SSPX Disagreement with Vatican II

[smead2942]

My understanding is that SSPX views the documents of Vatican II as inconsistent with previous Church teaching. If the Church cannot teach error how does SSPX view the Church and itself? Does SSPX believe that it is the true Catholic Church and the Popes and other bishops have fallen away? Or does SSPX just believe that VII should be considered as not authoritative? How would SSPX resolve the mess of VII documents being inconsistent with previous Catholic teaching?

I do not currently attend a chapel of the FSSPX, but about 95% of me agrees with them.

Many of the Second Vatican Council documents are inconsistent with Church teaching, and reflect the “spirit of the times” rather than Sacred Tradition. In addition, where Ecumenical Councils were previously called to combat heresy or address a grave threat to Christianity, Vatican II was called to help the Holy Mother Church “get with the times”. The Holy Spirit was not solemnly invoked, and both Popes John XXIII and Paul VI stated on many occasions that the Council did not claim infallibility (except where explicitly stated). The Council was an extension of the Ordinary Magisterium.

It is false to say the Church cannot teach error. Over the millennia, many bishops have flirted with heresy. It is entirely possible that many of them went into the Vatican in 1962 with an agenda and implemented that agenda in the Council documents. Does that mean ALL of it is bad? Maybe not, but I interpret it with a grain of salt.

The FSSPX views itself as a society of Catholic priests upholding Catholic tradition while opposing modernism. That’s exactly what it is, albeit suspended. Most FSSPX clergy don’t hold official canonical status within the Church, though that is debatable on the grounds of extraordinary jurisdiction. Just because the FSSPX rejects the Council’s errors does not mean they reject the Supreme Pontiff or are “disobedient”. That is sedevacantism, which is a heresy.

The Second Vatican Council was primarily pastoral and not doctrinal, so no, it is not necessarily authoritative.

 

[commenter]

I do not currently attend a chapel of the FSSPX, but about 95% of me agrees with them.

The FSSPX views itself as a society of Catholic priests upholding Catholic tradition while opposing modernism. That’s exactly what it is, albeit suspended. Most FSSPX clergy don’t hold official canonical status within the Church, though that is debatable on the grounds of extraordinary jurisdiction. Just because the FSSPX rejects the Council’s errors does not mean they reject the Supreme Pontiff or are “disobedient”. That is sedevacantism, which is a heresy.

Thanks for your post. I hope you currently have a parish where you are well.

My interpretation is that none of the clergy hold canonical status in the Church, in part because they are not in relationship to their bishop-ordinary, nor are their superiors in relationship to the Vatican office that oversees societies of Catholic priests. In other words they regard Peter’s chair as filled, but the chair in the cathedral downtown as empty. They accept that man as a bishop - a sacramental minister, like other bishops locally, but not as the ordinary.

 

[z_0101]

The Second Vatican Council was primarily pastoral and not doctrinal, so no, it is not necessarily authoritative.

USCCB
Is the doctrinal authority of the Catechism equal to the documents of the Second Vatican Council?
Just as **the Catechism **contains the most solemnly defined dogmas of the Church, it also contains the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. The worldwide consultation of the bishops that preceded the promulgation of the Catechism gives it a collegial character. It is, as Pope John Paul II said, “the result of a collaboration of the whole episcopate.” It would seem, however, that the Catechism did not have the benefit of the complete exercise of effective collegiality that accompanies the writing, disputation, revision, consensus, agreement and eventual promulgation of documents of an ecumenical council. But it must be noted that the form of a catechism is distinct from the form of conciliar documents. They are complimentary, but they are not identical.

**19.Does this mean that the Catechism can be disregarded? **
***No. ***The Catechism is part of the Church’s ordinary teaching authority. Pope John Paul II placed his apostolic authority behind it. Its doctrinal authority is proper to the papal Magisterium. In Fidei Depositum John Paul II termed the Catechism a “sure norm for teaching the faith” and “a sure and authentic reference text.” He asked “the Church’s pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life.”

For being only pastoral, it sure seems to have had a major influence and upon a document that is doctrinal in nature.

I also suggest reading by William J. BauschPilgrim Church - a Popular History of the Catholic Christianity it seems to me, in light of this book, that SVC was a step towards the early Churches positions on a lot of things and not as quite a radical departure as many thought. However, there were a factions that seemed to, “run with it” to an extreme that I don’t think the Church anticipated, hence the splintering.

 

[bobballen_18]

it seems to me, in light of this book, that SVC was a step towards the early Churches positions on a lot of things and not as quite a radical departure as many thought. However, there were a factions that seemed to, “run with it” to an extreme that I don’t think the Church anticipated, hence the splintering.

I haven’t read the book you speak of. I am not saying that the book is wrong, but I do want to comment that just because the “early Christian Church” did something does not necessarily mean it is something we have to do today. I suppose you might challenge me and say this is not about a discipline, something we do, but rather about actual beliefs, and beliefs don’t/shouldn’t change, so if the early Christians believed something, then we should believe it today as well. And you might have a point there. But I just wanted to throw that out there. If you hold this position - that the SVC is a restoration of “early Church positions” then, as far as I personally see it, you also hold the position that from, what, the 4th century? to the 20th century (1960s) the Church was wrong, at least to some extent. To me that seems a little far-fetched but of course that is only my opinion. And in this sense, if that is more or less true, then the SVC certainly is a “radical departure” from what the Church has known since whatever early Church date we are speaking of.

I guess all I’m trying to say is that people who are skeptical of VII aren’t necessarily (though I admit they sometimes are) far off the mark, and we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss their opinions.

 

[AndyP2014]

The SSPX has problems with the document on religious liberty. The American bishops at the council pressed for a very American understanding of the topic. The SSPX believes that tradition requires that the state should support the church wherever possible along the lines of the German Church tax. The SSPX’s understanding of the teaching that “error has no rights” that is in conflict with churches understanding.

 

[smead2942]

Thanks for your post. I hope you currently have a parish where you are well.

My interpretation is that none of the clergy hold canonical status in the Church, in part because they are not in relationship to their bishop-ordinary, nor are their superiors in relationship to the Vatican office that oversees societies of Catholic priests. In other words they regard Peter’s chair as filled, but the chair in the cathedral downtown as empty. They accept that man as a bishop - a sacramental minister, like other bishops locally, but not as the ordinary.

My pleasure.

The FSSPX believes they validly administer all of the sacraments–specifically Holy Matrimony, on the grounds of Extraordinary Jurisdiction. Basically, because of a crisis in the Church (the Society views this crisis as the fairly widespread post-conciliar loss of faith in both laity and clergy), canon law supplies them with the authority necessary to serve the faithful without the permission of the local ordinary.

They do not believe their local cathedra is vacant. Rather, they operate without the see’s permission primarily because the perceived crisis makes it necessary. Most FSSPX chapels and churches even contain images of the ordinary and Roman Pontiff in the sacristy and do recognize them as their valid superiors within the church hierarchy.

As for my parish… it is Novus Ordo in the full “Spirit Vatican II” sense. Communion in the hand, altar girls, 8 “Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion”, guitars, tabernacle off to the side, no Latin whatsoever, lack of catechesis, heartwarming-but-theologically-lacking sermons, etc. That will change in the next year or so, as I am moving to a larger city where I will attend Holy Mass at either the diocesan TLM chaplaincy or FSSPX chapel.

 

[otjm]

I do not currently attend a chapel of the FSSPX, but about 95% of me agrees with them.

Then you might check in with the other 5%.

The Holy Spirit was not solemnly invoked,

You say that, seemingly implying that unless the Holy Spirit was solemnly invoked, that somehow the Holy Spirit either would not or could not guide the Church. An interesting observation on your part, to put it politely.

It is false to say the Church cannot teach error. Over the millennia, many bishops have flirted with heresy.

Apparently you never read the Baltimore Catechism, which by the way was around several popes before Vatican 2 was ever conceived. Further, you confuse a bishopbeing heretical or borderline so, from the Church teaching heresy You have much to learn, and are clearly not a tradtionalist, as the tradition is far different from your statement.

The FSSPX views itself as a society of Catholic priests upholding Catholic tradition while opposing modernism.

The Church, however, views the FSSPX somewhat differently.

Most FSSPX clergy don’t hold official canonical status within the Church, though that is debatable on the grounds of extraordinary jurisdiction.

We have had 5 popes now during the period of the FSSPX existence who have either explicitly denied the issue of extraordinary jurisdiction, or have left the prior pope’s statement stand. And not to make too fine a point of it, but the Pope has the final say on issues such as this, and they have said “Nope!” resoundingly, explicitly, and repeatedly. Point. Set. Game.

Just because the FSSPX rejects the Council’s errors does not mean they reject the Supreme Pontiff or are “disobedient”. That is sedevacantism, which is a heresy.

Again, apparently you did not study the Baltimore Catechism. It is not heresy. It is schism. They have not been officially declared in schism, for reasons known to the Vatican; but the head of the dicastery dealing with them has said publicly that they are in practical schism, just not judicial schism.

That which goes about on two webbed feet, has feathers and a bill, and quacks is not a pig.

 

[otjm]

I haven’t read the book you speak of. I am not saying that the book is wrong, but I do want to comment that just because the “early Christian Church” did something does not necessarily mean it is something we have to do today.

Well, it is nice that you think that, since the Church has not said we “have to do it that way” either. Much of what prompted Vatican 2 was a return to the early Church Fathers and their documents. That is not to say that the Church erred in Faith and/or Morals subsequently; but rather to say that looking at the early Church might give some perspective to growth subsequently, which may have ended up with too many accretions, which in turn could distract us from following Christ as well as we could.

I suppose you might challenge me and say this is not about a discipline, something we do, but rather about actual beliefs, and beliefs don’t/shouldn’t change, so if the early Christians believed something, then we should believe it today as well. And you might have a point there.

A rather interesting comment on that matter was made by an Anglican priest, who said “To read the Church Fathers is to cease to be Protestant”. Who? John Henry Cardinal Newman. So you might want to do a bit more than barely concede the point.

If you hold this position - that the SVC is a restoration of “early Church positions” then, as far as I personally see it, you also hold the position that from, what, the 4th century? to the 20th century (1960s) the Church was wrong, at least to some extent. To me that seems a little far-fetched but of course that is only my opinion. And in this sense, if that is more or less true, then the SVC certainly is a “radical departure” from what the Church has known since whatever early Church date we are speaking of.

“Wrong” is an interesting word, as it often implies a moral failure. The other side to your coin seems to be that if the Church made any change subsequent, say, to the last of the Church Fathers, that such change was not only good, but necessary and minding for all time. That is just as silly. Over time, the Church has had numerous instances where it has reactionary, rather than leading; the whole of the Protestant Reformation being one long complicated example. The Church’s reaction to the philosophical turmoil starting about the time of the French Revolution, and continuing on down through the end game of many Protestant Theologians and some Catholic ones was again reactionary. Wrong? No, I would not use that word, but we got stuck in our reactionary positions, rather than evangelizing.

I do not suggest we should not have addressed those issues, but we became entrenched and seemed to be more involved in naval gazing than in going out boldly to bring Christ to the world.

I guess all I’m trying to say is that people who are skeptical of VII aren’t necessarily (though I admit they sometimes are) far off the mark, and we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss their opinions.

Too many of the critics don’t have enough theological training to know when to come in out of the rain. They don’t seem to remember the short prayer “Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief.”

When an eighth grade student who has studied the Baltimore Catechism can answer the objections made by those who criticize V2 documents, then Houston, we have a problem.

There are all too many people who have read a website or two, a blog or so, and suddenly feel anointed to wade in on theological issues that belong to the paygrade of PhDs and above.

They seem to have forgotten three simple rules: 1) The Holy Spirit was promised to the Church, by Christ, to protect it from error in matters of FAith and Morals. 2) Christ didn’t lie. 3) When one comes upon an issue of theology which one does not understand, read rules 1 & 2.

 

[commenter]

…
As for my parish… it is Novus Ordo in the full “Spirit Vatican II” sense. Communion in the hand, altar girls, 8 “Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion”, guitars, tabernacle off to the side, no Latin whatsoever, lack of catechesis, heartwarming-but-theologically-lacking sermons, etc. That will change in the next year or so, as I am moving to a larger city where I will attend Holy Mass at either the diocesan TLM chaplaincy or FSSPX chapel.

I have belonged to, in fact practically kicked out of, a couple parishes that were bad, for different reasons. The last one, the pastor told my wife I was a reactionary. What made it worse was that the diocese seemed as bad as those parishes.

I was tempted to join an alternative, not part of the Catholic Church, but where the pastor seemed similar to JP II, deeply spiritual and evangelistic. I loved going to church there. The problem with the alternative is that you have no idea what the next pastor will be like, who is supervising him, and what he is omitting. By going there you are supporting a larger system. The parent organization of that alternative is working to pull Catholics out of parishes everywhere they operate - even from good parishes - and they tend to encourage the secular trend of making people suspicious of religious hierarchy.

Even my bad Catholic parishes did reinforce some connection with bishops, and the pope. A few bishops later, we have a much more orthodox diocese than before (still have abuses, where convents are defiant). If I had fully joined the alternative then, I would be there now, and would have influenced younger Catholics to be there.

It’s tempting to say, when the abuses end, I can leave the alternative, and go back to the diocese itself. But the alternative will never tell people, ok, our local diocese is mostly good, we are not necessary anymore. No, they will always find more abuses. In my city, the alternative still acts like it is 1980. They will always find reasons to wait.

Check out the diocesan TLM chaplaincy.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

They seem to have forgotten three simple rules: 1) The Holy Spirit was promised to the Church, by Christ, to protect it from error in matters of FAith and Morals. 2) Christ didn’t lie. 3) When one comes upon an issue of theology which one does not understand, read rules 1 & 2.

All good advice, but not sufficient to resolve the particular question at hand, for we know that the Spirit’s protection is best understood as a negative, i.e., preventive, intervention as opposed to a positive, i.e., ensuring beneficial action. So God keeps the Church, qua Church, from commanding the assent of faith to erroneous doctrine, but He also ordained that the Church speaking definitively qua Church would only happen under specific, limited circumstances. So if an ecumenical council or a pope ex cathedra solemnly defines a point of faith they cannot get things wrong, but all their other teaching outside of those extraordinary definitions might be erroneous. That’s why the ordinary magisterium of popes, bishops, or even councils (the latter being unprecedented prior to VII) does not demand divine and Catholic faith. Paul VI himself said that VII exercised no extraordinary magisterium, so it is indeed *possible *that some of the teachings it proposed could be flat out wrong. The work of the Spirit in that case would have been to prevent the council Fathers from putting the full weight of the Church behind those erroneous propositions - providential work indeed!

But on the flip side, even though it is possible for the ordinary magisterium to err, this is not particularly likely (and has not in fact happened often in ecclesiastical history), and even were it to happen it does not belong to laymen to sit in judgment on that error. Instead we are bound as a rule to afford the ordinary magisterium our religious submission of mind and will. If something seems to blatantly contradict the Church’s previous teaching we might feel the need in conscience to suspend such assent, always with the understanding that it is ultimately not ours to judge and that we should not openly dissent from the teaching in such a way as to undermine others’ faith (scholarly articles, for instance, might be acceptable while quite a different beast from the unacceptable telling random strangers simply that Pope X or Council Y can’t be trusted).

 

[ProVobis]

The SSPX’s understanding of the teaching that “error has no rights” that is in conflict with churches understanding.

I don’t know if I’d want to poke too many holes in them just yet, since after all, the Pope has allowed them to hear confessions legitimately, at least temporarily.

 

[smead2942]

I don’t know if I’d want to poke too many holes in them just yet, since after all, the Pope has allowed them to hear confessions legitimately, at least temporarily.

Exactly. And they are valid priests, after all. Not excommunicated. Not schismatic.

There are also some bishops in Europe who have begun allowing the FSSPX to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in their dioceses. The FSSPX was recently allowed to register with the Argentinian government as a diocesan association. In many cases, their priests (including Bishop Fellay, Superior General of the Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Pii X) have said Mass in Saint Peter’s Basilica!

 

[AndyP2014]

I don’t know if I’d want to poke too many holes in them just yet, since after all, the Pope has allowed them to hear confessions legitimately, at least temporarily.

Be careful, the Jubilee year hasn’t started yet, and only a complete fool would try to predict the actions of Pope Francis. In the end the SSPX must conform itself to the Magisterium not the other way around. I predict that if the SSPX does not conform and breaks away they will embrace greater errors than any of the protestant sects in 100 years.

 

[Trad_Catholic27]

I really wish the SSPX would humbly return to the Church because we as Catholics need to be one as Christ wants us to be

My fear is that the longer they remain in Schism they will end up like the Protestants and the Orthodox bitter and unwilling to reunite with Rome

 

[ProVobis]

In the end the SSPX must conform itself to the Magisterium not the other way around. I predict that if the SSPX does not conform and breaks away they will embrace greater errors than any of the protestant sects in 100 years.

Perhaps, but in the meantime the laity who frequent their chapels should be of as much concern if not more so, I would think.

 

[commenter]

… in the meantime the laity who frequent their chapels should be of as much concern if not more so, I would think.

I agree. Long before VII, St Pius X strongly emphasized Catholic Action: the laity, united with other Catholics in their city, and with their bishops, united with other Catholics in their country, for common action on behalf of the gospel.

In my city the bishop is the de facto head of the regional prolife, religious liberty movement. Laity from the diocesan TLM communities are active in these activities. Families from the SSPX chapel are isolated from all that.

Families raising children in the SSPX chapel are keeping their children away from many local Catholic activities, loyalties and formation that would have been endorsed by St. Pius X for the benefit of religious liberty, and the benefit of families. Whether or not the chapel is “in schism”, or if they do or don’t technically “recognize” the local ordinary who they disobey, the de facto reality -
far more important -
for the families is isolation from the bishop, and from the local Catholic community.

 

[ProVobis]

In my city the bishop is the de facto head of the regional prolife, religious liberty movement. Laity from the diocesan TLM communities are active in these activities. Families from the SSPX chapel are isolated from all that.

That’s probably true. It seems too that the latter are more involved in pilgrimages and such, activities not necessarily bound along diocesan lines.

 

[z_0101]

Well, it is nice that you think that, since the Church has not said we “have to do it that way” either. Much of what prompted Vatican 2 was a return to the early Church Fathers and their documents. (>>>SNIP<<<)

THANK YOU!
I couldn’t have done that any better … if that well at all.:tiphat:

Posted by bobballen_18:
I haven’t read the book you speak of.

I strongly suggest you read it… an eye opener to be sure, none of this watered down politically correct, wish it was this or that way, historical-fiction. Instead its a hard hitting, no holds barred review of the Church’s history covering each of the major plot turns with easy to primary source references cited at the end of every chapter.

 

[commenter]

That’s probably true. It seems too that the latter are more involved in pilgrimages and such, activities not necessarily bound along diocesan lines.

Yes, the families from SSPX do go on pilgrimages, etc, as well as their family devotions, all of which are crucial, in addition to the spiritual care in the chapel. Not minimizing any of that. They also sometimes do (separate) prolife activities on their own. The families are not involved in the larger struggle for religious liberty, at least in my diocese.

But St. Pius X also foresaw the mobilization of secularists using the Media and social movements to impact the city, the province, the nation. He called for parishes to cooperate with nearby parishes, coordinated by the local bishop for a local, Catholic response; building up to national Catholic Action as needed. The theme of unified regional lay response, coordinated by bishops, to social problems was reiterated by other popes *prior to VII.
*
The non involvement by SSPX families in their local diocese - that is, local Catholic Action - is a concern both for Catholic Action, and for the families.