Talks over with SSPX?

[TrueLight]

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.

You really need to stop harassing me on the Internet. I’ve reported your post.

 

[Sirach2]

You view it as harrassment. I view it as permitted discussion. Just because I disagree with you, it is not harrassment. I submitted a view for you to consider, since your position of doubt regarding church teachings is not what you should have learned in RCIA. I realize you are a new one-year old convert, but there have been numerous good posts that you would have seen, considering your extensive posting/reading time here at CAF. Your post really surprised me, considering your present zeal.

[Are you going to derail another thread with this silliness?]

 

[TrueLight]

You view it as harrassment. I view it as permitted discussion. Just because I disagree with you, it is not harrassment. I submitted a view for you to consider, since your position of doubt regarding church teachings is not what you should have learned in RCIA. I realize you are a new one-year old convert, but there have been numerous good posts that you would have seen, considering your extensive posting/reading time here at CAF. Your post really surprised me, considering your present zeal.

What you need to learn is how to disagree with someone or how to teach without making it personal. For you to disagree or explain is fine. For you to tell me I need to go back to RCIA is a personal attack and not helpful.

You know, I know a couple of Carmelites and they are spiritual, loving people. Your negative attacks are not consistent with the Carmelites I know.

Seriously, please stop harassing me and others. If you cannot leave me alone, then I will just block you, so I won’t have to see your posts.

 

[Sirach2]

Be my guest, please, block me.

For you to tell me I need to go back to RCIA

I did not tell you to go back to RCIA. I suggested that your present understanding “is not what you should have learned in RCIA.” You are twisting my words. However, it may be that you just don’t accept what RCIA taught you.

 

[clem456]

… 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?

… Rather than contend against the Church’s documents, where is one’s religious submission that we are obliged to render?**

This.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

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?

I’m confused by this statement. What things are no longer sinful, which were sinful in the past? I can’t think of a single example.

Edited to add: I’m not picking on you TL. This is just a statement I haven’t heard before phrased like this, and I can’t think of a specific example.

I do know that *practices *have changed, for example rules about fasting. But that is completely within the traditional authority of the church to change (and the sin is in disobeying the rules, not in how long the fast lasts).

 

[1AugustSon7]

The only way out of this quagmire is to interpret Vatican II in light of Tradition, which has only been comprehensively done by few theologians. Foremost among such theologians are Mons. John McCarthy and Fr. Brian Harrison, respetively, whose website “Roman Theological Forum” contains priceless treasures of theology. If SSPX demands that the documents of an ecumenical council be revised and / or discarded, the Modernists / Progressivists will demand the same in respect to Vatican I, Trent, Florence, etc.

Emphasis mine.

**There’s nothing in Vatican II contrary to Tradition. Nothing. We misunderstand it. ** Further, the light (or rule) of Faith is the light we read things from the Magisterium in.

The Holy See received Vatican II with and in the Apostolic Faith: what Vatican II said is for all to see; what Vatican II means is not always so apparent and is ultimately determined by the Holy See, who received all of it with each of its parts (as I said) with and in the light of the Apostolic Faith.

Consider the Bible:

Catholics learn to read the Bible but not to object or be startled when we might read something that appears contradictory to Catholic Faith or Tradition. We have absolute faith that everything in the Bible is of the Faith and stands witness to our Faith. Vatican II needs to be read in the same light: of Faith. When we don’t understand something from Vatican II we should have Faith in the promise of Christ to Saint Peter: i.e., that what is said is in conformity with the Faith and was received in light of that Faith. This might require qualification at times to determine the precise sense of a passage from Vatican II; but we can always be sure that everything in Vatican II is subejct, ultimately, to the Faith.

The Example of Saint Jerome after a Council:

"Now, alas! After the creed of Nicaea, after the decree of Alexandria joined to the West, the new expression of three hypostases is required of me, a Roman, by that progeny of Arius, the Campenses *. What new Paul, doctor of the nations, has taught this? …

"Decide so, I beseech you, if you will, and I will not fear to acknowledge three hypostases…*.

This is an amazing statement. Saint Jerome has no problem with reformulating a creed or symbol of the Faith if Rome decides, though he is instinctively opposed to such a formulation because he knows first hand that it is used and taught in an heretical sense; notwithstanding, he acknowledges the authority of Rome to determine these things and formulate them, and that he [St. Jerome] is bound to abide by Rome’s decision, having complete faith and trust that it cannot possibly be contrary to Faith or Tradition by Divine Promise and Guarantee.

Continuing,

If you order it, let a new creed be composed, after that of Nicaea

[Wow!], and we orthodox will confess our faith in the words of the Arians. But the whole literary faculty uses hypostasis in the sense of [Greek], etc…

"Are we to be separated from Arius by walls , but united in heresy? As well might Ursicinus be joined to your beatitude, Auxentius to Ambrose! Far be this from the faith of Rome; may the religious hearts of the people drink no such impiety! Let three hypostases be no more mentioned, if you please, and let one be held…Or if you think fit that we should say three hypostases with the necessary explanations, we do not refuse.

Saint Jerome knows that the words of the Council are being used and manipulated or perverted in order to convey an heretical sense; notwithstanding, St. Jerome acknowledges that ultimately Rome decides and determines the sense of the passage; indeed, he testifies that Rome could throw the Creed of Niceae out the window and compose a completely new one if she thought it best for the Faith of the Church. He submits completely to Rome’s judgement: she can also keep whatever formulation she desires, the old or possibly a new one: he does not presume to tell the Holy See the best way to formulate the Faith. Ultimately, Saint Jerome himself subjects all things to the Faith he received, trusting that nothing can ultimately contradict that Faith.

Vatican II, therefore, stands or falls in the graces of the Holy See. It’s meaning and interpretation belongs to it. We therefore never have any reason to be nervous about the formulations of a Council that has been received by the Apostolic See, which guarantees its orthodoxy.

 

[TrueLight]

I’m confused by this statement. What things are no longer sinful, which were sinful in the past? I can’t think of a single example.

Edited to add: I’m not picking on you TL. This is just a statement I haven’t heard before phrased like this, and I can’t think of a specific example.

No need to handle me with kid’s gloves, Mrs. Sally. I don’t mind people completely disagreeing with me or saying I’m wrong. I just don’t like things to get personal.

I do know that *practices *have changed, for example rules about fasting. But that is completely within the traditional authority of the church to change (and the sin is in disobeying the rules, not in how long the fast lasts).

Just to clarify. I believe the Church is the Church and the truths are eternal. I think if there are any crazy things that go on, it is due to interpretation.

So as to your other question about examples, it used to be the case that to attend a Protestant service was sinful. One can say that is a matter of practice, and they would be correct. But is it not also a matter of faith and morals. The faith part being that the Catholic Church is the one true Church and one should not participate in worship with those with different beliefs.

That has changed. That is one thing I can think off the top of my head as I am in a hurry.

Personally, I do not feel strongly about it one way or the other as obviously that is my background.

But is that a practice or is it faith? Can it not be considered both? “As we pray, so we believe.” So the ecumenism has to be viewed in light of tradition and I believe the CDF is a good vehicle to expound on that.

Also, before someone pegs me as an SSPX defender, I have always felt they could do a lot more good within the Church then to stubbornly stay outside of the Church. But I do believe there is a a lot of ambiguity in the documents, even if they were created for Bishops and theologians. And I do understand some of the concerns even if I don’t agree with a lot of them.

 

[Sirach2]

JReducation:

There is no appeal beyond the pope and what the pope holds cannot be appealed. 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. There is no right to appeal this or to have another opinion. One can have another opinion for whatever reason, but one cannot say that “I have a different opinion from that of the pope, because I have a right to have it.” The Church does not grant us this right in this case.

Thank you, Brother. I know you have posted many times on this important point, but some still haven’t grasped it. By way of a “bump,” I reiterate your words.

 

[Lormar]

Brother, thank you for your thorough response. I have copied and saved it for future reference.

The bottom line is this - either we can trust the Church or we cannot. If we are going to meet everything that the popes say or do with a “but…”, that is not trusting the Church or the pope who is the visible presence of Jesus Christ among us.

 

[Lormar]

Might be more like Morning Has Broken.

We sang that last Sunday morning.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you Melchior

2034 The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are “authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice.” The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.

The question here is, what part of what the Holy Father is defending is not a truth to be believed? If the answer is that nothing in the Vatican II Documents contradicts truth, then the pope’s statement is perfectly infallible.

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council. Therefore, it cannot teach falsehood. If the pope sticks to what the Council says, he too is teaching infallibly.

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

We owe to the Council at minimum, religious assent, which is an extension of assent of faith, because the Ordinary Magisterium, while is does not make infallible definitions, is speaking about that which has already been infallibly defined and is not saying anything to the contrary.

This takes us back to my previous example. Two statements can be different and both can be infallible, because they are addressing different circumstances. There are going to be situations in which the first statement is no longer invoked, not because it ceases to be truth, but because the situation has ceased to exist. Should the situation resurface, then the statement is applicable. A new one need not be made.

The problem is that people define Ordinary Magisterium differently from the way that Pope Benedict defines it. Many people are using it too broadly. He’s using it to mean that position of the pontiff which speaks to or about faith and morals. We know that the pope need not make definitions on matters of faith and morals, because the fullness of truth has already been revealed. There are no new truths. There are new situations. It is up to the Church to teach how the truth applies in those situations.

In this regard, theology is a matter of semantics and has always been semantics. It has to accommodate its use of language to the context of the time and place. What’s changes is the language, not the content.

True Light asked a valid question. There are some things that were once considered a sin and are no longer the case, one of them being for Catholics to visit non-Catholic places of worship. Here is a perfect example of semantics. The content has not changed. What has changed is the wording. The way this was worded conveyed the message that to enter a non-Catholic place of worship or to pray with non-Catholics was a sin. However, that was not in the mind of the Church when it made this law.

In the Church’s mind she wanted to say that Catholics need not look for another form of worship, as we have the perfect form of worship. That has not changed. Today, the Church has tried to explain that it is permissible for Catholics and non-Catholics to pray together. She is not saying that it is permissible for Catholics to seek to worship outside of the Catholic Church. These are two different realities. To pray with a person of another faith is one thing. To attend a service and to join as if one were in communion with that particular community is quite another. For this reason, a pope can pray at a synagogue and there is no violation of the rule. Why? Because while he’s there, it’s very obvious to everyone that he’s the pope and that he’s Catholic. He’s not worshipping as if he were a Jew. He may be saying Jewish prayers, none of which are contrary to the Catholic faith. A wonderful example of this is the Jewish Book of Common Prayer. It contain the LOTH as it’s said by the Jews. The only thing that is missing are the New Testament parts that we have added. The OT parts are the same that we pray every day.

The rule about praying with non-Catholics is not divinely revealed. It is man-made. The Church made it to help Catholics stay within the Catholic boundaries of worship. Therefore, the Church can change the boundaries. It’s like fish on Fridays.
Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Moore11]

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.

As sad as the SSPXs disobedience is the rhetoric of people who think it is only about girls serving or sandals shows lack of understanding of the real subjects being debated here.

You may be jaded by the presentation of the SSPX’s arguments but that does not mean that there are not some valid points. The SSPX and the Church could have a symbiotic relationship.
Stop grouping an entire group with your personal biases.
A while ago an SSPX seminarian came on here to answer a hierarchy question about the SSPX and was attacked.

This is the part where people on both sides are stirring the pot with ridiculous inflammatory statements.

 

[Stylites]

The SSPX and the Church could have a symbiotic relationship.

“Symbiosis” is a telling choice of words. At my parish, we don’t talk about a “symbiotic, holy, catholic and apostolic church.”

 

[TrueLight]

Thank you Melchior

2034 The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are “authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice.” The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.

The question here is, what part of what the Holy Father is defending is not a truth to be believed? If the answer is that nothing in the Vatican II Documents contradicts truth, then the pope’s statement is perfectly infallible.

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council. Therefore, it cannot teach falsehood. If the pope sticks to what the Council says, he too is teaching infallibly.

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

We owe to the Council at minimum, religious assent, which is an extension of assent of faith, because the Ordinary Magisterium, while is does not make infallible definitions, is speaking about that which has already been infallibly defined and is not saying anything to the contrary.

This takes us back to my previous example. Two statements can be different and both can be infallible, because they are addressing different circumstances. There are going to be situations in which the first statement is no longer invoked, not because it ceases to be truth, but because the situation has ceased to exist. Should the situation resurface, then the statement is applicable. A new one need not be made.

The problem is that people define Ordinary Magisterium differently from the way that Pope Benedict defines it. Many people are using it too broadly. He’s using it to mean that position of the pontiff which speaks to or about faith and morals. We know that the pope need not make definitions on matters of faith and morals, because the fullness of truth has already been revealed. There are no new truths. There are new situations. It is up to the Church to teach how the truth applies in those situations.

In this regard, theology is a matter of semantics and has always been semantics. It has to accommodate its use of language to the context of the time and place. What’s changes is the language, not the content.

True Light asked a valid question. There are some things that were once considered a sin and are no longer the case, one of them being for Catholics to visit non-Catholic places of worship. Here is a perfect example of semantics. The content has not changed. What has changed is the wording. The way this was worded conveyed the message that to enter a non-Catholic place of worship or to pray with non-Catholics was a sin. However, that was not in the mind of the Church when it made this law.

In the Church’s mind she wanted to say that Catholics need not look for another form of worship, as we have the perfect form of worship. That has not changed. Today, the Church has tried to explain that it is permissible for Catholics and non-Catholics to pray together. She is not saying that it is permissible for Catholics to seek to worship outside of the Catholic Church. These are two different realities. To pray with a person of another faith is one thing. To attend a service and to join as if one were in communion with that particular community is quite another. For this reason, a pope can pray at a synagogue and there is no violation of the rule. Why? Because while he’s there, it’s very obvious to everyone that he’s the pope and that he’s Catholic. He’s not worshipping as if he were a Jew. He may be saying Jewish prayers, none of which are contrary to the Catholic faith. A wonderful example of this is the Jewish Book of Common Prayer. It contain the LOTH as it’s said by the Jews. The only thing that is missing are the New Testament parts that we have added. The OT parts are the same that we pray every day.

The rule about praying with non-Catholics is not divinely revealed. It is man-made. The Church made it to help Catholics stay within the Catholic boundaries of worship. Therefore, the Church can change the boundaries. It’s like fish on Fridays.
Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Very helpful response to the question about worshipping with Protestants. Thank you.

 

[Moore11]

“Symbiosis” is a telling choice of words. At my parish, we don’t talk about a “symbiotic, holy, catholic and apostolic church.”

If you dont think that the SSPX could do some good in the Church then I guess it isnt only the SSPX that struggle with pride and accusatons that contribute to disunity. Perhaps they are not so different from us faithful Catholics.

Why oh why is there such hatred and uncharitable things said about a group we really should be praying come back into the fold.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

The SSPX are greatly disliked by some/many Catholics because they are a living rebuke to those who are content with the status quo of the Church after the 1960’s.

Would it be fair to say that there are many Catholics today who would be much happier to attend an ‘ecumenical service’ than set foot in an SSPX chapel?

 

[Carolus_Martell]

I’m still optimistic…it was just last week the Holy Father invoked the BVM to provide some divine over-watch in this year of faith and the upcoming synod. Scripture shows us that Divine Providence will confound some and enlighten others to accomplish what it wants…let’s keep praying for a favorable ruling.

 

[TrueLight]

Would it be fair to say that there are many Catholics today who would be much happier to attend an ‘ecumenical service’ than set foot in an SSPX chapel?

Well yes, but I would say not just an SSPX chapel, but any Latin Mass.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Would it be fair to say that there are many Catholics today who would be much happier to attend an ‘ecumenical service’ than set foot in an SSPX chapel?

I don’t see it. I see young adults who prefer the Tridentine Mass, however, there’s a learned behavior also now since time has passed. Many of these souls know only what they were raised in. When they attend, then see and feel on the EF level, they tend to change their minds IMHO. Doesn’t mean they will be regulars either.

Taking the human factor into consideration, I believe many will prefer the OF and continue with it, I see no issue here. In fact I would say its a good buffer in transition.