If The SSPX Were Declared In Full Communion Tomorrow

[I_Believe]

Perhaps some people missed it as it was not in the OP. I did comment on it in post 9.

FYI - I read it months ago when it came out.

fair enough, here it is again for those who have not read it.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

 

[pnewton]

To the OP:

If the SSPX makes an ‘agreement’ with Rome Jimmy Akin (and a lot of Catholic Answers staff) would be out of a job.

Why? They are employed by neither the Church or the SSPX.

 

[diggerdomer]

Right. And what Catholic doctrine are they denying/diverging from? Either I’m really stupid or there’s not actually any issues of doctrine listed there.

I think there must be a third choice (or more), I don’t accept your either/or.

 

[Onegin]

I think there must be a third choice (or more), I don’t accept your either/or.

I think it was intended more as a prompt for you to quickly list one or two points of doctrine at issue. I wasn’t seeing a reference to anything on that page other than questions about family life, cultural questions, questions about attendance at the Novus Ordo Mass/FFSP TLM and Vatican II/modernism matters.

I was hoping you could point me to the specifics.

 

[diggerdomer]

I think it was intended more as a prompt for you to quickly list one or two points of doctrine at issue. I wasn’t seeing a reference to anything on that page other than questions about family life, cultural questions, questions about attendance at the Novus Ordo Mass/FFSP TLM and Vatican II/modernism matters.

I was hoping you could point me to the specifics.

How about rejecting teachings of Vatican II, rejecting the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and rejecting the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Read the links on their page.

 

[Ottaviani]

How about rejecting teachings of Vatican II, rejecting the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and rejecting the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Read the links on their page.

Holy polemics batman!
I’ve read their page, none of your contentions are true. maybe you should read their page before making such accusations.

1. they don’t reject the teachings of Vatican II, they explain how the council was hijacked AND fact that it’s a pastoral council. You don’t need to “accept or reject” a pastoral council.
2. they don’t reject the 1983 code either, they criticize it, but accept it. Show me where they say “we reject the 1983 code”
3. I suppose here you are referring to the “new” Catechism. Just so we’re clear, the “new” Catechism did not supplant or replace traditional teaching. therefore there is NO error in following traditional teaching aka Baltimore, Trent.

What else ya got?

 

[diggerdomer]

1. they don’t reject the teachings of Vatican II, they explain how the council was hijacked AND fact that it’s a pastoral council. You don’t need to “accept or reject” a pastoral council.

To claim an ecumenical Council of the Church (the highest teaching authority the Church has) was “hijacked” is to reject the Council, its teachings, and of course the Magisterium. From their page (which yes of course I read…did you?) they state “Council’s decrees, constitutions, and declarations, contain, more or less explicitly, some of the same doctrinal errors” – i.e. they claim an ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church contains doctrinal errors. And, they state “…we refuse …to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which became clearly manifest during the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it. (Declaration of Archbishop Lefebvre” – in other words, again, they refuse to follow the Catholic Church. Did you not read that passage either?

1. they don’t reject the 1983 code either, they criticize it, but accept it. Show me where they say “we reject the 1983 code”

The continue their attack on the Magisterium (specifically, Vatican II) in this section as well:

"But Vatican II adulterated Catholic teaching.

We must, therefore, suspect the new legislation of codifying the same errors and so be ready not to accept all its “laws,” [PRINCIPLE 9] but only those which do not evidently compromise Catholic teaching on faith or morals."

In other words, they are the judges of what parts of Canon Law to follow. It’s not up to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church (Pope John Paul II and all legitimate Bishops at the time of the Code’s promulgation). Again, how do you read/interpret such passages otherwise? Where did John Paul II, when he promulgated the Code (again, an exercise of the authentic Magisterium of the Catholic Church) state that it was a suggestion, or optional, or could be followed based on individual interpretation apart from the Church?

Again, from their web site, they continue to enumerate “errors” in the Code and opine that “These are but the most grave deficiencies; other defective points include the following:”

Is there a real difference between their identifying “errors” and saying they reject it?

1. I suppose here you are referring to the “new” Catechism. Just so we’re clear, the “new” Catechism did not supplant or replace traditional teaching. therefore there is NO error in following traditional teaching aka Baltimore, Trent.

There is error, though, in NOT following the Catechism.

Here is what the SSPX web site states:

Conservatives defend the Catechism of the Catholic Church for its re-affirmation of teachings silenced or denied by out rightly modernist catechisms; the Society rejects it though because it is an attempt to formalize and propagate the teachings of Vatican II.

Note well: “the society rejects it”

Here is what Pope John Paul II stated when he promulgated the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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.

You can choose whom to follow. The Pope and Bishops of the Catholic Church, the Magisterium, including all ecumenical councils and catechisms and canon law…or a group like SSPX. You are free to choose.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

Why? They are employed by neither the Church or the SSPX.

Ummm… Jimmy Akin tends to make his living attacking traditional Catholics and/or traditional Catholic issues these days as does several other CA staffers… just thought I would let you know…

 

[I_Believe]

The continue their attack on the Magisterium (specifically, Vatican II) in this section as well:

"But Vatican II adulterated Catholic teaching. We must, therefore, suspect the new legislation of codifying the same errors and so be ready not to accept all its “laws,” [PRINCIPLE 9] but only those which do not evidently compromise Catholic teaching on faith or morals."

Fair enough, it looks like the Society is taking some liberty here. At face value, yes. But what of this ?..

The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life. vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

Those are the words of the Bishop of Rome. Isn’t it clear by the words** “but only those which do not evidently compromise Catholic teaching on faith or morals.”**, that the Society is NOT rejecting the post -VII Magisterium ? Only the errors ?

Again, "

But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.

Aren’t the Society and our Holy Father saying the same thing ?

 

[I_Believe]

Those are the words of the Bishop of Rome. Isn’t it clear by the words** “but only those which do not evidently compromise Catholic teaching on faith or morals.”**, that the Society is NOT rejecting the post -VII Magisterium ? Only the errors ?

I’d like to clarify, by errors I mean those born of the misinterpretation of VII and the liberties taken per the ambiguous documents.

 

[I_Believe]

Just a couple of years ago we were asking what if the Pope allowed EVERY priest to say the TLM with or without his bishop’s consent; the consensus was that SSPX would then be fully reconciled. Then we were asking what if the excommunications were lifted, and the consensus was that SSPX would then be fully reconciled. Now what does the Pope have to say that will allow SSPX to flourish without opposition? I don’t think there’s anything that the Pope or Vatican can say that will declare them in full communion. Why? Because that would upset too many bishops and others not necessarily Catholic. That’s the sad reality.

Yes it is sad, and that’s the whole point of my op. I just wish everyone would get off their backs. I don’t have the link bookmarked, but one of the SSPX Bishops, while being interviewed after the excommunications were lifted, said that (paraphrasing here) " We will now enter Doctrinal discussions, and our status will then be determined by the Holy See"

Wolves will howl if the Society is regularized, but their cries will be nothing compared to the roaring scream of Satan.

Vade retro Satana!

 

[TMC]

I get your reservations about the whole licitness/jurisdiction issue but this statement confounds me. I’m not aware of any issues where the SSPX diverges with Catholic doctrine.

Could you quickly provide a couple of examples as this is one of the statements I often see but never really have heard clarified.

The SSPX is very up-front about them: sspx.org/sspxfaqs.htm (e.g. see questions 5-8, 14)

Right. And what Catholic doctrine are they denying/diverging from? Either I’m really stupid or there’s not actually any issues of doctrine listed there.

Holy polemics batman!
I’ve read their page, none of your contentions are true. maybe you should read their page before making such accusations.

1. they don’t reject the teachings of Vatican II, they explain how the council was hijacked AND fact that it’s a pastoral council. You don’t need to “accept or reject” a pastoral council.
2. they don’t reject the 1983 code either, they criticize it, but accept it. Show me where they say “we reject the 1983 code”
3. I suppose here you are referring to the “new” Catechism. Just so we’re clear, the “new” Catechism did not supplant or replace traditional teaching. therefore there is NO error in following traditional teaching aka Baltimore, Trent.

What else ya got?

I’d like to clarify, by errors I mean those born of the misinterpretation of VII and the liberties taken per the ambiguous documents.

This exchange captures the issues I was referring to. The SSPX diverges from Catholic teaching in several important areas. Covering Ottavani’s last, and then a few other points in no particular order:

1. SSPX rejects the teaching of the Church most explicitly by declaring that Vatican II is not binding on the faithful. SSPX adopts the completely unsupportable position that because Vatican II was convened for pastoral purposes, rather than to refute a particular heresy or some other purpose, it is somehow not a “real” council, not binding, not authoritative or whatever. Vatican II was a validly convened ecumenical council attended by a larger number of bishops, and probably a larger percentage of bishops, than any ecumenical council in history. It has the exact same authority as any other council.
2. The Canon Law point is much less important to me, but is very important to many of the more legalistic minded. SSPX apparently accepts most of the new Canon Law, but there website does say that parts of Canon 844, 1055 and 336 “must be rejected”
3. The SSPX certainly seem to reject big chunks of the Catechism. The new catechism doesn’t supplant Trent or the Baltimore catechism exactly. But the new catechism is the true teaching of the Catholic Church. It is the only official Church-wide catechism. To the extent that there appears to be a conflict with either Trent or Baltimore, the teaching of the Catechism (i.e. the “new” 1992 catechism) is controlling. If following the other catechisms leads one to believe the 1992 catechism is wrong - then that teaching is leading that person into error.

A few additional specifics:

1. One of the main areas that SSPX appears to diverge from Church doctine is in rejecting that christians faiths that are seperated from the formal structure of the Catholic Church can retain some elements of sanctity. The Church teaches that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, but that other faiths can be connected to Christ and His Chuch in mysterious ways that we do not fully understand.
2. SSPX rejects collegiality - the idea that each of the bishops has teaching authority and that the bishops gathered in college have authority. This is a bizarre thing for “traditionalists” to deny because it is clear from even a rudimentary study of Church history that this is an ancient belief of the Church, and also because the principle of collegiality is the source of much of the leniency granted to dissenters like Archbishop Lefebvre in decades after Vatican II.
3. Perhaps in many ways most important, the SSPX rejects much of the teaching of the Church by denying the inherent dignity of all men. They teach that man only has dignity if he has accepted the Grace of God - so only Catholics really have dignity. This is a monumental error, and leads to many other errors. This is the real source of the schism, in my opinion, because it is the source of the rejection of much of the Church’s social justice teaching, of ecumenism, and it allows some to fall back into anti-Semitism and other errors.

There is more, but that should suffice.

Tom

 

[diggerdomer]

Aren’t the Society and our Holy Father saying the same thing ?

I don’t think so. The society rejects more than post-Vatican II errors, they reject parts of Vatican II itself as erroneous. Also, as I’ve pointed out from their own web site, some of the “errors” they reject post-Vatican II are authoritative, binding teachings of the Magisterium (e.g. the Catechism, Canon Law).

 

[tcm22]

I don’t think so. The society rejects more than post-Vatican II errors, they reject parts of Vatican II itself as erroneous. Also, as I’ve pointed out from their own web site, some of the “errors” they reject post-Vatican II are authoritative, binding teachings of the Magisterium (e.g. the Catechism, Canon Law).

The distinction between rejection of Vatican II vs just the rejection of its “errors” is really irrelevant since the SSPX seems to reserve the right to determine what constitutes “error.”

This is the root of the problem. Like Luther and many others, they have set themselves up as an independent authority to determine Truth. It’s easy to claim allegiance to the Church when you reserve the right to label what you reject as not part of the Church. This is really no different than those Catholics who claim to adhere to the faith but claim the right to dissent on issues like contraception, abortion, or the role of women in the Church.

Unfortunately, the record is quite clear that Catholics must accept all the teachings of VII as authoritative, the OF Mass is intrinsically valid, and SSPX clergy do not have faculties yet continue to offer sacraments.

 

[Onegin]

How about rejecting teachings of Vatican II, rejecting the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and rejecting the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Read the links on their page.

Digger, to clarify, the SSPX doesn’t reject the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and the issues they have with the current CCC are those parts that deal with the Vatican II influence. Ultimately, the only thing that the SSPX outright “rejects” are two documents of Vatican II, insomuch as they see a conflict with Catholic tradition in those documents.

All of that said, I need to underscore the fact that Vatican II did not define or create any new Catholic doctrine (which is why many consider it a pastoral rather than an ecumenical council). Rejecting all or part of the Vatican II documents is not rejecting Catholic doctrine as there was no doctrine defined or created at Vatican II to reject in the first place.

Now, that said, I’m still failing to see what points of Catholic doctrine the SSPX rejects.

 

[TMC]

Digger, to clarify, the SSPX doesn’t reject the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and the issues they have with the current CCC are those parts that deal with the Vatican II influence. Ultimately, the only thing that the SSPX outright “rejects” are two documents of Vatican II, insomuch as they see a conflict with Catholic tradition in those documents.

All of that said, I need to underscore the fact that Vatican II did not define or create any new Catholic doctrine (which is why many consider it a pastoral rather than an ecumenical council). Rejecting all or part of the Vatican II documents is not rejecting Catholic doctrine as there was no doctrine defined or created at Vatican II to reject in the first place.

Now, that said, I’m still failing to see what points of Catholic doctrine the SSPX rejects.

Vatican II did not create any Catholic doctrine, but it did **define **Catholic doctrine, particularly in Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Church.

 

[tcm22]

Digger, to clarify, the SSPX doesn’t reject the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and the issues they have with the current CCC are those parts that deal with the Vatican II influence. Ultimately, the only thing that the SSPX outright “rejects” are two documents of Vatican II, insomuch as they see a conflict with Catholic tradition in those documents.

All of that said, I need to underscore the fact that Vatican II did not define or create any new Catholic doctrine (which is why many consider it a pastoral rather than an ecumenical council). Rejecting all or part of the Vatican II documents is not rejecting Catholic doctrine as there was no doctrine defined or created at Vatican II to reject in the first place.

Now, that said, I’m still failing to see what points of Catholic doctrine the SSPX rejects.

Whatever the specific doctrinal disputes may be, it’s clear from the Holy Father’s March 09 letter that doctrinal disputes are the issue. We can argue theoretical points, but the matter has pretty much been settled. Not much argument here.

As long as the Fraternity does not possess a canonical position in the Church, its officials do not exercise legitimate offices in the Church. One has therefore to distinguish between disciplinary level affecting the persons as persons, and the level of doctrine, at which office and institution are concerned. To say it once again: As long as the doctrinal issues are not resolved, the Fraternity has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers, even if they are free from ecclesiastical censure, do not exercise in a legitimate way any ministry in the Church.

Given this situation, I intend to connect the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”, which since 1988 is responsible for those communities and individuals who, coming from the Fraternity of Pius X or similar groups, want to return into full communion with the Pope, in the future with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This shall make it clear that the problems now being treated are essentially doctrinal in nature, especially those concerning the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the postconciliar Magisterium of the Popes./QUOTE]

The SSPX and its supports can argue all day that VII was just pastoral and they are at liberty to reject this or that teaching. Despite the lifting of the excommunications, it’s clear from the Pope’s letter that the SSPX is still a long way off the reservation.

 

[ProVobis]

To the OP:

If the SSPX makes an ‘agreement’ with Rome Jimmy Akin (and a lot of Catholic Answers staff) would be out of a job.

And a lot of bishops would threaten schism again.

 

[ProVobis]

No one…individuals, or groups…who publicly defy and undermine Church teachings should be considered in full communion. That’s really my whole point.

But the SSPX are to the same degree of communion as any other Catholic (group).

Their priestly functions have been suspended, though not invalidated. Or are we arguing semantics about their degree of communion? Half, 3/4, 7/8?

 

[white_sheep]

May God bless them all and may the talks be short and the celebration long!

Maybe just a few more months.