SSPX

[MattC7000]

What’s the situation with Catholics who see that the SSPX has some very valid points about a crisis in the Church and openly support them? I would like to know because I myself am increasingly disillusioned with the way things are in my faith. Frankly, I can’t for the life of me think of any one reason why Vatican II had to take place. I’m not a theologist but do I really have to go through tomes of Vatican documents to arrive at the conclusion that something fishy is going on? I mean, from receiving communion in the hand (my back always get a chill when I see that), deliberately ugly churches, watered down liturgy, laypeople having a say in everything, the list goes on… I’m sure I’m not the first one to bring this up. I’m starting to think that the Catholic Church doesn’t really have the moral high ground over other Christian denominations because even though it does consistently stick to its teaching, it seems to be doing everything it can to cut people off psychologically from what is sacred. At the end of the day, no one can tell me that we’ve reached this present state of the Church organically. This situation is contrived, IMO.

So am I a real Catholic?

 

[floresco]

I’m not a theologist but do I really have to go through tomes of Vatican documents to arrive at the conclusion that something fishy is going on? I mean, from receiving communion in the hand (my back always get a chill when I see that), deliberately ugly churches, watered down liturgy, laypeople having a say in everything, the list goes on…

You very well might benefit from reading the documents of the Second Vatican Council. You would discover that most of the things that are bothering were not taught by the Council. There are a problems with interpretations of Vatican II. There are problems with the implementation of Vatican II. There are problem with things being done with the excuse that they were in “the spirit of Vatican II”. I personally have few problems with the documents themselves and you very well might be the same way.

Our pope has been constantly fighting against the misinterpretations and distortions of the Council and I think he is doing a great job. While there are certainly many distressing things going on, there is also reason to hope. I admire many things about the SSPX, but supporting them because you have given up on the Church is not a good reason.

 

[runningdude]

When accusing “Vatican II” of causing all these problems, one must stop to think how things might have gone without it.

For instance, I’ve heard many bizarre stories about Mass before the “Novos Ordo” came out. Some churches practically charged a quarter just to enter the building (or face the disgusted looks of ushers if you didn’t). Today’s Traditional Latin Masses reflect the highest form of reverence simply because the particular priests and faithful participating demand such. Without the less rigid new order of the mass, the Traditional mass might have been warped beyond recognition - or worse, driven people away from the true sacrament!

Vatican II was called by his holiness John XXIII, and participated in by the bishops all in communion with him. Its doctrines simply put, are infallible. The forces of “secularization” were eating at the Church before the council, and VII has provided immeasurably important tools to combat this. Did world youth days exist before VII?

My main point is that all these problems are abuses, not Council Doctrines. These abuses could just have easily taken route without the council.

 

[1believer1]

You very well might benefit from reading the documents of the Second Vatican Council. You would discover that most of the things that are bothering were not taught by the Council. There are a problems with interpretations of Vatican II. There are problems with the implementation of Vatican II. There are problem with things being done with the excuse that they were in “the spirit of Vatican II”. I personally have few problems with the documents themselves and you very well might be the same way.

Our pope has been constantly fighting against the misinterpretations and distortions of the Council and I think he is doing a great job. While there are certainly many distressing things going on, there is also reason to hope. I admire many things about the SSPX, but supporting them because you have given up on the Church is not a good reason.

I have to agree that you need to read the Documents of Vatican II. If you want to know the truth you have to make an effort and do some research. Do not listen to those who have an axe to grind and take much of what was brought out in these documents and distort and/or misinterpret what was presented. I have heard many opinions on receiving in the hand versus receiving on the tongue. back in the Fourth century there was a Doctor of the church that taught that you could receive in the hand by making a throne to receive the Body of Christ. It is more reverent to receive on the tongue … but is it irreverent to receive in the hands as the Diciples did at the Last Supper? Keep your faith in the Catholic Church and our Pope … Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[floresco]

Vatican II was called by his holiness John XXIII, and participated in by the bishops all in communion with him. Its doctrines simply put, are infallible.

I think you are misunderstanding the Church’s teaching on infallibility. You may find this article helpful: beginningcatholic.com/infallibility.html
Remember, it is the definitive teachings of the Magisterium that are considered to be infallible. This usually means that they explicitly state they’re defining some matter of the faith, or put forth a position as to be definitively held.

But not always.

Some things that are taught repeatedly by the Magisterium can also be considered definitive, even if they’re not explicitly named to be such.

 

[ljubim]

I thought the same things for a while… but my personal belief is that the Novus Ordo was allowed to exist in order to safeguard the TLM. Think about it - if there was no New Mass, then they would have permanently changed the TLM, and there would be nothing left for us, no TLM… But now, it remains intact, unchanged, and we still celebrate the same way, regardless of the troubles outside of it. The way things are going, ie the Novus Ordo is being pushed (by Rome ) closer and closer towards the TLM, the Novus Ordo will come closer and closer to the TLM until no more distinction is needed

 

[MattC7000]

When accusing “Vatican II” of causing all these problems, one must stop to think how things might have gone without it.

For instance, I’ve heard many bizarre stories about Mass before the “Novos Ordo” came out. Some churches practically charged a quarter just to enter the building (or face the disgusted looks of ushers if you didn’t). Today’s Traditional Latin Masses reflect the highest form of reverence simply because the particular priests and faithful participating demand such. Without the less rigid new order of the mass, the Traditional mass might have been warped beyond recognition - or worse, driven people away from the true sacrament!

Vatican II was called by his holiness John XXIII, and participated in by the bishops all in communion with him. Its doctrines simply put, are infallible. The forces of “secularization” were eating at the Church before the council, and VII has provided immeasurably important tools to combat this. Did world youth days exist before VII?

My main point is that all these problems are abuses, not Council Doctrines. These abuses could just have easily taken route without the council.

I don’t think there’s a point in discussing the ‘what ifs’ - hypothetical situations are nice but Vatican II did happen and its aftermath is all we have. I’m perfectly aware that there were a lot of abuses in the Church prior to the council but one quickly gets the impression that they were the exception, not the rule. The opposite is true today and when someone tells me that people are just misinterpreting the council or that certain actions are ‘not really in its spirit’, that only tells me that it must have been far too ambiguous. That is, in fact, one of the SSPX’s biggest problems with it. For instance, where, before, the Church clearly condemned freemasonry, now it merely condemns ‘associations unfriendly towards the Church’ or something along those lines.

And I don’t see why priests and faithful in the Church shouldn’t be demanding as much as they do in the SSPX. Why exactly is this loosening up of the liturgy and what constituted accepted practice during mass so important? Can anyone seriously argue that this was necessary for the Church’s survival? Why aren’t Muslims changing their practices to accommodate changing tastes?

And all the developments in the Church’s last 40 years that I mentioned in the original post - can you really accuse me of the ad hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy? The only spirit of Vatican II seems to be to play around and experiment without officially changing any doctrines.

 

[MattC7000]

And all the developments in the Church’s last 40 years that I mentioned in the original post - can you really accuse me of the ad hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy?

I can’t edit that post but what I meant was post hoc ergo propter hoc.

 

[Stylites]

So am I a real Catholic?

If you believe that SSPX services are licit then you are not in union with the Church.

 

[MarkThompson]

If you believe that SSPX services are licit then you are not in union with the Church.

That’s going too far. He would be mistaken, but that by itself is not an act of dis-union. Unless you merely meant that his opinion would not be united with the Church’s opinion on that question, which, while true, would be an unnecessarily fanciful way of saying that he would be mistaken.

 

[Stylites]

That’s going too far. He would be mistaken, but that by itself is not an act of dis-union. Unless you merely meant that his opinion would not be united with the Church’s opinion on that question, which, while true, would be an unnecessarily fanciful way of saying that he would be mistaken.

Then if he were to obstinately claim that SSPX public Masses are licit then he would not be in union with the Church.

 

[Onegin]

Then if he were to obstinately claim that SSPX public Masses are licit then he would not be in union with the Church.

Uh, no, they would just be wrong. I can obstinately claim that St. Peter’s Basilica is actually in Paris but that isn’t an issue that would make me a heretic or a schismatic, just wrong, misinformed or stubborn. The illicitness of the SSPX Masses is not an article of faith that one must affirm in order to be considered in full union with Rome.

Don’t attempt to attribute a status to someone that doesn’t exist. Especially when you claim that someone is “outside” the church - It just furthers the misunderstandings that already exist.

 

[floresco]

I don’t think there’s a point in discussing the ‘what ifs’ - hypothetical situations are nice but Vatican II did happen and its aftermath is all we have. I’m perfectly aware that there were a lot of abuses in the Church prior to the council but one quickly gets the impression that they were the exception, not the rule. The opposite is true today and when someone tells me that people are just misinterpreting the council or that certain actions are ‘not really in its spirit’, that only tells me that it must have been far too ambiguous. That is, in fact, one of the SSPX’s biggest problems with it.

My impression is that progressives are more likely to invoke “the spirit of Vatican II” than people at the conservative/traditional end of the spectrum. But I agree with your main point here. I also think it is too ambiguous. And I agree that this ambiguity has been exploited in a way that is contrary to genuine Catholic teaching.

And the Pope thinks this too. He has written about this problem and is steadily working on it. There are good things in the SSPX but you don’t need to go there for recognition of the ambiguities of V2 and problems facing the Church.

 

[runningdude]

I think you are misunderstanding the Church’s teaching on infallibility. You may find this article helpful: beginningcatholic.com/infallibility.html
Remember, it is the definitive teachings of the Magisterium that are considered to be infallible. This usually means that they explicitly state they’re defining some matter of the faith, or put forth a position as to be definitively held.

But not always.

Some things that are taught repeatedly by the Magisterium can also be considered definitive, even if they’re not explicitly named to be such.

I know perfectly well what infallibility means. But, the council is a true council. We have an obligation to conform to its teachings. That people have hijacked the council and invoke this false “spirit of Vatican II” is does not detract from the truth of the council. Stating one does not agree with the teachings of the council puts one in a dangerous position spiritually, as does misrepresenting and abusing the new norms proposed by the council. According to the Council documents, all these “spirit of Vatican II” initiatives are clearly abuses.

Attacking the Second Vatican Council is just as dangerous as attacking the Council of Trent. One needs to attack the abuses the church faces as abuses to be corrected.

 

[floresco]

I know perfectly well what infallibility means. But, the council is a true council. We have an obligation to conform to its teachings. That people have hijacked the council and invoke this false “spirit of Vatican II” is does not detract from the truth of the council. Stating one does not agree with the teachings of the council puts one in a dangerous position spiritually, as does misrepresenting and abusing the new norms proposed by the council. According to the Council documents, all these “spirit of Vatican II” initiatives are clearly abuses.

Attacking the Second Vatican Council is just as dangerous as attacking the Council of Trent. One needs to attack the abuses the church faces as abuses to be corrected.

I agree that it is a true council and we have an obligation to conform to its (properly understood in continuity with tradition) teachings. This obligation exists, even if it is not infallible. Over-stating one’s case, by invoking infallibility where it is questionable, actually weakens one’s argument.

 

[Lycorth]

So am I a real Catholic?

You most certainly are a “real Catholic” if you sympathize with the SSPX and don’t let anyone else tell you otherwise.

The SSPX is not in any state of schism with the Holy See; there are indeed some matters of irregularity that need to be addressed, but this will not be done publicly, but rather privately between the See and the Society. To wit, there is no status of schism or excommunication against the Society, and you may fulfill your Sunday obligation at an SSPX chapel.

Definitely study the documents of the Second Vatican Council - you’ll see that the abuses that have crept up since VII were never called for by the Council, but you’ll also see that, ultimately, the direction the Council went in was not sufficient to handle the growing crisis in the Church, and that resuming a more traditional course (like the SSPX as well as others wish to do) has many merits and advantages the modern Church needs. But don’t listen to anyone who wants to tell you that the SSPX are non-Catholic or schismatic or whatever - that is divisive nonsense without the slightest rooting in truth.

 

[pnewton]

My impression is that progressives are more likely to invoke “the spirit of Vatican II” than people at the conservative/traditional end of the spectrum.

Maybe somewhere this is the case, but it hasn’e been happening at CAF. In fact, I do not remember one every evoking that phrase except to criticize the council.

 

[Emmit_Fitzhume]

All the people who ardently defend Vatican II always blame it on the interpretation or the “Spirit of Vatican II”. There is always an excuse. The way I look at is that if the documents of Vatican II were written so ambiguosly that it has brought us to this current crisis in The Church, then they need fix the documents of Vatican II so that they will be clear on exactly what The Church is trying to teach instead of accepting the litany of problems that have arisen from it all the while blaming it on a bad interpretation or phony spirit, all the while not addressing the core problem. While they are at it, the 1983 Code of Canon law which was obviously created with Vatican II in mind, needs to be revamped as well. At the risk of sounding cliche, it is time for Rome to go to the bathroom or get off the toilet. The problem is only growing.

You very well might benefit from reading the documents of the Second Vatican Council. You would discover that most of the things that are bothering were not taught by the Council. There are a problems with interpretations of Vatican II. There are problems with the implementation of Vatican II. There are problem with things being done with the excuse that they were in “the spirit of Vatican II”. I personally have few problems with the documents themselves and you very well might be the same way.

Our pope has been constantly fighting against the misinterpretations and distortions of the Council and I think he is doing a great job. While there are certainly many distressing things going on, there is also reason to hope. I admire many things about the SSPX, but supporting them because you have given up on the Church is not a good reason.

 

[floresco]

All the people who ardently defend Vatican II always blame it on the interpretation or the “Spirit of Vatican II”. There is always an excuse. The way I look at is that if the documents of Vatican II were written so ambiguosly that it has brought us to this current crisis in The Church, then they need fix the documents of Vatican II so that they will be clear on exactly what The Church is trying to teach instead of accepting the litany of problems that have arisen from it all the while blaming it on a bad interpretation or phony spirit, all the while not addressing the core problem.

If you are saying the core problem is that the documents were written ambiguously, then I agree with you. They can’t be rewritten though. The toothpaste doesn’t go back into the tube. What is happening is that additional statements and documents are being made that clear up the ambiguities. For example, the declaration Dominus Iesus states its purpose is:to set forth again the doctrine of the Catholic faith in these areas, pointing out some fundamental questions that remain open to further development, and refuting specific positions that are erroneous or ambiguous.
If you have time to read this, I’d be interested to know if you find it theologically problematic in any way: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

 

[StTommyMore]

All the people who ardently defend Vatican II always blame it on the interpretation or the “Spirit of Vatican II”. There is always an excuse. The way I look at is that if the documents of Vatican II were written so ambiguosly that it has brought us to this current crisis in The Church, then they need fix the documents of Vatican II so that they will be clear on exactly what The Church is trying to teach instead of accepting the litany of problems that have arisen from it all the while blaming it on a bad interpretation or phony spirit, all the while not addressing the core problem. While they are at it, the 1983 Code of Canon law which was obviously created with Vatican II in mind, needs to be revamped as well. At the risk of sounding cliche, it is time for Rome to go to the bathroom or get off the toilet. The problem is only growing.

Emmit, something you have to remember is there is a period of confusion after a council until everything can be ironed out. By their nature, Ecumenical councils cause change. Think about it. After Trent was the Catechism of Trent to iron out the new teachings. The New Catechism is to iron out the teachings from Vatican II. No, it is not the Council itself, but the interpretation of the documents. The “ambiguity” you rail against also has happened in the past. There were three sets of interpretations following Chalcedon. Don’t fret. The Church will survive this current bumpy patch.