If The SSPX Were Declared In Full Communion Tomorrow

[diggerdomer]

What then, determines the dogmatic authority of a thing if not the Pope? If the Pope, as successor of Peter, can’t say that a document has the binding power of Catholic dogma then no one in the Church can, right?

As regards the two Dogmatic Constitutions we’re talking about, again, I reiterate my confusion as to what dogma, exactly, was set out in them. I can’t find any dogmatic statements in them other than the term being used in the title. I think we can at least agree that this at least facially appears to confuse the issue a bit, no?

No. Both dogmatic Constitutions are just that: dogmatic. We have to consider, accept, and receive the teachings of these Dogmatic Constitutions in their entirety. There’s not just one sentence or paragraph of them that is “dogma” apart from the entire document. The entire document is exactly what the Church (the Pope, the Bishops, the Magisterium, etc.) says it is: a Dogmatic Constitution, promulgated by an Ecumenical Council.

Yes, but a council isn’t - of it’s own accord - a point of Catholic dogma that one is morally obliged to either “accept” or “reject”. Dogmatic statements put forth during the council would be binding. This is where I think the confusion lies for many Catholics in treating Vatican II as dogmatic in and of itself.

For example, I would say that I believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary (dogma declared at the Council of Trent), but I wouldn’t say that I “believe” in the Council of Trent as a point of dogma, however. That statement has no meaning.

The Immaculate Conception was proclaimed as dogma by Pope Pius IX well before Vatican I.

Anyway, Vatican I, like Vatican II and the other 19 Ecumenical Councils, are just that: Ecumenical Councils. The highest teaching authority the Church has. Catholics are obligated to assent to their teachings as taught by the Magisterium. We don’t really have the liberty to individually pick and choose which Councils or parts of Councils we accept.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t know what Sedes is, but she attends an SSPX church and that is what she is learning. I have also seen the documents and books in the gift shop at this church that also promote those teaching. If she is worried for their souls, pray for them…don’t confuse them!

By “Sedes” what is meant is sedevacantism, which is a belief that the Holy See is vacant and that the current Pope is a false pope. This is not the teaching of the SSPX and never has been. However, it is possible that an individual SSPX chapel might have attracted such people. To the extent this is present in the SSPX, one would hope that full communion might be a teaching moment for such people and they may all be brought into full communion. I fear though that some (I hope a few) will reject such a communion and be driven to more extreme groups like the SSPV rather than rejoin the Church.

 

[moon1234]

Good. We agree that SSPX rejects some of Vatican II, which is clearly an authoritative exercise of the teaching/prophetic ministry of the Magisterium. They (SSPX) see a conflict with the Catholic Church, and so they are in schism.

This is simply false. There is not a dichotomy between a Council being “ecumenical” or “pastoral.” PLEASE–READ CATHOLIC TEACHING!!!.

Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council. PERIOD!

Whether you or anyone want to classify it further as pastoral, or dogmatic, or purple…I don’t care. It is an Ecumenical Council and so its teachings carry the same authority as all the other (20) Ecumenical Councils considered such by the Catholic Church.

And if you really think Vatican II did not define any new doctrine, take a look at the DOGMATIC (do I really need to capitalize that word?) Constitution “Lumen Gentium” and what it has to say about infallibility. Clearly, Vatican II added to the definition of infallibility in ways that previous Councils and Church teaching had not. If you disagree, let me know and I will explain it more clearly (hint, check para 18-25).

Then you are failing to read and sincerely consider what I and others have posted, all referring to material from the SSPX web site vs. authentic Catholic teaching (i.e. the Magisterium).

I think you need to read a few publications by some noted authors:

From Rome, shortly after the consecrations:
“The act of consecrating a bishop (without the pope’s permission) is not itself a schismatic act,” Cardinal Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, in La Repubblica, Oct. 7, 1988)

From Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger **
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. (The Wanderer, June 22, 2000)

Me thinks you need to do some research when your views are divergent from the Popes!

 

[moon1234]

What many people are jumping thru hoops about in this long thread is very simple really.

Many of the new “teachings”, if you can call them that, of vatican II are not clear. This ambiguity allowed many to make some very liberal interpretations of said “teachings”. Many of these liberal interpretations are not in keeping with the traditional teachings of the church.

The SSPX wants clear and definitive answers as to what these “teachings” really mean and how they are in keeping with the tradition of the Church.

Previously revealed truth can not be changed in the future. This would prove that the Holy Ghost would not be present and rupture would be allowed. All new “teachings” must be seen in light of previous revealed truth. There are many examples where the liberal interpretation are in direct opposition to previous Church teaching. This would be error and is what the SSPX is pointing out as error.

The Pope or a council can not just decide to change teachings of the faith on a whim that are opposite of a previously taught truth of the church. Keep in mind that up until Vatican I the idea of papal infallibility was not codified. This what caused the spilt and which resulted in the “Old Catholic Church” schism. There are many examples thru history of Pope’s making bad decisions. The crusades come to mind, burning of witches, etc. Yet many people today want to hold everything the Pope says as infallible. The truth is that papal infallibility applies to a VERY narrow portion of anything the Pope says.

Keep in mind that Vatican II did NOT call for a new Mass (i.e The Novus Ordo). It did NOT call for the vernacular. In fact it said Latin should be preserverd along with gregorian chant. Yet we see Latin and Gregorian Chant virtually gone in the Novus Ordo. The liberals took the ambiguity of all of the “teachings” of Vatican II and used them to introduce changes which many, including the SSPX see as errors.

I am really excited about the doctrinal talks and hope a lot of it is made public. It will be very interesting reading.

 

[diggerdomer]

I think you need to read a few publications by some noted authors:

From Rome, shortly after the consecrations:
“The act of consecrating a bishop (without the pope’s permission) is not itself a schismatic act,” Cardinal Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, in La Repubblica, Oct. 7, 1988)

From Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger **
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. (The Wanderer, June 22, 2000)

Me thinks you need to do some research when your views are divergent from the Popes!

My views don’t diverge from the Popes (or did you mean Pope’s?) to my knowledge. My views likely diverge from those presented in the Wanderer. One quotation from one article does not define comprehensively how one person views Vatican II and the Church.

Methinks you need to put things in a broader context, consider the entire Tradition, teaching of the Popes, etc. (and read more than only the Wanderer).

 

[moon1234]

My views don’t diverge from the Popes (or did you mean Pope’s?) to my knowledge. My views likely diverge from those presented in the Wanderer. One quotation from one article does not define comprehensively how one person views Vatican II and the Church.

Methinks you need to put things in a broader context, consider the entire Tradition, teaching of the Popes, etc. (and read more than only the Wanderer).

If you read cardinal Ratzinger’s books you will find that he has MANY problems with Vatican II and how it was implemented. He did not even support the “New Mass”.

You are very entrenched in your Support of VII superdogma. It will do no good for people to continue to engage you in discussion. You will see any criticism of VII as an attack and respond accordingly.

 

[diggerdomer]

If you read cardinal Ratzinger’s books you will find that he has MANY problems with Vatican II and how it was implemented. He did not even support the “New Mass”.

You are very entrenched in your Support of VII superdogma. It will do no good for people to continue to engage you in discussion. You will see any criticism of VII as an attack and respond accordingly.

I respond to criticism of Vatican II the same way I respond to criticism of any teaching of the Magisterium. I don’t see a problem being “entrenched” in supporting the Church’s Magisterium. And in case it wasn’t clear, I am not talking about what came after Vatican II, I am talking about the Council itself and the documents (including especially the two Dogmatic Constitutions) that it promulgated authoritatively.

I disagree with your statement that the Pope has many problems with Vatican II. I know at the time of the Council he expressed concerns about Gaudiam et Spes, but can you offer any specific evidence that as Pope he has a problem with the Council itself or its teachings? I would really appreciate knowing what you’re referring to. I would especially appreciate any evidence you have that he does not support the (as you call it) “New Mass.”

It is obvious to many that he (and many of us) have problems with a variety of things that happened AFTER Vatican II. That’s not the issue, and not something I’ve been discussing. I am not talking about how Vatican II has been interpreted or applied…although that is of course vitally important. But for me the relevant issue to this thread’s topic is that SSPX has rejected parts of Vatican II itself (along with other subsequent undeniably authoritative teachings of the Magisterium).

You might find this article helpful:

americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11375

And, for the record, I am happy to engage in discussion.

Thanks.

 

[pnewton]

From Rome, shortly after the consecrations:
“The act of consecrating a bishop (without the pope’s permission) is not itself a schismatic act,” Cardinal Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, in La Repubblica, Oct. 7, 1988)

The Holy Father’s opinion was expressed in Ecclesia Dei. Here is the link. I do not believe in proof quotes.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

If you read cardinal Ratzinger’s books you will find that he has MANY problems with Vatican II and how it was implemented. He did not even support the “New Mass”.

I had just the opposite impression of Spirit of the Liturgy. He has a lot of positive things to say about the liturgical changes. He compared it to a fresco cleaned of whitewash revealing the brilliant colors underneath. Again, I invite anyone to get a copy of the book and read the intro. Do not take my word for it.

Yes, there are also some things he did not like about the changes. He explains well why he disapproves.

 

[I_Believe]

I don’t know what Sedes is, but she attends an SSPX church and that is what she is learning. I have also seen the documents and books in the gift shop at this church that also promote those teaching. If she is worried for their souls, pray for them…don’t confuse them!

Well, you are implying the SSPX is sedevacantist. Your initial post is very misleading. They are not Sedes.

Please read this…
sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q15_sedevacantists.htm

If you truly want to see what the fuss is all about, follow the blogs and you will see that prominent churchmen share many of the same views as the SSPX. When they express them, they don’t use quite as harsh words as the SSPX, but they are saying the same thing in many instances.

Are you aware that the 4 SSPX Bishops have had their excommunications lifted ? Are you aware they are in Doctrinal discussions with Rome as we speak ?

Traditionally, Rome does not engage in discussions on matters of Doctrine with those that have the traits you are heaping upon the Society. Yes, they have been arrogant, and yes, at times they have spoken with a lack of prudence. But when a group has had an unjust stigma thrust upon it, they tend to get a tad upset.

One of the SSPX Bishops has said the fate of the SSPX rests with the Holy See.

Are you familiar with the SSPX Rosary Crusades ?

Again, please learn all you can before attacking these holy priests. Please start here.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

When you attack the SSPX, you are indirectly hurting our Holy Father himself.

 

[diggerdomer]

When you attack the SSPX, you are indirectly hurting our Holy Father himself.

Nonsense

 

[pnewton]

When you attack the SSPX, you are indirectly hurting our Holy Father himself.

Sometimes “attacking” and “criticism” is only a matter of degree. The SSPX has made it clear that they do not consider the Holy Father above criticism, which often looks to me like attacks, so I do not see how they themselves could be above criticism.

However, I think you have a valid point in that now is not the time to be initiating any point of contention with the SSPX. Sure, answer errors as they arise, but with maximum delicacy. We must remember that the Holy See is trying to reconcile them. Let us let the Pope do what he is doing. Difficulties aplenty will arise without us manufacturing them.

 

[diggerdomer]

Sometimes “attacking” and “criticism” is only a matter of degree. The SSPX has made it clear that they do not consider the Holy Father above criticism, which often looks to me like attacks, so I do not see how they themselves could be above criticism.

However, I think you have a valid point in that now is not the time to be initiating any point of contention with the SSPX. Sure, answer errors as they arise, but with maximum delicacy. We must remember that the Holy See is trying to reconcile them. Let us let the Pope do what he is doing. Difficulties aplenty will arise without us manufacturing them.

Amen.

 

[hosemonkey]

I would certainly offer up prayers of thanksgiving. In my 5 year association with SSPX, I had only positive things to say about the Society and the Society priests that I knew. Their holiness and dedication were beyond reproach. Mostly young, zealous men who sacrificed much for their vocations. But, I arrived at the inescapable conclusion that one cannot be truly Catholic without full obedience to the Magisterium and so I ended my association with SSPX, not because I found fault with their zeal, but with their obedience. Traditional catholicism is the way of life. When they return to full communion, I will once again attend their chapels and support them wholeheartedly.

 

[John_Higgins]

Back to the original topic, I believe if the SSPX were declared in full communion tomorrow, most Catholics would neither know nor care.

I am a member of one of the largest parishes in my archdiocese. If you asked people coming out of any of our six Sunday Masses, I doubt if you would find anyone who knows what the SSPX is. Until I started hanging out at Al Kresta’s board and then here I didn’t know what the SSPX was and didn’t care. Now I’m educated about it. Now I know what the SSPX is and I still don’t care.

I firmly believe Catholics ought to be able to attend any form of the Mass (or Divine Liturgy) that the Church permits. If you want Latin, you can have Latin, just don’t make every parish have one if we don’t want it. (I know, “But if you experienced it, you’d see…”) Yeah.

If the Pope says the society does not possess a canonical position in the Church, then it doesn’t. When he says it does, then it does.

John

 

[JReducation]

If the SSPX were regularized by morning, I for one would be saying, “Thank God it’s over.” This debate, dialogue, conversation, what have you is getting old now. In the meantime, there aer so many other important issues in Church that also require attention. The amount of energy and time spent on arguing the merits of the liturgy in the EF form is almost a Catholic past time now. In the meantime, I would like to see the SSPX priests move into the world of Respect Life, the Gospel of Life, the production of a good catechetical material for young people, street ministry, houses of contemplation for religious and lay people, work along with toher priests and religious convert Catholics to a life of prayer, penance and the perfection of charity and feed the hungry.

The Liturgy is essential, but you can’t focus on it 24/7 to the exclusion of all else. As the bishops said when speaking about abortion, any evangelization that places the horror of abortion in seond place is lacking. The sacrifice of Calvary and the Gospel of Life must be together. So far, I see a lot of talk about the mass and little about the Gospel of Life.

So, if the SSPX came back in the morning, in full communion, I would say thank God it’s over and we can now get back to the business of living out the mystery of the Eucharist in all of its fulness, horizontal and vertical.

Br. JR, OSF

 

[I_Believe]

Sometimes “attacking” and “criticism” is only a matter of degree. The SSPX has made it clear that they do not consider the Holy Father above criticism, which often looks to me like attacks, so I do not see how they themselves could be above criticism.

However, I think you have a valid point in that now is not the time to be initiating any point of contention with the SSPX. Sure, answer errors as they arise, but with maximum delicacy. We must remember that the Holy See is trying to reconcile them. Let us let the Pope do what he is doing. Difficulties aplenty will arise without us manufacturing them.

I agree.

But some folks forget there are plenty of Bishops who have taken the liberty to criticize the Pope. There are only 4 SSPX Bishops. The number increases tenfold, or more, if we include the non-SSPX Bishops.

I agree, the Pope is dealing with it. We should wait and pray this comes to an end.

 

[I_Believe]

If the SSPX were regularized by morning, I for one would be saying, “Thank God it’s over.” This debate, dialogue, conversation, what have you is getting old now. In the meantime, there aer so many other important issues in Church that also require attention. The amount of energy and time spent on arguing the merits of the liturgy in the EF form is almost a Catholic past time now. In the meantime, I would like to see the SSPX priests move into the world of Respect Life, the Gospel of Life, the production of a good catechetical material for young people, street ministry, houses of contemplation for religious and lay people, work along with toher priests and religious convert Catholics to a life of prayer, penance and the perfection of charity and feed the hungry.

The Liturgy is essential, but you can’t focus on it 24/7 to the exclusion of all else. As the bishops said when speaking about abortion, any evangelization that places the horror of abortion in seond place is lacking. The sacrifice of Calvary and the Gospel of Life must be together. So far, I see a lot of talk about the mass and little about the Gospel of Life.

So, if the SSPX came back in the morning, in full communion, I would say thank God it’s over and we can now get back to the business of living out the mystery of the Eucharist in all of its fulness, horizontal and vertical.

Br. JR, OSF

Yes it is getting old. Despite the dissidence, there is indeed good to be found in the conciliar Church.

If an agreement is reached though, there still leaves one important factor. The major SSPX benefactors. Just as we should let the Pope deal with the Society, the benefactors must let their Bishops deal with Rome.

The SSPX Bishops have to please those they’ve been fighting for, and also the Holy See. If an agreement is made, and some Society clergy bolt, then we will see true schism. Let’s pray the benefactors don’t encourage that.

What I’ve just said won’t be popular with some SSPX supporters, but it remains a concern nonetheless.

 

[I_Believe]

I would certainly offer up prayers of thanksgiving. In my 5 year association with SSPX, I had only positive things to say about the Society and the Society priests that I knew. Their holiness and dedication were beyond reproach. Mostly young, zealous men who sacrificed much for their vocations. But, I arrived at the inescapable conclusion that one cannot be truly Catholic without full obedience to the Magisterium and so I ended my association with SSPX, not because I found fault with their zeal, but with their obedience. Traditional catholicism is the way of life. When they return to full communion, I will once again attend their chapels and support them wholeheartedly.

A sensible stance. If we have a strong Faith, and are orthodox, we can weather the storm.

 

[I_Believe]

Nonsense

Then you are ignoring H.H’s own words. If you are ok with that, rave on.

 

[JReducation]

Then you are ignoring H.H’s own words. If you are ok with that, rave on.

Wait a minute. Let’s slow down here. Pope Benedict never said or implied that an attack on the SSPX was an attack on him, not if you’re referring to his letter to the bishops after the excommunications were lifted. What he said was that he was shocked that he was attacked when he lifted the excommunications. He also admitted that he did not know about Bishop Williamson’s comments to the press about the Shoah. He didn’t say that he would not have lifted the excommunication anyway. But he did say that he was attacked because of Williamson’s position and the lifting of the excommunication and that he had been hurt by such attacks. But the attacks came because some felt that the Holy Father had acted knowingly or that he should have known about Williamson.

The Holy Father also said that it is not right to target one group of people, in this case the Society. But he did not say that the Society is right. He protected their right to be treated with charity. However, he went on to say that they have no legal status in the Church. He has been their strongest critic by saying that they do not exercise legitimate ministry in the Catholic Church. He has been their strongest hardliner when he says that they have to submit to obedience. He has been their strongest hardliner when he says that they have to take the step toward Rome, not the other way around. When he said that lifting the excommunication was done as an act of mercy toward the bishops of the society who expressed how much they were suffering as a result, he is not being flattering.

We have to be careful to take his words at face value. He wants to Society to be regularized. He is against targeting them and bullying them and so should we all be. But he also throws some major responsibilities for this mess in their direction by denying their claim that they were treated unjustly and by denying that they do have faculties to celebrate marriages and absolve from sin. He refuses to agree with the Society that they are legal.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF