Vatican II as interpreted by SSPX

[Just_Lurking]

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.

Rome’s interpretation can be seen from how this has been enacted in church law (see here):

1. Where appropriate, Catholics should be encouraged, in accordance with the Church’s norms, to join in prayer with Christians of other Churches and ecclesial Communities. Such prayers in common are certainly a very effective means of petitioning for the grace of unity, and they are a genuine expression of the ties which still bind Catholics to these other Christians.119 Shared prayer is in itself a way to spiritual reconciliation.
2. Prayer in common is recommended for Catholics and other Christians so that together they may put before God the needs and problems they share—e.g., peace, social concerns, mutual charity among people, the dignity of the family, the effects of poverty, hunger and violence, etc. The same may be said of occasions when, according to circumstances, a nation, region or community wishes to make a common act of thanksgiving or petition to God, as on a national holiday, at a time of public disaster or mourning, on a day set aside for remembrance of those who have died for their country, etc. This kind of prayer is also recommended when Christians hold meetings for study or common action.
3. Shared prayer should, however, be particularly concerned with the res- toration of Christian unity. It can centre, e.g. on the mystery of the Church and its unity, on baptism as a sacramental bond of unity, or on the renewal of personal and community life as a necessary means to achieving unity. Prayer of this type is particularly recommended during the “Week of Prayer for Christian Unity” or in the period between Ascension and Pentecost.

 

[TMC]

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.

Yes. Something similar happened in 1517.

 

[Extempore]

Yes. Something similar happened in 1517.

Except for the tiny distinction that Luther split from the Church after expressing vehement hatred for several points of Catholic dogma.

Other than that, though, they’re totally the same.

 

[DavidPalm]

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.

Well, on some issues it’s simple. On others, not so simple. I agree that the list compiled by the SSPX contains some ridiculous and unnecessary extrapolations, seeing disharmony where none exists. But I think it remains true that it is extremely difficult to harmonize a document like Dignitatis Humanae with prior Church teaching. Technically it can and has been done by scholars such as Fr. Brian Harrison, I think. But that very difficult harmonization does not constitute an official explanation. And I think it is safe to say that it is not the view of DH held by the vast majority of Catholics. So there remains some confusion.

It is very reasonable for Catholics to ask for official explanations of how certain Vatican II texts can be harmonized with prior Church teaching. Both the FSSP and the Institute of the Good Shepherd have explicitly been told that they may engage in respectful criticism of the Second Vatican Council. As the communique to the latter states:

D’un point de vue doctrinal, conformément au discours du pape Benoît XVI à la Curie Romaine le 22 décembre 2005, les membres de l’Institut, autant qu’il est en eux, sont engagés par une « critique sérieuse et constructive » du Concile Vatican II, pour permettre au Siège Apostolique d’en donner l’interprétation authentique. (frat.canalhistorique.free.fr/200609/Communique%20Bon%20Pasteur.htm?num=126344)

Their critique must be “serious and constructive” and the authentic interpretation is left ultimately to the Apostolic See. But we have entered a new phase in the Church’s life in which it is now openly acknowledged even by Rome that there are genuine difficulties raised by the Vatican II documents and that, if done properly, there is no disobedience or disloyalty in pointing this out and asking for clarification. So there’s really no obstacle here for the SSPX to do the same.

 

[pnewton]

Well, on some issues it’s simple. On others, not so simple.

I didn’t mean that the understanding of Vatican II and its documents was simple. What I meant was simple was deciding that the SSPX is not a source for unbiased information on Vatican II.

 

[DavidPalm]

I didn’t mean that the understanding of Vatican II and its documents was simple. What I meant was simple was deciding that the SSPX is not a source for unbiased information on Vatican II.

Yes, I agree. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[centurionguard]

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

Personally I do not officially support SSPX in it’s entirety
However; anyone who says that the SSPX doesn’t have a number of excellent viewpoints supporting a vast number of errors from the onset of Vatican II till present day is completely out of their own league. Pope Paul VI on his death bed stated that the SMOKE OF SATAN HAS ENTERED THE CHURCH.
How many Catholics today with all their comfortable wisdom and their illustrious esteem can make the bold assertion that, that same SATANIC SMOKE has vacated the Church ?

 

[Ottaviani]

The errors you will find in the conciliar documents lie in their ambiguities.

Now, we can fling tons of copied text at one another, or we can get down to brass tacks.

I really don’t care what point of doctrine you wish to argue. I’m just looking for specific, express proof that that SSPX is wrong on the points of doctrine above mentioned. Pick one, any one, I really don’t care. Then we can move from there.

 

[DavidPalm]

The errors you will find in the conciliar documents lie in their ambiguities.

If something is ambiguous it typically means it’s liable to more than one interpretation, not that’s it’s out and out erroneous. So isn’t it more accurate to say that the difficulty of the conciliar documents lies in their ambiguities and that they are liable to erroneous interpretations?

It seems to me that the real problem is that in many cases we don’t yet have official interpretations of the major ambiguities, hence erroneous interpretations are on an equal footing with an interpretation that can be harmonized with the Church’s Tradition.

But we are starting to get some official clarification, thank God. Japhy cited two official texts concerning your challenge on “subsists in”. I would have liked to see you interact with those before you reissued your challenge.

 

[JReducation]

Well, on some issues it’s simple. On others, not so simple. I agree that the list compiled by the SSPX contains some ridiculous and unnecessary extrapolations, seeing disharmony where none exists. But I think it remains true that it is extremely difficult to harmonize a document like Dignitatis Humanae with prior Church teaching. Technically it can and has been done by scholars such as Fr. Brian Harrison, I think. But that very difficult harmonization does not constitute an official explanation. And I think it is safe to say that it is not the view of DH held by the vast majority of Catholics. So there remains some confusion.

It is very reasonable for Catholics to ask for official explanations of how certain Vatican II texts can be harmonized with prior Church teaching. Both the FSSP and the Institute of the Good Shepherd have explicitly been told that they may engage in respectful criticism of the Second Vatican Council. As the communique to the latter states:

D’un point de vue doctrinal, conformément au discours du pape Benoît XVI à la Curie Romaine le 22 décembre 2005, les membres de l’Institut, autant qu’il est en eux, sont engagés par une « critique sérieuse et constructive » du Concile Vatican II, pour permettre au Siège Apostolique d’en donner l’interprétation authentique. (frat.canalhistorique.free.fr/200609/Communique%20Bon%20Pasteur.htm?num=126344)

The bold is mine.

Actually, the literal translation is not only that the final authority is the Apostolic See, but the final interpretation is that of the Apostilic See. This is where the SSPX and other may run into problems.

What happens if the Apostolic See says, “Up is down and down is up and that’s the end of the discussion,” will they accept that? Will they accept that the Apostolic See has makes the final authoritative interpretation of these documents and everyone must accept the Pope’s interpretation until the next pope?

Fraternally,

JR

 

[centurionguard]

The errors you will find in the conciliar documents lie in their ambiguities.

Now, we can fling tons of copied text at one another, or we can get down to brass tacks.

I really don’t care what point of doctrine you wish to argue. I’m just looking for specific, express proof that that SSPX is wrong on the points of doctrine above mentioned. Pick one, any one, I really don’t care. Then we can move from there.

I made my point and you apparently made yours.
Personally I won’t waste my time on argumentative idle speculation or futile ramblings. It won’t add any length to your whiskers or a free trip to McDonald’s. Salutations anyways.

 

[Canto]

. Pope Paul VI on his death bed stated that the SMOKE OF SATAN HAS ENTERED THE CHURCH.
How many Catholics today with all their comfortable wisdom and their illustrious esteem can make the bold assertion that, that same SATANIC SMOKE has vacated the Church ?

From my understanding Paul made the satan quote in a homily.

As Jimmy Akin noted in reading what he is alleged to have said in context “It is thus clear–if the reportage of what Paul VI said is even remotely right, that he was not claiming that there were Satanists in the Vatican (as some have claimed), nor is he linking the “smoke of Satan” with the Second Vatican Council itself or the liturgical reforms that followed it or anything like that. He perceives the work of the Council as a good thing that has been thwarted–or partially thwarted–by the social crisis that was breaking out in the developed world at this time. In other words, he’s responding to the cultural crisis of the late 1960s and early 1970s and its impact on the Church using a poetic image and attributing it (rightly) to the work of the devil, but he is not making the kind of sensationalistic claims that some have used to interpret this phrase.”

 

[Ottaviani]

“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.”.

sorry I missed that one. Do you see where what is being said above is, by it’s nature A=B

If you don’t see that, fair enough, I’ll trouble you no further.

 

[DavidPalm]

sorry I missed that one. Do you see where what is being said above is, by it’s nature A=B

If you don’t see that, fair enough, I’ll trouble you no further.

I’m not actually sure what you mean. Are you claiming that he hasn’t really answered your challenge? And what about this one, already cited:

“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)

I would say that at least on this example, which you led with so presumably you think it one of the strongest, you have been well answered. Yes? No?

 

[japhy]

sorry I missed that one. Do you see where what is being said above is, by it’s nature A=B. If you don’t see that, fair enough, I’ll trouble you no further.

I don’t understand what you wrote. Could you be a bit clearer?

You wanted to see “where the modern Church … has said, UNEQUIVOCALLY that ‘subsists in’ MEANS that the Church of Christ is coextensive with the Catholic Church.” I think I did that:

“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”… 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)

 

[Ottaviani]

I don’t understand what you wrote. Could you be a bit clearer?

You wanted to see “where the modern Church … has said, UNEQUIVOCALLY that ‘subsists in’ MEANS that the Church of Christ is coextensive with the Catholic Church.” I think I did that:

“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”… 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)

actually, the Church has said, UNEQUIVOCALLY that “subsists in” means the same thing as “is”. That (interpretation) is a contradiction.

 

[JReducation]

actually, the Church has said, UNEQUIVOCALLY that “subsists in” means the same thing as “is”. That (interpretation) is a contradiction.

Not really. Subsist means that within the Catholic Church you find the fullness of truth. The term “is” did not clearly communicate the message of the fullness of truth. It made a statement about the Church being the Church that Christ founded, but it did not say that the Truth continued to be fully present within her.

When you say that the Church is the true Church, you are speaking about the Church. When you say that the fullness of truth subsists withint he Catholic Church you are saying that it is the one Church that has possession to all the truth. The statement is about both the Church and the truth. In other words, not only does the Church hold claim to its historical roots in Christ, but also holds claim to all the truths of and about Christ. It’s a much deeper explanatin about what the Church is and what is found within her, not just her roots.

Luther would never argue about the Church’s historical roots. But he argued that the Church had deviated from the truth.

If the truth subsists within the Church, there is no way that she can deviate from it, because it is part of her nature, not just her roots. Where she goes, so goes the truth. They are inseparable. The Orthodox Churches are also rooted in Christ and the Apostles, but the fullness of truth does not subsist within them. Nonetheless, they are true Churches founded by Christ on the faith of the Apostles. But in breaking communion with the Church of Rome they broke with the truth that subsists within the Church of Rome.

The truth subsists within the Church of Rome, because it is the Church of Peter and upon that rock and Peter’s faith the Church was founded. So you see, the faith and the rock cannot be separated, because the faith subsists within the rock.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Ottaviani]

Not really. Subsist means that within the Catholic Church you find the fullness of truth. The term “is” did not clearly communicate the message of the fullness of truth. It made a statement about the Church being the Church that Christ founded, but it did not say that the Truth continued to be fully present within her.

When you say that the Church is the true Church, you are speaking about the Church. When you say that the fullness of truth subsists withint he Catholic Church you are saying that it is the one Church that has possession to all the truth. The statement is about both the Church and the truth. In other words, not only does the Church hold claim to its historical roots in Christ, but also holds claim to all the truths of and about Christ. It’s a much deeper explanatin about what the Church is and what is found within her, not just her roots.

Luther would never argue about the Church’s historical roots. But he argued that the Church had deviated from the truth.

If the truth subsists within the Church, there is no way that she can deviate from it, because it is part of her nature, not just her roots. Where she goes, so goes the truth. They are inseparable. The Orthodox Churches are also rooted in Christ and the Apostles, but the fullness of truth does not subsist within them. Nonetheless, they are true Churches founded by Christ on the faith of the Apostles. But in breaking communion with the Church of Rome they broke with the truth that subsists within the Church of Rome.

The truth subsists within the Church of Rome, because it is the Church of Peter and upon that rock and Peter’s faith the Church was founded. So you see, the faith and the rock cannot be separated, because the faith subsists within the rock.

Fraternally,

JR

If the truth only subsists in the Church, rather than being coextensive with it, doesn’t that also mean that the truth can be found outside of the Church?

And yet, we have an even more important distinction. The presence of Christ. Church teaching tells us that “Outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation”
So, despite the claim that the Church of Christ “subsists in” the Catholic Church, it is by no means a great leap of logic to see that by that same reasoning, the Church of Christ can exist outside Her walls. How are we to reconcile this?

As you say, Christ is rooted in the Catholic Church, if Christ is only “Rooted in” the Catholic Church, by definition that (omission, abstraction, ambiguity) leads us to conclude that, indeed since Christ’s primary place (not exclusive place) is the Catholic Church those outside the Church, who yet do not yield to His teachings yet logically be given the keys to Salvation.

This is the ambiguity which has ruled the last 40 years of Church history, it has gotten so prevalent that legion of Catholics now suffer from the ugly tree that has sprouted from this disfigured seed: They believe that salvation is possible outside of the Church! These are scary times indeed.

I apologize for my wordiness. that’s not usually my style.

 

[japhy]

actually, the Church has said, UNEQUIVOCALLY that “subsists in” means the same thing as “is”. That (interpretation) is a contradiction.

I apologize… I think I read “coextensive” each time as the word “coexistent”. My fault.

So you are asking for a statement from the Church that the boundaries of “the Church of Christ” and the boundaries of “the Catholic Church” are one in the same, right? I do not know of such a statement from the Church, saying that the Church of Christ is “bigger” than the Catholic Church. What Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio do say is that elements of that one Church are present outside of her, but because those elements belong to her, they naturally compel to Catholic unity.

 

[JReducation]

If the truth only subsists in the Church, rather than being coextensive with it, doesn’t that also mean that the truth can be found outside of the Church?

And yet, we have an even more important distinction. The presence of Christ. Church teaching tells us that “Outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation”
So, despite the claim that the Church of Christ “subsists in” the Catholic Church, it is by no means a great leap of logic to see that by that same reasoning, the Church of Christ can exist outside Her walls. How are we to reconcile this?

As you say, Christ is rooted in the Catholic Church, if Christ is only “Rooted in” the Catholic Church, by definition that (omission, abstraction, ambiguity) leads us to conclude that, indeed since Christ’s primary place (not exclusive place) is the Catholic Church those outside the Church, who yet do not yield to His teachings yet logically be given the keys to Salvation.

This is the ambiguity which has ruled the last 40 years of Church history, it has gotten so prevalent that legion of Catholics now suffer from the ugly tree that has sprouted from this disfigured seed: They believe that salvation is possible outside of the Church! These are scary times indeed.

I apologize for my wordiness. that’s not usually my style.

Actually, I did not say, nor did the Council say, that Christ is rooted in the Church. It is the Church that is rooted in Christ. It is the Catholic Church the only Church that is fully rooted in Christ. That’s why the fullness of truth subsists within the Catholic Church. Because Christ is the fullness of truth.

As to others who are not Catholic. The Church has stated that certain Catholic truths are found in other faiths and other groups. If they are Catholic truths, even if they are found outside the Church, they remain Catholic truths and Christ uses those truths to bring those people to salvation, provided that they live by those truths.

In that sense, there is no salvation outside the Church, becaue any truth found outside the Church is really a truth that belongs to the Church. Any truth through which Christ’s grace saves, is a Cathollic truth. Therefore, Christ saves through the Church, even those who are imperfectly united to the Church.

We end up at the same place. Salvation can only come through the Church, even to those outside the physical Church. The doctrine is not touched or changed. Its complexity is exlained, that’s all.

JR