SSPX claims

[Yoyoma67]

I have seen some claims by SSPX people that Catholics are supposed to resist a “heretical” pope. They claim Pius IX stated this in a letter to the bishop of Brizen. They also say that John Paul II spoke of “new teachings” in Ecclesia Dei. They claim to the contrary that the Church cannot teach anything new. Can anyone point me to some good resources on how to answer these claims?
Thanks,

y.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

I have seen some claims by SSPX people that Catholics are supposed to resist a “heretical” pope. They claim Pius IX stated this in a letter to the bishop of Brizen. They also say that John Paul II spoke of “new teachings” in Ecclesia Dei. They claim to the contrary that the Church cannot teach anything new. Can anyone point me to some good resources on how to answer these claims?
Thanks,

y.

I’m unable to find the letter from Pius IX to the Bishop of Brizen. The only information I have been able to find on it is from other forums. No actual letter though. I really doubt that the SSPX would make these claims while entering into reconciliatory talks.

 

[andreashofer]

That might be again just another heresy to prevent the society come together with us. God bless SSPX
They have often put us back into the light.

 

[Yoyoma67]

I’m unable to find the letter from Pius IX to the Bishop of Brizen. The only information I have been able to find on it is from other forums. No actual letter though. I really doubt that the SSPX would make these claims while entering into reconciliatory talks.

Sorry, I’m afraid the title of my thread is misleading, the claims are advanced by SSPX supporters.

y.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

Sorry, I’m afraid the title of my thread is misleading, the claims are advanced by SSPX supporters.

y.

As in not the Society or the hierarchy themselves? Gotcha. Mea culpa. Well first them show you historical evidence of Pius IX’s letter. The burden of proof lies on them.

 

[Yoyoma67]

Thanks, that’s fair enough but I’m also wondering how to deal with the argument that Ecclesia Dei refers to “new teachings” vs. the claim of some traditionalists that the Church cannot teach “new things”.

y.

 

[Boulder257]

I think that since they are the ones making the claims the burden of proof lies on them. What statements are they referring to and how are they “new?”

Sometimes people come at you with an argument like this to put you on the defensive despite the fact that they have not supported their claim or really given you anything to refute. So far as I can see, these SSPX supporters have not provided you with any specific to debate.

 

[Yoyoma67]

I think that since they are the ones making the claims the burden of proof lies on them. What statements are they referring to and how are they “new?”

Sometimes people come at you with an argument like this to put you on the defensive despite the fact that they have not supported their claim or really given you anything to refute. So far as I can see, these SSPX supporters have not provided you with any specific to debate.

Yeah, it’s specific. In Ecclesia Dei JPII argues the following:
“Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council’s continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.”

The pope makes a reference there to “new” doctrine. Some traditionalists argue against this on the grounds that the Church cannot teach anything “new”.

y.

 

[Cider]

I have seen some claims by SSPX people that Catholics are supposed to resist a “heretical” pope. They claim Pius IX stated this in a letter to the bishop of Brizen. They also say that John Paul II spoke of “new teachings” in Ecclesia Dei. They claim to the contrary that the Church cannot teach anything new. Can anyone point me to some good resources on how to answer these claims?
Thanks,

y.

source? You are the one bringing it up.

 

[JM3]

Yeah, it’s specific. In Ecclesia Dei JPII argues the following:
“Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council’s continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.”

The pope makes a reference there to “new” doctrine. Some traditionalists argue against this on the grounds that the Church cannot teach anything “new”.

y.

There is no reference to ‘new’ doctrine, but ‘points of doctrine’ in ‘continuity with Tradition’. A different point of view does not, necessarily, make something ‘new’. Only the point of view is new, not what you are viewing.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

1. b) Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel themselves called upon to answer in the present circumstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council’s continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.

1. a) The outcome of the movement promoted by Mons. Lefebvre can and must be, for all the Catholic faithful, a motive for sincere reflection concerning their own fidelity to the Church’s Tradition, authentically interpreted by the ecclesiastical Magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary, especially in the Ecumenical Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II. From this reflection all should draw a renewed and efficacious conviction of the necessity of strengthening still more their fidelity by rejecting erroneous interpretations and arbitrary and unauthorized applications in matters of doctrine, liturgy and discipline.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Yeah, it’s specific. In Ecclesia Dei JPII argues the following:
“Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council’s continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.”

The pope makes a reference there to “new” doctrine. Some traditionalists argue against this on the grounds that the Church cannot teach anything “new”.

y.

doesn’t he refer to “points of doctrine” as opposed to “doctrine”. A subtle difference perhaps? And perhaps the english translation does not do what the Pope is saying justice?

Peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Yoyoma67]

I think that analysis is not quite right. To say “especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new” still sounds to me like there are "points of doctrine’ which are “new”.

y.

 

[kozlosap]

Maybe I’ve lost it more than normal because of this 100 degree heat in the Sacramento Valley, but I thought I heard over the weekend on Sacred Heart Radio that the agreement that was pending between the Church and SSPX has fallen apart - is this the case?

 

[Andre1000]

Maybe I’ve lost it more than normal because of this 100 degree heat in the Sacramento Valley, but I thought I heard over the weekend on Sacred Heart Radio that the agreement that was pending between the Church and SSPX has fallen apart - is this the case?

Until 14 July the SSPX has a meeting of their leading priests, until them all is too much speculation.

 

[clem456]

I have seen some claims by SSPX people that Catholics are supposed to resist a “heretical” pope. They claim Pius IX stated this in a letter to the bishop of Brizen. They also say that John Paul II spoke of “new teachings” in Ecclesia Dei. They claim to the contrary that the Church cannot teach anything new. Can anyone point me to some good resources on how to answer these claims?
Thanks,

y.

They don’t merit an answer. People can claim anything they want. I claim that I am Pope now. Refute it please.
Focus your energies on being fully Catholic with the whole Church from top to bottom, not answering contentious claims formed out of thin air.

 

[JM3]

I think that analysis is not quite right. To say “especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new” still sounds to me like there are "points of doctrine’ which are “new”.

y.

You’re too focused on ‘doctrine’ and ‘new’.

I think the problem lies with the translation to english.

The “Council’s continuity with Tradition” is the subject of the paragraph.

I see it this way,

"Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call(s) for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council’s continuity with Tradition, which, perhaps because (they are) it is new, (have) has not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church, especially in points of doctrine.

I could be wrong, but this is the way I read this paragraph.

 

[pnewton]

I would recommend not even engaging in these sort of arguments. First, if someone is going to engage in wild speculation about resisting the heretical pope, they are missing basic Catholic spirituality. Second, a heavy onus of proof would be on the one making such a claim. Finally, there really is no way to disprove a negative anyway. This is a frequent technique used by fringe groups who come up with outlandish ideas and then challenge others to prove them wrong.

 

[Yoyoma67]

You’re too focused on ‘doctrine’ and ‘new’.

I think the problem lies with the translation to english.

The “Council’s continuity with Tradition” is the subject of the paragraph.

I see it this way,

"Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call(s) for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council’s continuity with Tradition, which, perhaps because (they are) it is new, (have) has not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church, especially in points of doctrine.

I could be wrong, but this is the way I read this paragraph.

OK, Thanks I appreciate your effort although I disagree. I’m not of course certain I am right either. It would be helpful if the Latin text were available anywhere. One interesting thing I found out is that even the English translations of Vatican documents are not “official”, only the Latin text.

y.

 

[Yoyoma67]

They don’t merit an answer. People can claim anything they want. I claim that I am Pope now. Refute it please.
Focus your energies on being fully Catholic with the whole Church from top to bottom, not answering contentious claims formed out of thin air.

I don’t think that is an appropriate response, the Vatican could have said the same thing about the doctrinal talks with the SSPX, but concern for ending the schism necessitated those. It’s an apologetics question really, and since the Vatican has asked we revive apologetics I think that’s the direction we have to go.

y.

 

[clem456]

I don’t think that is an appropriate response, the Vatican could have said the same thing about the doctrinal talks with the SSPX, but concern for ending the schism necessitated those. It’s an apologetics question really, and since the Vatican has asked we revive apologetics I think that’s the direction we have to go.

y.

I apologize for brushing off your inquiry. I was not responding to your sincere desire to know as I should have, but rather the claims themselves that you were passing along.
Mea culpa.