SSPX: Traditionalist head says Vatican doctrinal statement needs changes

[James924]

Then you should know that any language that translates “tu,” “te,” “tibi,” “vos” to the same English word (“you”) or “hic,” “hoc,” “haec,” “hunc,” “huic,” “hanc,” “hac” to the same English word (“this”) or “colere” to “worship” (as in “colere Mariam”) can’t be trusted to be one of precision in which defines Church doctrine or prayer.

I need you to expound upon that. I have no idea what your point was. Are you simply referring to the old (and true) adage that every translation is a lie (in some sense)? If thats the case then I agree, but I still don’t get what your point was or why your making it to me…

 

[Tridentinum]

Can you point out the falsehoods that you are alluding to? I would also note that the Pope did not say that Vatican II was not a real council or that its teachings are not true and binding.

No, I was pointing out that the Council did not define any dogma or proclaim any doctrines, as I have said earlier, and that the Council was pastoral meaning that the intention of the Council was to preach the faith differently. The SSPX don’t like the documents because they say they are ambiguous or contain outright error when compared to traditional Church teaching.

I am in no way trying to tell you that Vatican II was not a real council, because that is absolutely false. What I am trying to tell you is that unlike other Ecumenical Councils which were called to define dogma, proclaim doctrine, or condemn various heresies, Vatican II was called in an attempt to preach the faith in a different way, in a way that was relevant to modern man. It was pastoral, not a dogmatic council. That means that you cannot possibly be a heretic for rejecting the documents of Vatican II.

I am also not saying that the Council was not true and binding:

In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document.

• Pope Paul VI - General Audience, 12 January 1966

 

[TMC]

No, I was pointing out that the Council did not define any dogma or proclaim any doctrines, as I have said earlier, and that the Council was pastoral meaning that the intention of the Council was to preach the faith differently. The SSPX don’t like the documents because they say they are ambiguous or contain outright error when compared to traditional Church teaching.

I am in no way trying to tell you that Vatican II was not a real council, because that is absolutely false. What I am trying to tell you is that unlike other Ecumenical Councils which were called to define dogma, proclaim doctrine, or condemn various heresies, Vatican II was called in an attempt to preach the faith in a different way, in a way that was relevant to modern man. It was pastoral, not a dogmatic council. That means that you cannot possibly be a heretic for rejecting the documents of Vatican II.

I am also not saying that the Council was not true and binding:

• Pope Paul VI - General Audience, 12 January 1966

If it was a true and binding council, how can it be true that it is OK to reject its teachings? I don’t understand how those two facts can coexist.

 

[James924]

Can you tell which particular teachings of Vatican II are ambiguous and need to be clarified? Are there particular misunderstandings among the faithful in the Church today because of these ambiguities?

No, I’m not going to do all of that homework for you because I’m a busy man and that would take me going back over about 2 years worth of reading, but you can certainly do it yourself.

Here’s somethings that might assist you:

Firstly you might email Bishop Athanasius Schneider and ask him what ambiguities he thinks need to be officially clarified in the “new syllabus” of correct and incorrect interpretations of the council documents that he argues for.

Secondly there is a good article by Chris Ferrera, a lawyer, that analyzes sacrosanctum concilium quite thoroughly (although a quick read through of that document will quickly show that it is full of statements that could truly mean almost anything you wanted them to, a fact which has been utilized by pesky liturgists for decades.)

Thirdly, Michael Vorris made a two hour documentary (I think called mass confusion or something) in which he touches on the issue of ambiguity) Note: Michael Vorris, although sympathetic to traditionalists, is not really necessarily one himself, so his perspective is certainly not biased.

Fourthly, you might read some books on the subject. I’ll list the ones I have on my shelf here:

–Dr. Deitrich von Hildebrandt touches on the issue briefly in “Trojan Horse in the City of God” (though I won’t claim that he necessarily comes to the same conclusions)
–Romano Amerio covers it well in Iota Unum, particularly early on in the book.
–Father Ralph Wiltgen’s “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber” is one of the most impressive, authoritative and highly praised histories and analyses of the council and its documents, the periti, and the ambiguity.
–Cardinal Heenan’s memior’s of the council (he was a council father) are of great value here. He had a book called “Crown of Thorns” but the closest I’ve been able to get to it is large excerpts. (Memiors of bishops who attended the council are always good. They have no qualms acknowledging the ambiguity and its purpose.)
–the late Michael Davies, who our present Holy Father held in great esteem, covers the issue in at least a few books such as “Liturgical Shipwreck”, “Time Bombs in Vatican II”, and “Pope John’s Council”.

It should be noted that all of these people acknowledge that Vatican II was a legitimate Council (as do all of us, I haven’t noticed any sedevecantists on this thread) and all of these people acknowledge the validity of the Novus Ordo.

I’m sure if you try, you’ll find countless more. But like I said, its a bit impractical for me to do all the homework for you. Likewise I think its impractical to ask Tridentinum to list the instances of falsehoods being made about the SSPX on the forums (they range from “same as the sedevecantists” to “they’re in schism” to “they’re heretics” to “they teach the new mass is invalid” to “attending their mass is schismatic” and on and on) when you could just search the forums yourself.

As to misunderstandings that resulted from ambiguities, well I won’t do that homework for you either, but this one should be easier for you to do, because all it takes is a quick glance at, oh I dont know, the last half century of the church?

Anyway, goodluck in your search, and if you ever do happen to find a copy of Heenan’s book for sale online, be sure to shoot me a link.

 

[pnewton]

If it was a true and binding council, how can it be true that it is OK to reject its teachings? I don’t understand how those two facts can coexist.

I think it remains to be seen just how okay it is for clergy to reject it, “kicking against the goads” as Gamaliel put it. As the SSPX have lost all legitimat ministry within the Catholic Church while groups like the FSSP have not, I think the argument can be made that it is far from okay, and that prudential opinions can not trump obedience.

 

[janet_baker76]

Can you tell which particular teachings of Vatican II are ambiguous and need to be clarified? Are there particular misunderstandings among the faithful in the Church today because of these ambiguities?

These four points are as follows. The doctrine on religious liberty, as it is expressed in no. 2 of the Declaration Dignitatis humanae, contradicts the teachings of Gregory XVI in Mirari vos and of Pius IX in Quanta cura as well as those of Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei and those of Pope Pius XI in Quas primas.

The doctrine on the Church, as it is expressed in no. 8 of the Constitution Lumen gentium, contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius XII in Mystici corporis and Humani generis.

The doctrine on ecumenism, as it is expressed in no. 8 of Lumen gentium and no. 3 of the Decree Unitatis redintegratio, contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius IX in propositions 16 and 17 of the Syllabus, those of Leo XIII in Satis cognitum, and those of Pope Pius XI inMortalium animos.

The doctrine on collegiality, as it is expressed in no. 22 of the Constitution Lumen gentium, including no. 3 of the Nota praevia [Explanatory Note], contradicts the teachings of the First Vatican Council on the uniqueness of the subject of supreme power in the Church, in the Constitution Pastor aeternus. (…)

Edited by moderator.

 

[pnewton]

These four points are as follows. The doctrine on religious liberty, as it is expressed in no. 2 of the Declaration Dignitatis humanae, contradicts …

The doctrine on the Church, as it is expressed in no. 8 of the Constitution Lumen gentium, contradicts …

The doctrine on ecumenism, as it is expressed in no. 8 of Lumen gentium and no. 3 of the Decree Unitatis redintegratio, contradicts…

The doctrine on collegiality, as it is expressed in no. 22 of the Constitution Lumen gentium, including no. 3 of the Nota praevia [Explanatory Note], contradicts…

I would have to point out, as this is a faithful Catholic site and an approved apostlate, that these allegedly contradict other things.

 

[James924]

These four points are as follows. The doctrine on religious liberty, as it is expressed in no. 2 of the Declaration Dignitatis humanae, contradicts the teachings of Gregory XVI in Mirari vos and of Pius IX in Quanta cura as well as those of Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei and those of Pope Pius XI in Quas primas.

The doctrine on the Church, as it is expressed in no. 8 of the Constitution Lumen gentium, contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius XII in Mystici corporis and Humani generis.

The doctrine on ecumenism, as it is expressed in no. 8 of Lumen gentium and no. 3 of the Decree Unitatis redintegratio, contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius IX in propositions 16 and 17 of the Syllabus, those of Leo XIII in Satis cognitum, and those of Pope Pius XI inMortalium animos.

The doctrine on collegiality, as it is expressed in no. 22 of the Constitution Lumen gentium, including no. 3 of the Nota praevia [Explanatory Note], contradicts the teachings of the First Vatican Council on the uniqueness of the subject of supreme power in the Church, in the Constitution Pastor aeternus. (…)

Edited by moderator.

I would qualify each of these statements by making them say that “the wording in X is so ambiguous that it can easily be interpreted in a way that contradicts Y (and that according to several council fathers and periti, this was the stated goal of many liberal periti who drafted the text).” To say that the church produced X which actually contradicts Y is to say that our Lord allowed an ecumenical council to teach doctrinal error. The position of faithful traditionalists is, rather, that the council did not produce “doctrine” (it only rephrased earlier doctrine) and therefore there could be no “doctrinal error” (because docttinal error requires doctrine).

 

[James924]

I would wonder however, when protestants come on and say things that, due to ignorance on their part, are erroneous about the church or its teaching, we usually don’t censure them. We let their misunderstandings, false accusations, and errors stand and people are able to respond to them. Now, because Janet Baker was given less rights than a protestant who states that rome is the harlot of babylon, we have no idea what Janet said and whether Janet is a sedevecantist or perhaps simply a zealous traditionalist who doesn’t understand the important distinction between ambiguity and error, and therefore we may have missed an opportunity for necessary fraternal correction. Again, all of this while protestants are allowed to say the church added books to the bible and the pope was created in the middle-ages without getting censured.

Meanwhile many conservative catholics today would rather hang out with greek orthodox schismatics or anglican heretics than with traditionalists lay people who attend mass at a church who’s priests are in a state of canonical irregularity. Meanwhile, at some point in the past year, an entire massive crowd of faithful Catholics who attend mass with the SSPX (SSPX is a preistly fraternity so distinction must be made b/w sspx members (priests) and those who attend sspx mass) were deinied entry to the shrine at the end of their pilgramage because they were associated with the SSPX, while every honest person knows that in today’s ecumenical world any protestant heretic or estern formal schismatic or probably even non-christian group would have been invited in for a visit with open arms. Indeed, hindus were allowed into the shrine at fatima, with their pagan priest in full garb and even were able to do a little hindu ritual inside, while at assisi buddhists were able to use a chapel sanctuary for their worship (note that Bl. JP2 didn’t personally permit this and probably wasn’t even aware of it).

In hawaii, a bishop tried to excommunicate faithful catholics that were attending mass with the sspx and Pope Benedict (then Card. Ratzinger) had to step in and correct the bishop, nullify the excommunication and explain that these Catholics were in no way guilty of schism, while in that same state (and everywhere else) close to 90% of catholic faithful were and are using contraception and still receive our lord at communion and with few exceptions no bishop or priest is was or is willing to say anything about it.

Anyway, my point here isn’t to argue with the mods, but to point out that perhaps this practice just plain doesn’t make sense in light of the grand priveledges protestants are given on this forum and that it generally follows a pattern of irony that has me very confused these days…