SSPX update?

[JReducation]

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…”

St Francis of Assisi tells us in our admonitions that we cannot be Catholic and be disobedient, because to be Catholic means to put on Christ who was obedient even unto death.

Francis points out to the fact that Pilate was wrong, but in order to fulfill the Will of the Father, Christ submitted to Pilate’s authority. He uses this example to explain to his sons that authority does not have to be right in order to do what is necessary to fulfill the will of God. Therefore, our focus should always be on obedience, not on the rightness or wrongness of authority, as long as authority does not command us to sin.

No authority in the world has that right. But Pilate did not command Christ to sin. He commanded that Christ be submitted to sin by becoming a victim. It was necessary that Pilate do so, so that the will of the Father could be served.

For this reason, Francis said that we should not be so quick to reject authority, unless it commands what it has not right to command. The only thing that the Church has no right to command is that we sin.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Justin_Swanton]

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.

Would I be able to fit an entire discussion on Vat II onto a single post or even several
posts? Problematic. Would it be right to highjack this thread for that purpose? Very problematic!

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.

The extract refers to the Doctrinal Preambule which, if it had been signed by Bishop Fellay, would have become public, supplying guidelines by which any difficulties in the texts of Vatican II were to be interpreted and understood in the light of previous Church teaching on the relevant subjects.

…“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.

I think what I said is clear enough. ‘Examining the Conciliar texts in this light (i.e. in the light of the Doctrinal Preambule) is not only legitimate, it is positively beneficial.’ To make things clearer - the point of the exercise is not to criticise Vat II but to see how the criticisms can be refuted, such that one demonstrates (what one already knows) that the Council is acceptable to all Catholics, even the most Traditional-minded.

 

[Melchior_1]

Did they have working groups or focus groups for past Councils if people didn’t understand things? Or did they wait for those with training to delivery resources to better digest things, and until then they assented and gave Rome the benefit of the doubt?

The latter, of course. But that people want the former shows we do not live in the same world as before, we live in something entirely different. Which, in turn, explains why the Council was necessary - because the Church needed a Council to address the fact this world is totally different than it was the previous centuries.

 

[Boulder257]

I just read the entire article and all I can say is, “wow”… and not in a good way. It sounds like prayers are needed now more than ever.

 

[jwinch2]

Did they have working groups or focus groups for past Councils if people didn’t understand things? Or did they wait for those with training to delivery resources to better digest things, and until then they assented and gave Rome the benefit of the doubt?

After past councils, official documents were released explaining what the council documents meant and how they were to be interpreted. In addition, official explanations or definitions were often provided within the council itself, see Bishop Gasser’s Relatio at Vatican I regarding Papal Infallibility for an example.

This has not happened for Vatican II, probably because no new doctrine was defined.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

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.

No offence taken, Brother! It is probably natural than in a discussion of a subject as charged as this misunderstandings are inevitable. I’ll try to be a little more precise in future.

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.

Somehow, with all due respect, I cannot help feeling that if Vatican II is as impenetrable as that, then it has failed in its primary purpose, which is to expound Catholicism and Catholic practice in a way that Joe Street can comprehend, besides dealing with contemporary issues in a way that is equally understandable. It is possible of course to spend four years or more just studying the nuances of the Council documents, but that is not what I envisage doing. It’s about broad strokes and basic meanings.

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.

Let me risk the bullet and the Bull and repeat that informing oneself of controverted points of the Faith is the duty of any Catholic, ***but ***let me qualify it by adding that ‘any Catholic’ needs to be reasonably intelligent as theology is not everyone’s cup of tea, and - ‘and’ in bold, underline, italics and caps - AND that the faithful in question inform themselves of controverted points of the Faith, they don’t ***resolve ***them. ***That ***means that they come to sufficiently clear understanding of the issues in question as elucidated by reliable and reputable experts, that they can see what the errors about it consist of. This needs to be done for religious liberty, which is not an obtuse, abstract speculative topic of higher theology, but something that concerns everyone’s daily life, here and now. We’d better understand how religious liberty works if we are to appreciate in what way religious error can or can’t have freedom of the city, and how we are to interact with non-Catholic religions in consequence. A misunderstanding here leads to fallout, big time.

On the subject, Dr Jeff Mirus’s Catholic Culture website has done a wonderful job on just this topic. Fr. Harrison’s articles, like [this one](file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Justin%20S/Desktop/CATHOLIC%20INFO/dignitatis%20humanae%20and%20trad%20teaching.htm) and this one, are well worth reading.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

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

Thank you for the additional clarification. They were questions in the form of a statement. It’s a learning and interpersonal communications technique I have to use in order to make sure I understand what someone is trying to teach me or tell me. You state X, I restate it as Y, you confirm or correct Y.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

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

Yes, thank you. “Inapplicable” is the more accurate of the two terms for what I was trying to state.

 

[Melchior_1]

Let me risk the bullet and the Bull and repeat that informing oneself of controverted points of the Faith is the duty of any Catholic, ***but ***let me qualify it by adding that ‘any Catholic’ needs to be reasonably intelligent as theology is not everyone’s cup of tea, and - ‘and’ in bold, underline, italics and caps - AND that the faithful in question inform themselves of controverted points of the Faith, they don’t ***resolve ***them. ***That ***means that they come to sufficiently clear understanding of the issues in question as elucidated by reliable and reputable experts, that they can see what the errors about it consist of. This needs to be done for religious liberty, which is not an obtuse, abstract speculative topic of higher theology, but something that concerns everyone’s daily life, here and now. We’d better understand how religious liberty works if we are to appreciate in what way religious error can or can’t have freedom of the city, and how we are to interact with non-Catholic religions in consequence. A misunderstanding here leads to fallout, big time.

On the subject, Dr Jeff Mirus’s Catholic Culture website has done a wonderful job on just this topic. Fr. Harrison’s articles, like [this one](file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Justin%20S/Desktop/CATHOLIC%20INFO/dignitatis%20humanae%20and%20trad%20teaching.htm) and this one, are well worth reading.

We need to remember that Catholics under vows have different expectations than other Catholics, as there’s an extra element there.

Those who are married, they have their marriage vows. As a husband, my primary vocation is my wife, full stop. Yes God calls me to ministry, yes I have other elements within my vocation, however the buck stops with my wife. In the future when I join the Secular Franciscans, the Superior can tell me what to do, due to the promises I will make. But he/she cannot trump the vows I made to my wife.

The vows of marriage are solemn, just as the ones that Brother JR and others in the consecrated life (within the religious orders) have taken. Which is why Brother JR has a very unique understanding on this, because before becoming a Brother he was married. As a result, more than anyone else I know, he has an understanding of how solemn vows work.

Expanding this, there’s over a million Franciscans in the world, counting the Seculars. We live out Franciscan spirituality within the world, and affect change and effect others through this charism. As a result, we carry out the same methodologies that Brother JR has mentioned. Those impact others, then they too carry out the same method.

For this reason you cannot expect that everyone within the Church to fall in line with what you mentioned. Vows, and charisms, change things up a bit.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

We need to remember that Catholics under vows have different expectations than other Catholics, as there’s an extra element there.

Those who are married, they have their marriage vows. As a husband, my primary vocation is my wife, full stop. Yes God calls me to ministry, yes I have other elements within my vocation, however the buck stops with my wife. In the future when I join the Secular Franciscans, the Superior can tell me what to do, due to the promises I will make. But he/she cannot trump the vows I made to my wife.

The vows of marriage are solemn, just as the ones that Brother JR and others in the consecrated life (within the religious orders) have taken. Which is why Brother JR has a very unique understanding on this, because before becoming a Brother he was married. As a result, more than anyone else I know, he has an understanding of how solemn vows work.

Expanding this, there’s over a million Franciscans in the world, counting the Seculars. We live out Franciscan spirituality within the world, and affect change and effect others through this charism. As a result, we carry out the same methodologies that Brother JR has mentioned. Those impact others, then they too carry out the same method.

For this reason you cannot expect that everyone within the Church to fall in line with what you mentioned. Vows, and charisms, change things up a bit.

All this is quite true. As part of a religious order/congregation, your promise or vow of obedience incorporates what and when you study.

In my post I was thinking of laypeople (what I actually meant by ‘faithful’) who, perhaps more than at any time in the past, need to know their Faith.

 

[Melchior_1]

All this is quite true. As part of a religious order/congregation, your promise or vow of obedience incorporates what and when you study.

In my post I was thinking of laypeople (what I actually meant by ‘faithful’) who, perhaps more than at any time in the past, need to know their Faith.

But could the laity not learn from the masters, such as Bonaventure?

I could see those with training and the like saying “Rome is correct”, then working to identify how Rome came to their conclusions. Contrast the SSPX, who say that Rome is wrong and there are errors.

Fundamental difference, there.

 

[jwinch2]

It’s a great suggestion. It’s an absolutely excellent work.

Agreed on the excellence of Fr. Hardon’s Catechism. Its perfectly orthodox, theologically deep, and well-written. Frankly, I believe it is the best catechism around.

I would not suggest for one minute that there is anything contrary to the Faith in the CCC. However, I would suggest that it has a lack of clarity throughout, certainly in the English translation, that can be problematic. The ambiguity of some passages has, in my opinion, contributed to the paucity of good catechesis and has given wiggle room for those who are inclined to dissent or to skew teachings of the Church in a direction which is contrary to the Magisterium. For this reason, I typically recommend Fr. Hardon’s catechism instead of the CCC, particularly for people who wish to see how the teachings of Vatican II fit into the larger Tradition of the Church.

This ambiguity mentioned above is, unfortunately, not limited to the CCC. The majority of documents released by the Church as well as the local Bishops conference (USCCB) have been quite unclear (virtually all of the ones I have read anyway). If they are writing to each other, that might be OK, but in documents which are supposed to inform and guide the laity, that is a major problem. See Informed Citizenship for a great example. If you have to come out with a new cover letter to explain something to the Laity in order to clarify what was supposed to be a document explaining something to the Laity in the first place, then you have missed the mark completely.

 

[pnewton]

We’d better understand how religious liberty works if we are to appreciate in what way religious error can or can’t have freedom of the city, and how we are to interact with non-Catholic religions in consequence. A misunderstanding here leads to fallout, big time.

But how can error exist (for a Catholic) in a Church Ecumenical Council, specifically the Dogmatic Constitutions. If anything in those reflect new thought, then it is as protected as Trent and Nicea. If, as we believe, there is no new dogma, but only reformulations of current doctrine, then “error” can not apply. The most one can say is that it was imprudently worded. Considering the unique charism of the Church universal meeting in ecumenical council, I find even this highly suspect and extremely subjective.

Were knowledgable lay Catholics, or priestly societies given reign to dissect the Immaculate Conception after it was pronounced?

 

[Dee_S]

The great strength of the SSPX is the fact that they have a valid axe to grind. Nothing is going to change until mainstream parish life cleans its act up, which means until the ‘progressist’ parishes described earlier in this thread turn into approximations of the ‘ideal’ parish. So long as a Catholic with a knowledge of his Faith and an instinct for reverence finds himself parish hopping like a cat on a hot tin roof, the SSPX will be there saying “I told you so.”

In this I beg to differ. The SSPX do not IMO have a “great strength”, not by any stretch of the imagination - nor can their defiance of the Holy Father/s in the past 40 years legitimize itself to the point of having anything, axe or otherwise, valid to grind.

Hijacking and making use of the beauties of the Faith e.g. the Tridentine Mass, the Catechism etc.(especially as suspended priests) does not make them the owners of such, these “attractions” are not theirs to offer. One of the main things that appeal to those joining them, being that one can have the ‘water’ at the exact temperature they want it,…while without realising it, one is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Any ‘Catholic’ “hopping like a cat on a hot tin roof” over often subjective trivialities, is not worthy of the name. The SSPX are always talking about the New Mass having lost it’s ‘sacrificial nature’ - well, to me those who hurry over to them, in thought or deed, have also lost the essence of what it means to be a Catholic. Love of sacrifice…does this ring any bells?

Personally, I would like to see the guns turned around a bit, and aimed at the very serious shortcomings in mainstream parish life that in effect are propping up the SSPX’s position. Once catechetics is solid and orthodox, and liturgy is reverent and recollected, everywhere, not just here and there, then the Society’s position won’t have a leg to stand on. That is how the problem of the SSPX will be solved. Until then it’s just King Lear shouting in a storm.

Guns? rather dramatic Aiming at shortcomings is not quite in the same category as informing ourselves & others about the very real dangers of becoming involved with the SSPX e.g. they are not in full communion with the Church - there are consequences for this, bound here on earth and ratified in Heaven. Also, by Petrus, they are suspended, do not have jurisdiction and their sacraments of marriage & confession are invalid…invalid… how can there possibly be any comparison between those dangers and that of enduring certain parish masses that are not quite to one’s liking?

As for King Lear shouting in a storm - that is an insult if it is aimed at Catholics in good standing with the Church - which I hope you will clarify for us. Who does your analogy refer to?

• 1.4 The Fool mocks Lear for giving up all his land to his daughters.
• 1.5 The Fool tells jokes to distract Lear from his horrible confrontation with Goneril.
• 2.2 The Fool shows up with Lear at Gloucester’s house. When Lear rushes out of the house after his showdown with Goneril and Regan, the Fool follows him.
• 3.2 Out in the storm with Lear, who is shouting at the heavens about his ungrateful daughters, the Fool tries to convince the crazy man to go inside.
• 3.4 The Fool enters the cave and discovers Poor Tom inside. As Lear goes increasingly crazy, the Fool tries to calm him down.
• 3.6 The Fool participates in Lear’s mock trial of his daughters. His final line in the play, mysteriously, is, “And I’ll go to bed at noon” (3.6.82). Your guess is as good as ours.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

But could the laity not learn from the masters, such as Bonaventure?

Absolutely.

I could see those with training and the like saying “Rome is correct”, then working to identify how Rome came to their conclusions. Contrast the SSPX, who say that Rome is wrong and there are errors.

Fundamental difference, there.

I ***think ***I follow this. Rome = the Church in its Magisterial teaching, must be correct, she cannot err. Then follow an expert who carefully reads those teachings and shows how they are indeed correct. Am I on the right track?

 

[Melchior_1]

Absolutely.

I ***think ***I follow this. Rome = the Church in its Magisterial teaching, must be correct, she cannot err. Then follow an expert who carefully reads those teachings and shows how they are indeed correct. Am I on the right track?

Z = X(Y+2)

Lets say that Rome tells us that “Z” is 25. That means that we now have;

25 = X(Y+2)

We know the answer is 25, that is finite and concrete. At this point we must examine how we got to 25, in light of the fact that we know it’s 25.

Those familiar with math know that in the above equation that we need to complete “Y+2” first, as brackets get done first (despite there being addition within the bracket). The problem is that in the over-thinking of things, after finding out what X and Y are some will not follow the order of operations.

However we look at X and Y in the above equation, it must eventually reach 25.

X = 5
Y = 3

When there’s more complex formulas like:

Z = X(Y/X+ 20Y) + 13Y/X-(2+1)

And if a mathematician tells you that Z equals a number, we should probably assent that Z equals the number and let the math guys deal with it for now.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

In this I beg to differ. The SSPX do not IMO have a “great strength”, not by any stretch of the imagination - nor can their defiance of the Holy Father/s in the past 40 years legitimize itself to the point of having anything, axe or otherwise, valid to grind.

‘Great strength’ in the sense that the SSPX can show its faithful enough gone wrong in the mainstream Church milieus to confirm that faithful in its profound mistrust of the mainstream Church itself (can’t think of a better word than ‘mainstream’. I’m open to suggestions).

Any ‘Catholic’ “hopping like a cat on a hot tin roof” over often subjective trivialities, is not worthy of the name. The SSPX are always talking about the New Mass having lost it’s ‘sacrificial nature’ - well, to me those who hurry over to them, in thought or deed, have also lost the essence of what it means to be a Catholic. Love of sacrifice…does this ring any bells?

The hopping is not caused by trivialities or a distain for sacrifice. There are, I think, quite a few who follow this thread who would agree.

Guns? rather dramatic Aiming at shortcomings is not quite in the same category as informing ourselves & others about the very real dangers of becoming involved with the SSPX e.g. they are not in full communion with the Church - there are consequences for this, bound here on earth and ratified in Heaven. Also, by Petrus, they are suspended, do not have jurisdiction and their sacraments of marriage & confession are invalid…invalid… how can there possibly be any comparison between those dangers and that of enduring certain parish masses that are not quite to one’s liking?

Compared to the widespread crisis of catechetical formation in many parishes, leading to a profound religious ignorance amongst Catholics and a subsequent disregard for some of her most fundamental moral precepts, the SSPX pales into insignificance.

One point: according to the practice of Rome the marriages and confessions of the SSPX are given supplied jurisdiction if done in good faith. They are not automatically invalid, and I know of no case where ex-SSPXers were obliged to redo any of the sacraments they received in the SSPX.

As for King Lear shouting in a storm - that is an insult if it is aimed at Catholics in good standing with the Church - which I hope you will clarify for us. Who does your analogy refer to?

• 1.4 The Fool mocks Lear for giving up all his land to his daughters.
• 1.5 The Fool tells jokes to distract Lear from his horrible confrontation with Goneril.
• 2.2 The Fool shows up with Lear at Gloucester’s house. When Lear rushes out of the house after his showdown with Goneril and Regan, the Fool follows him.
• 3.2 Out in the storm with Lear, who is shouting at the heavens about his ungrateful daughters, the Fool tries to convince the crazy man to go inside.
• 3.4 The Fool enters the cave and discovers Poor Tom inside. As Lear goes increasingly crazy, the Fool tries to calm him down.
• 3.6 The Fool participates in Lear’s mock trial of his daughters. His final line in the play, mysteriously, is, “And I’ll go to bed at noon” (3.6.82). Your guess is as good as ours.

The only reason I quoted Lear was to show the futility of his cursing as opposed to looking for the real answer to his problems. Perhaps not an entirely apposite comparison, but that’s as far as it went.

 

[Melchior_1]

’
One point: according to the practice of Rome the marriages and confessions of the SSPX are given supplied jurisdiction if done in good faith. They are not automatically invalid, and I know of no case where ex-SSPXers were obliged to redo any of the sacraments they received in the SSPX.

An aside; their confessions are not valid unless someone is dying. You need faculties for confession, the SSPX has zero.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Z = X(Y+2)

Lets say that Rome tells us that “Z” is 25. That means that we now have;

25 = X(Y+2)

We know the answer is 25, that is finite and concrete. At this point we must examine how we got to 25, in light of the fact that we know it’s 25.

Those familiar with math know that in the above equation that we need to complete “Y+2” first, as brackets get done first (despite there being addition within the bracket). The problem is that in the over-thinking of things, after finding out what X and Y are some will not follow the order of operations.

However we look at X and Y in the above equation, it must eventually reach 25.

X = 5
Y = 3

When there’s more complex formulas like:

Z = X(Y/X+ 20Y) + 13Y/X-(2+1)

And if a mathematician tells you that Z equals a number, we should probably assent that Z equals the number and let the math guys deal with it for now.

Ummm, let’s see.

No, can’t work it out.

But a mathematician can show me how this particular problem pans out without my having to do a full course in mathematics.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

An aside; their confessions are not valid unless someone is dying. You need faculties for confession, the SSPX has zero.

The practice of the Church nonetheless does not require that faithful who have gone to SSPX confessions are obliged to reconfess. Contra factum…