SSPX

[maurin]

This last turn of events has been very interesting to follow. Mind you, please, that I am not offering an opinion, but as I was reading the exchanges, I couldn’t help but recall what the opinion would have been on the old Orthodox Forum–if the Orthodox would actually agree with what is being put forward as “their” perspective.

 

[thistle]

I don’t think he is making it up. I think that this is another example of where the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church has changed. Before, it used to be that the Orthodox Church was a schismatic Church and was outside the Catholic Church. Now the teaching is entirely different as you can see from the explanation given by JR.

You have not shown in this thread or the others that the Church has changed any teaching. You simply say that without providing any evidence to support it.

 

[pnewton]

You have not shown in this thread or the others that the Church has changed any teaching.

Yes, the Church has changed teaching. That is what doctrinal developement is all about. When something becomes dogma, is defined or expounded upon, it is a change. What the Church has* not* done is contradicted teaching.

 

[Genesis315]

Yes, the Church has changed teaching. That is what doctrinal developement is all about. When something becomes dogma, is defined or expounded upon, it is a change. What the Church has* not* done is contradicted teaching.

I agree with you, but I thing using the word “change” is not really the most prudent choice. Here is a good explanation by St. Vincent de Lerins:

For it is right that those ancient doctrines of heavenly philosophy should, as time goes on, be cared for, smoothed, polished; but not that they should be changed, not that they should be maimed, not that they should be mutilated. They may receive proof, illustration, definiteness; but they must retain withal their completeness, their integrity, their characteristic properties…[The Church of Christ] keeps this one object carefully in view–if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined, to keep and guard it.

Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practised negligently should thenceforward be practised with double solicitude?

 

[bobzills]

You have not shown in this thread or the others that the Church has changed any teaching. You simply say that without providing any evidence to support it.

I think that JR has shown that the teaching has changed?

 

[EdFoust]

Yes, the Church has changed teaching. That is what doctrinal developement is all about. When something becomes dogma, is defined or expounded upon, it is a change. What the Church has* not* done is contradicted teaching.

No, a definition of a doctrine that is already “proximate to the Faith” or “certain” merely changes the “theological note” applied to the doctrine…the definition makes it de fide. It is also explained in detail in the definition and relatio.

The Church cannot make a definition that “changes” something already taught infallibly by the Ordinary Magisterium.

EF

 

[eelpis]

I think that JR has shown that the teaching has changed?

The Church has not changed her teachings in any way whatsoever, the manner of presenting the teachings might have changed because we live in our times, but that is another thing.

What was true to the apostles is and remains true to us. God and his truth do not change. Vatican II changed no teaching at all.
The pope has given free use of the older form of Holy Mass too, what’s your problem?

The Church is semper idem, always the same, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer. She is and always will be the immaculate bride of God the Son.

I’m a loyal son of the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church.

 

[bobzills]

The Church has not changed her teachings in any way whatsoever, the manner of presenting the teachings might have changed because we live in our times, but that is another thing.

What was true to the apostles is and remains true to us. God and his truth do not change. Vatican II changed no teaching at all.
The pope has given free use of the older form of Holy Mass too, what’s your problem?

The Church is semper idem, always the same, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer. She is and always will be the immaculate bride of God the Son.

I’m a loyal son of the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church.

Well, that is nice, but basically irrelevant to the point that at one point in time it was taught that the Orthodox Church is outside the Catholic Church, but at the present point in time it is taught that The Orthodox Church is not outside of the Roman Catholic Church.
For another serious change, cosider the teaching on Islam. At one point in time it was taught that Islam was an abominable sect, but this is not taught now as we learn from the Pope’s kising of the Koran.

 

[eelpis]

Well, that is nice, but basically irrelevant to the point that at one point in time it was taught that the Orthodox Church is outside the Catholic Church, but at the present point in time it is taught that The Orthodox Church is not outside of the Roman Catholic Church.
For another serious change, cosider the teaching on Islam. At one point in time it was taught that Islam was an abominable sect, but this is not taught now as we learn from the Pope’s kising of the Koran.

The teachings have not changed at all, how we as Catholics present them have changed.

The Church does not consider the Orthodox to be Catholics even if she says they have all the sacraments and a valid priesthood, nor does she consider the Muslims to be Christians even if she says that the Muslims adore the Creator and the Judge of mankind.

 

[chrisb]

I recently found a SSPX Chapel in my town and I’m very interested in visiting.

 

[pnewton]

No, a definition of a doctrine that is already “proximate to the Faith” or “certain” merely changes the “theological note” applied to the doctrine…the definition makes it de fide. It is also explained in detail in the definition and relatio.

Interesting nuance. I guess I view things simpler. At one time the church did not have the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Now we do. That is by the usual English meaning of the word, a change.

 

[JReducation]

I think that we’re getting stuck on two words: “change” and “outside”. I wonder what would happen if we took these words out.

The Church’s dogma an salvation outside the her remains the same. So what is different in what Vatican II, John Paul II and Benedict XVI are saying and doing?

They are saying that the Orthodox maintain a sacramental communion with us. They are saying that the Orthodox also share the same apostolic succession as us.

They are saying that the excommunications and anathemas are a thing of the past and are asking both sides to forget them (not as in wipe one’s memory), but put them aside. It’s over.

If you look at it this way, the dogma of salvation outside the Church remains the same.

So what’s the status of our relationship with each other, Orthodox and Catholic?

1. We have link of communion that neither side can deny.
2. We also have differences that neither saide can deny.
3. We remain separate separated because of our difference, but we are united because of our share in the same life of faith, grace and our fidelity to the teachings of the Apostles.
4. Therefore, we are Sister Churches. The relationship is schismatic, but the members are not. Neither they nor us are materially responsbile for the separation. That was the result of a sad series of events almost 1000 years ago, which neither today’s Catholics or Orthodox provoked or caused.
5. There is a moral duty on both sides to correct the errors of the past and to bring the unity that exists in sacrament, succession and faith, to a perfect unity. That perfect unity would be unity under the bishop of Rome, while each Church retains her traditions and identity, just like the Eastern Catholics do.

Does this help?

JR

 

[eelpis]

Interesting nuance. I guess I view things simpler. At one time the church did not have the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Now we do. That is by the usual English meaning of the word, a change.

You cannot have the Catholic Church without the papacy because the pope is the final judge, here on earth, of all things about the Catholic faith.

 

[eelpis]

I think that we’re getting stuck on two words: “change” and “outside”. I wonder what would happen if we took these words out.

The Church’s dogma an salvation outside the her remains the same. So what is different in what Vatican II, John Paul II and Benedict XVI are saying and doing?

They are saying that the Orthodox maintain a sacramental communion with us. They are saying that the Orthodox also share the same apostolic succession as us.

They are saying that the excommunications and anathemas are a thing of the past and are asking both sides to forget them (not as in wipe one’s memory), but put them aside. It’s over.

If you look at it this way, the dogma of salvation outside the Church remains the same.

So what’s the status of our relationship with each other, Orthodox and Catholic?

1. We have link of communion that neither side can deny.
2. We also have differences that neither saide can deny.
3. We remain separate separated because of our difference, but we are united because of our share in the same life of faith, grace and our fidelity to the teachings of the Apostles.
4. Therefore, we are Sister Churches. The relationship is schismatic, but the members are not. Neither they nor us are materially responsbile for the separation. That was the result of a sad series of events almost 1000 years ago, which neither today’s Catholics or Orthodox provoked or caused.
5. There is a moral duty on both sides to correct the errors of the past and to bring the unity that exists in sacrament, succession and faith, to a perfect unity. That perfect unity would be unity under the bishop of Rome, while each Church retains her traditions and identity, just like the Eastern Catholics do.

Does this help?

JR

The link to Peter is very important and it’s part of what the Church is.

I copy from the Vatican website.

INTRODUCTION

The Second Vatican Council, with its Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, and its Decrees on Ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio) and the Oriental Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum), has contributed in a decisive way to the renewal of Catholic ecclesiology. The Supreme Pontiffs have also contributed to this renewal by offering their own insights and orientations for praxis: Paul VI in his Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam suam (1964) and John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint (1995).

The consequent duty of theologians to expound with greater clarity the diverse aspects of ecclesiology has resulted in a flowering of writing in this field. In fact it has become evident that this theme is a most fruitful one which, however, has also at times required clarification by way of precise definition and correction, for instance in the declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), the Letter addressed to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Communionis notio (1992), and the declaration Dominus Iesus (2000), all published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The vastness of the subject matter and the novelty of many of the themes involved continue to provoke theological reflection. Among the many new contributions to the field, some are not immune from erroneous interpretation which in turn give rise to confusion and doubt. A number of these interpretations have been referred to the attention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Given the universality of Catholic doctrine on the Church, the Congregation wishes to respond to these questions by clarifying the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions used by the magisterium which are open to misunderstanding in the theological debate.

RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS

FIRST QUESTION

Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?

RESPONSE

The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.

Here’s the full link: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

 

[chrisb]

Interesting nuance. I guess I view things simpler. At one time the church did not have the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Now we do. That is by the usual English meaning of the word, a change.

Saying a Dogma wasn’t present as opposed to not defined is two different things is it not?

 

[JReducation]

Interesting nuance. I guess I view things simpler. At one time the church did not have the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Now we do. That is by the usual English meaning of the word, a change.

The fact that the Orthodox do not accept the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and the infallibility of the Pope does not make them heretics for one legal reason.

These doctrines were not formally binding on Catholics at the time of the schism. They became binding much later. You’re bound to what exists de fide in your time. These two points are two of several where we have to reach an understanding.

To take this back to the topic of the SSPX, there is the difference between the Orthodox and the Lefebvrist movement as John Paul called it. The laws regarding the ordination of bishops were in place when the Archbishop (RIP) ordained the new bishops.

One is bound to what is in place in one’s time. Again, the excommunication applies to the bishops of the SSPX, not the congregation, unless the congregation supports the right to defy the Pope’s order. Then the congregant runs into a problem.

That is the difference in status between the SSPX and the Orthodox. Their current Patriarchs are not excommicated. Their anscestors were.

Time is the big problem here. Let us pray, that with time, all of us will be able to resolve these differences.

JR

 

[chrisb]

You cannot have the Catholic Church without the papacy because the pope is the final judge, here on earth, of all things about the Catholic faith.

Are you suggesting that Our Holy Father isn’t the Guardian of Holy Tradition but it’s Creator?

 

[JReducation]

Are you suggesting that Our Holy Father isn’t the Guardian of Holy Tradition but it’s Creator?

I think I understand what E. is saying. The Pontiff is the supreme moderator. This is found in canon law.

Therefore, he is the supreme arbiter of the law. We’re not talking about Tradition, we’re talking about law. He has the full authority to implement and to dispense with the law. This comes with the power to bind and unbind. Therefore, he is the supreme authority on how and when Tradition is appropriately interpreted and applied.

Notice that I changed the term to Pontiff. There are many Holy Fathers. Every Patriarch is a Holy Father. But there is only one Pontiff.

JR

 

[centurionguard]

Respectfully;

Not wanting to take away from the main thrust of this discussion but;
I have yet to see ANY (“Official”) church documents banning or excommunicating any Catholic that participates in a SSPX Latin Mass or is a member of the SSPX Society.

 

[JReducation]

Respectfully;

Not wanting to take away from the main thrust of this discussion but;
I have yet to see ANY (“Official”) church documents banning or excommunicating any Catholic that participates in a SSPX Mass or is a member of the SSPX Society.

If you scroll back, you will see that someone posted the letter from the Commission. It explains the conditions under which individuals can be excommunicated. They have to participate in the SSPX because they feel that they can disregard the orders of the Pontiff.

They are not excommunicated if they attend because they prefer the mass of 1963.

My opinion is that the key is Archbishop Lefebvre and the bishops. If I say that the good Archbishop had the right to disobey the Pontiff and that the men whom he consecrated as bishops also had the right to accept the consecration rather than decline it, then I’m materially participating in their action of defiance.

If I attend a mass, but hold that they did not have the right to disobey, then I am not materially part of the defiance.

There has not been an official excommunication of the laity or the clergy in the SSPX. Only it’s bishops and those who materially participate in the defiance. The clergy are suspended, not excommunicated, unless they have excommunicated themselves.

Given what was said this summer, we’ll have to wait and see. When the Vatican gave the leadership the ultimatum to return and they declined, Williamson made some very strong statements. The Vatican said that they are running the risk of excommunication (the entire movement) if they set up a parallel magisterium. But to the best of my knowledge, the Vatican has not followed up on this excommunication.

I believe that Benedict XVI hopes for a resolution. We should pray for one too.

JR