The Latest Public Statement of the SSPX

[Dee_S]

Syllabus of Erros Pius IX:

1. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. – Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
   CONDEMNED

According to the wording of the Syllabus it is a sin to even have “hope” that they will be saved. This is because the Sacraments are necessary for salvation. There is no hope of salvation without the reception of the Sacraments. Our Lord Himself set it up this way.

How do you read this conclusion of **“sin to even have hope” **into the wording of the Syllabus? Wow!..Take another look, it does start with “Good hope at least…”

Your statement that there is “no hope” of salvation without the reception of the Sacraments is erroneous and not in line with Dogmatic teachings.

Even in the fallen state, man can, by his natural intellectual power, know religious and moral truths (De fide.)
**
Despite men’s sins God truly and earnestly desires the salvation of all men**. (Sent. fidei proxima.)

God gives all innocent unbelievers (infideles negativi) sufficient grace to achieve eternal salvation.(Sent. certa.)
**
The grace by which we are justified may be lost, and is lost by every grievous sin.** (De fide.)
The loss of sanctifying grace always involved the loss of Charity. Charity and grievous sin are mutually exclusive. The theological virtue of faith is…not always lost with the state of grace. The faith remaining behind is a true faith, even if it is not a living faith.
from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr Ludwig Ott

Perhaps a re-think here is in order?

 

[Dee_S]

Vatican II was a valid Ecumenical Council in all its status and infallibility. Declaring it as some sort of ‘modernist’ false interpretation is a position counter to the Sacred Tradition of our Church.

As to the concept of “Eternal Rome” defining dogma, “Eternal Rome” is a modern interpretation that was born as a result of Catholics wanting to justify their disobedience to Rome. How can a concept that is nothing more than a convenient interpretation define anything? You quite rightly include “Eternal Rome” in parenthesis as it nothing more than a concept in the minds of those it suits.

These extracts from the letter of Pope Paul VI to Archbishop Lefebvre in 1976 at the time of his Suspension, proves that disobedience was in place right from the start! Eternal Rome is the “concept in the minds…”

“May the Holy Spirit enlighten you and guide you towards the only solution that would enable you on the one hand to rediscover the peace of your momentarily misguided conscience but also to ensure the good of souls, to contribute to the unity of the church which the Lord has entrusted to Our charge and to avoid the danger of a schism”

“In the psychological state in which you find yourself, We realize that it is difficult for you to see clearly and very hard for you humbly to change your line of conduct:”

"But how can you at the same time, in order to fulfill this role, claim that you are obliged to act contrary to the recent Council in opposition to your brethren in the episcopate, to distrust the Holy See itself - which you call the “Rome of the neo-modernist and neo-Protestant tendency -** and to set yourself up in open disobedience to Us?** If you truly want to work “under Our authority,” as you affirm in your last private letter, it is immediately necessary to put an end to these ambiguities and contradictions.”

“What is indeed at issue is the question - which must truly be called fundamental - of your clearly proclaimed refusal to recognize in its whole, the authority of the Second Vatican Council and that of the Pope. This refusal is accompanied by an action that is oriented towards propagating and organizing what must indeed, unfortunately, be called a rebellion. This is the essential issue, and it is truly untenable.”

 

[simple_soul]

There is some problem with the Council of Trent. Not everything that the Council of Trent said was infallible. It certainly did clarify some dogma and moral questions. It also made many pastoral statements. These are all being lumped together with those that are binding. In addition, because there was no unified code of canon law, trent made some laws as well. These too are often thrown into the mix.

Every pastoral statement made by a council and every law made by a council remains in force until another council or a pope changes it.

Every dogma and moral truth taught by a council remains in force forever. However, one must understand that these truths are not proper to the council. They always existed. The council simply stated them in a formal statement. There is nothing in tradition or in practice that says that these truths cannot be restated by future popes or council in different words. There is nothing in our Catholic tradition that says that truth cannot be better understood later than before.

Here is a simple example. The Apostles knew that Jesus was God and man. This is truth. However, it was not for another 400 years that this truth was explained to everyone’s satisfaction. Until Nicea, this truth was articulated in many ways and each articulation was found to be deficient. The problem was not the truth, but the language.

This is also the case with truths taught by Trent, Pius X and others before us. This is what John Henry Newman called the development of Christian doctrine. Doctrine does not change, but it’s like a morsel of corn. If you add humidity and heat, it pops and you can see the inside. Is it still the same morsel of corn? Of course it is. However, it looks different and tastes different. It has a smoother texture, which makes it easier to eat. Who wants to eat a hard grain of corn?

So, as Bl. John Newman explains, the same thing happens with doctrine as with pop corn. The same grain of truth was present in the early Church, at the Council of Trent and at Vatican II. The appearance changes as we try to find language that clearly explains what the Church believes. There is nothing wrong with this.

As far as “Eternal Rome”, I have found this to be a rather dubious expression. When I first heard it, I had no idea what they SSPX was talking about. After asking several theologians, I leaned that the term comes from literature, not from theology or ecclesiology. It doesn’t really describe the Catholic Church for a number of reasons.

First, it’s not a term that the Church has ever applied to herself.

Second, it’s a term that is offensive to the Eastern Catholics. It seems to imply that Catholicism is Roman, which it is not. The Diocese of Rome is the mother of all Catholic Churches, but the Catholic Church is not the Diocese of Rome. The Catholic Church is not even the Latin Church.

The key is not Rome, but the Bishop of Rome. If I’m faithful to “Eternal Rome” but am not in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, I’m in a rather irregular position. At the end of the day the Bishop of Rome will always be who he is and the Church will always depend on him, not on me. It is I who has to move toward him if I want to move toward the whole Church.

Br Jay thank you for sharing this about Oh Rome Eternal. I guess I always miss understood the song " Oh Rome Eternal." I always loved hearing it sung by a group of men that my family knew when I was younger. No one ever sang it the way this group did. But, since I did not understand the language it was sung in I always understood it to be a song of love and allegiance to the Pope and the bishops in union with him to include the Bishops of the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches. I guess I saw “Rome” more like “Church.” Now that you have shared this insight I am going to have to find another song that will describe this better.
There are some days I feel more ignorant about things than others and this is one of them.

 

[Rich_C]

Brendan,

Clearly you’re very well catechized and that was a pretty good rebuttal of Feenyite errors.

I just wanted to point out for all reading, that you overstepped the Church’s teaching here:

Protestants are part of Christ’s Church on Earth, even if they are not in the same fullness of Truth as members of the Roman Catholic Church.

Protestants are not part of the Church, despite (most sects) having a valid baptism. The Church has always defined itself by its visible marks, even if it grants that some people outside of it may be saved, seemingly contrary to a literally reading of EENS.

Just wanted to point that out for the sake of readers.

God bless.

 

[simple_soul]

Br Jay thank you for sharing this about Oh Rome Eternal. I guess I always miss understood the song " Oh Rome Eternal." I always loved hearing it sung by a group of men that my family knew when I was younger. No one ever sang it the way this group did. But, since I did not understand the language it was sung in I always understood it to be a song of love and allegiance to the Pope and the bishops in union with him to include the Bishops of the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches. I guess I saw “Rome” more like “Church.” Now that you have shared this insight I am going to have to find another song that will describe this better.
There are some days I feel more ignorant about things than others and this is one of them.

Just wanted to add that understanding my misunderstanding explains some things about what I thought and what I saw and heard over the years.

 

[simple_soul]

Brendan,

Clearly you’re very well catechized and that was a pretty good rebuttal of Feenyite errors.

I just wanted to point out for all reading, that you overstepped the Church’s teaching here:

Protestants are not part of the Church, despite (most sects) having a valid baptism. The Church has always defined itself by its visible marks, even if it grants that some people outside of it may be saved, seemingly contrary to a literally reading of EENS.

Just wanted to point that out for the sake of readers.

God bless.

Actually I believe the actual Church teaching is that they share an imperfect union with the Church. I would think then through this imperfect union they are part of the Church.

 

[Brendan_64]

Actually I believe the actual Church teaching is that they share an imperfect union with the Church. I would think then through this imperfect union they are part of the Church.

That was also my understanding.

 

[clem456]

That was also my understanding.

If they attain salvation they are part of the Church by definition, if I understand correctly.
And if that is distressing to me, Matthew 20 makes it all better.
If anyone is saved, it should be a cause to rejoice. Instead we look for reasons why they can’t be saved. Doesn’t seem to fit with Christ’s talk on envy.

I also like to read Lumen Gentium Chapter 2 “On the people of God”, when I get confused by any of this. The Church seems to take Christ’s hopeful view on who His people are, or who they can be.

 

[Rich_C]

Actually I believe the actual Church teaching is that they share an imperfect union with the Church. I would think then through this imperfect union they are part of the Church.

That was also my understanding.

Here it is from the Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 489. What is the Church?

A. The Church is the congregation of all those who profess the faith of Christ, partake of the same Sacraments, and are governed by their lawful pastors under one visible Head.

The Church has always been clear about her boundaries. The term “imperfect communion” is pretty new, and is not very useful if you ask me, since it can apply to a Catholic who has re-married without an annulment, the SSPX, and Protestants, just to name three examples. Since Vatican II the Church has talked about the Protestants having bits of the true Faith in their communities (like baptism, most of the Bible, the doctrine of the Trinity, etc) and so they still have these connections back to the Church, but connections don’t make them **part **of her.

 

[Brendan_64]

Since Vatican II the Church has talked about the Protestants having bits of the true Faith in their communities (like baptism, most of the Bible, the doctrine of the Trinity, etc) and so they still have these connections back to the Church, but connections don’t make them **part **of her.

I have always understood the Body of Christ on Earth to be synonymous with Christ’s Church on Earth. Arguing that Protestants are not part of the Body of Christ on Earth is pretty unreasonable considering the validity of their Baptism.

I would argue that Christ’s Church on Earth encompasses more than the established Catholic Church. The Catholic Church represents the most complete expression of Christ’s Church on Earth, but Christ’s Church on Earth is broader than just the established Catholic Church. Protestants are not members of the Catholic Church, but are part of Christ’s wider Church.

 

[clem456]

It’s human nature to want a pat answer for this issue.

Who’s in-who’s out? Where and how do I pay? Where do I pick up my key-card.
The Church is inspired to turn this mentatlity on it’s head.
Lumen Gentium is so full of hope for all of mankind. Hope is a theological virtue, it’s not necessarily something that should be instantly understood. If I find a God I can pin down, I have probably built myself an idol. (paraphrasing St Augustine I think)

 

[Rich_C]

I have always understood the Body of Christ on Earth to be synonymous with Christ’s Church on Earth. Arguing that Protestants are not part of the Body of Christ on Earth is pretty unreasonable considering the validity of their Baptism.

I would argue that Christ’s Church on Earth encompasses more than the established Catholic Church. The Catholic Church represents the most complete expression of Christ’s Church on Earth, but Christ’s Church on Earth is broader than just the established Catholic Church. Protestants are not members of the Catholic Church, but are part of Christ’s wider Church.

Your argument sounds logical in a lot of ways, except it goes against the Church’s teaching:

From the Baltimore Catechism No 3, Lesson 12:

1. Why is the Catholic Church called the Mystical Body of Christ?

The Catholic Church is called the Mystical Body of Christ because its members are united by supernatural bonds with one another and with Christ, their Head, thus resembling the members and head of the living human body.

Pope Pius XII adds, in his encyclical On the Mystical Body (Mystici Corporis):

Only those are to be included as real members of the Church who have been baptized and **profess the true faith and have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body **or been excluded from it by legitimate authority for serious faults.

 

[Rich_C]

It’s human nature to want a pat answer for this issue.

Who’s in-who’s out? Where and how do I pay? Where do I pick up my key-card.
The Church is inspired to turn this mentatlity on it’s head.
Lumen Gentium is so full of hope for all of mankind. Hope is a theological virtue, it’s not necessarily something that should be instantly understood. If I find a God I can pin down, I have probably built myself an idol. (paraphrasing St Augustine I think)

Thankfully, the Church usually gives human natures what it desires (when the desire is normal and not sinful, like wanting to know what’s true in this case).

Don’t people down for wanting to know what the Church teaches.

 

[clem456]

Thankfully, the Church usually gives human natures what it desires (when the desire is normal and not sinful, like wanting to know what’s true in this case).

Don’t people down for wanting to know what the Church teaches.

Did not intend to do that. That’s why I said “human nature”.

Of course we want to know what the Church teaches. Which is why I referred to Lumen Gentium and Matthew 20. You referenced the CCC and others. It’s all good brother.

 

[Rich_C]

Did not intend to do that. That’s why I said “human nature”.

Of course we want to know what the Church teaches. Which is why I referred to Lumen Gentium and Matthew 20. You referenced the CCC and others. It’s all good brother.

Don’t worry, I know we’re on the same side.

 

[JM3]

CCC

815 What are these bonds of unity? Above all, charity "binds everything together in perfect harmony."265 But the unity of the pilgrim Church is also assured by visible bonds of communion:

• profession of one faith received from the Apostles;
  -common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments;
• apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God’s family.266

816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it… This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."267

The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."268

 

[clem456]

Don’t worry, I know we’re on the same side.

You know it’s your brother when the mud pie sticks to his face!

 

[simple_soul]

Your argument sounds logical in a lot of ways, except it goes against the Church’s teaching:

From the Baltimore Catechism No 3, Lesson 12:

Pope Pius XII adds, in his encyclical On the Mystical Body (Mystici Corporis):
Quote:
Only those are to be included as real members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith and have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body or been excluded from it by legitimate authority for serious faults.

Well…have the completely seperated themselves from the Body?
Just wondering.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Please get back to the original post.

Thank You

 

[oneseeker2]

Actually the part of their argument you’re mocking is the part that is the most orthodox, as far as I know. I’m pretty sure Catholics are not bound to belief heresy if the pope fallible proclaims it. But they misuse this fact by calling things heretical that aren’t.

The pope wouldn’t proclaim heresy because he is infallible. That’s the point. No pope, no matter how good or bad he’s been, has EVER proclaimed heresy ex cathedra. None of the doctrines and dogmas of the Church that we are required to believe are heretical.

oneseeker2