a very inorganic change. The modifications themselves were very (drastic? sharp? jarring? didn’t preserve the continuity of the past? I’m blanking on the word I’m looking for), in addition to the dim view on the actual implementation of such changes as was mentioned by YoungTradCath.

This was probably nine or ten years ago, so my memory’s fuzzy. As Corsair mentioned, they don’t talk about it from the pulpit during Mass, which would be pretty inappropriate (IMO), but it’s not exactly a secret; you just have to be in an appropriate setting for a sink-your-teeth-in kind of conversation. And the good, meaty discussions is one of the things that I found very appealing about them in general.

 

[TrueLight]

I don’t think any of us can speak for the FSSP.

However, in my experience, they believe that it was a valid council. That is one of the requirements for them to even exist.

However, as others have said, they do have a dim view of some of its applications and a very dim view of the Novus Ordo Missae in general. As corsair said, when you attend an FSSP parish it is almost as if VAT II never happened. The parishioners generally abstain on Fridays, some do at least the three hour pre-communion fast, you might have traditional practices like “churching of women”, pre-VAT II modesty is observed, etc.

In a way, it’s like being in a time warp, LOL.

I generally hang around with trads and I forget that the majority of the Catholic world is really different.

I don’t think I am exaggerating if I say that for most FSSP priests, if they were forced to celebrate the OF/Novus Ordo, it would be a nightmare.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I would endorse that, it’s as if Vatican II never happened if you attend FSSP Masses. Now, in their homilies they most certainly do relate concepts to our day and age, they do speak about current events sometimes, and they are clearly men “in” this era. But they are most certainly not “of” this era. And that’s a good thing, in my opinion.

They will speak of Vatican II, but generally only in catechetical sessions, and not during homilies. You might think they are content with how the rest of the Catholic world operates, if you only attend Mass and that’s it. But if you go to catechetical sessions and whatnot, they will tell you their views quite openly.

Let me make this crystal clear: from everything I have seen and heard these priests absolutely accept Vatican II… just as they accept the First Council of Lyon and the Council of Vienne… if you get my point.

…Nobody really pays much attention to First Lyon and Vienne…

They accept Vatican II, but it’s not like they exuberantly jump for joy every time someone mentions it, which seems to be the heavily implied club requirement in most circles.

 

[TrueLight]

I would endorse that, it’s as if Vatican II never happened if you attend FSSP Masses. Now, in their homilies they most certainly do relate concepts to our day and age, they do speak about current events sometimes, and they are clearly men “in” this era. But they are most certainly not “of” this era. And that’s a good thing, in my opinion.

They will speak of Vatican II, but generally only in catechetical sessions, and not during homilies. You might think they are content with how the rest of the Catholic world operates, if you only attend Mass and that’s it. But if you go to catechetical sessions and whatnot, they will tell you their views quite openly.

Let me make this crystal clear: from everything I have seen and heard these priests absolutely accept Vatican II… just as they accept the First Council of Lyon and the Council of Vienne… if you get my point.

…Nobody really pays much attention to First Lyon and Vienne…

They accept Vatican II, but it’s not like they exuberantly jump for joy every time someone mentions it, which seems to be the heavily implied club requirement in most circles.

Well said.

Based on some of the posts I’ve seen on CAF, I think people don’t want to really acknowledge what you said above especially when it comes to comparing the FSSP and the SSPX. I maintain that they are not so different. Remember, they came from the SSPX and the reason some of them left were because of Archbishop Lefebvre’s ordination of the Bishops in direct disobedience to the Holy See.

Please… I am not trying to turn this into an SSPX discussion.

I’m just saying their views of Vatican II are not that different aside from the belief of whether it was valid or not.

 

[ProVobis]

Apparently they accept, whatever that means, enough of it so it shouldn’t be an issue.

 

[wasserfall]

Nick, your question doesn’t really mean anything.
What does it mean to accept Vatican II?
As far as I can tell FSSP priests accept that it was a valid council.
But that doesn’t mean that all FSSP priests accept that every part of the Vatican II documents was free of error.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Let me make this crystal clear: from everything I have seen and heard these priests absolutely accept Vatican II… just as they accept the First Council of Lyon and the Council of Vienne… if you get my point.

…Nobody really pays much attention to First Lyon and Vienne…

They accept Vatican II, but it’s not like they exuberantly jump for joy every time someone mentions it, which seems to be the heavily implied club requirement in most circles.

This is an excellent point. There are major and minor councils in the Church and it’s probably hindsight that helps us determine which is which. For example, Trent was obviously a major council as it countered the protestant revolt and helped usher in the counter-reformation. First Lyon, Vienne, well, who’s even heard of them except for trads who try to learn about all councils

I’ve heard many people say that Vatican II is/was a minor council that too many people took to be the MAJOR council, the greatest council since the council of Jerusalem (as a famous heretical theologian has publicly declared). I think that after a century or two Vatican II will be noted for the historical fact that there was incredible upheaval in its wake, but its actual content will be placed alongside Lyon, Vienne, etc.

• PAX

 

[NickVA]

wasserfall,

What i mean to ask is if they accept all of the documents and do they believe that the council is an ecumenical council? Do they believe it is from the Holy Spirit?

I get the feeling that the FSSP accepts the council, but does not believe it to be of any real importance.

 

[YoungTradCath]

wasserfall,

What i mean to ask is if they accept all of the documents and do they believe that the council is an ecumenical council? Do they believe it is from the Holy Spirit?

I get the feeling that the FSSP accepts the council, but does not believe it to be of any real importance.

We’ve all answered this. They accept all of the documents and they regard it as an ecumenical council, ergo, yes they also believe it was protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

I would probably concur with the second statement. Please read my post about the First Council of Lyon and the Council of Vienne, above.

 

[YoungTradCath]

wasserfall,

What i mean to ask is if they accept all of the documents and do they believe that the council is an ecumenical council? Do they believe it is from the Holy Spirit?

I get the feeling that the FSSP accepts the council, but does not believe it to be of any real importance.

We’ve all answered this. They accept all of the documents and they regard it as an ecumenical council, ergo, yes they also believe it was protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

I would probably concur with the second statement. Please read my post about the First Council of Lyon and the Council of Vienne, above.

We don’t have to jump for joy and explode into a fit of violent emotion every time someone says “Vatican II” to regard it as valid. But it feels as if some think that.

 

[wasserfall]

wasserfall,

What i mean to ask is if they accept all of the documents and do they believe that the council is an ecumenical council? Do they believe it is from the Holy Spirit?

I get the feeling that the FSSP accepts the council, but does not believe it to be of any real importance.

Nick, I think you might have a misunderstanding about the role of the Holy Spirit in an ecumenical council.

The Holy Spirit does not inspire the documents of an ecumenical council in the way that holy scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit does not even protect a council from making an erroneous statement.

The Holy Spirit protects a council in the same way that the pope is protected. Neither an ecumenical council nor a pope can promulgate error as dogma. That’s it.

When a council intends to speak infallibly and dogmatically, it is protected from error. Otherwise not. As Pope Benedict himself has said (before he was elected pope), Vatican II chose to define no new dogma.

If that is true (and I have no reason to doubt Cardinal Ratzinger, now reigning as Pope Benedict XVI), then nothing at all in Vatican II is infallibly defined, apart from whatever was already infallibly defined.

If this is the case, then when you have an apparent conflict between some teaching in Vatican II and some other authoritative teaching, it is legitimate to question whether or not the Vatican II teaching is in error. However this must be done, as Brother JR says, not in a polemical manner, but rather in a spirit of humility and willingness to accept the verdict of authority, should authority speak.

One of the things causing confusion and strife is that, on some of the most controversial questions, authority has not yet spoken.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

One of the things causing confusion and strife is that, on some of the most controversial questions, authority has not yet spoken.

Exactly. This leads many to wonder why authority has not spoken. It is a tacit agreement with the current interpretations? Is it a tacit admission that the problem areas in VII cannot be reconciled with Tradition? Is it a way to have your cake and eat it, too?

I’d love to see what the Church has to say about VII 400 years from now.

• PAX

 

[Fiasco]

Suffice it to say that the FSSP is totally in union with Pope Benedict XVI.
ive been fortunate to have been able to attend a FSSP Solemn High Mass almost every Sunday for more than three and a half years, and as far as im concerned it`s the best of both worlds, with beautiful church interior/liturgy/reverence/depth plus up-to-date in the right ways: eg a Divine Mercy picture permanently in the church. The priests have firmly embraced that Devotion.

One of the FSSP priests goes to a particular OF parish on the First Saturday, and helps the priest there hear Confessions. Cooperation!
The fact that the OF priest is outstanding: eg a level-headed, thoroughly orthodox theologian, and is the Chancellor of the Maronite Diocese in Australia, no doubt helps. There`s probably a good, healthy exchange of thoughts.

One of the things causing confusion and strife is that, on some of the most controversial questions, authority has not yet spoken.

i was hoping that discussions with the SSPX would resolve those.

Exactly. This leads many to wonder why authority has not spoken. It is a tacit agreement with the current interpretations? Is it a tacit admission that the problem areas in VII cannot be reconciled with Tradition? Is it a way to have your cake and eat it, too?

I’d love to see what the Church has to say about VII 400 years from now.

• PAX

Same here.

Thankfully, we cant blame Vatican II for the abuses. The perpetrators were waiting in the wings, ready to pounce at the first opportunity. To have been driven into the arms of the FSSP was ultimately a blessing; so perversely, im glad the abuses have happened.

 

[TonyHereitc]

I have a direct question. Do FSSP Priest believe in ecumenism? Do they believe that a Muslim or a Hindu’s religion is as legitimate as a Traditional Roman Catholic’s?

Thank you and God Bless

 

[Lormar]

I have a direct question. Do FSSP Priest believe in ecumenism? Do they believe that a Muslim or a Hindu’s religion is as legitimate as a Traditional Roman Catholic’s?

Thank you and God Bless

Why don’t you send the FSSP an email and ask them yourself?

Also, I think that the moderator in this section doesn’t like old threads being brought back. He’d prefer you start a new one.

If you find an old topic that you wish to “resurrect”, please start a new thread. The reason for doing it that way is very simple. The people who were on that thread my be gone or may no longer be interested in the subject. If you begin a new thread, you may get a fresh perspective.

We leave old threads in plain sight, because people often come to ask a question. Rather than starting a thread on something that has been discussed, the person can go into search mode and find the discussion, inform himself and move on.