Vatican II as interpreted by SSPX

[Canto]

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q6_vaticanII.htm

The above site has criticism of Vat II. It even has ‘HOW INTERPRETED BY ROME’ when really it is the interpretation of SSPX and not Rome.

No offence but some of the interpetations by SSPX are very misguided.

Sometimes it seems as if they have not read the documents thoroughly, understood them, or have deliberately (???) misrepresented them.

“Catholics should pray with Protestants (Unitatis Redintegratio, §§4,8).” says the SSPX site for example.

If one reads the actual document it states Catholic should pray “FOR” Protestants. There is a big difference.

The following two sites contain detailed refutations for those who are intrested.

matt1618.freeyellow.com/treatise10.html

matt1618.freeyellow.com/treatise11.html

Why is it that SSPX support all the previous ecumenical councils yet pick and choose with Vat II? Did the Pope goof, the Holy Spirit go to sleep, our Lady go on vacation? Did the gates of hell prevail against the Church and error come flooding in?

“The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, assembled in the Holy Spirit and under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom we have declared Mother of the Church…” - Apostolic Brief In Spiritu Sancto for the Closing of the Council

 

[japhy]

“Catholics should pray with Protestants (Unitatis Redintegratio, §§4,8).” says the SSPX site for example. If one reads the actual document it states Catholic should pray “FOR” Protestants. There is a big difference.

The SSPX gleans their interpretation from this quote: “it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren” (UR 8).

I agree the list they’ve compiled is inaccurate, but it is not entirely so.

 

[JReducation]

I would be very careful to trust that this list reflects the mind of the leadership of the SSPX. If one looks at the two columns, they don’t match.

JR

 

[Ottaviani]

The following two sites contain detailed refutations for those who are intrested.

matt1618.freeyellow.com/treatise10.html

matt1618.freeyellow.com/treatise11.html
l

Can you perhaps cite the original documents themselves to show, as you claim, where the SSPX got it wrong?

 

[JReducation]

Can you perhaps cite the original documents themselves to show, as you claim, where the SSPX got it wrong?

Does it really matter? If you stop and think about it, five consecutive popes cannot be wrong and Archbishop Lefebvre right. That would make him infallible and them not. It would border on saying that he posessed the teaching Magisterium and the five popes did not.

So far, five popes have guided the Church according to those documents and what came before.

The question is not a matter of where they got it wrong, but a matter of five popes in succession all disagreeing with the leadership of the SSPX. Once you have that, the specific points are best left up to them to discuss with the Holy See.

Sometimes we tend to cross that fine line into the business that really belong to the Holy See and not to us. We want to be able to prove things. I’m not sure that is the role of the lay man. There are systems and chains of command for that purpose.

Let’s allow the system to work and keep our own peace of mind by remaining focussed on the inner life.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Ottaviani]

It absolutely matters. The council documents should be expected to follow the magisterium of the 260 popes preceding the 5 you so ardently cling to.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, V2 teaching brought the Church to the people aka “prayed with protestants” whereas traditional teaching sought to bring the people to the Church (conversion).

 

[JReducation]

It absolutely matters. The council documents should be expected to follow the magisterium of the 260 popes preceding the 5 you so ardently cling to.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, V2 teaching brought the Church to the people aka “prayed with protestants” whereas traditional teaching sought to bring the people to the Church (conversion).

What I’m asking is, shouldn’t we let the Holy See decide whether this is the case or not?

We are not to be the judges of our superiors. We are to be humble and obedient in all things but sin. There is nothing in those documents that asks us to sin.

As to their application and interpretation, let us allow the Holy See to do its job. Why do we have to do this exercise in deciding who is right and wrong.

By the way, I do not cling to the five popes. I am making a point that five popes in a row cannot be wrong and one archbishop right. The fullness of truth resides with the magisterium, but the Archbishop is not the magisterium nor does he posess the authority of the magisterium. Only popes posess that authority to teach in the name of the magisterium.

If we believe that these popes abdicated that responsibility then we fall into sedevacantism. Even the good Archbishop did not believe in sedevacantism.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Ottaviani]

What I’m asking is, shouldn’t we let the Holy See decide whether this is the case or not?

We are not to be the judges of our superiors. We are to be humble and obedient in all things but sin. There is nothing in those documents that asks us to sin.

As to their application and interpretation, let us allow the Holy See to do its job. Why do we have to do this exercise in deciding who is right and wrong.

By the way, I do not cling to the five popes. I am making a point that five popes in a row cannot be wrong and one archbishop right. The fullness of truth resides with the magisterium, but the Archbishop is not the magisterium nor does he posess the authority of the magisterium. Only popes posess that authority to teach in the name of the magisterium.

If we believe that these popes abdicated that responsibility then we fall into sedevacantism. Even the good Archbishop did not believe in sedevacantism.

Fraternally,

JR

Gotcha.

However, this is not a matter of “one archbishop” being right. this “one archbishop” saw that the council documents were in direct conflict with Catholic truths.

And, it should be noted, that those 5 popes were among the liberal minority that had those same documents pushed through.

 

[UnusMilitum]

The SSPX is appropriately wary about VII because of what has issued from it (especially ‘unofficially,’ which includes priests who use the council to justify their novel behavior/beliefs/attitudes etc). But it looks like Rome is finally going to talk (please let it be so) with the SSPX, which is what the SSPX has been wanting since the beginning. Remember, it’s the SSPX that has been looking for clarifications, not Rome. The fact that Rome has agreed means that they realize there’s a problem with certain interpretations and novelties associated with VII. The SSPX doesn’t really have a problem with the council documents as long as they are interpreted in accord with 1960 years of Catholic teaching aka tradition.

It’s not that the SSPX is particularly against novelty. They’re just against novelties that are against Catholicism. See?

 

[Canto]

Can you perhaps cite the original documents themselves to show, as you claim, where the SSPX got it wrong?

for example

Seminarians should take into account modern philosophy, progress in science (Optatam Totius, §15)

According to SSPX Rome interprets this as “Secular university studies and abandoning Thomism”

Abandoning St Thomas Aquinas? The only reference to St Thomas in the whole document is “under the guidance of St. Thomas”

You can read the whole document below

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651028_optatam-totius_en.html

Extreme Unction should be an Anointing of the Sick (§§73,75).

According to SSPX Rome interprets this as “New matter, form and subject (i.e., the sick, not just those in danger of death).”

1. “Extreme unction,” which may also and more fittingly be called “anointing of the sick,” is not a sacrament for those only who are at the point of death. Hence, as soon as any one of the faithful begins to be in danger of death from sickness or old age, the fitting time for him to receive this sacrament has certainly already arrived.
2. The number of the anointings is to be adapted to the occasion, and the prayers which belong to the rite of anointing are to be revised so as to correspond with the varying conditions of the sick who receive the sacrament.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

There is no mention of new matter. The form is not new, James’ epistle in the Bible says “Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.” Trent spoke of the “unction of the sick” and the above Biblical quote (14th session).

What is so wrong with 73 and 75?

The Church of Christ subsists in (not is) the Catholic Church (Lumen Gentium, §8)

According to SSPX Rome interprets this as that the Church of Christ “It is also in “separated Churches” (Ut Unum Sint,3 §11).”

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html

From these document the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church because she is the Church of Christ. There are no ifs or buts about it. Do some of the separate brethren contain some truth (well some do believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity of example)? The fullness of truth however is found only in the Catholic Church

Rite and formulae of penance are to be revised (Sacrosanctum Concilium §72).

According to SSPX Rome interprets this as “Face to face confessions and General Absolutions.”

1. The rite and formulas for the sacrament of penance are to be revised so that they more clearly express both the nature and effect of the sacrament.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

No mention of General Absolutions here. What’s wrong with face to face confessions and have they ever been in a sense illegal?

 

[Canto]

**continued

Marriage and married love equated (Gaudium et Spes, §§48,50).**

SSPX interprets this an “annulments fiasco”

CHAPTER I : FOSTERING THE NOBILITY OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY
…48. The intimate partnership of married life and love has been established by the Creator and qualified by His laws, and is rooted in the jugal covenant of irrevocable personal consent… For the good of the spouses and** their off-springs **as well as of society, the existence of the sacred bond no longer depends on human decisions alone…By their very nature, the institution of matrimony itself and conjugal love are **ordained for the procreation and education of children, **and find in them their ultimate crown. Thus a man and a woman, who by their compact of conjugal love “are no longer two, but one flesh” (Matt. 19:ff), render mutual help and service to each other through an intimate union of their persons and of their actions. Through this union they experience the meaning of their oneness and attain to it with growing perfection day by day. As a mutual gift of two persons, this intimate union and the good of the children impose total fidelity on the spouses and argue for an unbreakable oneness between them.(2)

…As a result, with their **parents **leading the way by example and family Prayer, children and indeed everyone gathered around the family hearth will find a readier path to human maturity, salvation and holiness. Graced with the dignity and office of fatherhood and motherhood, parents will energetically acquit themselves of a duty which devolves primarily on them, namely education and especially religious education.

…Thus the Christian family, which springs from marriage as a reflection of the loving covenant uniting Christ with the Church,(9) and as a participation in that covenant, will manifest to all men Christ’s living presence in the world, and the genuine nature of the Church. This the family will do by the mutual love of the spouses, by their generous fruitfulness, their solidarity and faithfulness, and by the loving way in which all members of the family assist one another.

1. …Authentic conjugal love will be more highly prized, and wholesome public opinion created about it if Christian couples give outstanding witness to faithfulness and harmony in their love, and to their concern for educating **their children **also, if they do their part in bringing about the needed cultural, psychological and social renewal on behalf of marriage and the family. Especially in the heart of their own families, young people should be aptly and seasonably instructed in the dignity, duty and work of married love. Trained thus in the cultivation of chastity, they will be able at a suitable age to enter a marriage of their own after an honorable courtship.

***their families ***The assumption here seems to be that a married couple will have kids.

 

[Canto]

continued

1. **Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents. **The God Himself Who said, “it is not good for man to be alone” (Gen. 2:18) and “Who made man from the beginning male and female” (Matt. 19:4), **wishing to share with man a certain special participation in His own creative work, blessed male and female, saying: “Increase and multiply” (Gen. 1:28). **Hence, while not making the other purposes of matrimony of less account, the true practice of conjugal love, and the whole meaning of the family life which results from it, have this aim: that the couple be ready with stout hearts to cooperate with the love of the Creator and the Savior. Who through them will enlarge and enrich His own family day by day.

Marriage to be sure is not instituted solely for procreation; rather, its very nature as an unbreakable compact between persons, and the welfare of the children, both demand that the mutual love of the spouses be embodied in a rightly ordered manner, that it grow and ripen. Therefore, marriage persists as a whole manner and communion of life, and maintains its value and indissolubility, even when despite the often intense desire of the couple, offspring are lacking.

They claim that “Canon 1055, §1 no longer defines marriage by its primary end, the procreation of children.”

I beg to differ with this statement. Without the well being of the spouses how can you properly raise a child? How can you rasie a child without loving the person you’re married to (hence married love). Canon law states…

Canon 1055 §1 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, and which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children, has, between the baptized, been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.

Are there more annulments now-a-days? No idea. But if so it is hardly the fault of Vat II or the Code of Canon Law. Everything wrong these days seems to be blamed on Vat II.

As for the ‘new’ Mass…
Don’t know if you take your user name from Cardinal Ottaviani but he said of the Mass…

“I have REJOICED PROFOUNDLY to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and ESPECIALLY THE DOCTRINAL PRECISIONS CONTAINED IN HIS DISCOURSES at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE GENUINELY SCANDALIZED. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘Doctrinal Note’ [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION AND SUCCESS.” (Whitehead, 129, Letter from his eminence Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, O.S.B., in Documentation Catholique, #67, 1970, pages 215-216 and 343)

“The words of Christ ‘feed my sheep’ are words which have been addressed only to his vicar, and it follows that whoever would wish to be counted among the Flock of Christ must submit to the Universal Pastor appointed by Christ. No one can be a exception to this rule, not even Bishops.” (Whitehead, 130, From Leroy Philippe, “Pierre a Parle,” Chevaliers #32, 1976).

 

[TMC]

Gotcha.

However, this is not a matter of “one archbishop” being right. this “one archbishop” saw that the council documents were in direct conflict with Catholic truths.

And, it should be noted, that those 5 popes were among the liberal minority that had those same documents pushed through.

It is not just 5 popes. The Council itself was made up of over 2,500 bishops and heads of religious orders. The documents were not pushed through by any minorty - liberal or otherwise. Gaudium et Spes passed by a vote fo 2309 to 75. Since the Council, thousands of other bishops, millions of priests and religious, and hundreds of millions of lay persons have agreed with and supported the council. But one archbishop puts himself above them and says he alone knows what is best for Christ’s Church.

 

[Extempore]

It is not just 5 popes. The Council itself was made up of over 2,500 bishops and heads of religious orders. The documents were not pushed through by any minorty - liberal or otherwise. Gaudium et Spes passed by a vote fo 2309 to 75. Since the Council, thousands of other bishops, millions of priests and religious, and hundreds of millions of lay persons have agreed with and supported the council. But one archbishop puts himself above them and says he alone knows what is best for Christ’s Church.

Or, to put a further spin on what you said, 2309 bishops thought they knew what was best for Christ’s Church. One archbishop (and others) saw that there was ambiguity and conflict between the old and the new and, concerned by this, refused to go along with them.

 

[Canto]

Or, to put a further spin on what you said, 2309 bishops thought they knew what was best for Christ’s Church. One archbishop (and others) saw that there was ambiguity and conflict between the old and the new and, concerned by this, refused to go along with them.

I’m sure we’ve all heard someone say
-Bible says all have sinned
-I interpret that as Mary has sinned
-Therefore Catholics are wrong to say she’s sinless

No matter how much evidence, abundant quotes from Church Fathers etc they still say Mary sinned.

Conversely some will say…

-Vat II says…
-I interpret that as…
-Therefore St Peter’s successors Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI not to mention the vast whopping majority of Bishops are wrong and little ole’ me is right.

 

[Ottaviani]

Let me state this generally, mostly because I’m familiar with the subject matter, but my time is limited.

“No mention”, “doesn’t say anything about” or any ability to draw inferences from the conciliar documents you’ve cited will not serve to refute the argument.

lets stick to one topic, Lumen Gentium.
“subsists in” as opposed to the perennial teaching that the Catholic Church IS the Church of Christ.

tell me where, after Vatican II, the thought that the Church of Christ could be present outside of the Catholic Church has been condemned, refuted, or even questioned? lets stick to this one example because citing legions of text will just confuse the issue. tell me where? Tell me where the modern Church has stood its ground and has said, UNEQUIVOCALLY that “subsists in” MEANS that the Church of Christ is coextensive with the Catholic Church.

Give me no more than a paragraph, post in here, links don’t count.

 

[Canto]

“No mention”, “doesn’t say anything about” or any ability to draw inferences from the conciliar documents you’ve cited will not serve to refute the argument.

People can draw their own inferences from anything, like the constitution for example. Some read Augustine and claim he didn’t supprt the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist as another example. The St Thomas eg I gave is that SSPX implied Vat II got rid of St Thomas Aquinas theology. They drew an inference unsuported by the document they referenced or any other Vatican decree for that matter.

"lets stick to one topic, Lumen Gentium. “subsists in” as opposed to the perennial teaching that the Catholic Church IS the Church of Christ.

tell me where, after Vatican II, the thought that the Church of Christ could be present outside of the Catholic Church has been condemned, refuted, or even questioned? lets stick to this one example because citing legions of text will just confuse the issue. tell me where? Tell me where the modern Church has stood its ground and has said, UNEQUIVOCALLY that “subsists in” MEANS that the Church of Christ is coextensive with the Catholic Church.

Give me no more than a paragraph, post in here, links don’t count.

Where does Lumen Gentium say that the Catholic Church IS NOT the Church of Christ? Nowhere.

Where does Lumen Gentium say that another Christian Denomination (e.g. Anglican) subsists or co-subsits in the Church of Christ? Nowhere.

Where has the Church post Vat II said she is not coextensive with the Catholic Church? Nowhere.

Before I get to my paragrpah **lets define subsistence. **

Subsistence is a specific kind of existence. The Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary defines it as “that perfection whereby a being is capable of existing in itself” (Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary pg. 507). Subsistence (Lat. subsistare) is an old Scholastic term used to explain the manner whereby God exists. Unlike all other entities, God does not depend on another source for His existence. Instead, He is fully subsistent. Likewise the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church in such wise as she does not depend on any other Church or ecclesial community for she possesses the fullness of grace and truth. The same cannot be said of other Churches or ecclesial communities which depend on the Catholic Church for what degrees of truth that they possess. So the Church of Christ can be properly said to subsist in the Catholic Church as this denotes existence to the fullest possible extent.

THE PARAGRAPH
Recently the Pope reiterated the Church belief in no salvation outside the Catholic Church. If one reads Lumen Gentium one clearly sees that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. No ifs or buts. Other Churches may contains some truth but do not subsist in the Church of Christ. Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t recall any major Catholic theologian or Bishop etc saying that the Catholic Church is not coextensive with the Church of Christ, therefore why the need to condemn. In the mid 3rd Century Pope St Stephen decreed that heretics were not to be re-baptized and the baptisms of heretics even by heretics were valid (as long as they baptized by water in a Trinitarian fashion) an element of sanctification outside of the Catholic Church. Lumen Gentium says the Catholic Church subsists in the Church of Christ. No other Church is said to subsist in the Church of Christ but the Catholic Church. Why does she subsist in the Church of Christ? Because she IS the Church of Christ. Easy Peasy.

 

[pnewton]

It absolutely matters. The council documents should be expected to follow the magisterium of the 260 popes preceding the 5 you so ardently cling to.

Cling to??? Are you for real? They are the only Popes that have had authority in the the Church since Vatican II. They were legitimately elected one after another. Even folks that don’t really trust the guidance of the Holy Spirit must at some point acknowledge that the Holy Spirit doesn’t always mess up.

 

[japhy]

“subsists in” as opposed to the perennial teaching that the Catholic Church IS the Church of Christ.

Have you read any of the four documents I refer to in this post?

Tell me where the modern Church has stood its ground and has said, UNEQUIVOCALLY that “subsists in” MEANS that the Church of Christ is coextensive with the Catholic Church. Give me no more than a paragraph, post in here, links don’t count.

“The use of this expression subsistit in], which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church.” (Responsa ad Quaestiones, 3)

“The Council chose the word “subsistit” specifically to clarify that the true Church has only one “subsistence”… [T]he change from est to subsistit in takes on no particular theological significance of discontinuity with previously held Catholic doctrine. In fact, precisely because the Church willed by Christ actually continues to exist (subsistit in) in the Catholic Church, this continuity of subsistence implies an essential identity between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church. … Contrary to many unfounded interpretations, therefore, the change from “est” to “subsistit” does not signify that the Catholic Church has ceased to regard herself as the one true Church of Christ.” (Commentary on RQ)

Really, read this article from catholicism.org which shows that Unitatis Redintegratio and Lumen Gentium were intended, by the Council Fathers, to affirm the belief that the identity of the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.

 

[pnewton]

Let me state this generally, mostly because I’m familiar with the subject matter, but my time is limited…lets stick to one topic, Lumen Gentium.
“subsists in” as opposed to the perennial teaching that the Catholic Church IS the Church of Christ. …

I call foul on this. It is *you *who said:

Can you perhaps cite the original documents themselves to show, as you claim, where the SSPX got it wrong?

Then when JR pointed out why this one unneccessary you pushed and got a response. Now you want to pick the one you think is easiest and respond? No wonder the SSPX is rank with misinterpretation.

This is a simple issue. If one wants to know what the Catholic Church teaches about Vatican II, go to the Catholic Church, either in the Catechism or some other document. Going to the SSPX, who is extremely biased against Vatican II, makes about as much since as getting the information from Jack Chick.