SSPX(not a banned topic--charity in discourse)

[itsjustdave1988]

Vitae:

Pope John Paul II was wrong in his encyclical

According to *Unam Sanctum *(1302), “we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Papal encyclicals demand our consent, unless it is loosed or abrogate by the Roman Pontiff.

According to Pius XII, Humani Generis:

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”;[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

Can one be subject to the Roman Pontiff by disregarding his Encyclicals?

According to Pope Piux IX:

And, we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [II Tim 4:3], contend that “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its rights and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.” There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church. (Denzinger 1698)

There is no holiness in dissention from the Pope, according to St. Pius X. Likewise, according to St. Catherine of Sienna:

"For divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil. (Letter to Brother Antonio of Nizza)

It doesn’t appear to me the SSPX are very traditional in their dissent with the formal doctrines and ecclesiastical discipline of Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul I, Pope John Paul II, and now Pope Benedict XVI. May St. Pius X and St. Catherine pray to God for their charitable obedience to the Holy Father.

 

[Vitae]

Wow, nobody has sought to adress the imeddiate topic of the “Ottaviani Intervention” The later topics can be dealt with later, and I’m not trying to avoid them eiether…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Vitae:

Wow, nobody has sought to adress the imeddiate topic of the “Ottaviani Intervention” The later topics can be dealt with later, and I’m not trying to avoid them eiether…

I don’t find Ottaviani in the list of popes. Whatever one thingks his authentic opinion is, “If one loves the Pope… one does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him. For however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope.**” (Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November against dissenting priests, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)

Regardless of the tale leading up to how the current liturgical norms were approved by Paul VI, and affirmed by John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, the current liturgical norms are among the present ecclesiastical discipline approved by the Church, which can never be harmful or dangerous to the faithful. (see here Are Ecclesiastical Disciplines Infallible?)

The salient issue is whether or not ecclesial discipline approved by the Church can be harmful or dangerous. The SSPX contend that it can, while Pius VI in the 18th century condemned this Jansenist proposition as “false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.” (Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, 78 (1794). Until you address this issue, the rest is merely smoke and mirrors. The SSPX have done nothing more than resurrect a Jansenist view already condemned by the Church.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… as for Cardinal Ottaviani, I believe Bear06 already adequately refuted your polemic by quoting from Cardinal Ottoviani …

"I have REJOICED PROFOUNDLY to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and ESPECIALLY THE DOCTRINAL PRECISIONS CONTAINED IN HIS DISCOURSES at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE GENUINELY SCANDALIZED. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘Doctrinal Note’ [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION AND SUCCESS.” (Whitehead, 129, Letter from his eminence Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, O.S.B., in Documentation Catholique, #67, 1970, pages 215-216 and 343)

Amen, Cardinal Ottaviani!! Oh, yeah…he was tricked. I’m thinking that more accurately, St. Catherine of Sienna was correct in asserting that those who disobey the pope, thinking obedience to the Holy Father to be indiscreet, fall victim to a “deceit of the devil”.

 

[Lorarose]

Michael Davies does not have the authority as final interpretor of doctrine and canon law.
LeFebvre did not have this either.
No one in the SSPX - or members of CCFC - or CTA - or any liberal/conservative/dissenting/traditional groups have the final authority to properly interpret Church teaching canon law.

According to canon law (old and new) it is the POPE who has this final authority.
Where there is confusion/disagreement - it is the POPE who has the final say.

It does not matter what so called “experts” on any given issue think is the “correct” interpretation.
If they are at odds with the Pope, then they are wrong.
This is the traditional teaching of the Church - a “tradition” that many traditionalists (and progressives) conveniently ignore.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

And the SSPX is, at least, potentially heretical insofar as some of them (note I said “some”) call the Pauline Mass an “abomination.” I heard this myself at the one SSPX Mass I attended (priest said it twice). The Mass cannot be both an “abomination” and a sufficient and propitiatory sacrifice for our sins. It’s either one or the other. I really think that it’s a heresy to call the normative Mass of the Church, promulgated by a pope and celebrated by that pope and three of his successors, an “abomination.”

Also, the OP fails to distinguish the difference between “formal” and “material” heresy/schism. The former is culpable, the latter not, according to the teaching of the Church.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Vitae,

I see that your signature line quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas. Here’s another of his teaching that I pray you consider…

“We must abide rather by the pope’s judgment than by the opinion of any of the theologians, however well versed he may be in divine Scripture” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Questiones Quodlibetales, IX:8).

 

[Vitae]

itsjustdave1988:

… as for Cardinal Ottaviani, I believe Bear06 already adequately refuted your polemic by quoting from Cardinal Ottoviani …

Amen, Cardinal Ottaviani!! Oh, yeah…he was tricked. I’m thinking that more accurately, St. Catherine of Sienna was correct in asserting that those who disobey the pope, thinking obedience to the Holy Father to be indiscreet, fall victim to a “deceit of the devil”.

I answer: No Bear06’s post has been proven wrong. Did you not read my posts? There are some serious points in the articles which beyond a shadow of a doubt proves that Cardinal Ottaviani DID NOT approve of any letter of recalling his critique of the New liturgy, A journalist wth no SSPX affiliations proved this and isn’t it interesting that after he exposed it Cardinal Ottaviani’s secretary didn’t defend himself and resigned as the Cardinal’s secretary? That is why it is well-known that that letter is not of the Cardinal, and that he still stood by his and his fellow Cardinal’s critique of the New liturgy. This is an established fact.

 

[Vitae]

Also, I’d like to point out that even EWTN has the Ottaviani Intervention on their website(cf.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/REFORMOF.HTM ). Why would they do this if the Cardinal recanted his views? Again, I think it is well-established that the Cardinal never recanted.

Take care.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Vitae:

Also, I’d like to point out that even EWTN has the Ottaviani Intervention on their website(cf.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/REFORMOF.HTM ). Why would they do this if the Cardinal recanted his views? Again, I think it is well-established that the Cardinal never recanted.

Take care.

It wouldn’t matter anyway. He wasn’t the pope. His opinion is, just that, an opinion. The Pauline Mass is the Mass of the Church, promulgated by the Pope and offered by that pope and his successors. The Pope is the Supreme Legislator of the Church. And you still have not proven that the Cardinal didn’t clarify or rescind his opinion. You haven’t even cast a reasonable doubt.

 

[Vitae]

JKirkLVNV:

It wouldn’t matter anyway. He wasn’t the pope. His opinion is, just that, an opinion. The Pauline Mass is the Mass of the Church, promulgated by the Pope and offered by that pope and his successors. The Pope is the Supreme Legislator of the Church.

Actually, the Traditional Roman Mass is the Mass of the Church too. It has never been abrogated.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Vitae:

Actually, the Traditional Roman Mass is the Mass of the Church too. It has never been abrogated.

But not the NORMATIVE Mass, not any longer.

 

[bear06]

Vitae:

I answer: No Bear06’s post has been proven wrong. Did you not read my posts? There are some serious points in the articles which beyond a shadow of a doubt proves that Cardinal Ottaviani DID NOT approve of any letter of recalling his critique of the New liturgy, A journalist wth no SSPX affiliations proved this and isn’t it interesting that after he exposed it Cardinal Ottaviani’s secretary didn’t defend himself and resigned as the Cardinal’s secretary? That is why it is well-known that that letter is not of the Cardinal, and that he still stood by his and his fellow Cardinal’s critique of the New liturgy. This is an established fact.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt? Did the secretary admit wrongdoing? Did Cardinal Ottaviani say that the secretary was guilty of wrongdoing? Did Cardinal Ottaviani say that this letter was a fabrication and send out a clarification on this issue? No. All we know is that the secretary resigned. For what reason? Who knows!

You are saying there is some contradiction in the two Ottaviani writings? We, who do not support SSPX, do not say this. It is a fact that the Ottaviani Intervention, which Cardinal Ottaviani was asked to give, came before the finalization of the Mass. The subsequent letter came after the Pope’s discourse and after the promulgation of the Mass.

Must there always be a conspiracy theory to explain things the SSPX can’t reconcile?

 

[bear06]

BTW, Cardinal Ottaviani made another public statement (I’m sure it was an imposter and not him ) after the “Ottaviani Intervention”:

The Beauty of the Church is equally resplendent in the variety of the liturgical rites which enrich her divine cult-when they are legitimate and conform to the faith. Precisely the LEGITIMACY OF THEIR ORIGIN PROTECTS AND GUARDS THEM AGAINST INFILTRATION OF ERRORS. . . .The PURITY AND UNITY OF THE FAITH is in this manner also UPHELD BY THE SUPREME MAGISTERIUM OF THE POPE THROUGH THE LITURGICAL LAWS.”(In Cruzado Espanol, May 25, 1970)

matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html#III.%20What%20about%20Cardinal%20Ottaviani’s%20Letter?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Vitae:

I answer: No Bear06’s post has been proven wrong. Did you not read my posts? There are some serious points in the articles which beyond a shadow of a doubt proves that Cardinal Ottaviani DID NOT approve of any letter of recalling his critique of the New liturgy, A journalist wth no SSPX affiliations proved this and isn’t it interesting that after he exposed it Cardinal Ottaviani’s secretary didn’t defend himself and resigned as the Cardinal’s secretary? That is why it is well-known that that letter is not of the Cardinal, and that he still stood by his and his fellow Cardinal’s critique of the New liturgy. This is an established fact.

I studied science in my bachelor’s studies, so I understand the difference between “proof” and opinion. Being emphatically certain of your unproven opinion is still an unproven opinion.

Nevertheless, I’d like to establish that I don’t care what any Cardinal has or has not opined in contradiction to the Roman Pontiff. I submit to the Roman Pontiff, not the opinions, recanted or otherwise, of Cardinal Ottaviani, Msgr Lefebvre, or his apologists.

 

[Vitae]

Bear06 said:

Beyond a shadow of a doubt? Did the secretary admit wrongdoing? Did Cardinal Ottaviani say that the secretary was guilty of wrongdoing? Did Cardinal Ottaviani say that this letter was a fabrication and send out a clarification on this issue? No. All we know is that the secretary resigned. For what reason? Who knows!

You are saying there is some contradiction in the two Ottaviani writings? We, who do not support SSPX, do not say this. It is a fact that the Ottaviani Intervention, which Cardinal Ottaviani was asked to give, came before the finalization of the Mass. The subsequent letter came after the Pope’s discourse and after the promulgation of the Mass.

Must there always be a conspiracy theory to explain things the SSPX can’t reconcile?

I answer: Your attempt to convey that I’m dealing with conspiracy theories is unsubstantiated as I am just trying to get to the truth of the matter and utilizing credible information to do such. If the evidence goes against what I’m saying, then I will eagerly follow whatever the truth of the matter is. From what I have researched, the truth of the matter is that Cardinal Ottaviani was tricked and even the Cardinal himself is alleged to have spoken on the matter. Michael Davies’s article states, “…the Cardinal had, in his statement to Madiran, gone on record to disavow the alleged retraction.” So, if you can prove that this is false then I stand corrected.

As to your claim that the finalized version of the New litugry came after the Cardinal Ottaviani Intervention, let me again remind you, as I previously said:

The New Mass was promulgated in Missale Romanum on April 3, 1969. The critique(Ottaviani Intervention) was ready in June of '69 and sent in September of '69. The Mass they critiqued was indeed the standard edition of the New Mass as well as its accompanying GIRM. Some confuse the GIRM and Mass by saying that the March 26, 1970 2nd edition of the GIRM was the standard edition of the Mass and therefore The Ottaviani Intervention was not a critique of the standard New Mass. This is obviously false as the Missal and GIRM are not the same thing and thus The Ottaviani Intervention was a critique of the standard edition of the New Mass. The two Cardinals likely helped bring about the revised GIRM, however.

To make it clear again: New Mass promulgated on April 3, 1969. Ottaviani Intervention ready in June of '69 and sent in September of '69. June and September are after April.

I think this debate can be safely concluded in my favor of my position.

Take care.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Vitae:

I think this debate can be safely concluded in my favor of my position.

Take care.

Still wrong, though, regarding the SSPX position vis a vis the Church. They’re still in schism, their bishops still excommunicate, their priests still without faculties, their Mass illicit, and the marriages they perform invalid. See, it doesn’t matter how many cardinals say that it’s not fair or ordaining a bishop isn’t schismatic, the Pope said differently. John Paul wasn’t wrong, because it’s a matter of law and he was (and Benedict is) the Supreme Legislator. The law means what he says it means. If he said it was a schismatic act, it’s schismatic.
Ecclesia Dei is clear. We’re not congregationalists. They’re not in the Church and their lay adherents are cautioned against falling into the same schism. The difference between the SSPX and the EO is that the latter are in material schism (they cannot be held culpable for the actions of their ancestors, who were formal schismatics) and the former are in formal schism, thus culpable for abandoning communion with the Vicar of Christ. Charitible discourse is fine, but truth is truth. They are in schism (fact) and I believe (opinion) that insofar as they say the Pauline Mass is invalid or even may be invalid, they may well also be heretics (formal heretics, to boot). The Mass is the CENTRAL act of the Church, it’s what She does and all else flows out of it, as it is the representation of the Sacrifice of Calvary. To say that for two generations the Mass has been invalid or may have been invalid is heresy because the Church cannot lead the faithful into falsehood.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thanks to all who participated in this discussion.
This thread is now closed.