SSPX: Traditionalist head says Vatican doctrinal statement needs changes

[Daralharb]

The argument is that the Old Catholics denied actual infallibility whereas the SSPX isn’t denying dogma or doctrine at all. To say they are doing so is to say the doctrine of the Church or dogma actually changed in terms of things which cannot.

The Old Catholics denied what was always true. The SSPX is just having an issue with language and certain changes which are, as far as I can tell, legitimate though unfortunate.

I can agree with a principle but decry the re-wording of said principle.

Example:

Old: There is no beverage better than Coke
New: While Coke is first and foremost, let us consider the praiseworthy aspects of Pepsi, which got all its ideas from Coke.

Well, if Coke is best, I don’t care to hear about Pepsi. Neither does the SSPX. The Old Catholics disagreed with carbonated beverages entirely.

 

[TMC]

The argument is that the Old Catholics denied actual infallibility whereas the SSPX isn’t denying dogma or doctrine at all. To say they are doing so is to say the doctrine of the Church or dogma actually changed in terms of things which cannot.

The Old Catholics denied what was always true. The SSPX is just having an issue with language and certain changes which are, as far as I can tell, legitimate though unfortunate.

I can agree with a principle but decry the re-wording of said principle.

Example:

Old: There is no beverage better than Coke
New: While Coke is first and foremost, let us consider the praiseworthy aspects of Pepsi, which got all its ideas from Coke.

Well, if Coke is best, I don’t care to hear about Pepsi. Neither does the SSPX. The Old Catholics disagreed with carbonated beverages entirely.

I don’t see any difference. The Old Catholics denied certain teachings that the Church teaches were always true, but explicitly explained and declared for the first time by Vatican I - especially papal infallibility. The SSPX denies certain teachings that the Church teaches were always true, but were explicitly explained and declared by Vatican II -especially the fact that non-Catholics and even non-Christians can be saved, (which I believe is first among the several problems they have with the teachings of the Council). How are they different?

 

[Tridentinum]

Although the disagreements are over different issues, the SSPX today is in precisely the situation that the Old Catholics were in the years after Vatican I. The situations are so similar that I am surprised that anyone would say they are not. The main difference is that the Pope and the Church are working very hard to bring the SSPX back, and I’m not sure that happened with the Old Catholics. The Old Catholics today are not in the same situation as the SSPX today because the Old Catholics have continued to drift away for the last 140 years. The SSPX is certainly in danger of experiencing a similar draft (albeit likely in different ways and directions) if they do not agree to be reconciled and come back into full communion. There is still hope that will happen, but the SSPX needs to agree to move toward the Church because, as important as bringing them back is, the Church is certainly not going to compromise Church teaching to do so.

The main difference being Old Catholics being heretics, whilst the SSPX is an unregularised society that is in Communion with Rome. The SSPX are not embracing heresy like the Old Catholics did, they are negotiating with Rome a suitable preamble.

 

[TMC]

The main difference being Old Catholics being heretics, whilst the SSPX is an unregularised society that is in Communion with Rome. The SSPX are not embracing heresy like the Old Catholics did, they are negotiating with Rome a suitable preamble.

I won’t call the SSPX (or the Old Catholics, or anyone) heretics, but I would note that “negotiating” with the Church over what the Church should teach does not strike me as the actions of a group that is in communion with Rome.

 

[Tridentinum]

I don’t see any difference. The Old Catholics denied certain teachings that the Church teaches were always true, but explicitly explained and declared for the first time by Vatican I - especially papal infallibility. The SSPX denies certain teachings that the Church teaches were always true, but were explicitly explained and declared by Vatican II -especially the fact that non-Catholics and even non-Christians can be saved, (which I believe is first among the several problems they have with the teachings of the Council). How are they different?

Vatican II did not proclaim any new doctrines or define any new dogmas of the Church. That is the difference. Vatican I was a dogmatic council, Vatican II was a pastoral council. The SSPX rejects certain documents from Vatican II because they consider them ambiguous or because they claim they contain errors because of how ambiguously they were written. This does not make them heretics, because the documents of Vatican II were not infallible or contained solemn definitions that Catholics must accept de fide, as an article of faith.

 

[TMC]

Vatican II DID NOT proclaim any new doctrines or define any new dogmas of the Church. That is the difference. Vatican I was a dogmatic council, Vatican II was a pastoral council. The SSPX rejects certain documents from Vatican II because they consider them ambiguous or because they claim they contain errors because of how ambiguously they were written. This does not make them heretics, because the documents of Vatican II were not infallible or contained solemn definitions that Catholics must accept de fide, as an article of faith.

The statement that the SSPX rejects “certain” teachings of an ecumenical council should be enough to establish that they are not in full communion. Vatican II was not a “junior” council or a “non-binding” council–it was an ecumenical council with the same teaching authority as the other twenty ecumenical councils. Vatican I did not truly establish any “new” dogma either, it just clarified Church teaching on some issues, including infallibility. (Surely you aren’t arguing that the Pope was not infallible prior to 1868?) What Vatican II did is not any different, and does not have less authority.

I realize that many proponents of the SSPX claim that the only problem is that certain documents are ambiguous or unclear, but I don’t believe that is the case. The documents are perfectly clear, its just that some people don’t agree with them. For example, in the article that started this thread, Bishop Fellay did not say clarity was the problem, he said “adherence to the council is problematic.” If clarity were the real issue, this would have been resolved long ago.

 

[Tridentinum]

I won’t call the SSPX (or the Old Catholics, or anyone) heretics, but I would note that “negotiating” with the Church over what the Church should teach does not strike me as the actions of a group that is in communion with Rome.

They are negotiating a preamble to have them regularised again. Vatican II’s intention was to reiterate what was previously taught, but the problem the SSPX have is that those documents are very ambiguous in places and some even argue contain error. They don’t have a problem with Church teaching, they have a problem with how those documents explain Church teaching.

 

[Tridentinum]

The statement that the SSPX rejects “certain” teachings of an ecumenical council should be enough to establish that they are not in full communion. Vatican II was not a “junior” council or a “non-binding” council–it was an ecumenical council with the same teaching authority as the other twenty ecumenical councils. Vatican I did not truly establish any “new” dogma either, it just clarified Church teaching on some issues, including infallibility. (Surely you aren’t arguing that the Pope was not infallible prior to 1868?) What Vatican II did is not any different, and does not have less authority.

As I explained above, Vatican II was a pastoral council, not a dogmatic council. It had pastoral intentions, one of them being trying to explain Church teaching in a way that was relevant to modern man. The problem is, that you keep trying to assume that the documents of Vatican II were infallible, or contained solemn definitions that had to be accepted de fide. Vatican I defined a teaching of the Church, which made it a dogma. I did not say that it was invented in 1868, please stick to the topic.

I realize that many proponents of the SSPX claim that the only problem is that certain documents are ambiguous or unclear, but I don’t believe that is the case. The documents are perfectly clear, its just that some people don’t agree with them. For example, in the article that started this thread, Bishop Fellay did not say clarity was the problem, he said “adherence to the council is problematic.” If clarity were the real issue, this would have been resolved long ago.

The SSPX claims that in certain places in the documents there contains ambiguity, that allows for mis-interpretation. For example, the new ecclesiology that doesn’t equate the Catholic Church with being the Church established by Jesus Christ, but rather states that the Church established by Jesus Christ merely ‘subsides’ in an unclear, vague way. This can be understood correctly in the light of tradition, but if your average Joe Catholic that doesn’t know much reads the documents of Vatican II, the chances are he will have mis-interpreted a majority of the documents.

 

[TMC]

They are negotiating a preamble to have them regularised again. Vatican II’s intention was to reiterate what was previously taught, but the problem the SSPX have is that those documents are very ambiguous in places and some even argue contain error. They don’t have a problem with Church teaching, they have a problem with how those documents explain Church teaching.

That’s not how I read their statements, or their actions. Bishop Fellay has repeatedly said that the problem is that the SSPX disagrees with the Church’s teaching.

As I understand it, they have a problem with the Church’s teaching on the salvation of non-Catholics, ecumenism and other topics. They will need to agree to accept those teachings to be accepted back in full communion. I hope and pray that they will do so, but the recent statements from the SSPX side are not encouraging.

 

[Tridentinum]

That’s not how I read their statements, or their actions. Bishop Fellay has repeatedly said that the problem is that the SSPX disagrees with the Church’s teaching.

As I understand it, they have a problem with the Church’s teaching on the salvation of non-Catholics, ecumenism and other topics. They will need to agree to accept those teachings to be accepted back in full communion. I hope and pray that they will do so, but the recent statements from the SSPX side are not encouraging.

Could you please give examples or references, to when Bishop Fellay has openly said that he rejects de fide articles of faith, or when he has rejected an infallible teaching of the Church?

 

[James924]

Could you please give examples or references, to when Bishop Fellay has openly said that he rejects de fide articles of faith, or when he has rejected an infallible teaching of the Church?

In fact, Bishop Fellay gave a several hour briefing to the head of the Ecclesia Dei commission (I don’t remember who it was at the time) detailing each of the SSPX’s concerns and the head of ecclesia dei responded that "nothing you have said means you are not in communion with the church".

 

[James924]

That’s not how I read their statements, or their actions. Bishop Fellay has repeatedly said that the problem is that the SSPX disagrees with the Church’s teaching.

As I understand it, they have a problem with the Church’s teaching on the salvation of non-Catholics, ecumenism and other topics. They will need to agree to accept those teachings to be accepted back in full communion. I hope and pray that they will do so, but the recent statements from the SSPX side are not encouraging.

Archbishop Lefebvre’s (SP?) own words:

Read closely

*Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”

The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.

The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth.*

His concern was that this distinction had always been clear but that the ambiguity in the way it was worded by the Pariti who drafted the documents (most of whom were a bit liberal according to many council fathers) makes it very easy to lode the distinction and almost encourages it to be understood the wrong way. The wording, the ambiguity, of documents at a pastoral council is not protected by indefectability.

 

[pnewton]

Vatican II did not proclaim any new doctrines or define any new dogmas of the Church. That is the difference. Vatican I was a dogmatic council, Vatican II was a pastoral council. The SSPX rejects certain documents from Vatican II because they consider them ambiguous or because they claim they contain errors because of how ambiguously they were written.

How can a dogmatic document contain errors?

 

[pnewton]

This does not make them heretics, because the documents of Vatican II were not infallible or contained solemn definitions that Catholics must accept de fide, as an article of faith.

It appears that Cardinal Leveda sees otherwise and accepting the documents of Vatican II is not optional. I think his logic holds truer than that of the SSPX in this matter. Because a Church Council is meeting for pastoral reasons does not dimish its authority or make its dogmatic documents negotiable.

 

[James924]

It appears that Cardinal Leveda sees otherwise and accepting the documents of Vatican II is not optional…

…hence the negotiations…

 

[TMC]

Could you please give examples or references, to when Bishop Fellay has openly said that he rejects de fide articles of faith, or when he has rejected an infallible teaching of the Church?

Took about two seconds on Google News to find this:

In a sermon delivered on February 2 at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, Bishop Bernard Fellay said that the unresolved issue in talks between the SSPX and Rome is the Vatican’s insistence that the traditionalists accept the authority of the Council. “And practically, at many levels, we have to say no,” he said. Bishop Fellay elaborated:

The key problem in our discussions with Rome was really the Magisterium, the teaching of the Church. Because they say, “we are the pope, we are the Holy See” – and we say, yes. And so they say, “we have the supreme power,” and we say, yes. They say, “we are the last instance in teaching and we are necessary” – Rome is necessary for us to have the Faith, and we say, yes. And then they say, “then, obey.” And we say, no.

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=13218

They were asked to accept the authority of an ecumenical council and his response was “we have to say no.” In the bishop’s own words the problem is “the Magisterium, the teaching of the Church.”

Doesn’t get much plainer than that.

 

[pnewton]

Archbishop Lefebvre’s (SP?) own words:

Read closely

Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”

The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.

The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth.

His concern was that this distinction had always been clear but that the ambiguity in the way it was worded by the Pariti who drafted the documents (most of whom were a bit liberal according to many council fathers) makes it very easy to lode the distinction and almost encourages it to be understood the wrong way. The wording, the ambiguity, of documents at a pastoral council is not protected by indefectability.

What Archbishop Lefebvre says here is not contradicted in any way by Vatican II. In the current situation, I do not see what is the problem with the preamble. One can disagree with the prudence or the ambiguity of the documents with out denying the substance. In fact, would not ambiguity allow this rather orthodox statement by AB Lefebvre? I think it would be easy to work at clarifying the distinction he makes if the current bishops had a ministry within the Church.

And thanks for the quote. It is very good.

 

[jwinch2]

I realize that many proponents of the SSPX claim that the only problem is that certain documents are ambiguous or unclear, but I don’t believe that is the case. The documents are perfectly clear, its just that some people don’t agree with them.

I’m going to have to disagree here. Those who know me on CAF or have read my posts know that I am no apologist for SSPX. However, I agree that the documents of Vatican II are vague in many places as I agree that the current universal Catechism is vague in many places. I do not believe it is wrong and I happen to think that Vatican II was a wonderful thing for the Church (not necessarily how it has been implemented, but that is another discussion). I also agree with the universal Catechism, 100%. I don’t want to sound as if I am boasting so I really hope this does not come across the wrong way, but I am an educated man. I am a professor, publish my own scientific research in peer-reviewed journals, mentor graduate students on their own research, review textbooks and grants for various editors and professional organizations, teach, blah blah blah; and whenever I read the documents of VII or the CCC (and the voting guide put out by the USCCB before the last election but that is another story), I find myself going back over the same paragraphs or phrases multiple times trying to tease out what they mean. For whatever it is worth, I don’t seem to have that problem with older Church documents, my study Bibles, the Church Fathers, or books on Dominican Spirituality.

I have also spoken to several perfectly orthodox priests who also feel that the manner in which the documents of Vatican II were phrased has caused confusion in many places. More than one has mentioned that the documents were interpreted differently by different professors when they were in seminary. This does not indicate clarity.

Pope Benedict, among others, has called for a studying of the documents of Vatican II in line with the historical tradition of the Church. I believe this is a wonderful idea. However, I would also suggest that there is a reason he had to make this call.

In no way do I believe that this gives SSPX licence to act as they have. But I also feel that in this situation, they have a point. Many others have said this, but they have done so from within the Church, which is of course a major difference.

I don’t want to drag this thread off track so perhaps we can start another one if you or others wish to continue this line of discussion.

Our Holy Fathers Dominic and Francis, Pray for Us.

 

[ProVobis]

I realize that many proponents of the SSPX claim that the only problem is that certain documents are ambiguous or unclear, but I don’t believe that is the case. The documents are perfectly clear, its just that some people don’t agree with them.

If this were true, everyone would know exactly how to translate, for example, “subsistere” in his own vernacular and have no doubts about it.

Just saying.

 

[TMC]

I’m going to have to disagree here. Those who know me on CAF or have read my posts know that I am no apologist for SSPX. However, I agree that the documents of Vatican II are vague in many places as I agree that the current universal Catechism is vague in many places. I do not believe it is wrong and I happen to think that Vatican II was a wonderful thing for the Church (not necessarily how it has been implemented, but that is another discussion). I also agree with the universal Catechism, 100%. I have spoken to several perfectly orthodox priests who also feel that the manner in which the documents of Vatican II were phrased has caused confusion in many places. More than one has mentioned that the documents were interpreted differently by different professors when they were in seminary. This does not indicate clarity.

Pope Benedict, among others, has called for a studying of the documents of Vatican II in line with the historical tradition of the Church. I believe this is a wonderful idea. However, I would also suggest that there is a reason he had to make this call.

In no way do I believe that this gives SSPX licence to act as they have. But I also feel that in this situation, they have a point. Many others have said this, but they have done so from within the Church, which is of course a major difference.

I did not mean to suggest that you were personally an apologist for SSPX or that you are not in full agreement with Church teaching.

For my part, I do not find the Vatican II documents or the Catechism to be particularly difficult or ambiguous. But I admit that many people seem to find them ambiguous. The larger point is that I do not believe that any ambiguity is the real problem. The real problem is that the SSPX simply does not agree with the Church’s teachings in certain areas. As I have said, I believe that salvation of non-Catholics is one of them - perhaps the biggest point of disagreement. This is not an ambiguous areas of Church teachng, IMO. I would be interested to hear if you agree that this is one of the problem areas for our SSPX brethren, and if you find the Church’s teaching in that area ambiguous.