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

[CapIV]

No, this is not correct. The One True Church is the Church founded by Christ. According to Vatican II, the Church of Jesus Christ is not the Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ SUBSISTS IN the Catholic Church. There is a difference.

And no wonder, mercygate, Fellay can’t accept all of Vatican II. What a shock.

Actually, the Church teaching on this has always been the same. It was just never defined so touchy feely. Back before Vatican II, the Church didn’t waste her time explaining what the “Catholic Church” meant because she assumed people know. ON EARTH, the only true church is the Catholic Church. Happy?

For future reference, when someone says “the Catholic Church is the only true church”, it might be wise to assume they are talking about Earth instead of goofing around with semantics.

Edit: Sorry to be so snippy, I am just getting frustrated with the number of liberal “Catholics” and taking it out on everybody

 

[maurin]

Actually, the Church teaching on this has always been the same. It was just never defined so touchy feely. Back before Vatican II, the Church didn’t waste her time explaining what the “Catholic Church” meant because she assumed people know. ON EARTH, the only true church is the Catholic Church. Happy?

For future reference, when someone says “the Catholic Church is the only true church”, it might be wise to assume they are talking about Earth instead of goofing around with semantics.

The irrony of what we know the definition of the Church is, was and always will be, and VII’s definition of the Church somehow got lost in the typing.

Look, CapIV, if you read my response as somehow critical of what you wrote please accept my sincere and urgent apology. I in no way intended to criticize you, or put you on the defensive. I did, however, intend to point out the contradiction between how most of us view the Church of Christ as being, and not merely subsisting in, the Catholic CHurch.

My sincere apologies to you.

 

[Merkel]

He also told the French weekly Famille Chretienne he did not reject the 1962-1965 Council completely but only “a dangerous spirit that runs through the whole Council” that caused what he saw as a break with centuries of Roman Catholic tradition.

Could it be that Nefarious Neo-Con Catholic ™ spirit that I tend to associate (perhaps not always accurately) with the SSPX?

While the lifting of excommunications readmitted them into the Church, the four men must now negotiate with the Vatican to be officially recognised as bishops and take posts of responsibility within the Church.

Williamson will NEVER be a bishop in the Catholic Church.

Fellay said of the Council: “One cannot approach it in a dogmatic way and say ‘amen’ to everything. This approach is completely wrong. There are different domains, themes and degrees of authority.”

Why not? Do you know more than the Pontiff and the rest of the hierarchy?

Fellay said the Church had given up trying to convert people to Catholicism in recent decades because the Council stressed respect for other faiths. “The Church no longer has the will to convert. We don’t agree here. This is serious,” he said in the interview, distributed before publication next week.

Says who other than you? You’re simply wrong here.

Asked about the Council statement that Jews were spiritual “elder brothers” of Christians, he agreed the two faiths shared the Old Testament but said Jews rejected the New Testament.

“That is not enough for them to be saved,” he said.

You sure about that? Seems like you’re now trying to play God. Leave the judgements up to Him, will you please?

Fellay said the modern Catholic Mass, which the SSPX rejects in favour of the traditional Latin liturgy, was valid but sometimes not reverent enough. Pope Benedict extended use of the Latin Mass in 2007 as part of his drive to win back the SSPX.

I’ve been to some EF Masses that I didn’t find reverent enough either. Particularly low Masses. Maybe you can make a deal. Perhaps the Pope will never force you or your brethren to celebrate the OF Mass. Maybe in return you can simply quit making your erroneous opinion of the OF Mass known to others?

 

[Merkel]

No, this is not correct. The One True Church is the Church founded by Christ. According to Vatican II, the Church of Jesus Christ is not the Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ SUBSISTS IN the Catholic Church. There is a difference.

And no wonder, mercygate, Fellay can’t accept all of Vatican II. What a shock.

One Church, the Catholic Church…

 

[maurin]

One Church, the Catholic Church…

you’re contradicting the Council’s definition, merkel…do you know better than the Pope and the Magisterium?

The CHurch of Jesus Christ SUBSISTS IN the Catholic Church. For over 40 years now. Sheesh.

 

[ProVobis]

Go take communion at a Protestant church and act like a Protestant among Protestants and see how the Holy Father feels about it.

Exactly. Look at all the fora on CA alone and see how many don’t feel the way Bishop Fellay feels. If their communions aren’t valid, then they’re not Catholic. Period. No one understands this “subsist” and other Vatican II terminology anyway, not even Protestants.

 

[Yours_Truly]

Exactly. Look at all the fora on CA alone and see how many don’t feel the way Bishop Fellay feels. If their communions aren’t valid, then they’re not Catholic. Period. No one understands this “subsist” and other Vatican II terminology anyway, not even Protestants.

Nobody? Cardinal Ratzinger did; and he should since he was present at Vatican II. Here’s what Cardinal Ratzinger said in an interview with the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemine,

“Vatican II did not use Pius XII’s expression according to which ‘the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church of Christ.’ **Instead, it preferred the expression ‘The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church…’ because,” he said, “it wished to ‘affirm that the being of the Church as such is a larger identity than the Roman Catholic Church’.” **

There you have it from Cardinal Ratzinger. Vatican II attempted to change Church teaching on this point.

For reference, here’s the quote Cardinal Ratzinger was referring to. It is from Pius XII’s eyncyclical "Humani Generis - CONCERNING SOME FALSE OPINIONS THREATENING TO UNDERMINE THE FOUNDATIONS OF CATHOLIC DOCTRINE AUGUST 12, 1950 "

Pope Pius XII: "Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing" (Humani Generis 1950)

Looks like those who he was talking about were present at Vatican II.

 

[ravenonthecross]

No, this is not correct. The One True Church is the Church founded by Christ. According to Vatican II, the Church of Jesus Christ is not the Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ SUBSISTS IN the Catholic Church. There is a difference.

And no wonder, mercygate, Fellay can’t accept all of Vatican II. What a shock.

Since the Catholic Church IS the one true Church of Christ Jesus, What Vatican II may or may not say contrariwise shouldn’t have too much bearing, insofar as it would be negated by previous Church teachings.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

Since the Catholic Church IS the one true Church of Christ Jesus, What Vatican II may or may not say contrariwise shouldn’t have too much bearing, insofar as it would be negated by previous Church teachings.

Interesting post. The Council says that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that such a statement doesn’t necessitate the Church of Christ being separate from the Catholic Church.

1. The Council says: The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.
2. Now, it is possible that also: The Catholic Church subsists in the Church of Christ.

If both statements are true, then the Catholic Church and the Church of Christ are identical.

Then, the Council document can be interpreted to be voicing the first relationship and remaining silent on the second. Thus, insofar as it does not preclude the second statement, it is true. And insofar as it does, it is negated by previous teaching. Thus, we must believe that it explicitly expresses the first statement and remains silent on the second.

It’s been a while since I read the document. Can anyone verify whether the document leaves statement 2 open as a possibility?

 

[Layman]

Is the key issue here whether SSPX priests will be forced to celebrate N.O. masses?

They should not be.

Let’s imagine the contrary:

If the TLM were banned tomorrow I wonder what state the Church would be in thirty years time? Anyone now in their forties might have to make special arrangements to be near a priest to get Last Rites, as likely there wouldn’t be too many of them around.

That’s what’s at stake here, in my opinion.

 

[Genesis315]

The whole subsists in controversy is a non-issue. It’s like the filioque issue with the Orthodox–no matter how many times we tell them it doesn’t mean two principles and two spirations, but rather is meant to enforce the traditional understanding, they still accuse us of it meaning two principles/spirations.

Vatican II said the Church of Christ “is” the Catholic Church in another document. The idea that subsists in can be applied to any other entity than the Catholic Church has also been explicitly ruled out in subsequent Magisterial texts–but over-zealous “traditionalist” polemicists continue to say it means the Church of Christ subsists in non-Catholic Churches and communities as well.

The phrase subsists in is meant to emphasize the perduring identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, even though there are ecclesial elements (valid sacraments, etc.) outside her structure. In other words, despite that fact, the Church of Christ has always been, is now, and will always be the Catholic Church entrusted to St. Peter and his successors. Whereas “is” relates a present reality, “subsists in” expresses permanent continuity.

 

[maurin]

The whole subsists in controversy is a non-issue. It’s like the filioque issue with the Orthodox–no matter how many times we tell them it doesn’t mean two principles and two spirations, but rather is meant to enforce the traditional understanding, they still accuse us of it meaning two principles/spirations.

Vatican II said the Church of Christ “is” the Catholic Church in another document. The idea that subsists in can be applied to any other entity than the Catholic Church has also been explicitly ruled out in subsequent Magisterial texts–but over-zealous “traditionalist” polemicists continue to say it means the Church of Christ subsists in non-Catholic Churches and communities as well.

The phrase subsists in is meant to emphasize the perduring identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, even though there are ecclesial elements (valid sacraments, etc.) outside her structure. In other words, despite that fact, the Church of Christ has always been, is now, and will always be the Catholic Church entrusted to St. Peter and his successors. Whereas “is” relates a present reality, “subsists in” expresses permanent continuity.

Of course “is” only relates to a static present reality, right? My goodness, maurin is a salesman, or does maurin subsist in a salesman? Or does a salesman subsist in maurin? help me, I’m confused. really. I am. Or, are maurin and the salesman two different entities? Is salesman an attribute of maurin? or is maurin an attribute salesman?

Because it seems to me that–wasn’t it Kaspar?-- who argued in “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Document of the Church” that without this change in definition that ecumenism is impossible? “There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.” That’s Dogma, isn’t it?

It is my understanding–please correct me if I am wrong-- that protestants and non-Catholics can be saved in spite of their false religions, not because of them, but because of Jesus’ offering of Salvation as made known through His Church. Is this correct?

But if the Church of Jesus Christ merely subsists in the Catholic Church, and it is not the Catholic Church, aren’t we talking about two different entities? Since the Anglicans are Sacramental, are we thinking that the Church of Christ subsists in the Anglican Church too? Are the Anglicans who are saved, saved through the aid of what they call Sacraments?

Of course, changing the definition of the Church of Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church had absolutely NOTHING to do with the appeasement of the protestants, right? Just like the suppression of the Traditional Canon with all the references to the Ministerial Priesthood as distinct from that of the people, the myriad of appeals to the Saints and the Mother of God…oh yeah, and the Sacrifice of the Mass. Not that Eucharistic Prayer #2 doesn’t make some mention of these things once in awhile…of course. It just doesn’t dwell on them, as if they were important, y’know.

 

[Yours_Truly]

The whole subsists in controversy is a non-issue. It’s like the filioque issue with the Orthodox–no matter how many times we tell them it doesn’t mean two principles and two spirations, but rather is meant to enforce the traditional understanding, they still accuse us of it meaning two principles/spirations.

Vatican II said the Church of Christ “is” the Catholic Church in another document. The idea that subsists in can be applied to any other entity than the Catholic Church has also been explicitly ruled out in subsequent Magisterial texts–but over-zealous “traditionalist” polemicists continue to say it means the Church of Christ subsists in non-Catholic Churches and communities as well.

The phrase subsists in is meant to emphasize the perduring identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, even though there are ecclesial elements (valid sacraments, etc.) outside her structure. In other words, despite that fact, the Church of Christ has always been, is now, and will always be the Catholic Church entrusted to St. Peter and his successors. Whereas “is” relates a present reality, “subsists in” expresses permanent continuity.

Here’s what Cardinal Ratzinger said in an interview with the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemine,

“Vatican II did not use Pius XII’s expression according to which ‘the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church of Christ.’ Instead, it preferred the expression ‘The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church…’ because,” he said, “it wished to ‘affirm that the being of the Church as such is a larger identity than the Roman Catholic Church’.”

I have another quotes as well, which I will try to find, where he said the same thing: that the reason “substists” was used was to teach that the Church of Christ is not identical with the Catholic Church. He then proceeds to say that it meant to affirm that heretical and schimatic “churches” are also part of the “Church of Christ”.

So I guess it is not just “over-zealous “traditionalist” polemicists” who say this, but our current Pope - what was at Vatican II - as well.

 

[redrosetea]

Who knows it this news article is even right? It’s been 7 hrs since it was printed and I still don’t see anyone else carrying it
I haven’t seen anything on the catholic news websites about it

 

[Yours_Truly]

Who knows it this news article is even right? It’s been 7 hrs since it was printed and I still don’t see anyone else carrying it
I haven’t seen anything on the catholic news websites about it

I just did a search and it seems that the quote was posted on *Zenit *and published in L’Osservatore Romano on October 8 (probably 2000). I found an old CAF thread where they were discussing this quote. In the thread they provide the link to the Zenit article, which they disucssed at the time, but no longer works.

Here’s a few more quotes that say the same thing as Cardinal Ratzinger:

**Avery Cardinal Dulles: ** “The Church of Christ is not exclusively identical to the Roman Catholic Church. It does indeed subsist in Roman Catholicism but it is also present in varying modes and degrees in other Christian communities.” (Catholic Family News (September 2005, page 15)

The next quote is from Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx, one of the main drafters of Vatican II documents:

Fr. Schillebeeckx: “It is difficult to say that the Catholic Church is still one, Catholic, apostolic, when one says that the others (other Christian communities) are equally one, Catholic and apostolic, albeit to a lesser degree. ---- at Vatican Council II, the Roman Catholic Church officially abandoned its monopoly over the Christian religion” " (ibid.).

We can see that it is not just *“over-zealous traditionalist polemicists” *who say this, but the movers and shakers of Vatican II themselves.

 

[Merkel]

you’re contradicting the Council’s definition, merkel…do you know better than the Pope and the Magisterium?

The CHurch of Jesus Christ SUBSISTS IN the Catholic Church. For over 40 years now. Sheesh.

I am contradicting your personal interpretation.

 

[Jordan_Francis]

It seems to me that this is what the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council intended when stating this whole “subsisting” business:

There is only one Church, that is the Church that was founded by Christ and of which he is the Head. This Church has its locus in that Communion governed by the successors of St. Peter, but nevertheless it’s reality is such that it is not confined within her visible demarcations. All the Protestant communities are, ultimately and in some fashion or another, derivatives of the Catholic Church and, therefore, whatever sanctification and redemption that occurs within Protestant communities is on account of the fact of this derivation.

This is what it means to say that Christ’s Church subsists in the Roman Communion. Though it is not linked to the Protestant communities by a visible union, these communities are nonetheless united to her in various, perhaps unquantifiable, degrees which retain for those people the hope of salvation.

This does not compromise the ancient dogma, because it remains in essence the same. It is more properly ecumenical because it permits dialogue beyond simple exhortations to conversion and polemics. It allows us a sphere for recognition of God’s activity within non-Catholic churches and acknowledgment of fractured, yet true fraternity in Christ. Nevertheless, the imperative for conversion remains for all those who desire the fullness of truth.

 

[chrisb]

I honestly didn’t see anything wrong with what he said–in fact, it was quite encouraging.

Nothing proposed by Vatican II that they have a problem with is irreformable, as far as I can tell. I think this is why he said it is more about making distinctions than about outright acceptance and rejection.

The problems he stresses are one with the spirit–not necessarily the letter.

I agree 100%…

 

[Jordan_Francis]

As an afterthought, could there not be some analogy here to transubstantiation regarding the “subsistence of Christ’s Church”?

Considering that the whole person of Christ is present in the Eucharist under the accidents of bread and wine, would not everyone hold that the substance of Christ, in an unquantifiable manner, is greater or “larger” than the accidents of the bread and wine? Yet, at the same time, where the accidents are there is Christ?

 

[Yours_Truly]

This is what it means to say that Christ’s Church subsists in the Roman Communion. Though it is not linked to the Protestant communities by a visible union, these communities are nonetheless united to her in various, perhaps unquantifiable, degrees which retain for those people the hope of salvation.

No. The Catholic Church is in no way united to heretical sects. Not even a little bit. Some of the individual members of these heretical sects might possibly be united to the soul of the Catholic Church, but the sect itself is not in any way.

The “soul” of the Church can extent outside of the visible boundaries of the Church, meaning that it is possible for someone who does no appear to be a member of the Church to be united to its soul. For example, all those who have been baptized validly and are below the age of reason would fall into this group.

Catechism of Pope St. Pius X:

29 Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?

A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can, such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.

So, what could be said is that the soul of the Church subsists within the body of the Church, and can also exists outside of its visible boundaries (which make up the “body”).

But we must remember that when we are speaking of the Catholic Church, or the Church of Christ as such, we are speaking of both the body and soul. **Both together form the one Church **- even though it sometimes happens that one who is a visible member of the Church (the body) has been cut off from the soul (due to heresy), and one who is not a visible member (of the body) is united to the soul (through supernatural faith). These are the abnormal exceptions to the general rule.

Unfortunately, so much emphasis has been placed on these “exceptions”, that most today deny the rule. And a denial of the rule is a denial of an article of faith.

That is the danger of placing the emphasis on the exception to the exclusion of the rule, and also why many Traditionalists emphasis the rule to the exclusion of the exception, which is what the Church always did prior to Vatican II.