SSPX update?

[Justin_Swanton]

As an aside, has there been any attempt on CAF to study the documents of Vatican II to see how, in the oft-cited problematic texts, there is conformity with the constant teaching of the Church?

It would also be worthwhile looking at the text of the OF and similarly evaluating the passages that have been cited as problematic, the Offertory prayers for example.

If such a group doesn’t already exist, anyone interested in seeing it created? Incidentally, I’m reading through Vat II at present with just this aim in mind, but I’d rather join a group than start one. There is a lot of work involved. The totality of the Council documents add up to quite a long book. But it needs to be done (unless it already has been).

 

[pnewton]

The great strength of the SSPX is the fact that they have a valid axe to grind…

***That ***is a matter of opinion. Even if I accetpted this proposition, I would still think it far better to join in the work of the Catholic Church to help solve problems instead of sharpening tools at the grindstone that they can not use.

 

[JReducation]

Sure, brother. No-one is querying that. The point is to recognise that ignoring the sometimes disastrous situation in contemporary parishes because to do so would imply a criticism of the hierarchy who oversee this situation, isn’t going to help anybody. One must respect and obey one’s hierarchical superiors in all that is not sin, but one must not forget that priests and bishops can fail spectacularly in their ecclesiastical mission, as did the quasi-totality of the English hierarchy during the reign of Henry VIII.

It’s no use saying, “Such-and-such a parish is in good standing with its bishop, who himself is in good standing with Rome, therefore I have to accept and not criticise the lamentable state of its catechism.” The saints precisely started their reforms because they did ***not ***tell themselves that.

And sometimes it has been necessary, in a time of crisis, to remind the prelates in the Church of their duty, as St Paul did St Peter in Antioch: “I opposed him to his face”. There is a fine line to walk between accepting the decisions of one’s superior when no spiritual good is at stake, and not accepting it when it is. I would say bad catechism is a pretty major spiritual good at stake, as is a badly celebrated liturgy (the ‘not accepting’ means taking active steps to compensate for harmful effects of the bad decisions, all the while maintaining respect for superior concerned. It doesn’t mean sticking inflammatory notices on the parish noticeboard).

I remember a very good post of yours about how to work ***with ***the clergy and hierarchy in restoring things in the Church - a woman as I remember, who was respectful when stating succinctly what needed to be done and how she proposed doing it. She was made a prime part of the process, if I recall correctly. Snorting and stamping obviously isn’t going to achieve anything.

Absolutely. What is needed are distinctions (which I have mentioned in earlier posts). I have the impression Bishop Fellay was beginning to see the light earlier this year but there has been some major backpedalling since then. A real shame, but what can you do? Just get back to our own job of building up the Mystical Body.

The difference between a true reformer and a beligerent one is exactly that. A true reformer is never disobedient, except when told to sin and he is not confrontational. The story of Paul and Peter has been so misused and misrepresented to defend the SSPX that it’s starting to lose its effect. It did not happen as literally as we read in the Acts of the Apostles. We tend to read into it that there was a confrontation between Peter and Paul, which there was not. Paul made his case, but he was more than willing to yield to Peter’s final word. We have this from John’s testimony to Polycarp. The SSPX has never been willing to yield to the final word of the Holy Fathers.

In addition, the true reformers avoided all forms of confrontations. St. Dominic prohibited that his friars be outspoken in any way that would cause offense to the bishops or the pope. St. Francis had everyone who caused offense to the pope or the bishop dismissed from the Order. We know that both Pope Innocent III, Honorius III and Gregory IX, under whom he lived were difficult persons and made some rash choices that hurt the Church rather than help. Nonetheless, the Dominicans, Cistercians and Franciscans kept quiet under orders from Bernard, Francis and Dominic. They reformed their sphere by combating heresy, reforming religious life and converting Catholics back to Christianity. They did not deal directly with the hierarchy.

On the contrary, their writings prohibit any kind of direct contact with the hierarchy, even to ask for favors. It was the hierarchy who eventually saw their worth and called on them for assistance. That’s how real reform works. One preaches through one’s humility. When the other is edified, he will seek you out.

As an aside, has there been any attempt on CAF to study the documents of Vatican II to see how, in the oft-cited problematic texts, there is conformity with the constant teaching of the Church?

WHOAH!!! You’re inviting people to analyze the texts of Vatican II looking for “problematic texts” when the pope has just issued an order to the SSPX that they acknowledge that there are no problematic texts? Are you a glutton for punishment?

If Pope Benedict and the CDF say that the texts are not problematic, that the problem is in our understanding of them and our application, it would stand to reason that we not go down this road. We would be looking for serious spiritual trouble.

But it needs to be done (unless it already has been).

This was already done by the CDF and the current Holy Father. Also, to what you are suggesting, even if the pope had not already said that there are no problems with the council documents, it would require a team of theologians, historians, linguists, canon lawyers, biblical scholars and social scientists. No single individual has that much expertise.

Anyone is welcome to read the documents. I would strongly discourage anyone from embarking on a mission to find what the Holy Father has already said does not exist. Such an adventure can certainly reflect a lack of trust, which we don’t want. We do trust the Holy Father. If he says that there is no problem with the documents, but that there is a problem with how people read them, then what we need to look at is what people are reading into them that is not there and redirect those people.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[oldcatholicguy]

As an aside, has there been any attempt on CAF to study the documents of Vatican II to see how, in the oft-cited problematic texts, there is conformity with the constant teaching of the Church?

It would also be worthwhile looking at the text of the OF and similarly evaluating the passages that have been cited as problematic, the Offertory prayers for example.

If such a group doesn’t already exist, anyone interested in seeing it created? Incidentally, I’m reading through Vat II at present with just this aim in mind, but I’d rather join a group than start one. There is a lot of work involved. The totality of the Council documents add up to quite a long book. But it needs to be done (unless it already has been).

There is no need for such a group due to the fact that a)that’s not our job as lay people and b)the people who’s job it is have already done it.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

A true reformer is never disobedient, except when told to sin and he is not confrontational.

Off topic-

Could you clarify the above for me Brother? I’m working from my experience in the military where a soldier who refuses to carry out an illegal order can not be charged as being disobedient because his superior does not have the authority to make such a demand (the superior’s authority is limited to legal demands).

 

[choliks]

Off topic-

Could you clarify the above for me Brother? I’m working from my experience in the military where a soldier who refuses to carry out an illegal order can not be charged as being disobedient because his superior does not have the authority to make such a demand (the superior’s authority is limited to legal demands).

It’s the same in principle.

 

[JReducation]

Off topic-

Could you clarify the above for me Brother? I’m working from my experience in the military where a soldier who refuses to carry out an illegal order can not be charged as being disobedient because his superior does not have the authority to make such a demand (the superior’s authority is limited to legal demands).

You’re not off topic at all. In Catholic tradition, those with canonical (legal) authority must be obeyed in all matters, even those that we may believe to be unusual, ridiculous, unnecessary, or even when we believe that we have a better idea or know of something better for the soul.

The only time that one can refuse to obey without being culpable of sin is when authority commands something that is contrary to the law of God, contrary to dogma, contrary to the law of the Church, contrary to those things that the Church herself (not my conscience or yours) has declared to be sinful.

The conscience issue is a tricky one. The moral law says that every man owes obedience to his conscience. However, the law also says that every Catholic conscience must be formed by the mind of the Church (sentire cum ecclesiam). One must be of the same mind as the Church, this means the Magisterium.

Again, here is another little issue that’s not so little. The SSPX and others of the same mindset will argue that the Magisterium is the collective teaching authority of the popes and bishops from the time of the Apostles to today. This is part of the truth, but not all of it.

St. Boniface decreed that the Magisterium is the ONGOING teaching authority of the Church that finds its voice in the current pope. In other words, when the current pope speaks, all the previous popes speak with him or better said, he speaks for his predecessors.

In plain English, the current pope cannot be bound to anything that his predecessors taught or believed that is not revealed by God. The arguments that St. Pius X said this in such and such a writing, Bl. Pius IX said that, or St. Clement of Rome said thus, is moot unless the pope a) declared that his statement was ex-Cathedra or b) the pope was speaking about a dogma or a moral law held by the Church. If that was not the case, then it does not bind the current pope and he can lay it aside without impunity.

Obedience has two parts. We must always obey, except when authority orders that which it may not command.

The pope is bound to obey only that which is revealed by God. He is not bound to obey his predecessors.

When the living pope speaks, he speaks in his name and that of his predecessors. In other words, he safely assumes that his predecessors would concur. He cannot speak for his successors, because he does not know their mind.

For example, if Pope Benedict says something contrary to what St. Pius X said, which people allege that he has done so, he must still be obeyed. St. Pius X is no longer pope. Therefore he has no authority over the Church today. St. Pius X would be the first person to admit this. That’s why he’s a saint, He was humble and honest.

When people get upset because this pope laid aside the Oath Against Modernism, the other pope laid aside the Syllabus of Errors and the pope over there laid aside the Devil’s Advocate in the canonization process, they are engaging in futile exercises of their blood pressure.

None of those things were binding on the popes the followed their authors, because none of those things were of divine origin. They must be obeyed when they are in effect. The popes who put those rules into effect had the authority to do so. They were the successors of Peter. Therefore, they had the authority to bind and unbind. They put those thing in place because they believed that these were necessary at the time.

Bl. John XXIII, Ven. Paul VI, Bl. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI also believe that laying these things aside is the right thing to do at this time. They too must be obeyed. The too have the power to bind and unbind.

The only things that no power in heaven or on earth can change are laws that are revealed by God and Truths that are revealed by God. Anything else, is up to those who have the authority to leave it or change it.

It’s just like the military. The Commander in Chief cannot command what is against the Constitution. Everything else is his to command. Those beneath him have the authority to command in his name and must be obeyed as long as they remain within the law.

The difference between the Church and the USA is that in the USA, the citizens can lobby to change a law. In the Church, you can only lobby if the pope says you can.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[jwinch2]

If men like St. Augustine, St. Bernard of Clarevaux, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Dominic, St. Ignaitius of Loyola and women like St. Teresa of Avila, and Bl. Teresa of Calcutta has held this position that the Church had to clean up its act before they obliged the pope and obeyed, we would not have the wonderful fruit of their work and the great spiritual schools that they left us.

The Church, like her master is human and divine, with one difference. Her humanity is affected by the ravages of Original sin. This has been the case since the first day that Peter set out to preach on Pentecost Sunday and has never changed. One crisis has replaced another, one weakness is overcome and another pops up and so forth.

This was the position of Martin Luther. He would not work with the Church until the Church cleaned house. The more intransigent he became, the more distorted his view of the Church and of Christian doctrine became.

If the SSPX wants to wait until every parish runs ideally, then the SSPX shall remain outside of full communion and will never have a canonical place in the Church. This may seem trivial to some, but it’s of great importance to the Magisterium and to the reformers of history. These holy reformers not only won the crown of sanctity, but they proved that you can only change one thing at a time and you leave the rest to the next reformer who comes along. None of them transformed every parish and every religious community into the ideal. They succeeded in doing several things. They transformed their sphere. They gave to the Church the gift of their charism which goes on today. Most important to all of them, they remained in full canonical communion with the Primacy, which the SSPX lacks.

The four conditions that the Holy Father has laid out for full communion and canonical recognition of the SSPX are no different from what is expected of everyone else.

1. Acknowledge and comply with the fact that only the pope can decide what is and is not part of Tradition.
2. Acknowledge that the Ordinary Form of the mass is BOTH valid and licit. The SSPX says that it’s ilicit. To quote Bishop Fellay “It’s bad.” He’s not talking about the silliness that people insert into the mass. He says that the form itself is doctrinally bad. He’s making a judgment that’s contrary to that of five popes and teaching something that is contrary to what the Church teaches about this particular form of the mass.
3. To acknowledge that the decrees of Vatican II are part of Tradition; therefore, they are error free. No one said that they do not need clarification and greater explanation or better implementation. What the pope is demanding is that the SSPX stop saying that the documents contradict the faith. There are many teachings that are faithful, but not very clear. Try reading the works of St. Catherine of Sienna.
4. To accept that the CCC is the official catechism of the Catholic Church. The Catechism of St. Pius X was never the official catechism of the Catholic Church, nor was the Baltimore Catechism. The CCC is based on the Catechism of Trent, which is one of the official catechisms of the Church. There is nothing in it that contradicts the faith.

These conditions have nothing to do with parishes or the laity. This is part of the problem. The SSPX issue is being turned into an issue of the laity that follows the SSPX. That’s not the norm in the Church. The issues of an institute are about the members incorporated into the institute and the authorities of the institute, not the friends and benefactors of the institute.

We need to look at this situation from the perspective of a priestly society that has no canonical place in the Church and that if it complies with these four requirements could probably produce a few men like the great saints and reformers of the past. But you cannot produce saints in an environment of disobedience, when there is no justifiable moral reason to disobey. Bishop Fellay himself said “The Pope is not asking us to violate the Commandments.”

I agree, of course, with everything you said brother. However, it is your last couple of paragraphs and points that I wish to respond to. In that situation, and in the context of the comment you were responding to, I suggest that Justin has a point. Now, I don’t expect all parishes to be perfect, nor should the SSPX wait for them to become so. However, if far more parishes did have a more reverent liturgy, regardless of form, the SSPX would not have the numbers of laity coming to them that they do. It really is a significant problem.

 

[jwinch2]

As an aside, has there been any attempt on CAF to study the documents of Vatican II to see how, in the oft-cited problematic texts, there is conformity with the constant teaching of the Church?

You might consider taking a look at Fr. Hardon’s Catechism. He does a nice job of tying in the works of Vatican II with the rest of Sacred Tradition. In fact, it is one of the stated goals of his writings.

Peace,

 

[Justin_Swanton]

WHOAH!!! You’re inviting people to analyze the texts of Vatican II looking for “problematic texts” when the pope has just issued an order to the SSPX that they acknowledge that there are no problematic texts? Are you a glutton for punishment?

Not at all. Nor am I looking for problematic passages. Others have looked for them and said the Council is problematic. What I am suggesting is seeing how the Council is ***not ***problematic.

If Pope Benedict and the CDF say that the texts are not problematic, that the problem is in our understanding of them and our application, it would stand to reason that we not go down this road. We would be looking for serious spiritual trouble.

See this article from the Catholic Register. Especially this passage:

The Vatican has not made the preamble public, but said it “states some doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation of Catholic doctrine necessary to guarantee fidelity” to the formal teaching of the Church, including the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, and that it leaves room for “legitimate discussion” about “individual expressions or formulations present in the documents of the Second Vatican Council and the successive magisterium” of the church.

Examining the Conciliar texts in this light is not only legitimate, it is positively beneficial. What better than to be able to tell a member of the SSPX: “Your rejection of Vat II is unfounded. Look at these texts that have been cited as opposed to Catholic doctrine and see how in fact they aren’t.” What can be wrong with that?

This was already done by the CDF and the current Holy Father. Also, to what you are suggesting, even if the pope had not already said that there are no problems with the council documents, it would require a team of theologians, historians, linguists, canon lawyers, biblical scholars and social scientists. No single individual has that much expertise.

I don’t think so. All is required is that all the passages in Vat II that have been put up for criticism be examined from the point of view of how they are criticised. Vat II is supposed to have promoted a false freedom of religion (note I say ‘supposed’. I do not support the statement). One needs to examine the texts thus cited and show they teach in conformityi with the Church’s constant teaching on the subject. This is not a superhuman task.

Anyone is welcome to read the documents. I would strongly discourage anyone from embarking on a mission to find what the Holy Father has already said does not exist. Such an adventure can certainly reflect a lack of trust, which we don’t want. We do trust the Holy Father. If he says that there is no problem with the documents, but that there is a problem with how people read them, then what we need to look at is what people are reading into them that is not there and redirect those people.

No lack of trust is implied in examining and seeing for oneself how Vat II accords with tradition, nor have I implied any such lack of trust. The point is that the SSPX’s current position is a blanket condemnation of Vat II and the OF, without distinction. Being able to refute this condemnation is something any Traditional-minded Catholic should be able to do. Informing oneself on controverted points of one’s Faith is the duty of any catholic

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

. However, if far more parishes did have a more reverent liturgy, regardless of form, the SSPX would not have the numbers of laity coming to them that they do. It really is a significant problem.

I agree that many parishes need to drop the silliness that they insert into the liturgy and this would certainly help. I don’t have a problem with that idea at all. I have trained many priests during the last several years and this is one of my pet peeves.

I also feel that people in general have to be more flexible. Hear me out for a moment. On the one hand we have the traditionalist who is scandalized by a woman distributing Holy Communion, something that is allowed by the Church. We have the other extreme, I’m not sure what label to use for that side, who badger and complain about things like giving women a more active role in the ritual itself. When you’re at a parish between these two forces, you often want to run away from home.

The result has been catastrophic and the faithful can’t see it or don’t want to see it. How many parish priests are there?

The truth is that we’re not any shorter on priests than we were this same year in the 20th century. We had a boom from WWI to about 1960. But that was one of those cycles that happens every 200 years or so. The same thing happened right after the French Revolution, after the Protestant Reformation before that, during the Middle Ages before that, etc.

My point is that one of several reasons that we have a shortage of parish priests is because diocesan priests are in short order. Many men prefer to enter religious communities that promise them that they will never be assigned to a parish or have anything to do with the Catholic laity.

I’ll give you an example. Franciscans . . . we have thousands of priests. Only 10% of that number are in parish work. The rest run from parish work faster than the devil runs from holy water. New Franciscan communities have emerged during the last 25 years, at least 20 new communities. They’re getting vocations. But here is the deal. Either they will not ordain anyone; they will ordain only what they need for the internal needs of the community; or they ordain as many as the superior feels are called to be priests, but under the condition that they never serve the laity in a parish. They can serve in soup kitchens, homeless shelters, the streets, communication centers, retreat houses, shrines, TV stations, pregnancy centers, schools and universities, even work for in secular areas such as medicine, social work, nursing, science, research, engineering, but as long as they do not have anything to do with the parish.

We’re not the only religious community that has bailed out of parishes. The Fathers of Mercy do very little if any. The OMIs are closing parishes and doing street ministry. The Dominicans do very little parish ministry. The Carmelites do little parish ministry. The Benedictines will help out at the nearest parish as long as they don’t have to spend the night or deal with the people outside of mass and confession and so the stories goes.

Just to show you the abundance of priests that are in religious life, the number or bishops from religious orders has tripled in the last 10 years. Most of them have never set foot in a parish. They are named bishops because they are faithful and obedient to the Holy Father. They are very orthodox and very demanding with their people. They are also very well educated. Most are doctors of theology, science, philosophy, social sciences, canon law, scripture and so forth. But when they were priests they did internal work for their community or they did non parish work.

Those communities that don’t need priests to exist are not ordaining as many. Why? They have no place to put them. These men will not go to parishes. The superiors are not empowered to make them go to a parish. Parishes are not the moral duty of religious superiors.

My point is that while I agree that the silliness has to come out of the parishes in order to keep the liturgy as reverent and as beautiful as it should be, at the same time, both sides of the aisle must stop trying to control their parish priests. They must make room for the personality and charism of the individual priests. Every pastor brings with him his persona. He can’t stop being who he is, because he became a priest and is now a pastor.

The only place where priests are taught to put aside their persona is in religious life. Because when you join religious life, it’s understood that you’re taking on someone else’s charism, someone else’s vision and spirituality, someone else’s pastoral style. You’re taking on the persona of the founder as it’s transmitted through the community.

When you’re a diocesan priest, you do not belong to a community. You do not have a vow of chastity that binds you to your brothers as a father is bound to his family. You’re your own man. Your spirituality is your own. Your vision of the Church is your own. You bring your gifts to the table. That’s why they call them secular priests, because they have all of the same rights and attributes of any other man in the secular world. We can’t be so rigid to the right or to the left that we make these men’s lives impossible.

We can’t be so rigid to the left that we see everything as an obstacle to progress. Nor can those on the right be so rigid that they scream SCANDAL every time a rule is bent a little. All of us have to learn to bend or we’ll snap.

 

[JReducation]

If there was anything that I learned during my years at Opus Dei was orthodoxy with flexibility. I did my doctorate at Sancta Cruce in Rome, which is run by the Holy Cross Fathers, not the same Holy Cross as Notre Dame. Those are an extension of the Holy Cross Brothers. The Holy Cross Fathers at Sancta Cruce are the fraternal society of priests within the Prelature of the Opus Dei. I received a wonderful and very orthodox theological education. My area was Ascetical and Mystical Theology.

The Masters of Catholic Spirituality were the most flexible people in the world. They had very high standards. But they understood that these standards were ideals, not accomplishments. They never expected themselves or anyone else under them to ever arrive at these ideals.

They saw the spiritual life of the Christian as the mirror image of the journey of Israel toward the fulfillment of the prophecies. In other words, just as Israel grew in the right direction until the time was right for the Logos to become incarnate, so too the Church, which is the New Israel grows painfully and slowly in the right direction until the time is right for the return of the Logos.

Each person moves in that direction at his own pace. We cannot rush it along or we will destroy the soul.

I believe this is why I fell in love with Ascetical and Mystical Theology, because the mystics are so human. What they wrote and what they lived and how they led others are not congruous and were not meant to be. The wrote about an ideal. However, they lived with reality. My three favorites are Francis of Assisi, Teresa of Avila and Francis de Sales. All of them were so human in their dealings with the Church.

Francis wanted nothing to do with the sins of the clergy. Anyone who dared to allege that the clergy had sins would be dismissed from the order. It was not part of his reform to convert the clergy. His mission was to convert the Catholic laymen back to Christianity.

Teresa of Avila was very funny. She had a habit of making very cynical remarks about the hierarchy and the Inquisition. But when anyone took her seriously she always said that you were a bigger fool than she was to believe her assessment. She did not take herself or her assessment of the hierarchy too seriously.

Francis de Sales was the consummate psychologist. He could give Sigmund Freud a run for his money. He understood human nature and human behavior. He would always lay out maps to a devout life. He provided these maps to his spiritual sons and daughters. They always knew that the ideal was at the end of the journey and it was not to be found in this world. The devout life is a journey to an end that exists only beyond this life. While on this earth, we do the best with what is before us and we complain as little as possible so that we may go unnoticed. Should others notice us, they may have more to complain about us than we do about them. That’s the hypothesis in his famous work, Introduction to the Devout Life and in his letters to his spiritual children.

I agree that parishes need to do a lot of work and I personally have done a lot of work with priests to help them make it happen. But I also agree with my colleagues in Mystical Theology that we must work for the ideal and be flexible with others. You lay out the ideal, but you don’t kill yourself or others trying to achieve it. Virtue is not found in spiritual violence.

Before anyone thinks of trying to engage with me in a debate in the area of spiritual theology, love a good debate in hermaneutics, languistics, structure, symbol, form, epigenesis, anthropology, history, content and methodology in spiritual theology. This devotion or that practice are not the same as spiritual theology. Devotions are the external expression of what’s happening at a deeper level. It is that deeper level that we should be discussing, not the outer shell.

You might consider taking a look at Fr. Hardon’s Catechism. He does a nice job of tying in the works of Vatican II with the rest of Sacred Tradition. In fact, it is one of the stated goals of his writings.

Peace,

It’s a great suggestion. It’s an absolutely excellent work. A piece of work that goes along with it is Pope Benedict’s trilogy on Jesus of Nazareth. In this work, he does exactly what Vatican II called the Church to do. He expresses the faith for contemporary culture, in contemporary language,using contemporary methods to analyze our faith tradition. If one understands Christ as he explains him, one understands what Vatican II wanted the Church to preach to today’s man and how the Council wanted it done.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[oldcatholicguy]

You’re not off topic at all. In Catholic tradition, those with canonical (legal) authority must be obeyed in all matters, even those that we may believe to be unusual, ridiculous, unnecessary, or even when we believe that we have a better idea or know of something better for the soul.

The only time that one can refuse to obey without being culpable of sin is when authority commands something that is contrary to the law of God, contrary to dogma, contrary to the law of the Church, contrary to those things that the Church herself (not my conscience or yours) has declared to be sinful.

The conscience issue is a tricky one. The moral law says that every man owes obedience to his conscience. However, the law also says that every Catholic conscience must be formed by the mind of the Church (sentire cum ecclesiam). One must be of the same mind as the Church, this means the Magisterium.

Again, here is another little issue that’s not so little. The SSPX and others of the same mindset will argue that the Magisterium is the collective teaching authority of the popes and bishops from the time of the Apostles to today. This is part of the truth, but not all of it.

St. Boniface decreed that the Magisterium is the ONGOING teaching authority of the Church that finds its voice in the current pope. In other words, when the current pope speaks, all the previous popes speak with him or better said, he speaks for his predecessors.

In plain English, the current pope cannot be bound to anything that his predecessors taught or believed that is not revealed by God. The arguments that St. Pius X said this in such and such a writing, Bl. Pius IX said that, or St. Clement of Rome said thus, is moot unless the pope a) declared that his statement was ex-Cathedra or b) the pope was speaking about a dogma or a moral law held by the Church. If that was not the case, then it does not bind the current pope and he can lay it aside without impunity.

Obedience has two parts. We must always obey, except when authority orders that which it may not command.

The pope is bound to obey only that which is revealed by God. He is not bound to obey his predecessors.

When the living pope speaks, he speaks in his name and that of his predecessors. In other words, he safely assumes that his predecessors would concur. He cannot speak for his successors, because he does not know their mind.

For example, if Pope Benedict says something contrary to what St. Pius X said, which people allege that he has done so, he must still be obeyed. St. Pius X is no longer pope. Therefore he has no authority over the Church today. St. Pius X would be the first person to admit this. That’s why he’s a saint, He was humble and honest.

When people get upset because this pope laid aside the Oath Against Modernism, the other pope laid aside the Syllabus of Errors and the pope over there laid aside the Devil’s Advocate in the canonization process, they are engaging in futile exercises of their blood pressure.

None of those things were binding on the popes the followed their authors, because none of those things were of divine origin. They must be obeyed when they are in effect. The popes who put those rules into effect had the authority to do so. They were the successors of Peter. Therefore, they had the authority to bind and unbind. They put those thing in place because they believed that these were necessary at the time.

Bl. John XXIII, Ven. Paul VI, Bl. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI also believe that laying these things aside is the right thing to do at this time. They too must be obeyed. The too have the power to bind and unbind.

The only things that no power in heaven or on earth can change are laws that are revealed by God and Truths that are revealed by God. Anything else, is up to those who have the authority to leave it or change it.

It’s just like the military. The Commander in Chief cannot command what is against the Constitution. Everything else is his to command. Those beneath him have the authority to command in his name and must be obeyed as long as they remain within the law.

The difference between the Church and the USA is that in the USA, the citizens can lobby to change a law. In the Church, you can only lobby if the pope says you can.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Brother,

The statements made by a pope that fall outside of the specific cases you mentioned are valid while he is pope and remain valid until one of his successors invalidates them (with the assumption that the current pope approves of what he does not changed). This is because the authority is granted to the current pope and only for while he is the current pope. The keys (authority) given to Peter are the same keys the current Holy Father has, each pope doesn’t get his own personal set of keys, he just gets the use of the 1 set while in office. Correct? (sorry about the poor key analogy, best I could come up with)

The “voice” of the Church- Similar to the doppler effect. It’s the same voice (or tone) but we understand (hear) it differently from different distances (different popes over the length of Church history)?

Thank you.

 

[choliks]

Brother,

The statements made by a pope that fall outside of the specific cases you mentioned are valid while he is pope and remain valid until one of his successors invalidates them (with the assumption that the current pope approves of what he does not changed). This is because the authority is granted to the current pope and only for while he is the current pope. The keys (authority) given to Peter are the same keys the current Holy Father has, each pope doesn’t get his own personal set of keys, he just gets the use of the 1 set while in office. Correct? (sorry about the poor key analogy, best I could come up with)

The “voice” of the Church- Similar to the doppler effect. It’s the same voice (or tone) but we understand (hear) it differently from different distances (different popes over the length of Church history)?

Thank you.

I think “invalidate” is not the right word. “Inapplicable” perhaps?

 

[choliks]

snip<
Francis wanted nothing to do with the sins of the clergy. Anyone who dared to allege that the clergy had sins would be dismissed from the order. It was not part of his reform to convert the clergy. His mission was to convert the Catholic laymen back to Christianity.

A couple of centuries later, we have St. Ignatius of Loyola instilling a high standard of education for priests to answer the relatively poor education of the clergy in his time. Like the other great reformers (from within), the first Companions also recognized the troubles plaguing the hierarchy of the Church.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

***That ***is a matter of opinion.

…endorsed by a number of posters on this thread, who have described their experiences with ‘progressist’ parishes.

Even if I accetpted this proposition, I would still think it far better to join in the work of the Catholic Church to help solve problems instead of sharpening tools at the grindstone that they can not use.

That is precisely what I propose. Solving the problems will remove the grindstone at the same time.

 

[Dee_S]

Not at all. Nor am I looking for problematic passages. Others have looked for them and said the Council is problematic. What I am suggesting is seeing how the Council is ***not ***problematic.

Do you have any specific references of exactly what these “others” find problematic? One would need to know this before doing any comparative study.There is an awful lot of loose talk that criticizes the Council and expounds the proposition that there are “problematic passages”- it would be interesting if you could let us know what they are specifically.

Bishop Fellay in his CNS interview talks of vague wrong impressions of the Council.

“… since the Council you have the impression there is something wrong in the Church. A movement, a strong movement who is going astray which is no longer, lets say, giving the Catholic line, but from people who are in positions, and so who give the impression that it is the Catholic Church.”

“Many people have an understanding of the Council, which is the wrong understanding and now we have authorities in Rome who now say it. We may say, in the discussions I think we see that many things we would have condemned as being from the Council, are in fact not from the Council,… but the common understanding of it.”

“Religious Liberty is used in so many ways, and looking closer I really have the impression that not many know what really the Council says about it. The Council is presenting a religious liberty that in fact is a very, very limited one, very limited…in our talks with Rome they clearly said that to mean that there would be a right to error or a right to choose each one his religion, is false.”
youtube.com/watch?v=DdnJigNzTuY

See this article from the Catholic Register. Especially this passage:

The Vatican has not made the preamble public, but said it “states some doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation of Catholic doctrine necessary to guarantee fidelity” to the formal teaching of the Church, including the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, and that it leaves room for “legitimate discussion” about “individual expressions or formulations present in the documents of the Second Vatican Council and the successive magisterium” of the church.

In my understanding, this extract refers directly to the dealings between Rome and the SSPX - and is not intended as any guideline or suggestion to anyone else as far as I know. They left “room for discussion” in order to further assist the SSPX by giving them another chance to say what they think is wrong with the documents of Vatican II.

Examining the Conciliar texts in this light is not only legitimate, it is positively beneficial. What better than to be able to tell a member of the SSPX: “Your rejection of Vat II is unfounded. Look at these texts that have been cited as opposed to Catholic doctrine and see how in fact they aren’t.” What can be wrong with that?

…“examining” implies what Br JR objected to in his earlier replies - you gave the impression that an individual could sit in sole judgement of these documents. Which perhaps you did not intend to convey.

*Cardinal Ratzinger - Let us discover the true Vatican II

*"Hence his message, his exhortation to all Catholics who wish to remain such, is certainly not to “turn back” but rather “to return to the authentic texts of the original Vatican II”

"For him, he repeats to me, “to defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council…”

“And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them.”
The Ratzinger Report

 

[Dee_S]

***That ***is a matter of opinion. Even if I accetpted this proposition, I would still think it far better to join in the work of the Catholic Church to help solve problems instead of sharpening tools at the grindstone that they can not use.

Cardinal Ratzinger/the Holy Father also does not think they have a “valid axe to grind” contrary to what defenders of the SSPX/Tradition sadly cling to, trying to ‘square a circle’.

Any justification for the disobedient & rebellious actions of the SSPX are unpalatable to “all Catholics who wish to remain such…”

 

[Dee_S]

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/aba/lowres/aban1194l.jpg

 

[JReducation]

Not at all. Nor am I looking for problematic passages. Others have looked for them and said the Council is problematic. What I am suggesting is seeing how the Council is ***not ***problematic.

I apologize. But the way that you worded your invitation sounded as if you were inviting people to go on a search for problems that the Holy Father has already said don’t exist.

See this article from the Catholic Register. Especially this passage:

The Vatican has not made the preamble public, but said it “states some doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation of Catholic doctrine necessary to guarantee fidelity” to the formal teaching of the Church, including the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, and that it leaves room for “legitimate discussion” about “individual expressions or formulations present in the documents of the Second Vatican Council and the successive magisterium” of the church.

The Vatican did not make it public, but Bishop Fellay did.

I don’t think so. All is required is that all the passages in Vat II that have been put up for criticism be examined from the point of view of how they are criticised. Vat II is supposed to have promoted a false freedom of religion (note I say ‘supposed’. I do not support the statement). One needs to examine the texts thus cited and show they teach in conformityi with the Church’s constant teaching on the subject. This is not a superhuman task.

It is not a superhuman task, but it is a very scholarly task, trust me. When I was in the seminary there were confreres of mine getting their four-year master’s degree in ecclessiology, They were doing just this, studying the Council documents. It took four years and many disciplines working together to begin to crack them open. The task is neither for a layman (I don’t mean as in laity), nor is it for one person alone. It’s for scholars and it’s multidisciplinary.

Informing oneself on controverted points of one’s Faith is the duty of any catholic

Don’t ever say that again to a Franciscan or you may get shot and then excommunicated or the other way around. Francis of Assisi condemned to hell any Catholic who assumed such a position. All contraverssy are to be resolved by the bishops in communion with the Lord Pope. He was very strong and very clear that it is the role of the faithful to focus on doing penance and living an exemplary life of virtue, while staying out of the affairs of the Church. Over 5,000 Franciscans have been dismissed and some excommunicated and a few burned by their brothers for saying this. I’m not going there.

The statements made by a pope that fall outside of the specific cases you mentioned are valid while he is pope and remain valid until one of his successors invalidates them (with the assumption that the current pope approves of what he does not changed). This is because the authority is granted to the current pope and only for while he is the current pope. The keys (authority) given to Peter are the same keys the current Holy Father has, each pope doesn’t get his own personal set of keys, he just gets the use of the 1 set while in office. Correct? (sorry about the poor key analogy, best I could come up with)

The “voice” of the Church- Similar to the doppler effect. It’s the same voice (or tone) but we understand (hear) it differently from different distances (different popes over the length of Church history)?

Thank you.

I’m not sure if you’re making a statement or asking me a question. I’ll assume it’s a question and if I get it wrong, you’ll correct me.

The voice of the Church is one, because as you say, there is only one set of keys handed down through history.

In addition, one pope does not invalidate another. Both popes are right. They live in different contexts. Each is right in his context. No pope can lead the Church to error. However, two popes can and have led the Church to truth via different paths. Regardless of the path, because he is the pope and because he is doing what he has the right to do, he must be obeyed.

On the other hand, if the pope says something and he dies, it remains in place until another changes it.

Let’s take for example the Oath Against Modernism. It was in place for about 50+ years until Pope Paul VI said that it no longer worked, because the world was a different place. He never said that it was wrong. This is the problem with the SSPX and some traditionalists.

They argue “If it was true then, it must be true now.”

“If it’s false now, it was false then.”

That’s not what this entire discussion with the Church is about, not from the point of view of the Holy See.

From the point of view of the Holy See the issue is that the current popes are not bound by their predecessors. Their predecessors were right for their time, but those times no longer exist. If they should return, then we will go back to what was done then. While we live in this space and time, we shall do this instead of that.

Einstein would say that the issue is one of relativity, which is different from relativism, by the way.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV