SSPX Update - Redux

[Julia_Mae]

Not so sure at all. Not joking. The younger brother of a friend of mine was one of the men killed in Algeria last week. One day Our Lady will convert the Moslems. Until then …

A lot of people were killed in Algeria and all over the globe. I doubt any of them were killed because they were affirming that Benedict XVI is the Pope, which was what you were saying you’d be happy to die for.

So, the Pope is our Pope. That’s good. Is what you disagree with what Br JR explained? That he is Supreme Pontiff and only his decisions and his judgments are final in all matters pertaining to the Church?

See later, with your patience. That statement cannot actually be sustained given the historical record, not to mention theology.

I didn’t make a statement, I asked a question. Here it is again, so we can have no misunderstanding:

** Is what you disagree with what Br JR explained? That he is Supreme Pontiff and only his decisions and his judgments are final in all matters pertaining to the Church?
**

I don’t want to be accused of leading the thread off-topic, so the question isn’t “are the Pope’s decisions and judgement final in all matters pertaining to the Church” but rather: *Is this what you, personally, disagree with? *

 

[jwinch2]

Exactly. Brother, do you think it would be the responsible thing to do to actually ask CAF, in support of the Pope, to ban SSPX discussions and delete these threads? CAF is the largest Catholic forum in the world, I believe.

Oh yes, suppressing free discussion is always a good idea.

 

[PaulinVA]

numealinesimpet, do you think that the SSPX’s ultimate position is that Pope Benedict is indeed a valid Pope, but that he is somehow blinded to the Truth? That seems to be the only way that his declaration that there is no emergency can be handled by the SSPX. His blindness is indeed the emergency? Or, he is blind to the emergency?

If not, I think the others here have laid out the case rather well. I’ve read through the SSPX web sites several times over the years, and I find them disturbing. Well meaning, but disturbing.

 

[jwinch2]

I have for many years asked (on this Forum and elsewhere) exactly what are the ‘teachings’ that we are all required to obey. To date, nobody has replied. I would be happy to hear a reply now.

We could start with the teachings on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, that would be nice since those seem to get overlooked with some frequency by those who otherwise push for conformity to the Council. However, in reality there are supposed to be nothing in the way of new teachings at all in the council but rather, an update in the way the eternal teachings of the Church are being presented to the world.

From the speech John XXIII used to open Second Vatican Council:

The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.

For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a Magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character. …

When we look at the documents of Vatican II or a Papal Encyclical, we ought to be reading them with the understanding that they correspond with the entire Sacred Tradition of the Church. If we are interpreting them in a way which is not compatible with that Tradition, then our interpretation is incorrect and we need to amend it accordingly.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Lets talk examples, then. I gave this one before in this section of CAF:

I moved to Eastern Ontario in the summer of 2000. …]

Tell me, who played by the rules and did things the traditional way? My money is on Father Bob.

Thanks for the inspiring story, **Melchior. **

A point of order. Fr Bob had the advantage that the Charismatic Way is in favour with those currently wielding administrative power in the Vatican, while the immemorial traditional way is not. This is not to denigrate your priest; I am not talking about him, but about the present incumbents of the Vatican. I for one am emphatically not criticizing Fr Bob. As the years have gone by, it has percolated into the general consciousness that the Vatican is ‘ecumenical’ to any and every group up to and including fire-worshippers, but throws the book at … ?] Things began to improve after the Holy Year of 2000, when a huge procession of ‘trads’ wearing traditional habits and modest clothing processed literally to the feet of Pope John Paul II. It was only then, it seems, that he realised they were for him, not against him. That was when he instructed Cdl Castrillon Hoyos to try to find ways to regularise the SSPX and the groups allied to them.

In my understanding, and experience, the SSPX clergy have always tried to stress that they are not the whole Church, or a substitute for it. Fr Couture told me, when he was superior of Ireland, that the Stated aim of the Priestly Fraternity of S. Pius X is to become holy priests. Seeing the wreckage being done in the Church, they have taken the position of holding the line at the Church as it was before ‘The Changes’ that were being *de facto *imposed in the name of The Council. They opted to remain with the 1960 liturgy and to refuse the innovations that had previously been unanimously condemned by popes and ecumenical councils, but endorsed by those speaking for ‘The Spirit of the Council’. Their attitude is that, if other religious orders or diocesan bishops take a different route, that is not their responsibility. If laity wish to attend their liturgical services, that is their canonical right. ‘But,’ he said, ‘We are not your priests’. (This was in response to certain laity who try to use the SSPX priest for their own agendas). More than one SSPX priest has warned the laity that they are not the whole Church. But, you see, many of the laity are desperate for somebody to do all their thinking and decision-making for them. And this is by no means restricted to the laity who support the SSPX.

 

[numealinesimpet]

We could start with the teachings on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, that would be nice since those seem to get overlooked with some frequency by those who otherwise push for conformity to the Council. However, in reality there are supposed to be nothing in the way of new teachings at all in the council but rather, an update in the way the eternal teachings of the Church are being presented to the world.

From the speech John XXIII used to open Second Vatican Council:

When we look at the documents of Vatican II or a Papal Encyclical, we ought to be reading them with the understanding that they correspond with the entire Sacred Tradition of the Church. If we are interpreting them in a way which is not compatible with that Tradition, then our interpretation is incorrect and we need to amend it accordingly.

The actual form of the Mass promulgated in 1969 does not correspond with what was stated at the Council. Just because Bl. John XXIII told them what to do, doesn’t prove that they did it. It is wise to read the actual documents.
See fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html
Please note that Mgr Lefebvre was not against certain reforms of the Liturgy, taking for granted that any such changes would be, as the Council documents themselves state, seen to be an organic growth from what was already in place.
The ‘new’ offertory prayer is neither an organic growth of the ‘canonised’ 1570 Missal nor a return to the ancient form, which was the entire psalm prayed as a Responsory, but an adaptation which closely follows a Jewish Grace Before Meals, and which omits the doctrine of the Offertory clearly enunciated in the immemorial Rite.

Pope Paul, with Petrine Authority, clearly had the power to erect a new Missal (even though no other pope had ever tried to do this) , but it is not proven that he had the power to suppress the Immemorial Rite. It is interesting to note that he did not actually do so, although it was 40 years before one of his successors stated this publicly.

 

[Melchior_1]

They point is that Father Bob, like Francis/Dominic/Ignatius, played by the rules. He following the chain of command, went through the proper channels.

Societies of Apostolic Life do not grow on trees, they take time. Effort. And a huge helping of obedience.

Obedience. People think that you need to take vows or promises for this. You alluded to as much earlier. My friend, I posit that this isn’t the case. What I call “holy obedience” is the concept where through the Grace of God, one submits and yields to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy Mother Church, and the Successor of Peter - regardless of your personal opinion on the matter.

My wife used to be Protestant, and used to struggle with the concept of no birth control. To her, this was something that was normal and could be used. When she converted to Catholicism it wasn’t a big deal, we weren’t married at the time. Leading up to the wedding it became a much, much bigger deal for the obvious reasons. What did she do? She essentially said “I don’t agree with this. But I will obey and submit to the Church, and if God wills it He will help me see things the way the Church does and have some peace”.

Does my wife now see things as the Church does? If you had to ask her, she could give a brief summary. But that actually isn’t important, what’s important is this; my friend, she’s at peace with things now. She obeyed, and although I’m not sure if she fully sees what the Church teaches and why on this topic, she is at peace with the teaching and living out said teaching with me.

I know someone else who used to adamantly think that women should become priests. What did she do? Obey. She prayed that God would help her see as the Church sees, and find peace. Guess what? She does now.

This extends to customs and practices. First obey, and pray that God gives you peace, and hopefully understanding.

That is holy obedience, something we are all called to.

 

[jwinch2]

The actual form of the Mass promulgated in 1969 does not correspond with what was stated at the Council. Just because Bl. John XXIII told them what to do, doesn’t prove that they did it. It is wise to read the actual documents.
See fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html

I’ve read the documents (but thank you), and I am also aware that the OF of the Mass and Vatican II are separate issues. My comment was directed mostly at those who like to talk about acceptance of Vatican II but then resist the teachings of the council and subsequent encyclicals when it comes to things like chant, doing responses in Latin and Greek, organ versus other instrumentation, etc. and their proper place in the liturgy.

 

[Melchior_1]

Pope Paul, with Petrine Authority, clearly had the power to erect a new Missal (even though no other pope had ever tried to do this)

Well, except Pius V. But lets not let that get in the way of a good story.

 

[mjeffords1]

Here is a bit from the sermon by Bishop Bernard Fellay for the priestly ordination of Father Bertrand Lundi, on January 27, 2013, at the Church of Saint-Nicolas du Chardonnet:
*

"We get the impression that the Roman authorities do not understand us, because they have not understood that we are ready to lose everything in order to keep this Catholic faith. We absolutely do not want to let this faith go. Now unfortunately (and this is a fact that we can observe every day), with the Council, through the Council, and in the Council, some poisons were introduced that are harmful to the faith; they lead souls into error and no longer defend them, no longer defend them in their faith. We denounce this fact, and this is why they condemn us. Even today, the condition that they want to impose on us in order to recognize us with the title “Catholic” is to accept those very same things that demolish the faith. But we cannot, and that is all, quite simply. In no case do we agree to diminish what is absolutely essential in order to go to Heaven: the faith, with all its consequences. That is why this combat is necessary, an everyday combat.

"*

My question is, is it possible for an ecumenical council to teach error? Clearly the Holy Spirit renders it impossible for a pope to dogmatically declare an erroneous teaching and make it binding on the faithful, but is it possible for documents produced by an ecumenical council to contain errors?

Any help on this would be appreciated.

Here is the link to the whole sermon:

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/02/fellay-to-defend-faith-to-keep-faith-to.html

 

[Julia_Mae]

Oh yes, suppressing free discussion is always a good idea.

This isn’t a public square, it’s a privately held forum where certain topics are banned for good reasons. This is most of a new Post by Robert Bay:

Negative and rude comments toward CAF members, clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) or toward religious and religious orders are banned.

Everyone, online and offline, deserves to be spoken to and about respectfully. However, some posters seem to feel that clergy and religious are fair game.

If you have an issue with them, take it up in private, not on this forum or any of our forums.

You may cite something from another source, if you are not using it to further an agenda. Agenda posting is not allowed.

If we deem that you are disrespectful to our clergy and religious, you will receive an infraction or even a ban.

Proof what you write before you post.

You may not make disparaging remarks about:

• Vatican II
• Clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) of any group
• Religious (brothers, sisters, and nuns) of any order or congregation
• Lawful actions and disciiplines by the Church including the historical excommunication of the SSPX. It happened. Rome explained why it happened. End of story. Rome did not put it out there for debate by the faithful.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=750914
What Br JR has pointed out numerous times is correct: this is none of our business, really.

 

[jwinch2]

This isn’t a public square, it’s a privately held forum where certain topics are banned for good reasons.

I recognize that this is a private forum and they are free to make their own rules. This is a legitimate area of concern for many people within the Catholic Church as can be easily seen by the number of discussions on the topic which take place on a regular basis. Having said that, if the admins wish to ban the topic I will play by the rules. However, suggesting that a topic might need to be suppressed that you seem to have no problem weighing in on yourself seems disingenuous at best.

What Br JR has pointed out numerous times is correct: this is none of our business, really.

If you don’t wish to discuss it because you feel it is none of your business, then don’t. That is your prerogative. And, while I have a great deal of respect for Brother JR, he knows from our previous conversations that I disagree with his take on what the laity can and should have an opinion on. In addition, despite the respect and affection with which I hold Brother JR, as well as others on the forum, I can’t help but observing that most of the people who keep saying this is no one else’s business are also the ones who show up time and time again to post in threads on this topic. Despite the calls to disengage, they appear to be quite happy to offer their opinions on the matter.

 

[curlycool89]

Only by re-defining ‘Tradition’. S. Thomas Aquinas would respectfully disagree with this approach.

And your appeal to St. Thomas shows that you do not understand tradition in the way that the Church, including Thomas Aquinas, always has.

St. Thomas was one of the smartest philosophers and theologians to walk the earth, but at no time was St. Thomas the Pope, the sucessor of Peter. Here’s the real Thomas Aquinas, not the character people drag out: when he was working on the Summa at the University of Paris, the local Bishop asked him to leave (this is a totally different topic, but we’ll just say for now that the recently discovered Aristotelianism clashed severely with how people understood the faith at the time, which in the legacy of St. Augustine was very neo-Platonic)., and Thomas left. He appealed to the Pope, and the Pope agree with him and he returned to Paris. That is because St. Thomas was a humble man who was thought to be stupid at a young age because he never spoke up. He didn’t want to show others up.

The SSPX on the other hand has appealed to the Pope, and the Pope has rejected their appeal. Now they continue to whine about it and wait for the Pope to “convert to their side”. There is a reason there is a court of last resort in every legal system: otherwise this happens where people appeal the same thing over and over again that has already been rejected.

Furthermore, not everything St. Thomas wrote is doctrine. There are some things he wrote that are not part of the faith at all in fact and were rejected. Thomas had a pretty clear understanding of this though, when at the end of his life he realized “It’s all straw”. That is the real Thomas Aquinas. The Thomas Aquinas you are trying to appeal to didn’t exist; it’s nothing more than an idol.

 

[pnewton]

If you don’t wish to discuss it because you feel it is none of your business, then don’t.

I actually kind of like this. We are never obligated to discuss any topic. I have to quit certain areas myself from time to time, mostly in the political arena. The reason this topic is sometimes suspended are two-fold. First, it will be suspended it the administrators of this Catholic apostolate believes its funds and efforts are helping someone to promote the SSPX. The second reason, if they believe the moderator’s time is being unduly usurped by this one topic.

The only reason I mention this is because I think the last six months of SSPX discussion has been something of a miraculous abberation. I think the influence of JR is partly responsible, but I also credit those sympathetic to the SSPX for respecting the boundries as well as an absence of people that seem to want to argue the topic for the sake of the fight. Understand that I have been in that latter group at one time in the past.

I think CAF first started turning the corner on this issue during the SSPX talks a year or so back. We had the chance to join together in prayer in one universal desire for reconcilliation regarldless of our position. We still can do this, you know. Diminished hope does not mean hope is lost.

 

[Julia_Mae]

However, suggesting that a topic might need to be suppressed that you seem to have no problem weighing in on yourself seems disingenuous at best.

If you don’t wish to discuss it because you feel it is none of your business, then don’t.

You’re right. I’ll leave you to it.

 

[jwinch2]

I actually kind of like this. We are never obligated to discuss any topic. I have to quit certain areas myself from time to time, mostly in the political arena.

I have done the same on occasion.

Peace,

 

[choliks]

Here is a bit from the sermon by Bishop Bernard Fellay for the priestly ordination of Father Bertrand Lundi, on January 27, 2013, at the Church of Saint-Nicolas du Chardonnet:
*
“We get the impression that the Roman authorities do not understand us, because they have not understood that we are ready to lose everything in order to keep this Catholic faith. We absolutely do not want to let this faith go. Now unfortunately (and this is a fact that we can observe every day), with the Council, through the Council, and in the Council, some poisons were introduced that are harmful to the faith; they lead souls into error and no longer defend them, no longer defend them in their faith. We denounce this fact, and this is why they condemn us. Even today, the condition that they want to impose on us in order to recognize us with the title “Catholic” is to accept those very same things that demolish the faith. But we cannot, and that is all, quite simply. In no case do we agree to diminish what is absolutely essential in order to go to Heaven: the faith, with all its consequences. That is why this combat is necessary, an everyday combat.”*

My question is, is it possible for an ecumenical council to teach error? Clearly the Holy Spirit renders it impossible for a pope to dogmatically declare an erroneous teaching and make it binding on the faithful, but is it possible for documents produced by an ecumenical council to contain errors?

Any help on this would be appreciated.

Here is the link to the whole sermon:

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/02/fellay-to-defend-faith-to-keep-faith-to.html

I humbly ask: what error? Which document? Is it Nostra Aetete? If not a document, is it the liturgy? If the successor of St. Peter has already declared that the council documents and the ordinary form of the roman rite contains no error, then why still disobey. That’s already from the office of St. Peter, not just an opinion of Pope Benedict XVI.

My next question is this: isn’t leading the faithful away from Church also leading souls into error?

I think, like what has been repeated numerous times on this forum, error comes in when human frailty is applied.

 

[Jingerly44]

"The SSPX on the other hand has appealed to the Pope, and the Pope has rejected their appeal. Now they continue to whine about it and wait for the Pope to “convert to their side”.

St Thomas was first and foremost a seeker and lover of the truth. If he understood something to be false he would say so, without any qualms.

You place too much faith in the pope and overlook the Papacy and the nature of the Church as a whole. The SSPX are not ‘winning’ but holding to the truth. They believe the same faith that their fathers and our fathers believed. They acknowledge Benedict XVI as the rightful holder of the See of St Peter and all that goes with it. This does not mean that they accept everything he says without question. As I say, they hold to the faith of their fathers, the faith we once held, including the teaching office of the reigning Pontiff. However, if he makes a statement or supports a proposal that flatly contradicts the Holy Catholic faith they will not, nor should they, follow it. An example would be the decree on ecumenism of Vat II.

Before Vat II individuals that called themselves Christians, but were not members of the Church were called Heretics. Could you explain to me how we can go to bed one evening believing these people to be heretics, as the Church has always held, only to wake the next morning to find them not merely Christians but, ‘Our Brother and Sisters in the Lord’, without them changing one iota in their erronious beliefs. Or would you prefer to call names, ‘whinning’, or perhaps ask a moderator to get involved?

The Truth will find you out.

 

[Jingerly44]

Here is a bit from the sermon by Bishop Bernard Fellay for the priestly ordination of Father Bertrand Lundi, on January 27, 2013, at the Church of Saint-Nicolas du Chardonnet:
*
“We get the impression that the Roman authorities do not understand us, because they have not understood that we are ready to lose everything in order to keep this Catholic faith. We absolutely do not want to let this faith go. Now unfortunately (and this is a fact that we can observe every day), with the Council, through the Council, and in the Council, some poisons were introduced that are harmful to the faith; they lead souls into error and no longer defend them, no longer defend them in their faith. We denounce this fact, and this is why they condemn us. Even today, the condition that they want to impose on us in order to recognize us with the title “Catholic” is to accept those very same things that demolish the faith. But we cannot, and that is all, quite simply. In no case do we agree to diminish what is absolutely essential in order to go to Heaven: the faith, with all its consequences. That is why this combat is necessary, an everyday combat.”*

My question is, is it possible for an ecumenical council to teach error? Clearly the Holy Spirit renders it impossible for a pope to dogmatically declare an erroneous teaching and make it binding on the faithful, but is it possible for documents produced by an ecumenical council to contain errors?

Any help on this would be appreciated.

Here is the link to the whole sermon:

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/02/fellay-to-defend-faith-to-keep-faith-to.html

Since the Second Vatican Council created and defined itself by its own measure it can hardly be spoken of in the same way as the previous twenty councils, which were always, directly or indirectly, Doctrinal in nature. In short, Vat II put forward no doctrines and was not doctrinal in nature, therefore it could not err. It could, however, talk gibberish, which it duly did.

 

[jwinch2]

It could, however, talk gibberish, which it duly did.

Just as a friendly FYI, you will not long be a member of CAF if you continue like that. I have seen people questions aspects of V2 or lament that there was not greater clarity in the documents, but a direct attack on it will not be tolerated by the moderation staff for long.

I’m not trying to tell you what to do or anything. I just thought you might prefer to know.

Peace of Christ,