So, can I attend a SSPX mass or not?

[ConstantineTG]

Well there have been valid councils without the presence of the Pope (but rather his delegates).

There were Ecumenical councils that the Pope nor his delegates were there at all. A council is Ecumenical when all canonical bishops accept it. It doesn’t have to be at the conclusion of the council, it could be decades later. It could even be accepted at a different council, then they will point to the original council when such faith was proclaimed and then call that original council as the one that is Ecumenical. One of the councils started as a local council, so no presence by Western bishops at all. But eventually it became recognized as Ecumenical as everyone accepted it, including the Pope and the other Western bishops.

I wonder how the SSPX situation will play out and how it will affect the status of Vatican II as Ecumenical moving forward. Of course like some councils in the past that were recognized to be Ecumenical for some time only later to be condemned, it is either the SSPX bishops are excommunicated and thus cementing the position of V2 as Ecumenical (no more canonical bishops objecting) or they stick around and actually enforce change. Looking back at history, there is no guarantee this will be answered in our lifetime.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Well, no. There were a lot of controversial councils from the early days of the Church and to this day. Of course we fondly talk about those councils called Ecumenical and thus at this point in time found to be true councils that proclaimed the true faith. But imagine this, back then there were councils that people thought were true councils and only later on condemned. For example, the council that declared iconoclasm, that icons were to be removed from every Church, that council was thought to be Ecumenical at its time. A number of Emperors supported iconoclasm and a number of bishops followed the decree of the Emperor that the Church must remove all icons. It was only later on that another council was called and the dignity of the use of icons was restored. But even then, that council was not accepted until later on, and finally it was recognized as Ecumenical. I can imagine the Fourth Ecumenical Council took its time before being recognized as Ecumenical because of the objections of the African bishops.

I see what you mean. That can definitely be pretty frustrating if one is living at the time where the council is considered valid but you see reasons to disagree and it will in-fact later be called invalid.

But can a council, that has been approved by a Pope, ever be considered invalid? I would think at least this will be impossible.

Also, is there a list of which councils are actually approved by the Popes and the remainder (hopefully also been declared null explicitly)?

If every council to date has been approved or declared null by a Pope/teaching Magesterium, I think I am still happy. Is that the case or do we have some hangings councils with no final judgement?

P.S. With Vatican II, I think Pope Paul VI himself had approved it as a valid ecumenical council at which point I think its no longer up for debate?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I see what you mean. That can definitely be pretty frustrating if one is living at the time where the council is considered valid but you see reasons to disagree and it will in-fact later be called invalid.

But can a council, that has been approved by a Pope, ever be considered invalid? I would think at least this will be impossible.

Of course it can be invalid. The Pope’s approval doesn’t make something instantly ex cathedra. For example, the Fifth Ecumenical Council convened without the Pope. This one’s controversial because the Pope fled Rome at the time and was actually residing in Constantinople. The council was in Constantinople. He declined attending the council and even forbade the council from proceeding without him. But the council proceeded anyway. It wasn’t only after he was imprisoned by the Emperor that he eventually agreed to the council, later on claiming that his advisers misled him which is why he didn’t want to attend.

The council was valid even without the Pope, but it cannot be Ecumenical until all canonical bishops accepted it. Because the Pope was not deposed or anything, his acceptance was needed.

Also, is there a list of which councils are actually approved by the Popes and the remainder (hopefully also been declared null explicitly)?

If every council to date has been approved or declared null by a Pope/teaching Magesterium, I think I am still happy. Is that the case or do we have some hangings councils with no final judgement?

P.S. With Vatican II, I think Pope Paul VI himself had approved it as a valid ecumenical council at which point I think its no longer up for debate?

The rejection of the Pope does not nullify a council. The Pope never accepted the Council of Trullo, but it was valid from then until this day. But it is considered to be a local council. It is a very important council to the Byzantine Churches, especially to the Orthodox. But even the Eastern Catholics do follow the canons from this council to this day, which basically laid out a lot of the how-tos according to the Byzantine Rite. Though at the time the council was convened, there wasn’t any distinction of Byzantine Rite vs. Latin Rite that we have today, so Rome’s rejection of the council isn’t on the basis of a different Ritual tradition. This was pre-schism. Although some scholars would point to this as one of the early indicators that a schism was brewing. Though nothing was official at this point, the tension between East and West is clear by the Council of Trullo.

Now in relation to the topic, I am unsure how many bishops today still reject Vatican II. If the SSPX bishops are the last bishops to have an objection about the council, then if they are excommunicated then that will cement the status of Vatican II as Ecumenical.

 

[1AugustSon7]

There were Ecumenical councils that the Pope nor his delegates were there at all. A council is Ecumenical when all canonical bishops accept it.

Oxymoron for the win!

The Pope is, of course, a canonical bishop.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Oxymoron for the win!

The Pope is, of course, a canonical bishop.

Edit: sorry, wrong context of my reply. But you still didn’t read the entire thing to wisecrack on my post. There were Ecumenical Councils that has no attendance or representation from the West. But they eventually became Ecumenical because the Pope accepted the council’s results. How is that an oxymoron? Attendance and acceptance of a council is not the same thing. One can be absent from the council and accept it, and one can be present in a council and reject it.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Edit: sorry, wrong context of my reply. But you still didn’t read the entire thing to wisecrack on my post. There were Ecumenical Councils that has no attendance or representation from the West. But they eventually became Ecumenical because the Pope accepted the council’s results. How is that an oxymoron? Attendance and acceptance of a council is not the same thing. One can be absent from the council and accept it, and one can be present in a council and reject it.

I think it safe to assume that while I am walking and talking - even if I am not actively conscious of the former (e.g.), that the head necessarily approves of the natural and orderly motion of the body.

To put it simply, we can assume that when bishops acting in, e.g., a local council dealing with local issues, are doing so in accordance with the wishes of the head of the body: i.e., the Pope. To be sure, this is not necessarily the case: e.g., when the bishops in England progressively broke with the Catholic faith under Henry VIII and certain of his successors (e.g., the regime under his son, King Edward).

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think it safe to assume that while I am walking and talking - even if I am not actively conscious of the former (e.g.), that the head necessarily approves of the natural and orderly motion of the body.

To put it simply, we can assume that when bishops acting in, e.g., a local council dealing with local issues, are doing so in accordance with the wishes of the head of the body: i.e., the Pope. To be sure, this is not necessarily the case: e.g., when the bishops in England progressively broke with the Catholic faith under Henry VIII and certain of his successors (e.g., the regime under his son, King Edward).

No, your assumption is wrong. We have to understand and accept that the Early Church has a lot of differences with the Church today. In the First Millennium, there simply isn’t this “the Pope must approve everything” concept.

Plus, the head of the body is Jesus Christ, not the Pope. It is in the Bible.

 

[1AugustSon7]

No, your assumption is wrong. We have to understand and accept that the Early Church has a lot of differences with the Church today. In the First Millennium, there simply isn’t this “the Pope must approve everything” concept.
Plus, the head of the body is Jesus Christ, not the Pope. It is in the Bible.

The assumption, in fact, is all yours.

So far, I have nature, logic and reason on my side. You have a theory invented after the fact from the sources that, at best, is extremely disputable: we have to assume Our Lord left the Church in a practical state of democracy at best, anarchy at worst, with an extreme hope that the Church would always be capable of meeting on the whole whenever needed with ease, a theory made ridiculous after looking at the costs and logistics of, e.g., Vatican II.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The assumption, in fact, is all yours.

So far, I have nature, logic and reason on my side. You have a theory invented after the fact from the sources that, at best, is extremely disputable: we have to assume Our Lord left the Church in a practical state of democracy at best, anarchy at worst, with an extreme hope that the Church would always be capable of meeting on the whole whenever needed with ease, a theory made ridiculous after looking at the costs and logistics of, e.g., Vatican II.

It is a historical fact. Unless you can substantiate your claim. I have already shown the actions of the Church with the councils in the First Millennium, and how they operated independently from the Pope. If you want to refute everything I have presented so far, please then provide concrete evidence that what you claim is right, more than just passing polemics.

 

[1AugustSon7]

It is a historical fact. Unless you can substantiate your claim. I have already shown the actions of the Church with the councils in the First Millennium, and how they operated independently from the Pope. If you want to refute everything I have presented so far, please then provide concrete evidence that what you claim is right, more than just passing polemics.

I am sorry, but I do not believe that when our Lord instituted the Mass or commissioned the Apostles He was establishing the Church in order to later provide the basis for The Amazing Race.

As for supposedly operating indepently of the Pope, St. Maximos (well within the First Millenium) went so far as to claim that the Church at Rome was the basis and foundation of all the other Churches:

“All Christian Churches have held the great Church of Rome as their basis and foundation since the gates of hell have never prevailed against her”

• St. Maximos the Confessor

And before even this most venerable martyr and excellent theologian, there was, of course, St. Irenaeus:

“For with this Church (Rome), by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church must necessarily be in accord”

• St. Irenaeus

And yet another testifies that Rome “presides in charity” (St. Ignatius of Antioch).

 

[ConstantineTG]

I am sorry, but I do not believe that when our Lord instituted the Mass or commissioned the Apostles He was establishing the Church in order to later provide the basis for The Amazing Race.

As for supposedly operating indepently of the Pope, St. Maximos (well within the First Millenium) went so far as to claim that the Church at Rome was the basis and foundation of all the other Churches:

“All Christian Churches have held the great Church of Rome as their basis and foundation since the gates of hell have never prevailed against her”

• St. Maximos the Confessor

And before even this most venerable martyr and excellent theologian, there was, of course, St. Irenaeus:

“For with this Church (Rome), by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church must necessarily be in accord”

• St. Irenaeus

And yet another testifies that Rome “presides in charity” (St. Ignatius of Antioch).

Nothing in these statements even say that Rome must be present at all councils. You are interpreting these words beyond the meaning of the context they were given. It is historical fact that councils proceeded without Popes. How do you explain them? The Second and Fifth Ecumenical Councils began and ended without the Pope.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Of course it can be invalid. The Pope’s approval doesn’t make something instantly ex cathedra. For example, the Fifth Ecumenical Council convened without the Pope. This one’s controversial because the Pope fled Rome at the time and was actually residing in Constantinople. The council was in Constantinople. He declined attending the council and even forbade the council from proceeding without him. But the council proceeded anyway. It wasn’t only after he was imprisoned by the Emperor that he eventually agreed to the council, later on claiming that his advisers misled him which is why he didn’t want to attend.

The council was valid even without the Pope, but it cannot be Ecumenical until all canonical bishops accepted it. Because the Pope was not deposed or anything, his acceptance was needed.

The rejection of the Pope does not nullify a council. The Pope never accepted the Council of Trullo, but it was valid from then until this day. But it is considered to be a local council. It is a very important council to the Byzantine Churches, especially to the Orthodox. But even the Eastern Catholics do follow the canons from this council to this day, which basically laid out a lot of the how-tos according to the Byzantine Rite. Though at the time the council was convened, there wasn’t any distinction of Byzantine Rite vs. Latin Rite that we have today, so Rome’s rejection of the council isn’t on the basis of a different Ritual tradition. This was pre-schism. Although some scholars would point to this as one of the early indicators that a schism was brewing. Though nothing was official at this point, the tension between East and West is clear by the Council of Trullo.

Now in relation to the topic, I am unsure how many bishops today still reject Vatican II. If the SSPX bishops are the last bishops to have an objection about the council, then if they are excommunicated then that will cement the status of Vatican II as Ecumenical.

Ok so after discussing this issue with Brother JR, I think you must be from the Eastern Churches?

Because for the Roman Catholic, a council is only valid if a Pope invoked it. So the things like the Robber council are invalid because it was the Emperor who invoked it. The council of Trullo is also considered invalid as I understand in the Roman Church.

To be honest, you kind of confused me at first. I am sure someone else might get confused too. So it might help if you state that you are talking from the perspective of the Eastern Churches.