Formal theological discussions about Vatican II will begin later this month

[JReducation]

All of the above is very interesting and we won’t know for sure what the outcome will be until the final report is out. We’re all really on the sidelines commenting based on the small pieces of information that we have.

I do agree that there has been ground work for these meetings. This is not going to be a fresh start next week. I’m sure that the right people have been speaking to each other across the aisle and that they have been speaking among their own team players. I can’t imagine the theologians going into this without meeting many times with Cardinal Levada.

I disagree that Pope Benedict is as intimately involved in this as some people think or wish. Allow me to explain why. After working many years with the Church hierarchy, it has been my expeirence that when the hierarchy, including the pope, wants something done they appoint a leader and a team. They deputize that person and that team to get the job done. They don’t want to be consulted or bothered with the daily details. They want a progress report at a time of their choosing. Popes, Bishops’ Conferences, local bishops and major superiors have much on their plates. They don’t want to micro-manage and they don’t have the time to do so. They trust people who have expertise and delegate authority to them.

In addition, there are two players here with whom I am very familiar, not that I play golf with them. But I have had the opportunity to see other samples of their work and I have to say that I have great admiration and respect for them. They are Cardinal Levada and the Opus Dei Vicar General. I used to admire Levada’ s work when he was in the USA. The Opus Dei is very familair to me. Cardinal Levada wrote an outstanding discertation on the fallibility of certain points in Humanae Vitae. When the Vatican asked him to defend his thesis, he passed. It was Cardinal Ratzinger who put him through the test. It was also Pope Benedict who chose hinm as his successor at the Sacred Congregation for the Faith. The point here is that Cardinal Levada has earned Pope Benedict’s respect as a theologian. There would be no reason for the Holy Father to micromanage Levada’s work.

The Vicar of the Opus Dei is a rather interesting choice. The Opus Dei is a Personal Prelature of the Holy Father. The Vicar governs the Prelature in his name. Even though he is not a high ranking Cardinal, his is a high ranking official in the Church. He heads an international organization that has many similarities to the Society as far as their internal organization is concerned. My thought was that his appointment to the committe may have been as a “tutor” or “guide” to the Society in the hopes that they may come out of this as a Prelature. This would be good for them, because they get to keep their identity. It would be good for the Church, because they would be contained, as is the Opus Dei. They would not have parishes and other diocesan ministries. In this regard they are contained only to those who are attracted to them. This would keep the bishops happy. But they would also be free of inteference from the bishops. Since they are not involved in the life of the diocese, they have nothing to do with the bishop. The only thing that they need from the bishop is faculties to witness marriages and grant absolution.

The organization of the Opus Dei may prove to be a good thing for the Society, because they don’t have to “sell out” as some would say. It would be good for the Church, because the Society would be contained to their followers only and out of the bishops’ hair. Like the Opus Dei, they would have no authority or voice to preach their message to the masses, but only to those who approach them.

I’m thinking that many people attached to the society, lay, clergy and religious, are not comfortable with the model followed by the FSSP, Canons of St. John C, Inst. Christ King, Sons of the Holy Redeemer. Some people believe that these other groups have sold out in some way. I’m not sure that I agree that they have sold out. I do believe that in order to operate in the mainstream and preach to the masses, they have had to accept silence on certain points. Since some people associated with the Society may find this to be problematic, if the Society emerges is a prelature, they can have all the formation and discussions that they want on the issues and no one will tell them to be quiet. The only limitation is that they cannot broadcast to the universal Church without the Holy Father’s permission, just like the Opus Dei.

These are just some thoughts. I can see this as a win win situation for everyone. Levada will have full control and the submission of the Society to the Sacred Congregation for the Faith. The Holy Father will have full control and full responsibility for the Society through a vicar. The Society will have a place within the canonical Church. As I said before, I heard a Franciscan Sister, who is one of the canon lawyers studying this situation. She seemed to feel that the solution to this problem is not a theological one, but a canonical one. She was pointing out that the concerns about Vatican II are too complex to be settled over night. The best is to deal with the canonical status of the Society. The doctrinal concerns can then be hammared out slowly as long as it takes.; but in the meantime, the Society would be fully integrated into the life of the Church: no more suspensions. Eveyrone has faculties. Catholics are free to approach the Society for their spiritual needs, if they feel that the Society can serve them.

It’s not a bad solution. But then again, I’m not on this committee and I am not privy to any other details that may be in the way. I just hope that they go for the quickest and easiest solution. There are too many good people who are caught in the middle here and this is not fair to them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[numealinesimpet]

Meanwhile the following came through today: …
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17463

Vatican could convert Lefebvrists into personal prelature, says Fellay

Santiago, Chile, Oct 22, 2009 / 01:03 pm (CNA).- In an interview with the Chilean daily, “El Mercurio,” the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, Bernard Fellay, acknowledged that the Vatican is considering the possibility of converting the Lefebvrist group into a personal prelature as part of the discussions aimed at bringing about reconciliation.
Fellay, who visited members of the SSPX movement in Chile, is one of four bishops whose excommunication was lifted by Pope Benedict XVI last January. Asked about the speculation that the Society of Pius X could be made into a personal prelature similar to Opus Dei, Fellay responded, “There is a lot of truth to that. I think the Vatican is moving towards that kind of canonical solution.”

 

[ProVobis]

I disagree that Pope Benedict is as intimately involved in this as some people think or wish. Allow me to explain why. After working many years with the Church hierarchy, it has been my expeirence that when the hierarchy, including the pope, wants something done they appoint a leader and a team. They deputize that person and that team to get the job done. They don’t want to be consulted or bothered with the daily details.

It’s interesting that you put it this way. Pope John XXIII called an ecumenical council, set an agenda, and chose not to attend it. However, he ended up watching the proceedings on closed circuit, or it’s rumored, and he became upset that his agenda was superceded by other agenda. On his deathbed, again on rumors, it was said that his dying words were “Stop the council, stop the council.” Also an interesting tidbit of information: Pope John XXIII signed not a single document of his council.

Cardinal Levada was not trad-friendly when he ran things in California. Let’s hope his bias doesn’t interfere with his fairness.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Do you think the SSPX would (or should) assent to having a new document set forth by the Vatican or a new universal catechism that clarified this information and with notes from prior councils and Popes?

It’s an interesting fact (and one not as widely noticed as it ought to be; instructive on the whole way that the regime of novelty that has shaken the Church is not, in fact, binding on the Faithful) that the “New Catechism” of 1983 is advisory, not definitive. Therefore it cannot be said to supercede the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
Whence do I get this startling info? It is in the Introduction on the first page of the New Catechism, written by Pope John Paul II.

 

[JReducation]

It’s interesting that you put it this way. Pope John XXIII called an ecumenical council, set an agenda, and chose not to attend it. However, he ended up watching the proceedings on closed circuit, or it’s rumored, and he became upset that his agenda was superceded by other agenda. On his deathbed, again on rumors, it was said that his dying words were “Stop the council, stop the council.” Also an interesting tidbit of information: Pope John XXIII signed not a single document of his council.

Cardinal Levada was not trad-friendly when he ran things in California. Let’s hope his bias doesn’t interfere with his fairness.

Cardinal Levada plays on the same soccer field at Pope Benedict. That’s why the Holy Father respects him very much. Theologically, Levada is orthodox. But like his boss, he has little tolerance questioning eclesial authority. Many people do not realize this about Pope Benedict. Because he is the pope, he comes across softer. But when he was the Secretary for Faith, he was not so soft. Levada is of that same ilk.

When I read Levada’s dissertation on Humanae Vitae I was strunned. He challenged the traditionalist and the liberals. His entire dissertation was an exercise in pointing out what was infallible in Humane Vitae and what is fallible. This type of mind is difficult to pigeon hole into either camp, because he is a doctrinal legalist. He is not afraid to tell people when they’re makiong attributes that are incorrect, whether those attributes are to the right or to the left.

That being said, I did read the works on and about Bl. John XXIII and the Council. The truth is that he did not attend the council because he did not want the papacy to rule the council. He wanted the Council to be for the bishops and by the bishops. His idea was that Vatican I had been about the papacy. Vatican II should be about the bishops and for them. Therefore, it was not to be a doctrinal council, but to use doctrine to help define and describe what the bishops should do to run the Church. His dream was that there would be a Vatican III for the laity and on the laity.

He was upset with some of the committees for different reasons. Some he felt were moving too quickly and carelessly. Others he felt were moving too slowly and tentatively. He had a certain pace in mind when he convened the council and approved its agenda. He wanted it completed in three years. This did not happen. That’s why he never signed any of the documents. It had nothing to do with disapproval. They were not ready for him before he died. The ones that had gone too fast he had sent back and the ones that came too slowly came after his death.

There is no historical proof that he wanted the Council to stop. In fact, Paul VI reconvened it, because he said that he knew John wanted it finished. Canonically, the council ended when John XXIII died. Paul had no canonical obligation to continue it. Some historians refer to Vatican II in two parts: John’s Council and Paul’s Council, because it takes a pope to open a council, but not to close it. At the death of the pope, the council comes to a close, because the See of Peter is empty. Everything in the Church is wrapped up and put away. It’s up to the new pope to decide what he wants to continue.

One more thought on Cardinal Levada. He has always been a defender of the popes and has come down very heavy handed on those who, in his estimation, were critical of the popes. He has done this to both sides, Traditionalists and Liberals. He has a reputation for being very much into the papacy.

My guess is that he is going to enter into this dialogue with the Holy Father’s interest in mind. But this was the same mindset as Ratzinger. Cardinal Ratzinger stood for Pope John Paul, no matter what the criticism around him was. He tolerated no criticism of Pope John Paul and was reputed to take no prisoners. In fact, he kept the sexual abuse scandal from reaching Pope John Paul II. For the longest time he dealt with it by ordering the bishops to take care of it at their level and not involve the Vatican. He is quoted as having said that the American press was unrealiable because of its notorious hatred for the Church.

I’m not sure if this is true or not. Someone told me that Ratzinger and Levada were the ones who coined the term, “The Great American Heresy.” Neither of them has a strong feeling for American individualism. We have to give Levada credit for one thing. Regardless of his feelings for those who engage in conflicts with the papacy, he has kept his mouth shut in the public square since he went to Rome. I have never heard or read anything about him taking a public stand on either the SSPX or the liberal Catholics. He seems to simply repeat what the Holy Father says or what comes out of the Sacred Congregation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

It’s an interesting fact (and one not as widely noticed as it ought to be; instructive on the whole way that the regime of novelty that has shaken the Church is not, in fact, binding on the Faithful) that the “New Catechism” of 1983 is advisory, not definitive. Therefore it cannot be said to supercede the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
Whence do I get this startling info? It is in the Introduction on the first page of the New Catechism, written by Pope John Paul II.

You want to be careful here. When John Pual II said that the CCC was advisory, he was not implying that it falls short in any way, compared to the Catechism of Trent. The term was deliberately used because he wanted a continuity. If we read other documents that he wrote when the CCC was promulgated and in the intro itself, he makes reference to the older catechisms. He encourages the reader to read the new CCC as a continuation of what was begun before. He leaves the door open for others to write a better catechism. This is not a statement about the content, but about the format, organization and linguistic value. As far as the content is concerned, he makes it clear that the fulness of Catholic Doctrine is presented in the CCC. This is not a denial of the fulness presented in previous catechisms. It is an affirmation that nothing new has been added. What has changed is the format and some of the explanations of dogmas and doctrines have been expanded.

We have to remember that there is a difference between expanded and changed. When you expand, you go into more details. I believe that the strength of the Catechism of Trent, at least for the laity, is that it is very specic or concise. For the theologian, that’s its weakness. You have to keep looking around for the supporting documents, be they in scripure, the Church Fathers, other Councils, the Doctors, the mystics, encyclicals and so forth

There is a later edition of the CCC that made some corrections to the translation that was done from Latin to English. As usual, I have never understood why the problems with Church documents are always found in the English translations. One would think that the since the richest nations in the world are in the English speaking world, they would have the best translators and faciltiies. But such does not seem to be the case. Whenever I want to make sure of something I find the Latin text or read it in Spanish. The Spanish speaking countries have excellent translators, esepcially Spain, Mexico and Colombia.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[numealinesimpet]

You want to be careful here. When John Pual II said that the CCC was advisory, he was not implying that it falls short in any way, compared to the Catechism of Trent. The term was deliberately used because he wanted a continuity. If we read other documents that he wrote when the CCC was promulgated and in the intro itself, he makes reference to the older catechisms. He encourages the reader to read the new CCC as a continuation of what was begun before. He leaves the door open for others to write a better catechism. This is not a statement about the content, but about the format, organization and linguistic value. As far as the content is concerned, he makes it clear that the fulness of Catholic Doctrine is presented in the CCC. This is not a denial of the fulness presented in previous catechisms. It is an affirmation that nothing new has been added. What has changed is the format and some of the explanations of dogmas and doctrines have been expanded.

We have to remember that there is a difference between expanded and changed. When you expand, you go into more details. I believe that the strength of the Catechism of Trent, at least for the laity, is that it is very specic or concise. For the theologian, that’s its weakness. You have to keep looking around for the supporting documents, be they in scripure, the Church Fathers, other Councils, the Doctors, the mystics, encyclicals and so forth

There is a later edition of the CCC that made some corrections to the translation that was done from Latin to English. As usual, I have never understood why the problems with Church documents are always found in the English translations. One would think that the since the richest nations in the world are in the English speaking world, they would have the best translators and faciltiies. But such does not seem to be the case. Whenever I want to make sure of something I find the Latin text or read it in Spanish. The Spanish speaking countries have excellent translators, esepcially Spain, Mexico and Colombia.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I would not want to give the wrong impression here. On the one hand, there are many who do (erroneously) reject the Catechism of Trent on the basis of the New Catechism (contrary to what the CCC actually says, as Bro. JR reminds us.) I wonder how many of the readers of CAF were aware that the Catechism of Trent has not actually been superseded. Yet the New Catechism, although so wordy, actually is silent on many issues. It speaks of abortion without mentioning (as I remember) the souls of the aborted, which is actually the crux of the matter. As so often in the post-Vatican II World, it is by omission and ambiguity that the damage is done, not (as the sedevacs falsely claim) by explicit heresy.

Alas, the ‘translations’ into English were done ‘with an agenda’. Fair play to the Spanish world, JR, if these remained faithful. A defining moment in my movement towards ‘Tradition’ was the day I attended a Novus Ordo Mass in a church that gave the Latin and English side by side. The English is a falsified translation! And with a clear agenda! And the English-speaking bishops let them get away with it!

 

[numealinesimpet]

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

Interesting, and certainly that would seem theologically sound. NB that of all denominations, that of the Baptists are least likely to be valid, as they say the prayer after the immersion. But my mother converted to the Catholic Church from the Presbyterian Church of Scotland in the late 40s (thereby hangs a tale) but I’m sure she told me she had conditional baptism. Were the guidelines for this changed in the 1970s?

 

[numealinesimpet]

“These” people tend to have large families so you can’t hope the last one just dies. It’s already the second generation since 1988 and third or fourth since Vatican II and the SSPX crowd isn’t that small anymore. And asking the younger ones to change to accommodate the new theological mindset overnight would be more cruel than what most had to endure post Vatican II as that change was at least gradual for us back then.

Parting the Red Sea would be easier than bringing 100% of the SSPX faithful back to full reconciliation. I know they respect and pray for the Pope a lot but I’m just being realistic here.

But that’s not what I think will happen at all. Hardly any of these people reject the papacy; those who do belong elsewhere. Indeed, less than 2 years ago the priest at our local SSPX Mass centre invited any such people to leave until they changed their mind. One man (who had been distributing sedevac literature outside the Church against the stated rules) walked out then and there. These are the kind that will drop out. Certain innovations and ‘orientations’ have been imposed with the appearance of authority, but in fact it is all a mirage. The Vatican owes it to all the Faithful, not merely the so-called trads, to affirm these things clearly. With the appearance of Summorum Pontificum, the attempt to impose compulsory Novus Ordo adherence was definitively dropped. Most SSPX Mass-goers I know would love to have the remaining arbitrary sanctions lifted. If Pope Benedict and Bp Fellay are spared, I believe it will happen.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

And rightly so. The facts are there for anyone to read. This was definitely the nearest that Vatican II came to formal heresy.

Catholic teaching – which had been reiterated again and again since the French Revolution – is that each individual has the God-given right to use his own intellect. Some will reach wrong conclusions regarding the true religion. Thus they cannot be coerced in ‘the private forum’. If they band together and organise public worship in a false religion, the rulers of the State may judge it more prudent to tolerate this, but those in error have no right to practise their false religion in the Public Forum. Dignitatis Humanae declared that they do have such a right. And, as usual for Vatican II documents, they simply pass over in silence the massive corpus of previous teaching, assumed to be infallible, that went before it.

There is no use calling this ‘a new deepening of insight’ or ‘a more modern phrasing’ – it is a flat 180 degree contradiction of perennial teaching that had previously been explicitly repudiated as heresy. It was not Mgr Lefebvre’s fault that he was obliged to point this out.

At the founding of the United States, the Catholic bishops judged it more prudent in the new melting-pot to tolerate the concept of Religious Freedom [in the public forum]. But it is a heresy to assert it as a right.

How is Mgr. Fellay going to explain what is said in a pamphlet like the one giving 62 reasons to avoid Masses celebrated using the Revised Missal ?

He is going to stand by it.

… the Revised Missal…

Second Point of Order! According to those who actually composed it, the Novus Ordo is not a ‘revised missal’…

1. Because the changes were not just slight ones but actually “deal with a fundamental renovation … a total change … a new creation.” (Msgr. A. Bugnini, co-author of the New Mass)

  3. Because the New Mass leads us to think "that truths ... can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic Faith is bound forever." (Ottaviani Intervention)

  4. Because the New Mass represents "a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent" which, in fixing the "canons," provided an "insurmountable barrier to any heresy against the integrity of the Mystery." (Ottaviani Intervention)

  5. Because the difference between the two is not simply one of mere detail or just modification of ceremony, but "all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place (in the New Mass), if it subsists at all." (Ottaviani Intervention)

It was Mgr. Lefebvre’s refusal to offer Mass using the Revised Missal even once that caused all this trouble to start with - see vol.1 of Michael Davies’ Apologia.

Point of Order! That’s not what started it – What started it was the imposition of illegal attempts to impose concepts such as Religious Freedom [in the Public Forum] which had previously been condemned, and the New Order of Mass, when the TLM had not been abrogated (Thank you for that affirmation, Pope Benedict XVI).

If the Revised Missal is no longer a problem for the SSPX, then it has disavowed one of its founder’s main positions.

It is very much a problem. Not because it is judged to be invalid (that is not the SSPX position) but because it is demonstrably injurious to the Faith. See, e.g., the so-called Ottaviani Intervention, at traditio.com and elsewhere.

 

[otjm]

It is clear that The Holy Father is bothered by something that has its root in Second Vatican. He re-introduced the Tridentine Mass, He has a deep Love of the Church’s Past, and that could lead to us going back.

On this point we might disagree somewhat. Both this Pope and the previous one repeatedly said that the docmuments of Vatican 2 need to be interpreted and implemented in light of the 2000 year Tradition of the Church. Neither of them want to "go back’; they both wanted nad Benedict 16 wants to “go forward”. That “going forward” is to go in the direction that the Church has gone for 2000 years. What people seem to forget, ignore or deny is that the Church, prior to Vatican 2, had problems and issues that needed to be addressed and were not being addressed, or not adequately. Vatican 2 does not need to be re-written, a new Council does not need to be called; what we need to do has been explained by both Popes, and that is that the documents still have not been fully implemented. And given the Church’s history, that should be a surprise to no one.

Which if they call for another ecumenical Council , then its time to Break out the LATIN GRAMMER AND WRITING TEXTBOOKS, from way back when.

It may be debatable whether or not Latin would have anything to do with the problems the Church has had. the problem in its essence for most people is a lack of catechesis. Latin won’t cure that.

Which means that Marriage rules could be re-strengthened and a corresponding drop in granted anullments. It could mean alot of things…

This point is seriously off-topic, so I won’t belabor it, other than to point out two things: decrees of nullity are not the cause of the problems wtih marriages, but rather the results; and given that about 93% of divorces have not received a decree of nullity, any “strengthening of marriage and marriage rules”, while obviously needed, would not show a drop in decrees for a long, long time to come, as we still have to deal with the ones that have ended up in divorce. If you wish to make this a separate topic, it would be welcome as there is so much misunderstanding in the area.

But I don’t know that the problem is that deep. The Church in the 60’s reflected a loss in Classical Education with the drop of the Tridentine Mass… See Latin was tought in Every single school, at elementary level upwards for 40 or 50 years in the 20th Century.

Having grown up before Vatican 2, I know of absolutley no grade schools that taught Latin. One learned to parrot Latin phrases in the Mass as an altar boy, but one did not “learn Latin” until one started in high school. At the time I was taking Latin in high school, other public high schools were still teacing Latin, but that started dropping off all across the board; in other words, the move away from the Classics was not something select among the Catholic school system. Having had a Classic education in part, I still believe in its value; but it is and will be one among hundreds if not thousands of competing ideal and ideals.

Something that seems to be missed or overlooked is that the problems we had after Vatican 2 did not come in a vacuum, nor did they suddely appear out of nowhere. The priests and theologians who intially went “la la Land” on us didn’t do it because of Vatican 2 documents; they did it because of the ideas that previous to Vatican 2 were pretty much confined to academia. And they were taught by that academia.

 

[diggerdomer]

Second Point of Order! According to those who actually composed it, the Novus Ordo is not a ‘revised missal’…

Pope Paul VI referred to it as a revision and a new Missal when he authorititatively promulgated it:

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum_en.html

 

[otjm]

The organization of the Opus Dei may prove to be a good thing for the Society, because they don’t have to “sell out” as some would say. It would be good for the Church, because the Society would be contained to their followers only and out of the bishops’ hair. Like the Opus Dei, they would have no authority or voice to preach their message to the masses, but only to those who approach them.

So the next question, assuming such happens, is what becomes of the parishes set up in the various dioceses in which a bishop might choose to not invite them in?

 

[brigid12]

I would not want to give the wrong impression here. On the one hand, there are many who do (erroneously) reject the Catechism of Trent on the basis of the New Catechism (contrary to what the CCC actually says, as Bro. JR reminds us.) I wonder how many of the readers of CAF were aware that the Catechism of Trent has not actually been superseded. Yet the New Catechism, although so wordy, actually is silent on many issues. It speaks of abortion without mentioning (as I remember) the souls of the aborted, which is actually the crux of the matter. As so often in the post-Vatican II World, it is by omission and ambiguity that the damage is done, not (as the sedevacs falsely claim) by explicit heresy.

I didn’t know the Catechism of Trent hadn’t been super-ceded. It’s been hard enough (at least in the western part of the US) to get RCIA teams to use the CCC! The USCCB website never quotes the Catechism of Trent. Part of the agenda or poor catechesis?

 

[brigid12]

But that’s not what I think will happen at all. Hardly any of these people reject the papacy; those who do belong elsewhere. Indeed, less than 2 years ago the priest at our local SSPX Mass centre invited any such people to leave until they changed their mind. One man (who had been distributing sedevac literature outside the Church against the stated rules) walked out then and there. These are the kind that will drop out. Certain innovations and ‘orientations’ have been imposed with the appearance of authority, but in fact it is all a mirage. The Vatican owes it to all the Faithful, not merely the so-called trads, to affirm these things clearly. With the appearance of Summorum Pontificum, the attempt to impose compulsory Novus Ordo adherence was definitively dropped. Most SSPX Mass-goers I know would love to have the remaining arbitrary sanctions lifted. If Pope Benedict and Bp Fellay are spared, I believe it will happen.

 

[Breviarylover]

Formal theological discussions about Vatican II will begin later this month, it was announced today. Why is Benedict XVI allowing this new debate on the most vexed questions of the Second Vatican Council?

insidethevatican2.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=letter-33-and-so-it-begins.html&Itemid=169

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0904605.htm

:clapping:

 

[otjm]

Interesting, and certainly that would seem theologically sound. NB that of all denominations, that of the Baptists are least likely to be valid, as they say the prayer after the immersion. But my mother converted to the Catholic Church from the Presbyterian Church of Scotland in the late 40s (thereby hangs a tale) but I’m sure she told me she had conditional baptism. Were the guidelines for this changed in the 1970s?

I have never sorted through the issue, so I do not have an answer. It is only because of being involved in RCIA that I have familiarity with the issue.

It may well be that your mother was given conditional baptism; again, if she had not been able to obtain documentation of her ealier baptism in the Presbyterian church, that would have been the case. Whether or not all or a majority or some who converted from other Christian churches were given conditional baptism prior to the 1970’s even if they ahd documentation, I simply don’t know.

As an aside, it surprised me that it took as long as it did for the Church to pronounce that those converting from the LDS faith had to be baptized - and not conditionally. I guess it just goes to show that because there is an issue, it does not mean that Rome is necessarily aware of it; and in addition, Rome is not particularly fast to act once it is aware of the issue.

 

[JReducation]

I have never sorted through the issue, so I do not have an answer. It is only because of being involved in RCIA that I have familiarity with the issue.

It may well be that your mother was given conditional baptism; again, if she had not been able to obtain documentation of her ealier baptism in the Presbyterian church, that would have been the case. Whether or not all or a majority or some who converted from other Christian churches were given conditional baptism prior to the 1970’s even if they ahd documentation, I simply don’t know.

As an aside, it surprised me that it took as long as it did for the Church to pronounce that those converting from the LDS faith had to be baptized - and not conditionally. I guess it just goes to show that because there is an issue, it does not mean that Rome is necessarily aware of it; and in addition, Rome is not particularly fast to act once it is aware of the issue.

Prior to Vatican II the pastoral practice was not very clear. Many bishops conferences and even dioceses had their own rules regarding the reception of converts. You’re going to find some different practices.

The core principal has never changed. If a person is baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with water, and with intent to baptize, the baptism is valid and need not be repeated. If there is a doubt regarding the form or if you cannot prove that the baptism ever happened, you baptize. In the USA the biggest question is always about the form. Many groups baptize in the name of Jesus. That’s an invalid baptism. But when people come to enter the Catholic Church they don’t always remember what form was used. In that case, you baptize.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[malphono]

Prior to Vatican II the pastoral practice was not very clear. Many bishops conferences and even dioceses had their own rules regarding the reception of converts. You’re going to find some different practices.

I wouldn’t say that. In pre-conciliar times, national “conferences of bishops” were far less potent than they are now.

The core principal has never changed. If a person is baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with water, and with intent to baptize, the baptism is valid and need not be repeated. If there is a doubt regarding the form or if you cannot prove that the baptism ever happened, you baptize. In the USA the biggest question is always about the form. Many groups baptize in the name of Jesus. That’s an invalid baptism. But when people come to enter the Catholic Church they don’t always remember what form was used. In that case, you baptize.

Yes, whenever there is any doubt regarding the form of a previous (Protestant) baptism, the candidate has always been given conditional baptism. Whenever there is no doubt that the baptism was invalid (e.g. LDS, etc) a full (non-conditional) baptism was always the order of the day since there was clearly no baptism before it.

 

[ProVobis]

The core principal has never changed. If a person is baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with water, and with intent to baptize, the baptism is valid and need not be repeated. If there is a doubt regarding the form or if you cannot prove that the baptism ever happened, you baptize.

You are right. And baptism can be administered by any member of the laity, even by an atheist. I was taught that you are baptized first and foremost a Christian. This has been true since John the Baptist. Vatican II didn’t change a thing in this regard.