Formal theological discussions about Vatican II will begin later this month

[ProVobis]

I think it will be more of a debate than you think. I have a feeling that there may be just may be real dialogue that deals with heretofore unresolved issues that have been ignored since the end of the Council.

We can only hope.

It may not be a slam dunk but I don’t think it’s hopeless. If it becames a debate, it should be with the interpretations of the Vatican II documents. Don’t forget the Archbishop signed ALL of the documents, so that can’t be used against them. Did he renege on them or not? If so, why? If not, did the rest of the Church get caught up into too much modernism? Has religious freedom gone too far? Has ecumenism gone too far? Things we’d all like to know.

 

[numealinesimpet]

It may not be a slam dunk but I don’t think it’s hopeless. If it becames a debate, it should be with the interpretations of the Vatican II documents. Don’t forget the Archbishop signed ALL of the documents. Did he renege on them or not? If so, why? If not, did the rest of the Church get caught up into too much modernism? Things we’d all like to know.

Signing the documents did not affirm his agreement with the contents. It only affirmed that they were official documents of the Council. And as is stated in the Vatican II documents themselves, they are infallible only where explicitly stated (which is, nowhere). Mgr Lefebvre could not prevent the documents being promulgated – only the Pope could have done that – but he was free to tell the truth about them – which is that they contain disastrous evasions and ambiguities, while falling short of explicit heresy (although certain passages come extremely close). This is nothing to do with the personality of Mgr Lefebvre – it can be seen by anyone who reads the documents themselves.

 

[ProVobis]

Signing the documents did not affirm his agreement with the contents. It only affirmed that they were official documents of the Council.

Well that’s a good start. See, now we’re getting somewhere.

 

[otjm]

Since Vatican II, the ambiguities of those documents have allowed untold mischief in the Church to rampage almost unchecked.

I agree with most of your post that prayer is efficacious and needed now.

However, I disagree that the chaos we have had has much if anything to do with the documents or the alleged ambiguities.

The issues concerning liturgy, for example, are not due to the documents or any ambiguities therein; the experimentation that proceeded was not sourced in the documents.

The changes in moral theology that the bishops wanted was not implemented; and the documents were not the source of Suituational Ethics, which so thoroughly infected those who held themselves out as moral theologians.

The changes in catechesis were not sourced in the documents; they were sourced from theologians and psuedo theologians who decided that a doctrinal approach with rote memorized phrases was not conveying the Scriptural message and tossed it out, along with the baby and the bath water.

A tremendous amount of ink has been spilled over ambiguities, alleged or otherwise; and it largely amounts to whistling while Rome burns. The issue is not ambiguities in the documents; the issue is the failure of bishops immediately after Vatican 2 in the US and in Europe to explain and implement the documents. Interestingly, the bishops in Poland immediatley got down to the study,w ith the laity, of the documents, and then got down to the implementation of them. The Poles did not have anywhere near the problems we had in the West, and they were operating from the same set of documents.

In short, it was not the fault of the documents; it was the fault of leadership.

I do sincerely pray for a healing of the rift between the SSPX and the Church. And I do think it will be interesting to watch. Whatever ambiguities the SSPX feels are in the documents will be addressed. Whether it will be addressed in a way that suits them remains to be seen.

 

[numealinesimpet]

:
Originally Posted by** palmas85 **

We can only hope.

And pray the Rosary.

And pray the Rosary.

Bp Fellay has asked for a Rosary Crusade, with target date March 25, 2010, for the Collegial Consecration of Russia and the Reign of the Immaculate Heart – as promised by Our Lady of Fatima. See the CAF thread
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5756253#post5756253

The last two Rosary Crusades called by Bp Fellay exceeded expectiations, did they not? The first was that the Holy Father would state publicly that the Traditional Mass was never abrogated (“You know he can’t do that!” he was told) and the second, that the decree of excommunication of the SSPX bishops would be lifted.

Recall the Conversation between Sr Lucy of Fatima & Father Fuentes, 26 Dec 1957

The most holy Virgin in these last times in which we live has given a new efficacy to the recitation of the Rosary to such an extent that there is no problem, no matter how difficult it is, whether temporal or, above all, spiritual, in the personal life of each one of us, of our families, of the families of the world, or of the religious communities, or even of the life of peoples and nations, that cannot be solved by the Rosary. There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we cannot resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary. With the Holy Rosary, we will save ourselves; we will sanctify ourselves; we will console Our Lord, and obtain the salvation of many souls.

 

[Irish_Polock]

I agree with most of your post that prayer is efficacious and needed now.

However, I disagree that the chaos we have had has much if anything to do with the documents or the alleged ambiguities.

The issues concerning liturgy, for example, are not due to the documents or any ambiguities therein; the experimentation that proceeded was not sourced in the documents.

The changes in moral theology that the bishops wanted was not implemented; and the documents were not the source of Suituational Ethics, which so thoroughly infected those who held themselves out as moral theologians.

The changes in catechesis were not sourced in the documents; they were sourced from theologians and psuedo theologians who decided that a doctrinal approach with rote memorized phrases was not conveying the Scriptural message and tossed it out, along with the baby and the bath water.

A tremendous amount of ink has been spilled over ambiguities, alleged or otherwise; and it largely amounts to whistling while Rome burns. The issue is not ambiguities in the documents; the issue is the failure of bishops immediately after Vatican 2 in the US and in Europe to explain and implement the documents. Interestingly, the bishops in Poland immediatley got down to the study,w ith the laity, of the documents, and then got down to the implementation of them. The Poles did not have anywhere near the problems we had in the West, and they were operating from the same set of documents.

In short, it was not the fault of the documents; it was the fault of leadership.

I do sincerely pray for a healing of the rift between the SSPX and the Church. And I do think it will be interesting to watch. Whatever ambiguities the SSPX feels are in the documents will be addressed. Whether it will be addressed in a way that suits them remains to be seen.

I will argue that there are ambiguities in the council due to the very clear facts that you have stated. If the west interpret the documents differently then the Poles – being laymen or bishops – there seems to be a bit of ambiguity in them. I feel it’s the responsibility of the Mother Church to hash out the said ambiguities for the good of the Catholic Church, Whatever they may be.

 

[Irish_Polock]

Bp Fellay has asked for a Rosary Crusade, with target date March 25, 2010, for the Collegial Consecration of Russia and the Reign of the Immaculate Heart – as promised by Our Lady of Fatima. See the CAF thread
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5756253#post5756253

The last two Rosary Crusades called by Bp Fellay exceeded expectiations, did they not? The first was that the Holy Father would state publicly that the Traditional Mass was never abrogated (“You know he can’t do that!” he was told) and the second, that the decree of excommunication of the SSPX bishops would be lifted.

Recall the Conversation between Sr Lucy of Fatima & Father Fuentes, 26 Dec 1957

Indeed, I’ll pray for the consecration of Russia every chance I get!

 

[numealinesimpet]

As for Vatican II documents. Yes, they were shamelessly manipulated after the Council sessions closed. But that is because they were wide open to thiese ploys. We have it on record by the likes of Schillebeckx (a Council peritus) that the ambiguities were deliberate.

But let us take an actual example.
The document on Ecumenism, like the other Vatican II documents, veers from one side to the other on basic issues, and hints at things without really nailing them down. Therefore partisans of both sides can cherry-pick the quotes that support their own view. Often, over the years, this has been done in all honesty – might I say naivete.
The full, authoritative text of Unitatis Redintegratio in English can be found on the Vatican Website:

vatican.va/archive/hist_c…gratio_en.html

A good critique of the text can be found on
“Ambiguity Series - Problems with Unitatis Redintegratio”
verbum1.blogspot.com/2009/03/…-unitatis.html

But before we delve into this Vatican II document, let us do what these documents themselves hardly ever do, and make a face-to-face comparison with a pre-Vatican II papal pronouncement. This is what Pope Pius XI had to say about the Protestant ecumenical movement, which was very active in the early 20th century. Note the clear and concise manner in which he states what ecumenism for Catholics really means:–

“…the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it…

it would be foolish and out of place to say that the Mystical Body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head…

in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.

Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is “the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,” not with the intention and the hope that “the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government…

Let them hear Lactantius crying out: “The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind.”

Mortalium Animos

Now let us hear the words of no less a personage than Cardinal Kasper, head of the Pontifical Council of Christian Unity – a John Paul II appointee:–

“Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II.”

Cdl Kasper is, of all people, the head of a commission that should (according to orthodox interpretations) be seeking the return of Christians to the Catholic Church as converts. Yet he repudiates this doctrine and feels safe to invoke the Second Vatican council to support his statements.

Now the Holy Spirit has watched over this Council by preventing it from pronouncing a direct heresy in the forthright way of the pre-Conciliar popes. Nonetheless the text abounds with insinuations and omissions that allow heresy to claim the support of the Council. This is what the “trads” have been despairingly trying to bring to the attention of the Church, not only from immediately after the Council, but during the very sessions of the Council themselves.

Here is just one example; actually the text abounds with them:-

***Unitatis Redintegratio ***Ch 3 reads:

“The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection.”

Calling people outside the Church “brothers” or “sisters” implies that they are a part of the “family” or rather the Body of Christ – which they are not. Now it is Catholic doctrine that if a Protestant sect performs a valid baptism on an infant then the infant is a member of the Catholic Church. There is but “one Faith, one Baptism” and One church. This text, however, states that these people are at the same time “separated” and “brothers.” What sense does this make? As for the last part,while we would have some kind of “respect and affection” for non-Catholic denominations, by respecting the things that are really true, at the same time we would have to condemn and shun their errors as well. Neglecting to mention how the Catholic Church is also displeased with their errors leaves the doorway open for a liberal to say, “See, the Council says we have respect and affection for other Christians! We must stop trying to convert them!”

And this is precisely what Cdl Kaspar does say.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Indeed, I’ll pray for the consecration of Russia every chance I get!

Didn’t Sister Lucy say that Our Lady had accepted the consecration that was already done?

 

[numealinesimpet]

Didn’t Sister Lucy say that Our Lady had accepted the consecration that was already done?

This claim has been made. However, it refers to “a letter” without saying who wrote it, or to whom. But Sr Lucy, in fully-authenticated letters and interviews, has said the opposite. And so, significantly, did Pope John Paul II. He spoke of the consecration, addressing Our Lady, “which you are still awaiting”. All of this is most clearly and fully documented in “The Fourth Secret” by Antonio Socci (by no means a “Lefebvrist” or “Trad”) English translation ISBN 1-930278-78-0
©2006 Loreto Publications www.LoretoPubs.org

And also on
fatima.org/

… but perhaps this discussion belongs on the other thread.

 

[otjm]

I will argue that there are ambiguities in the council due to the very clear facts that you have stated. If the west interpret the documents differently then the Poles – being laymen or bishops – there seems to be a bit of ambiguity in them. I feel it’s the responsibility of the Mother Church to hash out the said ambiguities for the good of the Catholic Church, Whatever they may be.

And I am trying to say that it is not an issue of interpreting documents. What we have is a goodly portion of the Church that doesn’t care a fig about the documents; if challenged on their position they may give some lip service to them, or may not. And that portion that doesn’t give a fig has gone off in their own direction, and it has nothing to do with the document, or the ambiguity or lack of ambiguity of the document.

The Poles got it because the bishops led. The Poles got it not because they had a different interpretation of the documents; it is because they read them, followed them, and had a leadership that wasn’t allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry, or Sally, Sister Goodheart and Sister Wiccan to go off in any and every direction, setting up a church in theri own image and likeness.

Mother Church has been saying since the documents were written that they have to be read in light of the last 2000 years of Church history. That Bishp Fellay either cannot or will not read them in such light seems to be a given. Either that, or I misunderstand his position. The current Pope doesn’t seem to think that there are the difficulties that the Bishop proposes. Neither, it would seem, did the last Pope, one of the Poles who was in charge of the process of implementing the documents in Poland both as a bishop and later as a cardinal.

Frankly, I am concerned. I have sat and listened to and read comments by both SSPX people and supporters of them, and the comments have ranged over a very wide area, from concern about the moral chaos and liturgical chaos, to something profoundly more disturbing. There are serious issues the Church needs to be addressing (and I believe is doing so) and the issues with the SSPX are at best a distraction in many ways to that process. I also think that we have come to a point of “piddle or get off the pot”. I have concerns that at least some of those in the SSPX will not want to hear what Rome is going to say, and we will see a permanent split. That bodes not well either for the Body of Christ nor those who choose their own path. There are those who want the documents either withdrawn, or re-written. From all appearances, that is not going to happen, and those who propose or demand such are going to be confronted with some tough choices. Would that it were not so.

Before this opening was made, we could all harrumph and posture, and argue ad infinitem whether the EF was banned or simply ignored, and have other grand discussions, and continue to insist that the SSPX were the loyal opposition. Now, effectively the gauntlet has been thrown down. The SSPX may try to debate issues, but that is going to be a one-sided debte. Rome is going to explain, and that expanation is going to be considered controlling.

 

[numealinesimpet]

And I am trying to say that it is not an issue of interpreting documents. What we have is a goodly portion of the Church that doesn’t care a fig about the documents; if challenged on their position they may give some lip service to them, or may not. And that portion that doesn’t give a fig has gone off in their own direction, and it has nothing to do with the document, or the ambiguity or lack of ambiguity of the document.

The Poles got it because the bishops led. The Poles got it not because they had a different interpretation of the documents; it is because they read them, followed them, and had a leadership that wasn’t allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry, or Sally, Sister Goodheart and Sister Wiccan to go off in any and every direction, setting up a church in theri own image and likeness.

Mother Church has been saying since the documents were written that they have to be read in light of the last 2000 years of Church history. That Bishp Fellay either cannot or will not read them in such light seems to be a given. Either that, or I misunderstand his position. The current Pope doesn’t seem to think that there are the difficulties that the Bishop proposes. Neither, it would seem, did the last Pope, one of the Poles who was in charge of the process of implementing the documents in Poland both as a bishop and later as a cardinal.

Frankly, I am concerned. I have sat and listened to and read comments by both SSPX people and supporters of them, and the comments have ranged over a very wide area, from concern about the moral chaos and liturgical chaos, to something profoundly more disturbing. There are serious issues the Church needs to be addressing (and I believe is doing so) and the issues with the SSPX are at best a distraction in many ways to that process. I also think that we have come to a point of “piddle or get off the pot”. I have concerns that at least some of those in the SSPX will not want to hear what Rome is going to say, and we will see a permanent split. That bodes not well either for the Body of Christ nor those who choose their own path. There are those who want the documents either withdrawn, or re-written. From all appearances, that is not going to happen, and those who propose or demand such are going to be confronted with some tough choices. Would that it were not so.

Before this opening was made, we could all harrumph and posture, and argue ad infinitem whether the EF was banned or simply ignored, and have other grand discussions, and continue to insist that the SSPX were the loyal opposition. Now, effectively the gauntlet has been thrown down. The SSPX may try to debate issues, but that is going to be a one-sided debte. Rome is going to explain, and that expanation is going to be considered controlling.

I hope you will respond to posting #26 in this thread, instead of talking about piddling on the pot. For example, Cdl Kasper was appointed by Pope John Paul II and was not disciplined by him for the statement I have quoted. I suggest that nobody could have played fast and loose with the quoted declaration of Pope Pius XI – or of the Council of Trent. Why? They spoke clearly. It’s no use blaming the SSPX. As Bp Fellay said, “We are like a thermometer. If the patient is sick, it’s no use blaming the thermometer! Cure the patient and the thermometer will go down by itself!”

 

[Third_Day]

QUOTE=numealinesimpet;5854376]

Calling people outside the Church “brothers” or “sisters” implies that they are a part of the “family” or rather the Body of Christ – which they are not. Now it is Catholic doctrine that if a Protestant sect performs a valid baptism on an infant then the infant is a member of the Catholic Church

.
You can’t have it both ways. Here you say that if a protestant infant is baptized he is a member of the Catholic Church and yet you say we cannot call him a separated brother. Why not? If he is baptized he is a member of the Body of Christ and he is our brother. Don’t you agree?

There is but “one Faith, one Baptism” and One church. This text, however, states that these people are at the same time “separated” and “brothers.” What sense does this make?

Protestants have the sacrament of Baptism, which comes from the One True Church. This is what unites us with them. This sacrament makes them our brothers and sisters although they are separated from us in other ways

As for the last part,while we would have some kind of “respect and affection” for non-Catholic denominations, by respecting the things that are really true, at the same time we would have to condemn and shun their errors as well. Neglecting to mention how the Catholic Church is also displeased with their errors leaves the doorway open for a liberal to say, “See, the Council says we have respect and affection for other Christians! We must stop trying to convert them!”

]
But the decree on Ecumenism doesn’t say we should “stop trying to convert them.” One must read that into the document. That is not the fault of the decree.

 

[numealinesimpet]

numealinesimpet;5854376:

Calling people outside the Church “brothers” or “sisters” implies that they are a part of the “family” or rather the Body of Christ – which they are not. Now it is Catholic doctrine that if a Protestant sect performs a valid baptism on an infant then the infant is a member of the Catholic Church.

You can’t have it both ways. Here you say that if a protestant infant is baptized he is a member of the Catholic Church and yet you say we cannot call him a separated brother. Why not? If he is baptized he is a member of the Body of Christ and he is our brother. Don’t you agree?

Catholic teaching is that every infant baptized becomes ipso facto a member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. But after they reach the age of reason, especially if raised in a protestant household, at some point they will almost always consciously reject the Roman Catholic Faith. Even if their information is wrong, there comes a point at which they cannot be said to be Roman Catholics. This is a secret of the heart, known to God alone. In this sense they are our Separated Bretheren. If they receive later catechesis, or an interior enlightenment, they can be re-admitted to the Church, but they are given “Conditional Baptism”… * "If you are not already baptized, I baptize thee in the Name (etc) *… By Canon Law (New Code – I don’t know about the Old) a “Cradle Protestant” does not rate as a heretic (the word comes from the Greek for ‘Choose’.) Only the first generation – the full Catholics who chose to break away – can be called heretics, and then only after they have been admonished and shown ‘pertinacity’ – obstinacy. All this is old hat. But it is not stated in the Vatican II document.

There is but “one Faith, one Baptism” and One Church. This text, however, states that these people are at the same time “separated” and “brothers.” What sense does this make?

Protestants have the sacrament of Baptism, which comes from the One True Church. This is what unites us with them. This sacrament makes them our brothers and sisters although they are separated from us in other ways

See above.

As for the last part,while we would have some kind of “respect and affection” for non-Catholic denominations, by respecting the things that are really true, at the same time we would have to condemn and shun their errors as well. Neglecting to mention how the Catholic Church is also displeased with their errors leaves the doorway open for a liberal to say, “See, the Council says we have respect and affection for other Christians! We must stop trying to convert them!”

But the decree on Ecumenism doesn’t say we should “stop trying to convert them.” One must read that into the document. That is not the fault of the decree.

I repeat that Cdl Kasper could never have got away with saying what he did if he had had to deal with the many documents on ecumenism issued prior to Vatican II. One can read this into the Vatican II document, & one could not have done so to any previous document. The document omits to mention that we have a duty to bring them into the Catholic Faith. If there is previous doubt, they need Conditional Baptism. So yes, the document is indeed partly to blame. And it cannot be evaded that his superior ought to have corrected him – and the document. And that is precisely what these talks are about – the document anyway, not the personalities – the Vatican has been goaded into them by the persistence of the trads, principally supported by the SSPX, who like Socrates, have acted like ‘a gadfly in the midst’. Is this not the case?

 

[numealinesimpet]

I do not think that Bp Fellay has ever asserted that the Vatican Ii documents are invalid or heretical. These rash statements belong to the sedevacs, who are condemned in detail on the SSPX website. What the SSPX assert is that these documents, by their omissions and ambiguities, leave the door wide open for heretical interpretations, or else are literally impossible to apply since they do not specify what we are actually supposed to believe or do. That is why Bp Fellay is calling, not for repudiation of the Council, but for definitive clarifications. In this the SSPX are doing a great service to the Church.

 

[Third_Day]

=numealinesimpet;5855201]Catholic teaching is that every infant baptized becomes ipso facto a member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church

.
Not just infants, but baptized adults also become members of the body of Christ

But after they reach the age of reason, especially if raised in a protestant household, at some point they will almost always consciously reject the Roman Catholic Faith

.
Not true. The protestants I speak to have no idea of the teachings of the Catholic Church. They have no idea that the Catholic Church is 2,000 years old or teaches that she is the True Church.

Even if their information is wrong, there comes a point at which they cannot be said to be Roman Catholics.

Of course they are not formal members of the Church but they are members of the Body of Christ.

This is a secret of the heart, known to God alone. In this sense they are our Separated Bretheren. If they receive later catechesis, or an interior enlightenment, they can be re-admitted to the Church, but they are given “Conditional Baptism”… * "If you are not already baptized, I baptize thee in the Name (etc) *… By Canon Law (New Code – I don’t know about the Old) a “Cradle Protestant” does not rate as a heretic (the word comes from the Greek for ‘Choose’.) Only the first generation – the full Catholics who chose to break away – can be called heretics, and then only after they have been admonished and shown ‘pertinacity’ – obstinacy. All this is old hat. But it is not stated in the Vatican II document.

Why does it need to be stated in the Vatican II document? All documents of Vatican II must be read in light of the traditional teaching of the Church. I believe that the introduction of the Decree on Ecumenism says it quite well:
Introduction:
“The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided.(1) Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.”

I

repeat that Cdl Kasper could never have got away with saying what he did if he had had to deal with the many documents on ecumenism issued prior to Vatican II. One can read this into the Vatican II document, & one could not have done so to any previous document.

I don’t read it into the document. If you read it in light of the traditional teachings of the Church it says nothing different than any other document. It may say it in a different way, but it’s meaning is the same.

The document omits to mention that we have a duty to bring them into the Catholic Faith. If there is previous doubt, they need Conditional Baptism. So yes, the document is indeed partly to blame

.
Again, why does it need to re-state previous teachings. What I read is this:
Chapter One
“The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection….But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church…For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ…”

How more traditional can one get? The Decree says " For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation"

And it cannot be evaded that his superior ought to have corrected him – and the document. And that is precisely what these talks are about – the document anyway, not the personalities – the Vatican has been goaded into them by the persistence of the trads, principally supported by the SSPX, who like Socrates, have acted like ‘a gadfly in the midst’. Is this not the case?

The so-called “spirit of Vatican II” was the problem. Not reading the documents in the traditional sense was the problem.

 

[Alindawyl]

The pope and bishops should get off their collective duffs and rewrite the Vatican II documents to get rid of all the ambiguity.

They should do it right after God gets off his duff and rewrites the Bible to get rid of all the ambiguity

The thinking of the SSPX would have us argue that the Reformation took place because of how open to misinterpretation the Bible is. Pride and willful disobedience on the part of dissenters? A willingness to reinterpret the Bible without Sacred Tradition? No siree. The problem is that God was so ambiguous when he gave us the teachings on justification and faith/works

We need people as fervent as the SSPX to fight against the relativist dissenters occupying many positions of leadership. But if the SSPX refuse to submit, then they are nothing more than dissenters themselves. To paraphrase Father Corapi, whether you fall off the ship to the left as relativist dissenters do or to the right as traditionalist dissenters do, you’re still in the water swimming with the sharks.

I pray that the SSPX decide to stay with the ship instead of trying to declare themselves captain of their own ship.

 

[ProVobis]

I do not think that Bp Fellay has ever asserted that the Vatican Ii documents are invalid or heretical. These rash statements belong to the sedevacs, who are condemned in detail on the SSPX website. What the SSPX assert is that these documents, by their omissions and ambiguities, leave the door wide open for heretical interpretations, or else are literally impossible to apply since they do not specify what we are actually supposed to believe or do. That is why Bp Fellay is calling, not for repudiation of the Council, but for definitive clarifications. In this the SSPX are doing a great service to the Church.

Whatever you think of the traditio (read, sede) website, they might have a more accurate assessment of the situation. The website is anti-SSPX but has stated repeatedly that many feel Bishop Fellay is basically trying to sell the SSPX out. This is indeed a tough situation for him as he stands to lose a whole ton of benefactors if he accepts Rome’s terms unconditionally. Any return of the SSPX is almost certain to create a real and more permanent schism, the seeds of which have already been planted unfortunately by both SSPX and (other) Catholic bishops. To think 100% of the SSPX will or even want full communion with the Church is highly unrealistic. Prayers are however needed to bring the percentage as high as possible.

 

[otjm]

I hope you will respond to posting #26 in this thread, instead of talking about piddling on the pot. For example, Cdl Kasper was appointed by Pope John Paul II and was not disciplined by him for the statement I have quoted. I suggest that nobody could have played fast and loose with the quoted declaration of Pope Pius XI – or of the Council of Trent. Why? They spoke clearly. It’s no use blaming the SSPX. As Bp Fellay said, “We are like a thermometer. If the patient is sick, it’s no use blaming the thermometer! Cure the patient and the thermometer will go down by itself!”

We do not know if the good Cardinal was disciplined or not. Discipline does not start with a public reprimand. but more intereswtingly, with the announcement of the opening to the Anglican community that just occured, the Cardinal was obviously absent, and the announcement was not made thr4ough his office.

In other words, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Maybe not as colorful or as public as using a dull razor, but certainly seeming to send a message.

 

[otjm]

Catholic teaching is that every infant baptized becomes ipso facto a member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. But after they reach the age of reason, especially if raised in a protestant household, at some point they will almost always consciously reject the Roman Catholic Faith.

It might do well to remember the comment by, I believe, Bishop Sheen about people hating the Catholic Church, vs. those who hate what they think the Catholic Church is. The same goes for Protestants; most often what they are rejecting is not the Catholic Church but what they think it is. Massive difference, particularly when it comes to moral aspects.

If they receive later catechesis, or an interior enlightenment, they can be re-admitted to the Church, but they are given “Conditional Baptism”…

Actually, no. They are simply invited to make a profession of Faith: “I believe and professall that the Catholic Church believes and professes” is what they say, or something very similar. The only people who receive a conditional Baptism are those who believe they were baptized but cannot come up with some form of certificate or evidence that they were, from their former church. Further, if they were baptized in one of a few churches which profess to be Christian, but are significantly at odds (e.g. Jehova’s Witness, Seventh Day Adventist, LDS and a few others) or if there is information that the baptismal formula was altered (e.g. a certificte indicating they were baptized in the name of the Creator, The Sanctifier, etc.) then they will be conditionally baptized. If they have evidence of baptism from, say, the first Evangelical Church of Christ, or the Methodist, etc. they will most definitely nott be given a conditional baptism.

I repeat that Cdl Kasper could never have got away with saying what he did if he had had to deal with the many documents on ecumenism issued prior to Vatican II.

You have rather rose-colored glasses that you are using to view the past. Discipline was nowhere near as absolute and rigid as you presuppose. And if you doubt that, you might stop to think about what was being taught in the seminaries pre-Vatican 2; the priests, bishops and theologians who fell off the edge of the earth after Vatican 2 did not suddenly, one day upon reading the documents, develope a wild hair in their orifices. And this was all occuring right unde the nose of the Vatican.

The document omits to mention that we have a duty to bring them into the Catholic Faith. If there is previous doubt, they need Conditional Baptism. So yes, the document is indeed partly to blame. And it cannot be evaded that his superior ought to have corrected him – and the document. And that is precisely what these talks are about – the document anyway, not the personalities – the Vatican has been goaded into them by the persistence of the trads, principally supported by the SSPX, who like Socrates, have acted like ‘a gadfly in the midst’. Is this not the case?

The case is that since the documents were finalized, the Church ahs been saying - and John Paufl 2 and Benedict 16 both have repeatedly said it in public - that the Vatican 2 documents need to be read in the light of the 2000 year history of the Church.

Those who think there will be a re-write of the documents are in for a rude surprise. And those who think that there is going to be some new changes in Rome’s position about the documents, appearing or coming close to some sort of repudiation of them are going to be mightily dissapointed. Rome has already said that certain items are what they are and are not up for discussion. Rome may well be willing to express the thread running from the time of Peter up and to the present day, meaning running through the documents. But anyone waiting for major changes should not hold their breath.

Much, for example, has been said by those in the pew, and some in the lower ranks of the clergy, about ecumenism. The ecumenism that goes on (and it has been going on) between various groups and the Church (e.g. the Lutherans, and the Anglicans as examples) has been and continues to be done at a pay grade far higher than anyone here; or for that matter, anyone in the SSPX. It is done in meetings that are not particularly well advertised, and precious little of it ends up in the press until there is some major change. But given that there have been changes and a clearing of some of the old issues should indicate to anyone of good will that we have not stopped persuing other Christian groups unification with Rome, whether the good Cardinal indicates so or not.

The short of it is that there ar those who continue to say that the documents are ambiguous and do not appear to continue on from prior Tradition; and the Popes continue to say that the documents do not deny anything of prior Tradition and must be read in light of that Tradition. Some people may well be satisfied with the explanations that will come forth from these meetings.

Others may not; and this, I suspect, will be the watershed meeting; further consternation concerning the documents will be the deciding factor of whether one is part of the Catholic Church, or one sets up one’s own church.

I would pray that both sides would approach this with openness, honesty, clearness, in prayer and in acceptance of the Magisterium, as the Magisterium is going to exercise its power. The church has a long history of disputes, and of those disputing resolving their issues, and of those disputing leaving the Church when the matter is brought to a head. This, too will follow in history; some will accept the word and authority of the Church, and likely, some will not. Some will be satisfied by the answers, some will not.