SSPX: Bishop Fellay says SSPX canno accept all of Vatican II reforms.

[LeroyCRHP]

I think we are headed toward a big group hug, SSPX will be fully back in and each will have their own mass to attend. Hopefully then both sides can calm down, quit the “my mass is better than your mass stuff” and focus on more important topics. A form of natural selection will allow the different forms of the mass to grow. People can chose which they like better. We already have the Eastern Catholic Church that are with us but some differences. There are other “similar” churches that are not with us, Assyrian Church, Oriental Orthodox, Lutheran, etc.

You can feel the hard hearts on both sides and we need a resolution to this matter. Pray for Pope Benedict XVI to give a wise and just final judgement on this difficult issue.

 

[japhy]

Is it just a coincidence that the amibiguities in the Council’s documents lead to the liturgical reforms, and were the reasoning used by the Consilium for putting the reforms into practice?

The documents had a language that could be (and was) exploited by those with a liberal/discontinuous/novel view, just like they could be carried out in a conservative/continuous/traditional way.

The documents are written poorly. The Consilium had liberal leanings and did more than it should. I assume you agree with me here.

Eastern Orthodox churches are true and authentic particular Churches.

As I understand it, a “particular” or “local” church refers to individual dioceses (or possibly even parishes). Do you agree that those “churches” not in communion with the Roman Church do have a valid (though illicit) Eucharist and priesthood?

So if you afirm that people outside the Church are also [in ?] genuine particular Churches, then what is the difference between a Diocese in Communion with Rome, and one outside of Communion with Rome?

A diocese in communion with Rome is Catholic, a diocese not in communion with Rome isn’t Catholic. And that would seem to be a big difference. “However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches.” That’s something the Note does say; see Communionis Notio 17. CN 18 describes the true aim of the ecumenical movement in this way: “through a new conversion to the Lord, all may be enabled to recognise the continuity of the Primacy of Peter in his successors, the Bishops of Rome, and to see the Petrine ministry fulfilled, in the manner intended by the Lord”. Recognition of the Petrine ministry as the Lord intended elicits one honest response: communion with Peter’s successor. Anything else is duplicitous.

Doesn’t the “Note” also say that the Church of Christ is edified and brought to perfection in theese particular Churches outside of Communion with Rome?

I don’t know; does the note say that? It quotes Unitatis Redintegratio 15 which says that “through the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in each of these churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature”. While “built up” and “edified” can be synonymous, “grows in statue” doesn’t mean “brought to perfection”.

it is argued that where there are true bishops and a valid Mass, the Church of Christ is present.

Does Jesus Christ “operate” outside his Church? Is he working to bring people to salvation before they’ve entered his Church? Is the Church of Christ present where Christ is operating?

 

[maurin]

Technically while the actual numbers in statistics are facts, the conclusions one reaches from them are not.

You are committing the classic logical error of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Just because something occurs before something else, that does not mean it is the cause. Every person who has died has done so sometime after ingesting water. By the same logic used to say that Vatican II is the cause of any decrease in the Church we can say that the ingestion of water kills.

If I had a nickel for everytime a liberal pulled out that one I could retire.

If not after this then because of what? Up until the Council and the “reforms” the Church forced the liberals and modernists underground, did they not? Once Pope John XXIII and Paul VI invited some of them as experts, did they not start to come out of the wood work? Yves Congar wrote a book “True and False Reform in the Church.” It was condemned, and he was relieved of his teaching faculties. Father Congar’s reaction to the Pope’s invitation to serve as peritus at the Council?: “I am condemned, yet they call upon me?” A similar story with Father John Courtney Murray and his views, condemned prior to the Council, and revived by the Council under the name of religious liberty.

Tell us, Brother Dave, why are the Seminaries, Convents, Monasteries, Parishes and Catholic Schools emptying?

Why are the Traditional Orders’ Seminaries filling or full? According to posters here who have looked into it, the FSSP’s Seminary is full and has a waiting list (this of course may be hearsay, and I do not know for sure if this is true).

Are Traditional Teachings the flavor of the day, the newest “innovation” after 40 years of innovation?

Or is the Holy Spirit shining on those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace?

And thank you for the lesson in logic, but the best lessons l’ve learned I’ve learned from experience, first hand. My first hand experience only reinforces what Mr. Buchanan’s article shows. That and, which Diocese just announced they are closing a significant percentage of their Parishes?

 

[elts1956]

Hi, call me ignorant, I realize I am, but is the issue of ecumenism the only stumbling block between the SSPX and its acceptance by the Vatican, or are there OTHER big ones?

I guess I need a lesson on Vatican II in one paragraph. Lacking that can anyone give a good source to find out what was intended by VAT II and what happened after? All I know there were and are a lot of disobedeinet clergy and laity out there who have made the Church in their own image.

Thanks.

 

[maurin]

The documents had a language that could be (and was) exploited by those with a liberal/discontinuous/novel view, just like they could be carried out in a conservative/continuous/traditional way.

The documents are written poorly. The Consilium had liberal leanings and did more than it should. I assume you agree with me here.

Mostly, yes.

As I understand it, a “particular” or “local” church refers to individual dioceses (or possibly even parishes). Do you agree that those “churches” not in communion with the Roman Church do have a valid (though illicit) Eucharist and priesthood?

In the case of the Orthodox, yes.

A diocese in communion with Rome is Catholic, a diocese not in communion with Rome isn’t Catholic. And that would seem to be a big difference. “However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches.” That’s something the Note does say; see Communionis Notio 17. CN 18 describes the true aim of the ecumenical movement in this way: “through a new conversion to the Lord, all may be enabled to recognise the continuity of the Primacy of Peter in his successors, the Bishops of Rome, and to see the Petrine ministry fulfilled, in the manner intended by the Lord”. Recognition of the Petrine ministry as the Lord intended elicits one honest response: communion with Peter’s successor. Anything else is duplicitous.

but do you disagree that we have lost our way in the last 40 years? that a dumbing down of the Mass in common practice, the usurpation of the Roman Canon by the ambiguous and protestant-pleasing (well attempting to please) “Eucharistic Prayers” have caused more damage to the Church and ultimately to true and proper ecumenism?

I don’t know; does the note say that? It quotes Unitatis Redintegratio 15 which says that “through the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in each of these churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature”. While “built up” and “edified” can be synonymous, “grows in statue” doesn’t mean “brought to perfection”.

I take that back, and I would edit it out from my original post…I’ve had a lot of reading lately and obviously confused my source for it. Mea culpa, and I beg your pardon.

Does Jesus Christ “operate” outside his Church? Is he working to bring people to salvation before they’ve entered his Church? Is the Church of Christ present where Christ is operating?

Of course He does. But at what point did “qui pro vobis et pro multis effeundetur in remissionem peccatorum” become for all? Because you haven’t made clear the distinction.

 

[hosemonkey]

IMHO, Bp. Fellay is correct in his assessment of the false ecumenism infesting the Church today. If we believe that the Catholic Church is the True Church, then we have a commission to lead those in darkness to the light. I was taught that this is our duty as Catholic Christians. If Liberals accuse us of being “disrespectful, or exploitative or triumphalist or exclusive” or any other epithet along those lines, I say “so be it” The Catholic Church alone possesses the fullness of the Gospel and we have an obligation to lead others to that Truth. Witness the platoons of protestants, mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and all various and sundry missionaries, all purveying their particular brand of “truth”, all the while trying to better the lot of the heathen and stealing Catholic sheep left and right. I recall that we were supposed to be in the forefront of the missionary effort. Isn’t that what the Apostles were doing? When did the Catholic Church fall off the wagon? After VII, that’s when. Bp. Fellay is right, Rome better get on the stick in the missionary effort, the protestants are not dozing.

 

[Ottaviani]

While the possibility of scrutinizing, hyper-scrutinzing and abstracting here are endless when it comes to matters regarding ecumenism after V2, I can’t help but make the following observation:

Prior to Vatican II, the Church was chiefly concerned with reconciling the world to itself

After Vatican II the Church became chiefly concerned with reconciling itself with the world.

If we are to believe that we Catholics are truly members of the Church instituted by Christ himself, what need have we to look for “elements” of the faith in other false religions?

this is why I stand firm with the position of the SSPX. We needn’t water our religion, our birthright, to appease those who truly do not have the faith, but instead seek to chip and tear at our own, to make us in their own demonic image. It is against these forces that we should stand strong.

 

[EricBrooks]

Having reservations about Vatican II should not keep them from full communion with the Catholic Church.
The very people (including popes) who put the council together admitted that it did not teach with the authority of the extraordinary magisterium: remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2008-1031-davies-vatican-II.htm

In most cases it is right to accept even the teachings of the ordinary magisterium, but we should not fall into a false idolatry of the pope that says that his person cannot fail simply because his office cannot fail in certain specified circumstances. We should not refuse assent based simply on our own thinking or our own whims, but we may dissent if there is serious basis in Catholic tradition.

Furthermore, even Pope Benedict XVI has expressed reservations about certain parts of the council: remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009–131-ferrara-neocatholic_sour_grapes.htm

SSPX fully accepts that Vatican II was a true council. If even our Pope can express some reservations about the council, this should not be a problem for the Society.

More mainstream commentators are telling us that SSPX needs to budge on this or that issue before they can enter the Church. I think they will be reunited once we realize that VatII did not teach infallibly, and that the Church has absolutely no power to suppress the traditional Mass.

I am not a member of SSPX, but I also tend to agree that the memory of Archbishop Lefebvre should be rehabilitated due to the state of emergency present at the time of the consecrations (as per SSPX arguments that there never was a real schism in the first place). But this is a matter of less certainty and less importance than affirming that no one has the power to suppress the traditional rite, and that VATII did not teach infallibly (at least not in every case).

 

[pnewton]

Yours Truly,

who says you can’t ignore facts?

You obviously have no problems making baseless accusations. Refusing to rehash the same tired arguements is not ignoring facts. As you just said, go to the archives and see for yourself.

Also, cause and effect is using statistics are a matter of hypothesis, conjecture of opinion as opposed to fact. It is the same logical error repeated ad nauseum.

 

[japhy]

In the case of the Orthodox, yes.

And also in the case of the “Old Catholics” (who disagreed, I think, with Vatican I). There may be other, smaller groups, as well. I’m just trying to work out a point.

but do you disagree that we have lost our way in the last 40 years?

I would say we have all but lost the way; luckily we have had the SSPX and others to be the “thorn in our side”. As for the “dumbing down of the Mass” and the “ambiguous and protestant-pleasing … Eucharistic Prayers”, certainly these have not succeeded in making the Church more “palatable” to non-Catholics. I would hazard a guess that the changes the Catholic Church has gone through has made her look like “just another church” to the Protestants rather than the one Church which should desire to be in communion with. I wonder if these massive alterations impact the degree of their culpability for not entering into her.

I’ve had a lot of reading lately and obviously confused my source for it.

I admit the “brought to perfection” part did sound familiar, but I accept your retraction.

at what point did “qui pro vobis et pro multis effeundetur in remissionem peccatorum” become for all? Because you haven’t made clear the distinction.

I don’t know if you’re talking about a translation issue or are using those words to describe the situation I presented. Let’s continue speaking plainly and clearly about the matter at hand.

I have not yet ventured to make the distinction. I’m still asking questions about where and how Christ operates. At the end of my last post, I had three questions, and you answered one (or two) of them with “of course he does”.

1. Does Jesus Christ “operate” outside his Church?
2. Is he working to bring people to salvation before they’ve entered his Church?
3. Is the Church of Christ present where Christ is operating?

The third question, then, remains unanswered. Now, I want to be guileless in these proceedings, so let me give the third question some context. I am not trying to get you to admit that a Protestant community is (or subsists in!) the Church of Christ. I am simply asking if, when the sacrament of baptism is performed outside the boundaries of the Catholic Church, the Church of Christ is present; or, perhaps a better way to ask the question is: when the sacrament of baptism is performed outside the boundaries of the Catholic Church, is some sort of communion – however imperfect and tarnished and lacking in some “internal constitutive principles” – to the Catholic Church (the Church of Christ) manifested?

Orthodox Churches have a real Eucharist in their Divine Liturgies. The Holy Spirit truly comes upon their bread and wine; the words of Jesus Christ, spoken by a priest in persona Christi are efficacious and the Most Blessed Sacrament is confected. Jesus Christ is absolutely present and working in such a church. Does not his speak of some sort of communion – however imperfect and tarnished and lacking in some “internal constitutive principles” – to the Catholic Church (the Church of Christ)?

 

[maurin]

I would say we have all but lost the way; luckily we have had the SSPX and others to be the “thorn in our side”. As for the “dumbing down of the Mass” and the “ambiguous and protestant-pleasing … Eucharistic Prayers”, certainly these have not succeeded in making the Church more “palatable” to non-Catholics. I would hazard a guess that the changes the Catholic Church has gone through has made her look like “just another church” to the Protestants rather than the one Church which should desire to be in communion with. I wonder if these massive alterations impact the degree of their culpability for not entering into her.

Look, I’m not a Feenyite (if that’s the right term)…Most of my family has left the Church, some for evangelical protestantism, some for atheism, some–like my mother–for nothing…they feel as if they got nothing from the Church, let down somehow, and content themselves praying their Rosary and hoping that will be enough…my protests notwithstanding. So, of course I pray quite hard that “these massive alterations impact the degree of their culpability for not [re]-entering into Her.”

I admit the “brought to perfection” part did sound familiar, but I accept your retraction.

It’s only right that I do so…I can’t find the source, if it’s not the “Note” it’s something else, but I can’t find it, so thank you for your pardon.

I don’t know if you’re talking about a translation issue or are using those words to describe the situation I presented.

absolutely using those words to describe the situation not necessarily the one you presented, but the present reality which exists undeniably in the Church.

Let’s continue speaking plainly and clearly about the matter at hand.

I have not yet ventured to make the distinction. I’m still asking questions about where and how Christ operates. At the end of my last post, I had three questions, and you answered one (or two) of them with “of course he does”.

1. Does Jesus Christ “operate” outside his Church?
2. Is he working to bring people to salvation before they’ve entered his Church?
3. Is the Church of Christ present where Christ is operating?

The third question, then, remains unanswered. Now, I want to be guileless in these proceedings, so let me give the third question some context. I am not trying to get you to admit that a Protestant community is (or subsists in!) the Church of Christ. I am simply asking if, when the sacrament of baptism is performed outside the boundaries of the Catholic Church, the Church of Christ is present; or, perhaps a better way to ask the question is: when the sacrament of baptism is performed outside the boundaries of the Catholic Church, is some sort of communion – however imperfect and tarnished and lacking in some “internal constitutive principles” – to the Catholic Church (the Church of Christ) manifested?

Orthodox Churches have a real Eucharist in their Divine Liturgies. The Holy Spirit truly comes upon their bread and wine; the words of Jesus Christ, spoken by a priest in persona Christi are efficacious and the Most Blessed Sacrament is confected. Jesus Christ is absolutely present and working in such a church. Does not his speak of some sort of communion – however imperfect and tarnished and lacking in some “internal constitutive principles” – to the Catholic Church (the Church of Christ)?

I agree with everything you have said above, to an extent, and I would ask others “of my ilk” to correct me if I am wrong in some way.

But the point that I am trying unsuccessfully to make goes back to something you said above, that the Church has made Herself just another denomination in the minds of the protestants…if She thought Herself the Church of Jesus Christ, and the only One Church He founded, She wouldn’t go through such great lengths, as you are, to explain the Orthodoxy of ‘subsistit in’ when ‘est’ was clear, precise and to the point.

japhy, I have a lot of respect for you, and appreciate very much this conversation. You are one of the most reasonable people I’ve had the pleasure to dialogue with on this forum. I thank you.

 

[maurin]

You obviously have no problems making baseless accusations.

you mean like the one you’ve just made?

Refusing to rehash the same tired arguements is not ignoring facts.

keeping your head in the sand, ignoring the facts, call it what you will, a rose is a rose is a rose…

As you just said, go to the archives and see for yourself.

I don’t need to. obviously you do.

Also, cause and effect is using statistics are a matter of hypothesis, conjecture of opinion as opposed to fact. It is the same logical error repeated ad nauseum.

did you just respond rationally to an issue? like the claymation christmas special from our youth taught us: put one foot in front of the other and soon you’ll be walking 'cross the flooooor!"

 

[Yours_Truly]

Japhy]1. Does Jesus Christ “operate” outside his Church?
2. Is he working to bring people to salvation before they’ve entered his Church?
3. Is the Church of Christ present where Christ is operating?

The third question, then, remains unanswered. Now, I want to be guileless in these proceedings, so let me give the third question some context. I am not trying to get you to admit that a Protestant community is (or subsists in!) the Church of Christ. I am simply asking if, when the sacrament of baptism is performed outside the boundaries of the Catholic Church, the Church of Christ is present; or, perhaps a better way to ask the question is: when the sacrament of baptism is performed outside the boundaries of the Catholic Church, is some sort of communion – however imperfect and tarnished and lacking in some “internal constitutive principles” – to the Catholic Church (the Church of Christ) manifested?

Orthodox Churches have a real Eucharist in their Divine Liturgies. The Holy Spirit truly comes upon their bread and wine; the words of Jesus Christ, spoken by a priest in persona Christi are efficacious and the Most Blessed Sacrament is confected. Jesus Christ is absolutely present and working in such a church. Does not his speak of some sort of communion – however imperfect and tarnished and lacking in some “internal constitutive principles” – to the Catholic Church (the Church of Christ)?

I agree with everything you have said above, to an extent, and I would ask others “of my ilk” to correct me if I am wrong in some way.

Read post #40 and see if it adds any clarity.

The schismatical and heretical churches as such are in no way united to the Catholic Church. Since they possess some of the sacraments of the Catholic Church, however, it is possible that individual members of those groups can be united to the Catholic Church (as I explained in post 40). But let us not confuse the “imperfect unity” of certain members of those groups with a unity with the group itself. That is a distinction that must be made.

The individual members who might be united to the Catholic Church, are so in spite of the fact that they are visible members of these false groups - groups which are in no way part of the one true Church.

Let’s use an extreme example to try to illustrate the point. Let’s say that a new satanic cult was formed who worshipped the devil himself, but for some reason used the Catholic FORM of baptism on their children. If validly baptized, these children would be united to the soul of the Church, even though their satanic cult would in no way be united to the Church. The children would be united to the Church *in spite of the fact *that they attended a satanic cult.

Even though the example is extreme, it is exactly the same with heretical or schismatic groups, such as the Protestants or Eastern Orthodox. Simply because these groups have “more truth” than does a satanic cult does not change anything.

Supernatural unity does not allow for various degrees, unless we are distinguishing between the “body” (the group) and “soul” ( which woud apply to an individual member). A member of a false group (the body of the false group) can possibly be united to the soul of the one true Church. But the body itself of the false group is not in any way united to the one true Church.

Again, read over post 40 and it might make it a little clearer.

 

[maurin]

Supernatural unity does not allow for various degrees, unless we are distinguishing between the “body” (the group) and “soul” ( which woud apply to an individual member). A member of a false group (the body of the false group) can possibly be united to the soul of the one true Church. But the body itself of the false group is not in any way united to the one true Church.

Again, read over post 40 and it might make it a little clearer.

in my own little way unsuccessfull and silly way, it’s what I meant by “I’m not a feenyite.”

thanks for the clarification though. St. Pius X was Canonized for a reason…thanks

 

[Yours_Truly]

in my own little way unsuccessfull and silly way, it’s what I meant by “I’m not a feenyite.”

thanks for the clarification though. St. Pius X was Canonized for a reason…thanks

I wondered what you meant by that, but it makes perfect sense. Some of the Feenyites will not acknowledge a distinction between the body and the soul; or if they do they will say it is impossible to be united to the soul without being united to the body. They are maintaining the rule, without allowing for any exceptions. When you pin them down with an example of a child who has been validly baptized in a heretical sect and who has never been to a Catholic Church, they will admit the child is united to the Church, but refuse to acknowledge that they are not in union with the “body”.

When you bring up the quote from Pius X’s catechism, believe it or not, they will claim he didn’t know it was in there - that he didn’t read his own catechism!

To me, the explanation given in Pius X’s catechism makes perfect sense and adds a lot of clarity to the subject which otherwise can be a little confusion, as this thread demonstrated.

 

[japhy]

I pray quite hard that “these massive alterations impact the degree of their culpability for not [re]-entering into Her.”

I will pray for your family members; I ask in return that you pray for my younger brother who – just as our (nominally?) Baptist father entered the Church – stopped believing in God altogether, some 8 or so years ago.

absolutely using those words to describe the situation not necessarily the one you presented, but the present reality which exists undeniably in the Church.

Ok, I understand your point, then.

… the Church has made Herself just another denomination in the minds of the protestants… if She thought Herself the Church of Jesus Christ, and the only One Church He founded, She wouldn’t go through such great lengths, as you are, to explain the Orthodoxy of ‘subsistit in’ when ‘est’ was clear, precise and to the point.

Perhaps She did so to “avoid offending”… I don’t know what She was thinking, honestly.

japhy, I have a lot of respect for you…

Let’s not play favorites.

I did go back and read posts from your first year or so here. You have gone through quite a transformation. I am impressed, to put it simply.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

If I had a nickel for everytime a liberal pulled out that one I could retire.

If I had a nickle for everytime someone who thought they were somthing special and better than everyone else opened their mouth…

I am far from being a liberal.

You need to learn about logic and truth before you open your mouth.

As Mark Twain said, it is better to keep your mouth shut and appear a fool than to open it up and remove all doubt.

Tell us, Brother Dave, why are the Seminaries, Convents, Monasteries, Parishes and Catholic Schools emptying?

They are not “emptying” though they do not have as many as they used to.

There are many complex reasons, you can not place it all on one thing. Also this is cyclicial in the Church, try studying history.

Why are the Traditional Orders’ Seminaries filling or full? According to posters here who have looked into it, the FSSP’s Seminary is full and has a waiting list (this of course may be hearsay, and I do not know for sure if this is true).

One of the answers to this is that they keep their seminaries small so that it appears that they are over flowing when in realitly they are not that much better than others.

But that is besides the point, the biggest question is not how many they have enrolled or how many they have on a waiting list but how many actually make it to ordination and then how many last 5 years after that.

This is something I do not know and really do not wish to argue about as I have nothing against them or the EF.

Until an apology for the libel of calling me a liberal is forth comming I will not reply to you again.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I’m sure the Vatican and the SSPX will come to a written interpretation of the Vatican II council documents that they can both agree to accept.

For example, the SSPX might agree that teaching on religious freedom is a non-dogmatic pragmatic recommendation for how the Church should act in modern society, and agree to not use force to convert people to Christianity (which they wouldn’t do anyway). And the Vatican would agree that their interpretation is one acceptable interpretation. Then it’ll all be hunky-dorry

 

[japhy]

The schismatical and heretical churches as such are in no way united to the Catholic Church. … Even though the example is extreme, it is exactly the same with heretical or schismatic groups, such as the Protestants or Eastern Orthodox. Simply because these groups have “more truth” than does a satanic cult does not change anything.

May I ask, how come? Could you elaborate for me?

 

[DavidPalm]

I’m sure the Vatican and the SSPX will come to a written interpretation of the Vatican II council documents that they can both agree to accept.

For example, the SSPX might agree that teaching on religious freedom is a non-dogmatic pragmatic recommendation for how the Church should act in modern society, and agree to not use force to convert people to Christianity (which they wouldn’t do anyway). And the Vatican would agree that their interpretation is one acceptable interpretation. Then it’ll all be hunky-dorry

The differences between the SSPX and certain other Catholics certainly do not revolve around whether the Church should use force to covert others! All parties agree that should never be done.