Must We Believe All VCII Documents?

[itsjustdave1988]

The use of Latin does not fall under infallibility… Matters of practice, discipline, etc do not fall under infallibility.

At risk of sounding like a broken record, see here:

Pope Pius VI’s condemns the proposition that ecclesiastical disciplines can be “useless and burdensome … dangerous and harmful.” His condemnation reads as follows:

The prescription of the synod [of Pistoia] … it adds, “in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burdensome for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstituion and materialism”; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,–false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.

(Pius VI, cited in Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, translated by Roy F. Deferari from the 13th ed. Of Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, 1954, Loreto Publications, 2nd printing, 2004, pg. 393)]

The current liturgy therefore, cannot be dangerous or harmful to the faithful.

From the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia article entitled “Ecclesiastical Discipline”, under the heading “DISCIPLINARY INFALLIBILITY”.
newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm

Disciplinary Infallibility] has, however, found a place in all recent treatises on the Church (De Ecclesiâ}. The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favour of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility, inasmuch as in her general discipline, i. e. the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact. If well understood this thesis is undeniable; it amounts to saying that the Church does not and cannot impose practical directions contradictory of her own teaching.

---

And from P. Hermann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae (4th ed., Rome: Della Pace, 1908), vol. 1, p. 258:

“The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments. . . .

“If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.”

---

 

[Marie]

Scholastic:

Only two of the 16 documents are infallible and they are not part of the extraordinary magisterium, they are part of the ordinary magisterium since they only repeat what has always been taught. Since 14 of the documents are not dogmatic constitutions they may contain errors and erroneous prudential judgements.

Mind sharing with us where you came up with that little Gem.

 

[tru_dvotion]

… in my town one can attend the Traditional Latin Mass in accord with the 1962 Roman Missal, offered by an obedient priest of the FSSP

• Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Petri. It is offered everyday and twice on Sunday.

Here is the link:
http://www.fssp.org/en/index.htm

In Canada there are only 2 cities that offer Traditional Latin mass, on either side of this vast country; in Toronto or in Vancouver. This means a rather long drive to mass for most of us. The closest to me is 5 hours drive away through a pass that is sometimes impassable during the winter.

 

[Antonio_B]

Scholastic:

Only two of the 16 documents are infallible and they are not part of the extraordinary magisterium, they are part of the ordinary magisterium since they only repeat what has always been taught. Since 14 of the documents are not dogmatic constitutions they may contain errors and erroneous prudential judgements.

Wow, are you sure of the latter part of your statement? I’m sitting here stunned at such remark. I’m about to use oxygen to recuperate!

Antonio

 

[Iohannes]

For a short and quick answer.

No, not everything in Vatican II is infalliable. Usually when something is infallible, something is stated and restated over again.

 

[Iohannes]

Vatican II may be a failure, and yes there has been failed councils in the past but it does not mean it was wrong or taught error.

It seems now a days no one can find a correct implementation of Vatican II. If there was a correct implementation of Vatican II, those folks are not doing a good job and unless they do a good job, the council will probally fail.

 

[kmktexas]

At worse, I am a bad Catholic, not a schismatic Catholic. I am someone who may be likened to a Catholic who, in the old days, disobediently ignored the Church discipline by eating hamburgers on Friday, right? – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic 9/18/04

The analogy is troubling because in the “old days” deliberately ignoring the church’s rules for Friday abstinance was considered seriously sinful. So are you saying that “at worst” you are committing grave sin? If so, a label such as “schismatic” should be the least of your concerns.

 

[mtr01]

I have to confess I’m a little confused about the reference to the “latin Mass” being discussed in this thread. Are we talking about the Novus Ordo Mass in Latin or the Tridentine Mass? As far I know, while the vernacular was permitted after V2, there was nothing to eliminate the use of Latin, so, as others have said, any priest in any parish can say the Mass in Latin (provided appropriate missal(ettes) are provided of course).

As for the Tridentine (pre-V2) Mass. The Pope, in *Ecclesia Dei * has continued to promote this Mass being said for those Catholics who desire it. Granted, there’s the whole issue of the schismatics, but under Papal dispensation and approval of the bishop, this Mass may be legally said. Here in the Archdiocese of Baltimore, we have one Church (St. Alphonsus Liguori) which preserves the Tridentine Mass on Sundays and days of obligation (with high Mass on the 1st and 3rd Sundays, for those reading this from my archdiocese ). I’m not sure if the priests are members of the FSSP (it’s done under the auspices of the Gregorian Society of Maryland), but it has the approval of Cardinal Keeler, and is in full communion with Rome.

If anyone would like to go to a legal Tridentine Mass (no associated with SSPX or any other schismatic group), you could check out the Una Voce website (unavoce.org/). It has a listing of the various chapters in the country. There you can find out if a legal Tridentine Mass is offered in your area.

 

[albert_cipriani]

tru_dvotion:

You problem is: you belong to schismatic group, formerly headed by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who illicitly consecrated bishops against the expressed instructions of the Roman Pontiff. They refuse to submit in obedience to the Holy Father. This is what makes you schismatic, not partaking in the Latin Mass.

So by receiving the sacraments from schismatics, I am turned into a schismatic? Is a schism like a contagious disease, they touch you and you’ve got it?

If, as you say, partaking in the Latin Mass is NOT what makes me schismatic, how did I become one just by partaking in the Latin Mass offered by schismatics? Since I can only partake of the Latin Mass from schismatics, is not your distinction without a difference? – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

 

[albert_cipriani]

itsjustdave1988:

You seem to be suggesting we are only bound to infallible dogmas. That’s incorrect. We owe our religious assent to all teachings of the magisterium, so we have to take them all “seriously.”

Please explain the difference between being bound to obey and being bound to “owe our relgious assent”? Aren’t those just two ways of saying the same thing?

Using your terminology, do I owe religious assent to all VCII documents? If so, how do I assent to the VCII document that commands Latin to be retained in the Mass when no Mass within 60 miles of me retains any Latin?

What can my “religious assent” mean if I cannot act on it? If I act on it by attending Traditional Latin Masses, why am I considered a schismatic by most Catholics? – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

http://www.geocities.com/albert_cipriani/index.html

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligiousPhilosophy/

 

[tru_dvotion]

albert cipriani
So by receiving the sacraments from schismatics, I am turned into a schismatic? Is a schism like a contagious disease, they touch you and you’ve got it?

You are. You have separated yourself from the Church and joined a sect.

Since I can only partake of the Latin Mass from schismatics, is not your distinction without a difference?

This is an untrue statement. There are Novus Ordo masses in the vernacular in every community and in some places also in Latin. It is entirely your choice to partake in a schismatic mass, it is not a necessity.

Besides what makes you schismatic is not the mass you are attending. You left the one fold and you do not recognize its head. That is what makes you a schismatic. The mass you are attending is only the symptom. Your sickness is that for all intensive purposes you abandoned your faith and you left the Church. Your sect is no different from any other Protestant sect. In fact your group is worse than Luther was. He at least had some reasons to object. You do not.

 

[Scholastic]

Mind telling us where you came up with that gem

Well, let’s see. 14 of the documents are fallible, and so can contain errors (that’s what fallible means). However, if a document repeats certain things that are part of the ordinary magisterium of the church they are infallible not because they are in these fallible documents but because they are part of the ordinary magisterium. However, when fallible documents make statements that are not part of the ord. mag. they can be false. For instance, when Gaudium et Spes praises sports for its power to unite man, we don’t have to accept such an assessment, and such an assessment could be false. Don’t you agree? When the document on priestly formation says that seminarians must first study the church fathers and then Aquinas, instead of the opposite, we do not have to agree with that either. Do we?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

On top of priests having the right to say the Novus Ordo in Latin, I remember having read that other changes introduced into the Mass were never actually codified in the missal. I’m sure I’ve read a priest saying that ad orientem is still a valid option. Anyone who knows the missal better feel free to chime in on other options still available within the Novus Ordo.

 

[deogratias]

I’m sure I’ve read a priest saying that ad orientem is still a valid option

It is - and OPTIONS are probably the greater difference in the pre and post Vatican II Church. There were more “absolute” laws prior to Vatican II.

Infallible teachings are one thing, canon law another by the way, and what the Pope says is the law is the law today - except for infallible teachings which he can’t change and the commandments which he cannot break or ignore. But everything else can and may be changed by a future pope if that is his desire to do so. All indults could be cancelled, new ones could be written - all that is familiar now could change again - so all our discussions in the end are academic, especially with the prospect that we will be having a new Pope in the not too distant future.

We, the faithful, must obey all laws of the Church.

Being loyal to the Pope means we know he has absolute power in all matters, infallible or not. If he pronounces one is in schism they are.

In my files on SSPX, I noted this I had saved, written by a priest in explaining the SSPX to someone and it particularly helped me understand the law of the Church in regard to the authority of the Pope.

in the Catholic Church, the Pope is the law, simply put.** He writes it, he interprets it, and quite frankly, he can break it** (he can break the rules of canon law, since he wrote them) and there is no tribunal and no legal force that “invalidates” his actions. Of course, he still has to follow the 10 commandments, or like us, he will fall into grave sin.

But as bad as it sounds, the Pope can punish anyone, he can sanction anyone, at any time, for whatever reason, and he is not obligated to follow diddly squat.

I’m going to get comical, but let me give you an example. The Pope can look at my picture on the internet and say, “that priest is ugly as sin. He is so ugly, I’m going to suspend him for ugliness.” The Pope can scribble my suspension on a bathroom wall in the Vatican and guess what? I could argue all day that I’m not that ugly after all, that I don’t deserve to be suspended, that various procedures of canon law did not get followed. I could protest till the cows came home. But I would still be suspended.

"

So it is with the SSPX and schism, they can argue canon law and that they don’t deserve to be in schism and that certain things in canon law were not followed, etc. etc. but he has said they are in schism and so they are. Period.

So we can as he says protest and argue what is and is not infallible, what canon law says, what this or that said before this or that but the bottom line is the Pope is the law, is now, always has been. If we don’t accept that, guess what, that makes us sedevacants. The seat of Peter is just that - the Primacy of Peter, the law of the Catholic Church.

 

[Iohannes]

As for attending a SSPX Chapel:
by Monsginor Perl:

unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm

1.) The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated.

2.) Concretely this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to the law of the Church.

Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was “Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass” and our response was:

“1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X.”

His second question was “Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass” and we responded stating:

“2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.”

His third question was: “Is it a sin for me to contribute to the Sunday collection a Pius X Mass” to which we responded:

“3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified.”

 

[albert_cipriani]

Albert wrote: “At worse, I am a bad Catholic, not a schismatic Catholic.”

Dave Wrote:

itsjustdave1988:
There’s a place in hell for bad Catholics as well as schismatic Catholics. God Bless, Dave

Dear Dave,

Aren’t you being contradictory by blessing me and passing an anathema upon me in the same sentence?

Didn’t our Lady show the children of Fatima (who are now canonized saints) the place in hell that was reserved for them? Wouldn’t this indicate that there’s a place in hell not only for bad Catholics but for good Catholics if they don’t stay good?

Do you not admit to being a bad Catholic even though the bible tells us that we all sin and fall short of the glory of God? Isn’t it true with all the saints that the more pious they became, the more aware they became of how bad they were? If you don’t feel that you are a bad Catholic, then shouldn’t that make you doubt your piety and humility and honesty? – Cheers, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

 

[Fr.JLT]

:tiphat: Hello, All! I love that icon. Wish the hat were a Biretta, though.

We have to remember that Vatican II was a Pastoral COuncil in its thrust, not a dogmatic one. In fact, since there werent’ really major dogmatic disputes at the time (such as there were with most if not all other councils), it presumes Trent and the other councils are in force, and that a later updating of the Catechism (which has happened) would deal with that.

In terms of Sacrosanctum Concillium, I remarked on this in another forum. There are so many contradictions within the document, most anythig is justifiable. I call it an appeasement document that gives voioce to every mindset and ilk at the same time. FOr instance, it clearly states that nothing in th Massis to be changed, even by the priest. At another point, it commands the priest to be very conscious about “engaging” the congregation. The same is true with the use of the Vernacular and Latin, with Gregorian Chant and Contemporary music, with the organ and other instruments. So basically, anything goes. If you want Latin and only Latin in the Mass, you can defend your point using SC. If you want NO Latin in the Mass, you can also use SC. If you want a strictly-by-the-book celebration of the Mass, it’s entirely defensible in SC, as well as clown Masses, Sirster Mary Elephant dancing about the Sanctuary in a Tutu, and shuffleboard.

Therefore, it can be said that, in most cases, what one would consider to be an “abuse” in the Mass, isn’t really an abuse since somehow, SC could be used to defend it. (And this isn’t even considering the post-conciliar liturgical documents). Inanother forum, it was stated that anyone who thinks there were no abuses before the Novus Ordo is blind. That’s absolutely true. However, under the rubrics of 1962, the abuses were not defensible. Under the Novus Ordo documentation, they are defensible and, hence, dispense with any abuses. Essentially, anything becomes a proper use.

I am currently writing a book on the matter directly. Supposedly, it will be the first book by a parish priest who actually lives in the world, serves a real-life parish and actually celebrates the Mass on a daily basis. Incidentally, I offer a licit and kosher 1962 Mass as well.

In terms of the Pius X society, there isn’t much possitive that I could say. After even dispensing with Canon Law, jumping thorugh hoops and doing handstands in a way that no Pope has ever done for any schismatic group, they decided to go their own way anyway. When they could have stayed in union with the Catholic Church and allowed a rejuvination of the Tridentine Rite legitimately, they split. They shot themselves and their own Mother in the foot by doing so. I am a strong defender of the Tridentine Rite and Ecclesia Dei. I have very strong theological problems with the Novus Ordo, about which I am writing a book that is sure to get me into some hot water. But, at the same time, “It is obedience I ask,” Scripture says over and over again. We must first love the Church and her liturgies, for in them, heaven is wedded to earth and the only satisfactory sacrifice to the Father for the propitiation of our sins is continued. Choosing a schismatic group over the True Church because “they do it the way I like it” is nothing short of damnable pride. There is nothing different between this mindset and motivation than from the far lefties and their “I’m a Catholic but . . .” positions. I don’t see any other way through the eyes of Scripture to see this trainwreck. And as I’ve also said so many times before, “Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesiam” Where there is Peter, there is the Church. In the converse, where there is not Peter, ie, where the Papacy is disobeyed/unwelcomed/rejected, there is NOT the Church. The Piux X Society is not Catholic, any more than other schismatic groups with valid succession, many of whom also claim to be Catholic.

– Fr. L.

 

[deogratias]

Albert

There were 3 years when I could only pray for a licit TLM in my Diocese but I never took the road to attend Schismatic Masses instead because I knew that was in disobedience to the Church

Since I can

only partake of the Latin Mass from schismatics, is not your distinction without a difference?

Do you mean can or will - this would imply the only Mass offered is a schismatic one.

Do you really mean “I refuse to attend any Mass that is not a Latin Mass and the only Latin Mass is a Schismatic one”?

I suspect it is the latter statement, one which implies personal preference over obedience to Holy Mother Church and for that reason, I, a true Traditional Catholic, obedient to the Church and fortunate enough to be able now to attend an Indult Mass, resent your use of the word Traditional Catholic - it leaves the rest of us obedient Traditional Catholics open to constant criticism and does nothing to promote the Traditional Latin Mass.

.

 

[deogratias]

Dear Fr. L

Here is a Biretta for you

o{]:>)

 

[katolik]

:tiphat: Hello, All! I love that icon. Wish the hat were a Biretta, though.

…

Therefore, it can be said that, in most cases, what one would consider to be an “abuse” in the Mass, isn’t really an abuse since somehow, SC could be used to defend it. (And this isn’t even considering the post-conciliar liturgical documents). Inanother forum, it was stated that anyone who thinks there were no abuses before the Novus Ordo is blind. That’s absolutely true. However, under the rubrics of 1962, the abuses were not defensible. Under the Novus Ordo documentation, they are defensible and, hence, dispense with any abuses. Essentially, anything becomes a proper use.

I am currently writing a book on the matter directly. Supposedly, it will be the first book by a parish priest who actually lives in the world, serves a real-life parish and actually celebrates the Mass on a daily basis. Incidentally, I offer a licit and kosher 1962 Mass as well.

In terms of the Pius X society, there isn’t much possitive that I could say. After even dispensing with Canon Law, jumping thorugh hoops and doing handstands in a way that no Pope has ever done for any schismatic group, they decided to go their own way anyway. When they could have stayed in union with the Catholic Church and allowed a rejuvination of the Tridentine Rite legitimately, they split. They shot themselves and their own Mother in the foot by doing so. I am a strong defender of the Tridentine Rite and Ecclesia Dei. I have very strong theological problems with the Novus Ordo, about which I am writing a book that is sure to get me into some hot water. But, at the same time, “It is obedience I ask,” Scripture says over and over again. We must first love the Church and her liturgies, for in them, heaven is wedded to earth and the only satisfactory sacrifice to the Father for the propitiation of our sins is continued. Choosing a schismatic group over the True Church because “they do it the way I like it” is nothing short of damnable pride

– Fr. L.

Kosher Mass? now i’m confused… perhaps its Halal Mass in my neighborhood.
ALSO, i’m waiting for your book Father/.
Father, people associated with the SSPX don’t do go to the Traditional Mass just becuase they like it.[that’s the ecclesia Dei arrangement] In discussions with Cardinal Hoyos,Bp.Fellay noted that the Cardinal didn’t use the word “schismatic” once!! What are these hand stands? What about the giving up of Roman churches to Orthodox? Now that’s an even bigger act of obeissiance than Rome has ever done to the SSPX and the Pope will still be called the “antichrist” by Orthodox[some orthodox]…