Talks over with SSPX?

[JReducation]

Forget it’s the SSPX for a minute. Imagine it’s another group of priests validly ordained. Or even the Orthodox. Would ye set time limits on their being reconciled?

There are no time limits for the Orthodox. Any Orthodox priest or religious can transfer to any diocese or religious order in the Catholic Church without a time limit. They are validly ordained and exercise their ministry legally. Those who are religious have made vows that have been recognized by legitimate Church authorities in the Orthodox Churches. We can’t use this example here.

Would ye get in a snit over their cheek in bringing up doctrinal or disciplinary issues?

This is more than snit. Calling the curia of the Catholic Church “Modernists” is not a snit. It’s an insult. Saying that the Council documents contain error borders on heresy. It’s sophistry at best

Disciplinary issues are not to be taken lightly. Disciplinary rules that are commanded by lawful authority are to be obeyed. When they are not obeyed, it is up to the person or people in authority to decide whether to act or to let it slide. It’s not up to the rest of us to make that call.

The Church post-1970 is is very different to what it was in 1907. This is alarming to people
who have some sense of what it was before.

We thank God for that. In 1907 we were suffering from the after effects of Vatican I, which almost destroyed religious life, because people misunderstood what Vatican I was saying. We were on the brink of a World War and poverty in Europe was rampant. Faith was often a refuge as well as a gift of grace. Most of us have no problems with the latter, regarding faith, but we certainly don’t want the former.

I think everyone involved should take a chill pill and get on with the most interesting business of straightening out whatever is at issue over Vatican II. Take yer time. Take 3 decades. Get it right.

The Holy Father has already said that there is nothing at issue with Vatican II. The issue is one of misunderstanding by liberals and traditionalists. The Council itself taught no error and there are no errors in the documents. There is also a commission that has been created to organized and present all of the personal notes, memos, diaries and agendas from the different individuals and groups involved in Vatican II in an effort to help people on both sides understand what these men were thinking.

It is those who have an issue with Vatican II who have to take the chill pill and accept what the Holy Father is saying and engage in dialogue of question and answers rather than calling the Church either archaic or Modernist. Which is it?

One group thinks that the Catholic Church is archaic and another group thinks that she has become modernist. She can’t be both as they are juxtaposed. Is it possible that both groups are wrong?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

So that there will be appropriate accommodation for them in groups like the FSSP and ICRSS. I know they don’t have to take them, but it would be good and would probably make the most sense if there was such a provision.

I would be cautious about simply letting a priest from SSPX crossover into another traditionalist group just in case they’re spewing heresy about the OF and the OF sacraments being invalid, etc. I recall reading one SSPX web site requiring conditional baptisms, etc.

 

[JReducation]

So that there will be appropriate accommodation for them in groups like the FSSP and ICRSS. I know they don’t have to take them, but it would be good and would probably make the most sense if there was such a provision.

Hold on YTC. Let’s look at a simple question here. Up to now, the Holy See has bent over backward to dialogue with the SSPX. The Holy Father issued another Motu Propio on the Tridentine Form, even more expansive than the one issued by Bl. John Paul II. He moved the Ecclesia Dei Commission to the Sacred Doctrine of the Faith. He asked the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life (which the SSPX are) to allow the traditionalist institutes to be governed by the Ecclesia Dei Commission, instead of by the Sacred Congregation, which governs all other religious communities and secular societies of apostolic life. Religious superiors who were asking for the excommunication of members who illegally bound themselves to the SSPX were told to be gentle and patient and they have been, even though Church law is very clear, you cannot belong to two institutes at the same time. You can’t be Capuchiin and SSPX, like the guys at Morgon France. And there are others. They have been suspended, but not excommunicated, even though the constitutions and the rule of the founders calls for excommunication, as does Canon Law for religious. They were offered a prelature, which gives them more freedom that any other institute in the Church. It keeps them out of harms way. The Vatican offered to continue the discussion on those points in the documents of Vatican II that they found troublesome. In response the Vatican asked that they acknowledge the authority of the Council, acknowledge that the Council did not teach error and that the documents do not contain error. Maybe something could have been said differently; but it does not make the content an error. They are asked to accept the CCC as the official catechism of the Catholic Church.

The SSPX and its lay friends contradict themselves all over the place. When they try to defend themselves, they cite the Code of Canon Law of 1983. When they find something that they don’t like, they jump to the Code of Canon Law of 1917, such as the whole question about veiling. Which code is valid for them?

Given all of the above, do you think it is reasonable to make special provisions for them to transfer to another institute rather than go through the normal process as legislated by the Code of Canon Law and by the Sacred Congregation for societies of apostolic life?

The second question flows from the first. It this just and fair for all of us religious and secular who comply with all of the canonical requirements to make such transfers for a group that has not been very accommodating?

The third is part of the second. Wouldn’t it be better for anyone who wants to cross over to come as refugees as did the FSSP? People have a lot of compassion for displaced persons, but not if they feel that they have been manipulated.

I ask these questions, but remember this is not over until the fat lady sings. We don’t know what the SSPX has told the Vatican and what the Vatican will say in response. All we know for now is there will be no more dialogue. However, this is not a surprise. Everyone on this side of the Tiber was telling the SSPX that if they passed up the offer on the table, they would regret it, including the Holy Father.

Consider these questions.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[M-Dent]

The Church post-1970 is very different to what it was in 1907. This is alarming to people who have some sense of what it was before.

I think everyone involved should take a chill pill and get on with the most interesting business of straightening out whatever is at issue over Vatican II. Take yer time. Take 3 decades. Get it right.

The business of straightening out issues sourrounding the Second Vatican Council is succinctly summarized by Archbishop Müller, "the Church cannot, on the doctrinal level, contradict herself — that is impossible. Any perceived contradiction is caused by false interpretation.”

Misunderstandings and false interpretations remain a problem. Holy Scripture witnesses this as a problem at the time of the Apostles, as well. This is alarming.

 

[TimothyH]

I hope they have some kind of mass open crossover program for the priests available.

I’ve consistently said that God is going to ask each man to make a decision on his own. Christ asked the disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” and the Holy Spirit, through the Chair of Peter, is going to ask the same thing of each man.

The commitment to Christ is a radical commitment. There will be a clear demarcation - you are either in or you are out - and at the end of the day, even if there is some kind of program to ease the transition, each man will have to make the decision in the depths of his own heart. The transition will be the easy part and I think any process, and all of us, should welcome them with great joy once they make the decision. But the decision itself will be intensely personal and agonizing for many. I don’t envy them.

I hope I’m wrong, and that the headlines tomorrow read “Unity!” But I don’t think this will be the case.

-Tim-

 

[ProVobis]

Misunderstandings and false interpretations remain a problem.

Very much so. And perhaps that includes the German-to-English translation of the OP itself? It’s not like we haven’t had complete mistranslations into English before.

 

[M-Dent]

Very much so. And perhaps that includes the German-to-English translation of the OP itself? It’s not like we haven’t had complete mistranslations into English before.

Touche!

 

[Lormar]

In this case the pope has said that the documents of Vatican II must be accepted as being error free and as part of tradition.

When the pope says something like this, is there any possibility that he is wrong? Or is it a case of no matter what you may think, if the pope says the documents of the Second Vatican Council are error free, then that is what they are - error free - no matter what a pew-sitting Catholic thinks?

 

[TimothyH]

When the pope says something like this, is there any possibility that he is wrong? Or is it a case of no matter what you may think, if the pope says the documents of the Second Vatican Council are error free, then that is what they are - error free - no matter what a pew-sitting Catholic thinks?

People have this idea that not understanding something or questioning something or finding something extremely difficult to believe means that they can’t accept it.

“must be accepted” is clear. It is another way of saying, “Yes Lord, I trust you.”

There are things which I find exremely difficult to accept, but I accept them as true even though I don’t understand how it can be. Accepting all that Holy Church proposes for our belief because if has been revealed to us - that’s the definition of the theological virtue of faith.

I can tell you from my personal experience, that every time I struggle yet accept, God gives me understanding. Sooner or later, he helps me to understand. I’m still waiting on the whole Adam and Eve first parents thing, but God has helped me with everything else so far. Accept first, then we recieve light. The more we struggle to figure it out, the more difficult it is to accept and understand. In my experience, that’s the way God works.

-Tim-

 

[Lormar]

Thank you, Tim, for your very heartfelt and warm response. You are right.

God bless you!

 

[Moore11]

It looks bad. Real bad. And just a few short months ago it looked like a done deal. I remember thinking any day.

Sad sad sad. Some of us have to live in less than desirable situations that the SSPX could help with. But their pride oh their stubborn pride.

Meanwhile, some of us are left in the worst parts of the 60s and 70s.

Gotta go put my bell bottoms on, and figure out what new adaptation will be at Mass this week.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Gotta go put my bell bottoms on, and figure out what new adaptation will be at Mass this week.

Moore, I’ll be praying for you. Hopefully it will just be a lovely chorus of Joy is Like the Rain.

 

[ProVobis]

Moore, I’ll be praying for you. Hopefully it will just be a lovely chorus of Joy is Like the Rain.

Might be more like Morning Has Broken.

 

[JReducation]

When the pope says something like this, is there any possibility that he is wrong? Or is it a case of no matter what you may think, if the pope says the documents of the Second Vatican Council are error free, then that is what they are - error free - no matter what a pew-sitting Catholic thinks?

When a pope says that something is error free, he is exercising the Ordinary Magisterium. The Ordinary Magisterium is always infallible. The pope need not speak Ex Cathedra to speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals.

Every sentence in those documents that make a statement about the faith or about morals is error free. For example, Nostra Aetatis, which seems to be giving so many people heartburn. It’s a statement of faith. It speaks about how the Church views herself in relationship to others. The Church cannot view herself differently from how God sees her. Therefore, whatever she says about herself is error free.

The problem that people have is when they compare this view that the Church has of herself today with the view that she had herself 100 years ago. Both are error free. The difference in the statements has to do with a natural discontinuity that is going to be cause by context.

This where Pope Benedict and before him, Bl. John Paul both spoke about a hermaneutic of continuity. The tradition of the Church has not changed. The world around the Church has changed. The Church has to look at herself in this context and answer the questions, “Who are we and who are you? Can we continue to relate to each other as did our grandparents and your grandparents or do we have to change how we deal with each other?”

The answer comes back; “We were then and are now the Catholic Church where the Church of Christ subsists in its entirety. However, we also see something that our predecessors did not see. By predecessors we mean both Catholic and non-Catholic, everyone’s predecessors. As the Catholic Church, in which the fullness of truth subsists, we’re going to tell you about that truth that we have come to realize about you and us. Whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you. We cannot impose faith on anyone.”

This is how the Holy Father looks at the documents. They are error free, because a council cannot teach error. They don’t have to say the same thing that was said in the past, because it was said already and some things cannot be said the same way, because the situation no longer exists and has been replaced by a new reality. A statement that was made to address a reality that no longer exists is in error, if it is applied to a reality that is similar, but not the same.

I like using the example of human development. I am the same person that I was age seven, but I’ve changed. Then I was a boy. Today, I’m an old man. If I were to say that because I’m the same person I am a boy, that statement is in error. It was true at age seven, not at age 62. Truth does not change. A seven-year old is a boy yesterday, today and tomorrow. What changed was me. I’m no longer seven years old.

This is how the pope is reading these documents and why he says that they are error free and that they must be accepted by all Catholics, not just the SSPX.

This is very important. It would be grossly unfair to say that the SSPX has to accept them, as well as the CCC, but everyone else can pick and choose. That’s not what’s being said here. He’s telling the SSPX something that holds for the man in the pew, the man at the pulpit, the friar on the street, the sister in the school or the nun in the monastery.

In short, he’s saying that if one cannot accept this, then one cannot have a place in the Church. It’s a very powerful statement.

This does not mean that we can’t discuss what the documents mean and restate them so that their richness and meaning are clearer and more user friendly. We can’t change the content.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Stylites]

It looks bad. Real bad. And just a few short months ago it looked like a done deal. I remember thinking any day.

Sad sad sad. Some of us have to live in less than desirable situations that the SSPX could help with. But their pride oh their stubborn pride.

Meanwhile, some of us are left in the worst parts of the 60s and 70s.

Gotta go put my bell bottoms on, and figure out what new adaptation will be at Mass this week.

Sad sad sad about the stubborn pride, and it boggles the mind how some would flirt with eternal damnation out of a personal disdain for female altar servers, or men wearing shorts and sandals, or because of humble priests who preach love rather than hell-fire and who serve and minister to the faithful rather than lord it over the faithful.

It isn’t the SSPX who can help the Church, but the Church who can help the SSPX, if the sad sad sad pride weren’t in the way.

 

[Dom_Desiderius]

When a pope says that something is error free, he is exercising the Ordinary Magisterium. The Ordinary Magisterium is always infallible. The pope need not speak Ex Cathedra to speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals.

“This distortion or denial of the First Vatican Council’s definition on Papal Infallibility is a heresy against the true Catholic Faith. This heresy is spreading among conservative Catholics today, many of whom now think that the Ordinary Magisterium, or the Ordinary Papal Magisterium, is always infallible or always inerrant, even when the conditions required by the First Vatican Council have not been fully met. A number of prominent priests, theologians, and lay leaders hold to this heretical view and have been teaching it to the faithful as if it were a doctrine of the Church.”

JReduction may wish to retract his view.

 

[Dom_Desiderius]

about the word Magisterium:

by Eamon Duffy

This odd Latin word means, literally, ‘Mastery’ or ‘the status of Master’. For centuries it was used of the role of anyone who had the right to teach, with authority – for example, teachers in universities, and especially theologians. It is now used as shorthand for the official pronouncements of the hierarchy, in particular, the Pope, and is virtually identified with the teaching of the Catholic Church. This very narrow use of the word is also very recent – it appeared in the early 19th century. It is a word with all sorts of problems, and there is a case for dropping it altogether.

Misleading term
It is misleading, in the first place, because it suggests that the basic form which the teaching of the Catholic Church takes is an encyclical or a conciliar or papal definition. Behind this assumption is often the idea that to ‘teach’ something is to lay down the law, to tell a submissive listener exactly how things are, and that they’d better shut up and believe it.

But a minute’s reflection will show this is actually a very poor model of what it is to teach, and any teacher who operated like this in a school or university would soon be in trouble. Good teaching usually involves not a one-sided monologue, but an exchange of ideas, discussion, shared reflection.

Different forms of teaching
In fact, Catholic teaching takes many different forms – a mother teaching her children their prayers, a catechist preparing young people for the sacraments, a parish bible-study group discussing the Gospels, sermons, lectures or discussions in a seminary, university or adult education class, religious books or articles, pastoral letters, conciliar docments, papal encyclicals.

Some of this is more, and some less important, but all constitutes Catholic teaching, and all involved in such activities are teachers, sharing the prophetic work of Christ. At any given moment, much of this teaching will be good and wholesome, and some will be second-rate and destined for the scrap heap. But neither the good, nor the second-rate are confined to any one type of teaching.

Of course, the Pope and the bishops do have a special responsibility for Catholic teaching, but that doesn’t mean they alone are the only authoritative teachers. To be responsible for Catholic teaching generally means ensuring good teaching gets done usually by other people. Most papal encyclicals and many pastoral letters are ‘ghost-written’; the Church is not split into teachers and those who learn. When a Pope or bishop takes advice from experts, he himself is a learner, like the rest of us.

Quasi-mystical title
It is unhelpful to single out a particular area of teaching and give it a quasi-mystical title like ‘The Magisterium’. To do so suggests such teaching is above debate, that we should not ask whether it is wise or foolish. Yet these notions are just as applicable to an encyclical or conciliar statement as they are to a theological lecture or a sermon.

This doesn’t mean we can pick and choose what to believe. Occasionally, the Church feels the need to clarify its shared faith, and a Council or a Pope may exercise their responsibilities as judges of Catholic truth in a solemn definition. Catholics believe such definitions are made with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and to reject them puts oneself outside the faith of the Church. Such moments are rare, and to lay too much emphasis on infallibility devalues more routine but equally vital forms of teaching.

Respect, humility, intelligence
When the Pope or the bishops are not exercising infallible judgement – most of the time – they still teach with authority, but they are quite simply, not infallible, and should not be treated as if they were. Routine papal encyclicals (if one can use such a phrase) are not nearly or partly infallible. If the Pope is wise or well-advised, his teaching is likely to be good; if not, we should receive such teaching much as we receive a Sunday sermon – with respect to the speaker’s office, with humble willingness to be taught, and with all the critical faculties God has given us.

 

[Melchior_1]

“This distortion or denial of the First Vatican Council’s definition on Papal Infallibility is a heresy against the true Catholic Faith. This heresy is spreading among conservative Catholics today, many of whom now think that the Ordinary Magisterium, or the Ordinary Papal Magisterium, is always infallible or always inerrant, even when the conditions required by the First Vatican Council have not been fully met. A number of prominent priests, theologians, and lay leaders hold to this heretical view and have been teaching it to the faithful as if it were a doctrine of the Church.”

JReduction may wish to retract his view.

Brother JR’s view is completely in line with the definition of infallibility, actually.

He said; When a pope says that something is error free, he is exercising the Ordinary Magisterium. The Ordinary Magisterium is always infallible. The pope need not speak Ex Cathedra to speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals.

Meanwhile, lets take a quick look at this; the ordinary and universal Episcopal magisterium is infallible as it relates to a teaching concerning a matter of faith and morals that all the Bishops of the Church (including the pope) universally hold as needing to be accepted by all the faithful. It should be noted that this aspect of infallibility only applies to teachings about faith and morals as opposed to customs and prudential practices.

Every reputable link seems to indicate the Ordinary Magisterium enjoys infallibility when it comes to preaching/teaching existing doctrine. That means that the Pope, who is a bishop, can do so as well. And when he does it, he doesn’t need to use Ex Cathdra, because he’s using his powers as a bishop.

 

[TrueLight]

When a pope says that something is error free, he is exercising the Ordinary Magisterium. The Ordinary Magisterium is always infallible. The pope need not speak Ex Cathedra to speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals.

Every sentence in those documents that make a statement about the faith or about morals is error free. For example, Nostra Aetatis, which seems to be giving so many people heartburn. It’s a statement of faith. It speaks about how the Church views herself in relationship to others. The Church cannot view herself differently from how God sees her. Therefore, whatever she says about herself is error free.

The problem that people have is when they compare this view that the Church has of herself today with the view that she had herself 100 years ago. Both are error free. The difference in the statements has to do with a natural discontinuity that is going to be cause by context.

This where Pope Benedict and before him, Bl. John Paul both spoke about a hermaneutic of continuity. The tradition of the Church has not changed. The world around the Church has changed. The Church has to look at herself in this context and answer the questions, “Who are we and who are you? Can we continue to relate to each other as did our grandparents and your grandparents or do we have to change how we deal with each other?”

The answer comes back; “We were then and are now the Catholic Church where the Church of Christ subsists in its entirety. However, we also see something that our predecessors did not see. By predecessors we mean both Catholic and non-Catholic, everyone’s predecessors. As the Catholic Church, in which the fullness of truth subsists, we’re going to tell you about that truth that we have come to realize about you and us. Whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you. We cannot impose faith on anyone.”

This is how the Holy Father looks at the documents. They are error free, because a council cannot teach error. They don’t have to say the same thing that was said in the past, because it was said already and some things cannot be said the same way, because the situation no longer exists and has been replaced by a new reality. A statement that was made to address a reality that no longer exists is in error, if it is applied to a reality that is similar, but not the same.

I like using the example of human development. I am the same person that I was age seven, but I’ve changed. Then I was a boy. Today, I’m an old man. If I were to say that because I’m the same person I am a boy, that statement is in error. It was true at age seven, not at age 62. Truth does not change. A seven-year old is a boy yesterday, today and tomorrow. What changed was me. I’m no longer seven years old.

This is how the pope is reading these documents and why he says that they are error free and that they must be accepted by all Catholics, not just the SSPX.

This is very important. It would be grossly unfair to say that the SSPX has to accept them, as well as the CCC, but everyone else can pick and choose. That’s not what’s being said here. He’s telling the SSPX something that holds for the man in the pew, the man at the pulpit, the friar on the street, the sister in the school or the nun in the monastery.

In short, he’s saying that if one cannot accept this, then one cannot have a place in the Church. It’s a very powerful statement.

This does not mean that we can’t discuss what the documents mean and restate them so that their richness and meaning are clearer and more user friendly. We can’t change the content.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

In the beginning, it looks like Bishop Fellay was ready to accept that Vatican II should be accepted “in light of Tradition”.

The question: do most see it as being in light of tradition? This is where the subjective part comes in. What is the Tradition?

I suppose one can say the documents themselves are error free if taken in light of Tradition, but if they are not, can we say they are error free?

A lot of this to me seems like semantics.

The CDF or someone needs to clearly define what these documents are saying and to show the clear connection to Tradition. I do not believe that the Church can say at one time that things are sinful and then centuries later, say “well we have grown up and this particular thing is not so sinful”. There can be faulty interpretations, but there cannot be a “reset”.

If folks cannot trust the Church’s teachings to remain the same in light of Tradition, then why should a good Catholic not use contraception or not support gay marriage? Who is to say 100 years down the line, there won’t be some clarification which allows it? And if that happens, were the early decisions faulty and how many people suffered for them?

 

[Sirach2]

The question: do most see it as being in light of tradition? This is where the subjective part comes in. What is the Tradition?

I suppose one can say the documents themselves are error free if taken in light of Tradition,** but if they are not, can we say they are error free?**

The CDF or someone needs to clearly define what these documents are saying and to show the clear connection to Tradition. I do not believe that the Church can say at one time that things are sinful and then centuries later, say “well we have grown up and this particular thing is not so sinful”. There can be faulty interpretations, but there cannot be a “reset”.

If folks cannot trust the Church’s teachings to remain the same in light of Tradition, then why should a good Catholic not use contraception or not support gay marriage? Who is to say 100 years down the line, there won’t be some clarification which allows it? And if that happens, were the early decisions faulty and how many people suffered for them?

Sounds like the same arguments that the SSPX adheres to. Do you, or do you not, have trust in the promise of Our Lord that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church? Do you, or do you not, believe in the infallibility of the Magisterium? If not, you need to go back again to RCIA, and/or stop listening to those who promote these theories.

As for the CDF clarifying, these documents were not meant to be a well-defined descriptive handbook for the laity. They are under no obligation to explain themselves so clearly that you and other doubting Thomases can be satisfied. Rather than contend against the Church’s documents, where is one’s religious submission that we are obliged to render?