SSPX Disagreement with Vatican II

[sainthumbert]

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?

 

[Tomdstone]

I am not sure but I think that they say that there are passages in VII which are ambiguous so that if they are interpreted in line with previous teaching, then they are correct. But the problem is that the wording is such that it lends itself to be easily interpreted in a different sense from what was taught before. In other words, the teaching is fuzzy and not clear cut as we have seen in previous Councils.

 

[Memaw]

I am not sure but I think that they say that there are passages in VII which are ambiguous so that if they are interpreted in line with previous teaching, then they are correct. But the problem is that the wording is such that it lends itself to be easily interpreted in a different sense from what was taught before. In other words, the teaching is fuzzy and not clear cut as we have seen in previous Councils.

There is nothing wrong with Vat. II. If we think we know more than the Holy Spirit and the teachings of the Catholic Church then we have a big problem. I pray that some day the people of SSPX will one day be reunited to the TRUTH of the Catholic Church. Our Holy Popes have upheld the teachings of Vat. II, that should tell us a whole lot. Guess who is wrong! God Bless, Memaw

 

[ProVobis]

Our Holy Popes have upheld the teachings of Vat. II…

Especially when they are interpreted in light of tradition and continuity.

 

[Memaw]

Especially when they are interpreted in light of tradition and continuity.

I agree and when we don’t twist things to fit our own agenda as many have done, using Vat.II as an excuse, when most people trusted them way to much and they swept in and took advantage of that. My first husband took a class of instructions,( I with him), right before Vat. II, by a very knowledgeable priest in Church History. We learned so much. My husband died shortly after. Then a few years later , after Vat.II ended but before all the errors about it started creeping in, my second husband (and I) took instructions from another very holy priest that was well educated about Vat. II and we learned the TRUTH about it. So when many of the errors started, I was able to recognize them and that helped me to protect my children. I joined Catholics United for the Faith and that was such a Blessing. I also got my kids in a Catholic School whose Pastor was a well learned, loyal and holy priest who didn’t put up with ANY nonsense when it came to Church and School. I am sooo thankful! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Corki]

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?

I’m not an expert but I think that there are a couple of issues. Unlike many (most) prior councils, Vatican II did not produce any new doctrine. Most of the documents of Vatican II give us a fresh way of looking at traditional teaching rather than proposing anything completely new (except, perhaps, the Mass). So, it’s not completely unresolvable for the SSPX to reject some of the documents of VII. That would not mean that the Church is teaching error in infallible matters of faith or morals.

How would SSPX resolve the mess of VII documents being inconsistent with previous Catholic teaching?

This is not just a problem for the SSPX. Nor is it just an issue with Vatican II documents. The entire Church struggles with keeping continuity of teaching through the centuries. . There is a joke that it took 400 years for the dust to settle after Trent but it’s only been 50 since VII.

 

[b_ulmen]

So when many of the errors started, I was able to recognize them and that helped me to protect my children.

Can you elaborate on the errors you saw? I’m a product of post-VII so I don’t have the benefit of the pre-VII experience you have. What source would you recommend so I can learn more about the errors?

 

[Corki]

Can you elaborate on the errors you saw? I’m a product of post-VII so I don’t have the benefit of the pre-VII experience you have. What source would you recommend so I can learn more about the errors?

The organization Memaw referenced above, Catholics United for the Fatih, is a good start. They have a website and tons of resources. They are NOT part of the SSPX or any anti-Vatican II movement. The goal is for Catholics to know and understand authentic Church teaching so they can recognize errors that sometimes appear.

 

[commenter]

I’m not an expert but I think that there are a couple of issues. Unlike many (most) prior councils, Vatican II did not produce any new doctrine. Most of the documents of Vatican II give us a fresh way of looking at traditional teaching rather than proposing anything completely new (except, perhaps, the Mass). So, it’s not completely unresolvable for the SSPX to reject some of the documents of VII. That would not mean that the Church is teaching error in infallible matters of faith or morals.

True, the Council was mostly pastoral, but there was a slight doctrinal development in the role of the laity, or ecumenism, for instance. But I don’t agree with a sharp distinction some people (not you) make between doctrinal and pastoral, with the assumption that anything that is mostly pastoral is therefore optional. The fact that some people misused the documents (as they did with previous councils) doesn’t mean it is prudent for me to ignore them.

“Pastoral” and “Doctrinal” are interrelated. Part of Catholic “doctrine” is the pastoral teaching and guiding authority of the popes and bishops at VII, and the pope and bishops today, who have the final word on interpreting pastoral guidance and doctrine.

My understanding is that many in SSPX only object to misinterpretation or misuse of VII documents. If that is the case, I agree with them, as long as we regard the current pope as the authoritative interpreter of what is use, and what is misuse.

 

[Memaw]

The organization Memaw referenced above, Catholics United for the Fatih, is a good start. They have a website and tons of resources. They are NOT part of the SSPX or any anti-Vatican II movement. The goal is for Catholics to know and understand authentic Church teaching so they can recognize errors that sometimes appear.

Thank you Corki, I believe the more we know about our TRUE Catholic Faith the less we get caught up in error. Learn the positive and let God deal with the negative!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Genesis315]

I’m not an expert but I think that there are a couple of issues. Unlike many (most) prior councils, Vatican II did not produce any new doctrine.

If any of them produced new doctrine, we’re in the wrong religion. Most expound upon, explain, develop, apply, and in come cases, definitively judge doctrine. Vatican II lacks the definitive judgments. That’s what distinguishes it from, say, Trent.

 

[Genesis315]

There is a joke that it took 400 years for the dust to settle after Trent but it’s only been 50 since VII.

It’s not even really a joke! Differing interpretation with Trent happened immediately, so Pope Pius IV issued the bull Benedictus Deus, which imposed a latae sententiae excommunication on anyone who, without the approval of the Holy See, presumed “to publish in any form any commentaries, glosses, annotations, scholia on, or any kind of interpretation whatsoever of the decrees of this council.” The reason the Bull gave was to avoid the “perversion and confusion” arising from private interpretations of the Council’s decrees.

To further curb problematic interpretations, St. Pius V established the Sacred Congregation of Cardinal Interpreters for the Council of Trent. After the pontificate of Gregory XIII, who renamed it the Congregation for the Execution and Interpretation of the Council of Trent, Sixtus V increased its authority in providing authoritative interpretations and of judging other interpretations, such as those of provincial councils and synods. After the short pontificate of Urban VII, Gregory XIV increased its authority even further, allowing it to judge and provide interpretations without having its decisions reviewed by the Pope. Later, its interpretive authority relating to Trent was spread among various Congregations (depending on the matter to be interpreted) who continued this work into the 20th century. The Congregation for the Council maintained a general interpretive authority over the decrees relating to the lives of clergy, which is why it was renamed the Congregation for Clergy in 1967.

 

[ProVobis]

There is a joke that it took 400 years for the dust to settle after Trent but it’s only been 50 since VII.

AFAIK, there aren’t too many parish liturgical committees left which were commissioned by Trent.

 

[ProVobis]

It’s not even really a joke! Differing interpretation with Trent happened immediately, so Pope Pius IV issued the bull Benedictus Deus, which imposed a latae sententiae excommunication on anyone who, without the approval of the Holy See, presumed “to publish in any form any commentaries, glosses, annotations, scholia on, or any kind of interpretation whatsoever of the decrees of this council.” The reason the Bull gave was to avoid the “perversion and confusion” arising from private interpretations of the Council’s decrees.

To further curb problematic interpretations, St. Pius V established the Sacred Congregation of Cardinal Interpreters for the Council of Trent. After the pontificate of Gregory XIII, who renamed it the Congregation for the Execution and Interpretation of the Council of Trent, Sixtus V increased its authority in providing authoritative interpretations and of judging other interpretations, such as those of provincial councils and synods. After the short pontificate of Urban VII, Gregory XIV increased its authority even further, allowing it to judge and provide interpretations without having its decisions reviewed by the Pope. Later, its interpretive authority relating to Trent was spread among various Congregations (depending on the matter to be interpreted) who continued this work into the 20th century. The Congregation for the Council maintained a general interpretive authority over the decrees relating to the lives of clergy, which is why it was renamed the Congregation for Clergy in 1967.

Good points.

 

[bobballen_18]

I am not sure but I think that they say that there are passages in VII which are ambiguous so that if they are interpreted in line with previous teaching, then they are correct. But the problem is that the wording is such that it lends itself to be easily interpreted in a different sense from what was taught before. In other words, the teaching is fuzzy and not clear cut as we have seen in previous Councils.

My understanding is that many in SSPX only object to misinterpretation or misuse of VII documents. If that is the case, I agree with them, as long as we regard the current pope as the authoritative interpreter of what is use, and what is misuse.

Interesting that you two said this. I have nearly always been under the impression, though I haven’t looked into it a bunch, that one of the main differences between, say the FSSP and the SSPX relates to this. I have heard that many in the SSPX would say the opposite of the above - that there are VII documents which are actually a break in the tradition of the Church. As opposed to the FSSP, which only say that the documents have to be interepreted in the light of tradition, and if done so, then VII documents are (mostly) good.

I have been to both the SSPX and FSSP websites somewhat often (more often FSSP though), and this is the general impression that I get. There is a much more negative vibe with the SSPX as far as I can tell in terms of saying the Church is going in the wrong direction due to the actual VII documents (not just the way they were interpreted). And I am of the belief that if one looks at reality, there are tons of bad (or at best, non-ideal) things happening in the post-VII Church, so I can understand some parts of that mentality. But the FSSP, though they acknowledge most of those negative things that the SSPX will say, are on the whole more positive, and as I mentioned, are accepting of the VII documents so long as they are interpreted correctly, which is not necessarily the case with the SSPX in my experience.

 

[TMC]

Interesting that you two said this. I have nearly always been under the impression, though I haven’t looked into it a bunch, that one of the main differences between, say the FSSP and the SSPX relates to this. I have heard that many in the SSPX would say the opposite of the above - that there are VII documents which are actually a break in the tradition of the Church. As opposed to the FSSP, which only say that the documents have to be interepreted in the light of tradition, and if done so, then VII documents are (mostly) good.

I have been to both the SSPX and FSSP websites somewhat often (more often FSSP though), and this is the general impression that I get. There is a much more negative vibe with the SSPX as far as I can tell in terms of saying the Church is going in the wrong direction due to the actual VII documents (not just the way they were interpreted). And I am of the belief that if one looks at reality, there are tons of bad (or at best, non-ideal) things happening in the post-VII Church, so I can understand some parts of that mentality. But the FSSP, though they acknowledge most of those negative things that the SSPX will say, are on the whole more positive, and as I mentioned, are accepting of the VII documents so long as they are interpreted correctly, which is not necessarily the case with the SSPX in my experience.

I agree that the SSPX are upset with more than just some supposedly erroneous interpretations. There are many threads on the topic here, but as I understand it, they disagree with the Church’s teachings on ecumenism, on salvation outside the formal boundaries of the Church, on various Jewish issues, on collegiality within the Church, and probably other things I am not remembering off the top of my head. If it were only some vague “interpretation” issues, they would have accepted Pope Benedict’s offer of reconciliation.

 

[Tomdstone]

I agree that the SSPX are upset with more than just some supposedly erroneous interpretations. There are many threads on the topic here, but as I understand it, they disagree with the Church’s teachings …on salvation outside the formal boundaries of the Church,…

No. it is my understanding that they are opposed to Feeneyism. They have sold booklets which oppose Feeneyism.

 

[bobballen_18]

I agree that the SSPX are upset with more than just some supposedly erroneous interpretations. There are many threads on the topic here, but as I understand it, they disagree with the Church’s teachings on ecumenism, on salvation outside the formal boundaries of the Church, on various Jewish issues, on collegiality within the Church, and probably other things I am not remembering off the top of my head. If it were only some vague “interpretation” issues, they would have accepted Pope Benedict’s offer of reconciliation.

Right - those are the issues which come to my mind as well. And I could be wrong - I don’t want to be unjustly accusing them (especially since I’m a little sympathetic towards them) - but I think it is these particular issues which you listed on which the SSPX would claim Vatican II is a break in tradition or a change in Church teaching/understanding. I agree - if they thought it was only interpretation and not the documents themselves, they would not be in the situation they are today. Indeed, they probably wouldn’t have ever been in the situation they got themselves into in the 1970s if they didn’t think anything was wrong with the documents themselves.

I think this is painfully obvious today - because there would be no reason for both the SSPX and the FSSP to co-exist today if they believed the same things about Vatican II. If all you really want is traditional Liturgy (and formation, for priests), then there should be no inherent reason to go to the SSPX - unless you actually believe that VII documents themselves are erroneous (and that the Novus Ordo is illegitimate I suppose).

 

[TMC]

No. it is my understanding that they are opposed to Feeneyism. They have sold booklets which oppose Feeneyism.

That may be, but I have also read SSPX articles condemning the notion that Jews or other non-Christians may be saved. I think it is probably safe to say that the movement is not entirely homogenous as to which parts of VII they find most problematic.

 

[b_ulmen]

The organization Memaw referenced above, Catholics United for the Fatih, is a good start. They have a website and tons of resources. They are NOT part of the SSPX or any anti-Vatican II movement. The goal is for Catholics to know and understand authentic Church teaching so they can recognize errors that sometimes appear.

yup, good website but its like drinking from the fire hose. I was hoping to get a snippet of a couple ‘big’ errors to start with.