Good sermon (SSPX)

[ProVobis]

I appreciate the fact that the Archbishop Lefebvre acted according to his conscience, but I also know that his followers have become more extreme over the years. Certain SSPX followers behave as if everything post 1950 is bad; they even moan when they see women wearing pants! This extremism is what concerns me, and I worry that this will prevent the SSPX from returning to full communion with the Supreme Pontiff.

Maybe it’s better that they not return to such communion if it’s going to be more divisive than it is now. Or maybe those that wish non-communion should be excommunicated. Just a thought.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Formally condemned error is promoted and put into practice. At root, it is the faith itself that is under attack - and it the attack is coming from the hierarchy.

I can understand your concern. I know it seems as if everything could be resolved if the SSPX would just sign an agreement. They could exist like the FSSP. The postion of the SSPX, however, is that they want to address the root problem of the crisis before signing an agreement; that is, they want to discuss the points of doctrine that are at the roof of the crisis.

I pray that the SSPX will be given the chance to present their case before the Holy Father, and I hope that both sides will come to an agreement.

I don’t pretend to know or understand the doctrinal problems that the SSPX have with Vatican II, but I am more inclined to believe that the problem lies with the interpretation of the Vatican II documents. I believe that the Holy Spirit prevents the Church from officially erring in matters of faith and doctrine; and I believe Vatican II is a true expression of traditional Catholic faith. I believe any and all problems are simply due to an incorrect interpretation of the documents. Do you agree?

 

[ProVobis]

I would stack up those who attend my Catholic parish any day against an SSPX chaped on orthodoxy.

pnewton, with all due respect, how can you make a statement like that if you’ve never attended an SSPX chapel or even if you’ve attended once or twice?

 

[Dempsey1919]

Was Vatican II the real problem? The Archbishop signed all the documents.

Vatican II was a great out-pouring of grace for the Church in modern times. The Council is the scapegoat. If Vatican II happened in the 1940’s, nobody would question it’s validity. Unfortunately, Vatican II coincided with the tumultuous decade of the 1960’s. The changes within society that took place during the 1960’s would have always given the Church problems; Vatican II had nothing to do with it. The changes in society during the 1960’s caused the problems within the Church, not Vatican II.

 

[pnewton]

pnewton, with all due respect, how can you make a statement like that if you’ve never attended an SSPX chapel or even if you’ve attended once or twice?

For the same reason the OP made such a statement. I know I attend Mass with a bunch of rock solid Catholics. We have never had a hint of unorthodoxy in the pulpit or any other ministry of the Church that I have heard of. I am tired of a literal “holier than thou” statements made by SSPX folk, or did anyone notice that he literally said his sect was holier that Catholics?

I do not know this person’s chapel, but I know my parish. I would stack them up anywhere (win or lose). Maybe I put this in terms of a contest because the Cowboys are winning again.

 

[malphono]

To the post in general, I can only say that maybe it’s my imagination, but it seems to me this topic has been discussed ad nauseam in this forum. The current situation of the SSPX seems to be one “canonical irregularity” and not one of us has the right or authority to do anything about it. That rests with PP Benedict XVI.

Vatican II was a great out-pouring of grace for the Church in modern times. The Council is the scapegoat. If Vatican II happened in the 1940’s, nobody would question it’s validity. Unfortunately, Vatican II coincided with the tumultuous decade of the 1960’s. The changes within society that took place during the 1960’s would have always given the Church problems; Vatican II had nothing to do with it. The changes in society during the 1960’s caused the problems within the Church, not Vatican II.

I’m not so sure I fully agree. Yes, there were societal changes in the '60, but IMHO it was rather the mis-interpretation of the Council that we can thank for the problems in the Church. Whether it happened in 1965 or 1945 would probably not have made a difference. Those who were hell-bent on twisting the Council to fit their agenda (oh, how I’ve come to hate that word ) would have done so no matter when it took place. Had they not played fast and loose with the Council, the SSPX issue most likely would not even exist.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I pray that the SSPX will be given the chance to present their case before the Holy Father, and I hope that both sides will come to an agreement.

I don’t pretend to know or understand the doctrinal problems that the SSPX have with Vatican II, but I am more inclined to believe that the problem lies with the interpretation of the Vatican II documents. I believe that the Holy Spirit prevents the Church from officially erring in matters of faith and doctrine; and I believe Vatican II is a true expression of traditional Catholic faith. I believe any and all problems are simply due to an incorrect interpretation of the documents. Do you agree?

I believe what the Church teaches with respect to infallibility. I believe that the Pope is protected from error if he defines a dogma of the faith, which did not happen at Vatican II.

I also believe that the Church is infallible in her ordinary magisterium, which means that what the Church has always taught by virtue of the ordinary magisterium is infallible. But obviously if any new doctrine is taught by the magisterium, which is in contradiction to the old, it would not be infallible.

Now, when it comes to extraordinary infallibility (ex cathedra definitions by the Pope), we can always be certain that they are infallible When it comes to a statement from this or that Pope, however, it would not necessarily be infallible. As long as he is teaching what the Church has always taught it would be, but there is no guarantee.

So, for example, Pope John XXII taught heresy numerous times publicly. What he taught was not what the Church had always taught. His Cardinals warned him about this and he finally renounced the error on his death bed.

Now, at Vatican II the extraordinary magisterium was purposefully avoided. That means that it was only an act of the ordinary magisterium. Therefore, whatever Vatican II taught that is in agreement with what the Church has always taught is infallible. But “infallibility” does not guarantee that there will be no errors. Only an act of the extraordinary magisterium carries such a guarantee.

Now, do I think Vatican II taught heresy? Well, it sure seems like it did, and virtually everyone interprets it that way. In fact, as you might have seen in the thread that was deleted, the person I was talking to rejected what the Church had always taught since she believed Vatican II taught the contrary. And she had read Vatican II. She actually quoted the council to show me that she was right.

Although the quotes she brought forward do indeed seem to support her position (i.e. that Vatican II taught a formally condemned error), I am personally able to interpret those quotes in accord with what the Church has always taught.

But what no one can deny is that, because if the wording of Vatican II, many sincere Catholics now adhere to formally condemned errors. And further, they will call those who still believe what the Church has always taught heretics. In other words, they will consider what the Church formally defined as true to be a heresy, and they will believe what has been formally condemned is true.

We can place the blame where we will, but this is what the wording of Vatican II has produced.

No council has ever produced such confusion among Catholics. Other councils may have stirred up problems with those who were condemned by the council, but everyone knew what the documents said. That was never a question.

 

[jfallaw]

From the SSPX website FAQ section:

Q: I am aware that you claim exemptions to jurisdiction laws for yourselves, but do you agree that you are subject to diocesan jurisdiction?

A: In normal circumstances, of course we are subject to diocesan jurisdiction. But as long as the situation is what it is, we will not submit to it. Once again, either there is a severe crisis and we must fight it with what means we have as strongly as we can. Or there is no crisis, and we are very guilty.

Now, in my admittedly uneducated opinion, disobedience to the Pope and those he has placed in charge is always wrong, even if you happen to be right.

 

[Timothysis]

From the SSPX website FAQ section:

Now, in my admittedly uneducated opinion, disobedience to the Pope and those he has placed in charge is always wrong, even if you happen to be right.

Good example…if a lifting of the excommunications does happen (I don’t really see it myself, since the sspx thumbed their noses at Pope Benedicts very charitable offer some months back) then the sspx are going to have to redo their entire website! If you spend the time, you can discover everything you need to know about them and the way they twist Canon Law (funny how they are always quoting the 1917 edition of Canon Law except when they find something in the 1983 version that suits their agenda).

 

[Joysong]

Pax et Caritas:

I believe what the Church teaches with respect to infallibility. I believe that the Pope is protected from error if he defines a dogma of the faith, which did not happen at Vatican II.

This is a grave error, and one that I’ve seen used particularly by those who oppose the Council’s documents. The Council was an Ecumenical Council, convened by the Pope, and its decrees were given papal approbation, thereby making ALL of them infallible.

Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians.

All these elements result from an analysis of the fact that councils are a concentration of the ruling powers of the Church for decisive action.

A majority verdict, even headed by papal legates, if disconnected from the personal action of the pope, still falls short of a perfect, authoritative pronouncement of the whole Church, and cannot claim infallibility. Were the verdict unanimous, it would still be imperfect and fallible, if it did not receive the papal approbation.

[HOWEVER… we read that…]

A council’s decrees approved by the pope are infallible by reason of that approbation, because the pope is infallible also extra concilium, without the support of a council.
Conciliar decrees approved by the pope have a double guarantee of infallibility: their own and that of the infallible pope. The council’s dignity is, therefore, not diminished, but increased, by the definition of papal infallibility

newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

Now, do I think Vatican II taught heresy? Well, it sure seems like it did, and virtually everyone interprets it that way.

And who is “virtually everyone?” SSPX? The whole Catholic world? Who, please? You speak with erroneous authority without proof of your allegations.

In fact, as you might have seen in the thread that was deleted, the person I was talking to rejected what the Church had always taught since she believed Vatican II taught the contrary. And she had read Vatican II. She actually quoted the council to show me that she was right.

It’s unfortunate that you missed the rebuttal at 11:30 P.M., which furnished proof of your error and gross misinterpretation which was taken out of historical context of Pius IX’s meaning and interpretation. While what I presented was true and able to point out your errors, I don’t intend to reprint it here because your mind is closed and it would only afford another opportunity for you to carry on your deception for those who can be harmed by reading it.

But what no one can deny is that, because if the wording of Vatican II, many sincere Catholics now adhere to formally condemned errors.

And who is the arbitrator that has “formally” condemned these so-called errors? Surely not the Catholic Church. Maybe Pax et Caritas and SSPX et al?

How sad, and how audacious to make such a statement on a public forum of Catholics.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

"Pax et Caritas:

I believe what the Church teaches with respect to infallibility. I believe that the Pope is protected from error if he defines a dogma of the faith, which did not happen at Vatican II.

This is a grave error, and one that I’ve seen used particularly by those who oppose the Council’s documents. The Council was an Ecumenical Council, convened by the Pope, and its decrees were given papal approbation, thereby making ALL of them infallible.

Really? Then why did Pope Paul VI say this:

Pope Paul VI:** “There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority.** The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L’Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)

Do you claim to have a better understanding of infallibility than PaulVI - the Pope who ratified the council?

 

[pnewton]

Now, do I think Vatican II taught heresy? Well, it sure seems like it did, and virtually everyone interprets it that way.

The single most definitve statement I have seen yet. You really do believe this, don’t your. Well, start a poll, not here but in a general forum. I think the results will surprise you, even in thie conservative arena. It is belief of this nature, that runs so contrary to reason as I see it, that makes me associate the SSPX with cultism and narrow-minded indocrination. I know hundreds of Catholics and not one I know think that Vatican II taught heresy. Take the Catechism. This is reflective of Catholicism. Where in it does it state or suggest that Vatican II taught heresy or was a lesser council? SSPX propaganda!

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

"Pax et Caritas:

Now, do I think Vatican II taught heresy? Well, it sure seems like it did, and virtually everyone interprets it that way.

The single most definitve statement I have seen yet. You really do believe this, don’t your. Well, start a poll, not here but in a general forum. I think the results will surprise you, even in thie conservative arena. It is belief of this nature, that runs so contrary to reason as I see it, that makes me associate the SSPX with cultism and narrow-minded indocrination. I know hundreds of Catholics and not one I know think that Vatican II taught heresy. Take the Catechism. This is reflective of Catholicism. Where in it does it state or suggest that Vatican II taught heresy or was a lesser council? SSPX propaganda!

I’ll give the Churches teaching on religious liberty, and then quote what Vatican II taught.

Based on the quote I will give from Vatican II, most people reject what the Church has always taught. That is simply a statement of fact. And I could give many more quotes from before the council, all of which say substantially the same thing, but for the sake of time I’ll just give a few. Here is the teaching that most Catholics now reject.

The Infallible Teaching of the Church

Quanta Cura by Pope Pius IX (December 8, 1864): “Contrary to the teachings of the Holy Scriptures, of the Church, and of the holy Fathers, these persons do not hesitate to assert that ‘the best condition of human society is that wherein no duty is recognized by the government of correcting, by enacted penalties, the violators of the Catholic religion, except when the maintenance of the public peace requires it. From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, NAMELY, THAT ‘LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP IS EACH MAN’S PERSONAL RIGHT, WHICH OUGHT TO BE LEGALLY PROCLAIMED AND ASSERTED IN EVERY RIGHTLY CONSTITUTED SOCIETY; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, WHEREBY THEY MAY BE ABLE OPENLY AND PUBLICLY TO MANIFEST AND DECLARE ANY OF THEIR IDEAS WHATEVER, EITHER BY WORD OF MOUTH, BY THE PRESS, OR IN ANY OTHER WAY.’ But while they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are preaching liberty of perdition… Therefore, BY OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, WE REPROBATE, PROSCRIBE, AND CONDEMN ALL THE SINGULAR AND EVIL OPINIONS AND DOCTRINES SPECIALLY MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER, AND WILL AND COMMAND THAT THEY BE THOROUGHLY HELD BY ALL THE SONS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS REPROBATED, PROSCRIBED AND CONDEMNED

The following propositions were condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors (December 8, 1864):

“15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.” (CONDEMNED)

“55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.” (CONDEMNED_

“77. In the present day, it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.” (CONDEMNED)

Now I’ll give just one short quote from Vatican II that causes people to reject the above teachings. Maybe the following does not contradict what was written above, but most people “interpret” it as if it does. The end result is that they reject the above teachings on the basis of their interpretation of Vatican II.

Be sure to read the followng quote very closely along with the above quotes.

The Teaching of Vatican II

Dignitatis Humanae: “Therefore, the right to religious freedom has its foundation, not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligations of seeking the truth and adhering to it. “Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or written word.

“In addition, it comes within the meaning of religious freedom that religious communities should not be prohibited from freely undertaking to show the special value of their doctrine in what concerns the organization of society and the inspiration of the whole of human activity.

“This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed; thus it is to become a civil right.”

There it is. I’ll leave you to explain if the quote from Vatican II says substantiall the same thing as the above quotes from before the council.

I’m not saying I can’t interpret the two in accord with one another. I’m just saying that almost everyone who reads the above from Vatican II ends by rejecting what the Church has always taught; and ends by fully embracing what has been formally condemned.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Joysong,

In addition to the above quote from Pope Paul VI, here’s another quote from our new Pope while still a Cardinal:

**Cardinal Ratzinger: "There are many accounts of it which give the impression that, from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and that what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II. The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest (Address to the Chilean Episcopal Conference, Il Sabato 1988).

Now, the Cardinal is not saying it was a false council, or that it has no authority. He is just saying that it is being treated as if it was a new start from zero; as if all that preceeded it [such as the Syllabus or errors] has no value, or at best is only valuable “in light ot Vatican II”. He then shows how false this position is by admitting that Vatican II defined no doctrines and chose to remain on the “modest level”, as a merely a pastoral council"**

 

[Joysong]

It is very difficult to debate with someone who distorts the printed word and gives it another meaning than the one intended by the writer. To allege that the 2nd Vatican Council was therefore NOT infallible because it addressed pastoral concerns rather than dogma, is heretical and a serious matter to promote that error to others.
Pax et Caritas:

The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council.

Did the Cardinal also imply therefore, that because the nature of it was pastoral, it was not considered infallible? This is your wrong assumption, and has no basis as fact. You will need to obtain certification from Rome in order for me to believe that your truth trumps the Church because you say so.

newadvent.org/cathen/14611a.htm

Dogmatic theology establishes the Church as the depository of revealed truth and systematizes the deposit of faith which Christ entrusted to His Church to hand down to all generations; pastoral theology teaches the priest his part in this work of Catholic and Christian tradition of revealed truth. Moral theology explains the laws of God and of the Church, the means of grace and hindrances thereto;

pastoral theology teaches the practical bearing of these laws means, and hindrances upon the daily life of the priest, alone and in touch with his people. Canon law collects, correlates, and co-ordinates the laws of the Church; pastoral theology applies those laws to the care of souls. In brief, pastoral theology begins, where the other theological sciences leave off; takes the results of them all and makes these results effective for the salvation of souls through the ministry of the priesthood established by Christ.

ALL Ecumenical Councils convened by the Pope and given approbation of its decrees by him … even those that are pastoral as opposed to dogmatic … are infallible. You may disagree with the Catholic Encyclopedia and label its teaching heretical, if it suits you, but that doesn’t make it true. Nor does quoting a statement from Paul VI, Ratziner, or even John XXIII out of context, and distorting their intended meaning of the word, validate your own understanding as a more certain truth.

I encourage you to read the opening speech of the Council by Pope John XXIII who stated the purpose of the convocation:

**PRINCIPLE DUTY OF THE COUNCIL: THE DEFENSE AND ADVANCEMENT OF TRUTH **

The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that he sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously. That doctrine embraces the whole of man, composed as he is of body and soul. And, since he is a pilgrim on this earth, it commands him to tend always toward heaven.

The manner in which sacred doctrine is spread, this having been established, it becomes clear how much is expected from the Council in regard to doctrine. That is, the Twenty-first Ecumenical Council, which will draw upon the effective and important wealth of juridical, liturgical, apostolic, and administrative experiences, wishes to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion, which throughout twenty centuries, notwithstanding difficulties and contrasts, has become the common patrimony of men. It is a patrimony not well received by all, but always a rich treasure available to men of good will.

Our duty is not only to guard this precious treasure, as if we were concerned only with antiquity, but to dedicate ourselves with an earnest will and without fear to that work which our era demands of us, pursuing thus the path which the Church has followed for twenty centuries. The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.

For this a Council was not necessary.

And this is the part of his speech that opponents of the Council love to pull out of context as a pretext for their disobedience:

The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.

 

[Joysong]

Concluding, I present this statement from Pope Paul VI at the close of the Council.

Any careful observer of the council’s prevailing interest for human and temporal values cannot deny that it is from the pastoral character that the council has virtually made its program, and must recognize that the same interest is never divorced from the most genuine religious interest, whether by reason of charity, its sole inspiration (where charity is, God is!), or the council’s constant, explicit attempts to link human and temporal values with those that are specifically spiritual, religious and everlasting; its concern is with man and with earth, but it rises to the kingdom of God.

It is also important to consider the immense implications that the Catechism’s teachings present to the entire Catholic faithful. Many of the Council’s decrees have been incorporated therein. Would you have all of us believe the CCC is therefore in error and the Church has erred in promulgating it? Therefore, the Council’s decrees are infalllible, and not speculative as you would have us believe.

**THE DOCTRINAL VALUE OF THE TEXT **

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the kingdom!

This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.

www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19921011_fidei-depositum_en.html

 

[I_Believe]

So is it a combination of things ?

collegiality+ambiguity+novelty+revolutionary change = crisis ?

 

[Joysong]

Dear Pax,

Since I presented this information in the deleted thread, I won’t spend the time to isolate statements again here, but I will give the conclusions of the authors and their links.

rtforum.org/lt/lt9.html

In short, all Catholics who love and honour the Church’s Magisterium can take heart. We do not have to rest content with the none-too-reassuring position that Vatican II has not been “proven guilty” of contradicting Pope Pius IX’s Quanta Cura.

Once we read the relevant documents with due care, in the original Latin, with a correct historical understanding of what they intended by the choice of certain expressions, and bearing in mind the crucial distinction between the Church’s doctrine on the one hand, and her mutable public law on the other, only one verdict is possible: the Council is “proved innocent” of that charge.

Cardinal Levada’s recent address, that “the Council was able to discern, in its ground-breaking decree on religious liberty Dignitatis Humanae, that the acceptance of religious liberty was not a ‘canonization of relativism’, as Archbishop Lefebvre accused it of being in his path into schism”

And a third reference:

ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/LEFEBVRE.TXT

**Therefore Archbishop Lefebvre was completely without justification in his claims. **

You have been thoroughly indoctrinated with SSPX and Lefebvre’s teachings, and in your words, hope for his canonization. This tells me that further debate is futile and that you will cling steadfastly to your errors, no matter what others in the Church present to refute them. That is your right of free will, but what grieves me is that you believe your mission is to spread these errors to others in opposition to the Church. Perhaps you would have all Catholics join the SSPX.

 

[pnewton]

I’ll give the Churches teaching on religious liberty, and then quote what Vatican II taught.

I do not question your opinions, nor do I look to you as my authority. What I was questioning and actually consider absurd, was your statement that alomst everyone agrees with you that Vatican II taught heresy.

 

[Dauphin]

The Second Vatican Council did not teach heresy. It is strictly impossible for a general council to teach heresy.

However, the documents of the council are filled with ambiguities which can easily be interpreted in heretical ways (and which in practice are interpreted heretically), and Dignitatis Humanae unequivocally endorses positions (not doctrines concerning faith or morals) which have been formally condemned by Popes.

The Council went as far to the edge as possible. If the Church weren’t a Divine institution, it would have been the end of her.