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

[Miles_Mariae]

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.

I would call that evil-sounding

“Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.” - Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos

With this one quote can be demonstrated that only those who recognize the supremacy of Peter and his successors belong to the Church of Christ. This means that even if what you say is true, and the Church is “not confined within her visible demarcations”, very few people outside of the “demarcations” are part of the Church of Christ because very few of them recognize the Pope’s supremacy and authority.

Those who do are probably in RCIA programs or some other stage before seeking baptism. This is why I hesitate to say that you’re wrong. This quote from Mortalium Animos doesn’t preclude the possibility of the Church of Christ extending beyond the institution of the Catholic Church but would mean that in effect, everyone in the Church of Christ is either an orthodox Catholic or seeking to become one.

I consider your phrasing evil-sounding because although it’s technically correct, you didn’t specify what is necessary to be part of the Church of Christ, only what isn’t demonstrably necessary (to be part of the organization of the Catholic Church). This comes dangerously close to reducing to a “meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.”" (Humani Generis)

 

[Merkel]

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

No that’s not what is at stake. No priest is “forced” to celebrate any Mass. There are groups within the Church that celebrate only the extraordinary Mass.

The real issue is bringing clerics into the Catholic Church that think they know more than the Church does. More specifically that something is “wrong” or “deficient” with the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

 

[Lujack]

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.

What’s at stake is that they’ll be forced to acknowledge that Novus Ordo is a valid Mass. They won’t be forced to say it, just like the priests of the Fraternal Society of St. Peter don’t have to say Novus Ordo Masses.

 

[MrDickerson]

Were the SSPX thinking that Benedict wouldn’t require it as a condition of full reconciliation? Their overtures didn’t remove their need to submit to the Holy Father in order to be reconciled.

Obviously! Pope Benedict DIDN’T require it as a condition of “full reconciliation.” Authorities in Rome have already stated that the SSPX would not necessarily have to accept everything from Vatican II; even Pope Benedict has said it’s merely a pastoral council.

 

[Extempore]

Were the SSPX thinking that Benedict wouldn’t require it as a condition of full reconciliation? Their overtures didn’t remove their need to submit to the Holy Father in order to be reconciled.

Upon which doctrinal aspects of Vatican II do the SSPX disagree with Rome?

Keep in mind, agreeing with Vatican II is not a litmus test for communion with Rome. The excommunications were not incurred because of a failure to submit to Vatican II.

 

[Extempore]

What’s at stake is that they’ll be forced to acknowledge that Novus Ordo is a valid Mass. They won’t be forced to say it, just like the priests of the Fraternal Society of St. Peter don’t have to say Novus Ordo Masses.

The SSPX already acknowledge that the Novus Ordo is valid.

 

[Frosty]

=Yours Truly;4800036]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.

This a total distortion and mis-representation of the truth. The article in question was an attempt by the Cardinal to answer the main objections against Dominus Iesus and the actual quote from the article is:

When the Council Fathers replaced the word “is” with the word “subsistit”, they did so for a very precise reason. The concept expressed by “is” (to be) is far broader than that expressed by “to subsist”. “To subsist” is a very precise way of being, that is, to be as a subject which exists in itself. Thus the Council Fathers meant to say that the being of the Church as such is a broader entity than the Roman Catholic Church, but within the latter it acquires, in an incomparable way, the character of a true and proper subject.

ewtn.com/library/Theology/OBDOMIHS.HTM

To say that Cardinal Ratzinger agreed that Vatican II tried to change Church teaching on the nature of the Church is absolutely outrageous. Perhaps you should enlighten yourself with the most recent Vatican statements regarding certain aspects on the Doctrine of the Church.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

 

[Lujack]

The SSPX already acknowledge that the Novus Ordo is valid.

Badly phrased on my part. Rather, the most they will have to acknowledge that the Novus Ordo is not “evil”, which is what they refer to it as on their website. They’ll probably have to abandon this position as well:

E. CONSIDERING WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, ARE WE OBLIGED IN CONSCIENCE TO ATTEND THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE?

If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc).

 

[Merkel]

Why is the SSPX even talking to the press about this stuff?

 

[ProVobis]

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

Ok. So what does it mean to you?

 

[Dempsey1919]

The Church needs to clarify several things in the documents of Vatican II, and I hope the talks with the leadership of the SSPX helps to bring this about.

 

[pnewton]

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.”

I have to say that even this modernist, anti-SSPX poster (as I have been labeled) sees hope in this statement and nothing that is outside of the Catholic faith. Do we not all agree that there is dogma, doctrine, disciple, and other areas in which we may disagree? I must accept any dogmatic declarations. I have an obligation to try and understand all doctrine. As a bishop, they have an additional responsibility for obedience, as per their vows.

However, as theologians, there is area that they can disagree on, as long as it is done properly. Without this disagreement, no doctrine would ever develop and we would have no further knowledge of God past what was revealed in the first century. Both theological liberals and conservatives play a vital role in the dialogue that leads to great understanding. It has always been that way. In an era where change is all too easy, we need the conservative theologians to act as a brake to ill-advised change.

 

[Yours_Truly]

Ok. So what does it mean to you?

Here’s the interview from the link that frosty provided. In an earlier thread I mentioned that there was another quote from Cardinal Ratzinger (that I couldn’t find), wherein he explicitly stated the reasons for using the word “subsists”, and that the reason was because those at Vatican II believed that the Church of Christ was larger than the Roman Catholic Church and also “substisted” in heretical and schismatic sects. Thankfully, Frosty found that quote I wasn’t able to locate. Let’s take a look at it.

On the other hand, Eberhard Jüngel sees something different there. The fact that in its time the Second Vatican Council did not state that the one and only Church of Christ is exclusively the Roman Catholic Church perplexes Jüngel. In the Constitution Lumen Gentium, it says only that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him", not expressing any exclusivity with the Latin word “subsistit”.

Unfortunately once again I cannot follow the reasoning of my esteemed colleague, Jüngel. I was there at the Second Vatican Council when the term “subsistit” was chosen and I can say I know it well. Regrettably one cannot go into details in an interview. In his Encyclical Pius XII said: the Roman Catholic Church “is” the one Church of Jesus Christ. This seems to express a complete identity, which is why there was no Church outside the Catholic community. However, this is not the case: according to Catholic teaching, which Pius XII obviously also shared, the local Churches of the Eastern Church separated from Rome [formal schismatics] are authentic local Churches; the communities that sprang from the Reformation are constituted differently, as I just said. In these the Church exists at the moment when the event takes place

So, Cardinal Ratzinger believes that schismatic sects are true authentic Churches, and that the Church of Christ “substists” in them. This is not correct. There is only one True Church and that is the Roman Catholic Church, which means the Church of Rome and all who are in union with it.

This idea that “churches” who are separated from Rome and who reject 13 Councils of the Church, are authentic Churches is a teaching of the “New Theology” that was condemned prior to the council. In fact, Humani Generis of Pius XII was condemning this “new theology”.

Pope Pius XII: “There is a good deal of talk (but without the necessary clarity of concept) about a ‘new theology’, which must be in constant transformation…”.

Notice how he says that they new thology does not possess the necessary clarity. That is seen in the interview with Cardinal Ratzinger. If you read on, it because unclear exactly hat he is trying to say. He even says that there is a certain “contradiction” is what he is saying.

Ratzinger: "With “subsistit”, the intention was to say that … there is also an ecclesial reality outside the Catholic community, and it is precisely this contradiction which is the strongest incentive to pursue unity.

The “old theology” was clear: If a group separated from the Church, they ceased to be a part of it, period. The new theology blurs the lines thereby making the clear ambiguous.

This new theology is exactly what has taken over since Vatican II. In an interview with 30 days in 1991, the Jesuit Father Henrici, a proponent of this “new theology” boasted that what Pius XII condemned in Humani Generis has now ***“become the official theology of Vatican II” *** He further says this.

“Nearly all of the theologians who have been named bishops in recent years, have come up thrhica the Communio line [of the new theology]. Their names form a list of important persons destined for the top careers: the Germans, Lehman and Kasper, the Swiss, Von Schonborn and Corecco; the Italian, Scola; the Belgian, Leonard and the Brazilian, Romer. The founding members, Balthasar, De Lubac and Ratzinger, have all become cardinals. Many of the second generation have been chosen as bishops.” (30 Days, December 1991)

Unfortunately, the adherents of this new theology, who were either suspect by Rome prior to the council, or who were under actual sanctions by Rome prior to the council, were rehabilitated at the council and became its “leading lights”.

continue…

 

[Yours_Truly]

continuation

According to the “new theology” the one True Church is no longer the Roman Catholic Church (meaning all Churches in union with Rome). Instead, there is a mega Church which includes all “Christian” groups in various modes of unity. There are those Churches in “full communion” with the Catholic Church, and others who are in lesser degrees of communion, but all mysteriously united by common bonds, how ever so minimal these bonds may be.

That is the “new ecclesiology” of the “new theology”, and is reflected by the word “subsists”, as Cardinal Ratzinger makes clear in the above interview. Here’s what Cardinal Ratzinger said in 1966:

Fr. Razinger: “A basic unity - of Churches, yet become one Church - must replace the idea of conversion, even though conversion retains its meaningfulness for those in conscience motivated to seek it”

Have you ever wondered why Cardinal Kasper holds the position he does - as the point-man for ecumenism? The dirty little secret (which should not surprise anyone) is that he represents the current thinking in Rome. Why else would he be left in that position?

Lest anyone be confused by the quotes we just read, I’ll provide a quote showing what the Church really is.

Catechism of Pope Pius X:

**Question : What is the Catholic Church? **

Answer: The Catholic Church is the Union or Congregation of all the baptized who, still living on earth, profess the same Faith and the same Law of Jesus Christ, participate in the same Sacraments, and obey their lawful Pastors, particularly the Roman Pontiff.

**Question: The many societies of persons who are baptized but who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not, then, belong to the Church of Jesus Christ? **

Answer: No, those who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ.

Question: How can the Church of Jesus Christ be distinguished from the numerous societies or sects founded by men, and calling themselves Christian?

Answer: From the numerous societies or sects founded by men and calling themselves Christian, the Church of Jesus Christ is easily distinguished by four marks: She is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

Question: Why is the Church called One?

Answer: The true Church is called One, because her children of all ages and places are united together in the same faith, in the same worship, in the same law; and in participation of the same Sacraments, under the same visible Head, the Roman Pontiff.

Question: Can there not be several Churches?

Answer: No, there cannot be more than one Church; for as there is but one God, one Faith and one Baptism, there is and can be but one true Church.

Question: But are not the faithful of a whole Nation or Diocese also called a Church?

Answer: The faithful of a whole Nation or Diocese are also called a Church, but they ever remain mere parts of the Universal Church and form but one Church with her.

There is only one True Church. Those, such as the Orthodox, who break away become separated from the one Church. The unity of the Church is not divided by their separation. The Church remains one and retains its perfect unity, which cannot be broken apart. When groups leave, they become separated from the perfect unity that the One True Church always retains.

This is the “old” - and unchanging - “theology” of the Church to which we must adhere.

Just as God allowed the Arian heresy the shake the Church, so too has he allowed the Liberal heresy to shake the Church; and just as most of the Bishop of the Church during the Arian heresy were in fact Arians, so to most of the Bishops in the Church today are Liberals. Fr. Jurgins estimates that as many as 99% of the Bishops during the time of the Arian heresy were Arian, so it should not surprise us if we have a similar percentage today who are Liberal adherents of the “new theology”.

But, since “the gates of hell shall not prevail”, we can be absolutely certain that, just as the Arian heresy and all of its ambiguities were eventually purged, so too with be the Liberal heresy of our days. But will we ourselves keep the truth and unchanging faith? That question is not yet answered.

 

[japhy]

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.

The Council Fathers didn’t think so.

 

[japhy]

Of course “is” only relates to a static present reality, right?

If we say “the apple is (the color) red”, we mean that right now, the apple is red… but in a week, it could be discolored, and it won’t be red anymore.

But if we say “(the color) red subsists in the apple”, we are making an ontological statement about the substance of the apple vis-a-vis the nature of (the color) red, which implies that the apple can never lose its redness. As for redness being found (to varying degrees) in other things, the analogy breaks down.

But the Council’s teaching about the existence of certain Catholic elements – sacraments, Scripture, liturgy, sacramentals, etc. – is that “These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.” (LG 8)

This is how I have understood the est-vs-subsistit in controversy, after having read this and this and this and this.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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

No, I do not think this is the key issue.

I think the key issue is will an SSPX priest be allowed to celebrate the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

The FSSP had this question pop up a number of years ago and the then superior tried to say no, to which some of the members of the FSSP raised a concern as they wished to be able to concelebrate with the local bishop in whose diocese they were working. The Vatican intervened and the superior was replaced and the FSSP was not allowed to order their members not to celebrate the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

 

[maurin]

The Council Fathers didn’t think so.

Dear japhy,

thank you for your response and for the link. It was an interesting read.

Don’t you find it odd that it took how many lines of footnotes to express and affirm what a previous Pope expressed in one single sentence, without the need for such voluminous notes in explanation? Don’t you also find it odd that such voluminous footnotes were deemed needed in order to affirm the Orthodoxy of a such a change? Wasn’t the Council going for simplicity of expression? How much more simple is one sentence in the definition of the Church?

 

[maurin]

If we say “the apple is (the color) red”, we mean that right now, the apple is red… but in a week, it could be discolored, and it won’t be red anymore.

But if we say “(the color) red subsists in the apple”, we are making an ontological statement about the substance of the apple vis-a-vis the nature of (the color) red, which implies that the apple can never lose its redness. As for redness being found (to varying degrees) in other things, the analogy breaks down.

But the Council’s teaching about the existence of certain Catholic elements – sacraments, Scripture, liturgy, sacramentals, etc. – is that “These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.” (LG 8)

This is how I have understood the est-vs-subsistit in controversy, after having read this and this and this and this.

I had as hard a time with my “maurin is a salesman” analogy as you are with your redness and apple one.

neither redness nor salesman defines either an apple or maurin. maurin is also a teacher. an apple is red, but it is also yellow, with no hint of redness (that’s a Granny Smith, right?). Also, when rotten, a red apple is no longer red but brown or black.

The links you provided, at the end of the day, also stress the ecumenical aspects of changing the definition. The Eucharistic Prayers which supplanted the use of the Traditional Roman Canon were put in place for there ecumenical aspects, downplaying the Sacrificial nature of the Mass, and in some cases the Sacrificial aspects of the Ministerial Priesthood.

Something about that calls to my mind the odor of the red apple after it has turned brown.

 

[TMC]

Obviously! Pope Benedict DIDN’T require it as a condition of “full reconciliation.” Authorities in Rome have already stated that the SSPX would not necessarily have to accept everything from Vatican II; even Pope Benedict has said it’s merely a pastoral council.

I think the Pope has indicated that accepting Vatican II is a condition of full reconciliation. This is what he said on Jan 28:

Precisely in fulfillment of this service to unity, which qualifies my ministry as Successor to Peter in a specific way, I decided several days ago to grant the remission of the excommunication to which the four Bishops, ordained in 1988 by Archbishop Lefebvre without a Papal mandate, were subject. I fulfilled this act of paternal compassion because these Bishops repeatedly manifested their active suffering for the situation in which they had found themselves. I hope that this gesture of mine will be followed by an earnest commitment on their behalf to complete the necessary further steps to achieve full communion with the Church, thus witnessing true fidelity to, and true recognition of, the Magisterium and the authority of the Pope and the Second Vatican Council.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090128_en.html