Vatican II Happened for a reason

[pnewton]

I know you don’t like hearing this, but the SSPX is no more schismatic than was St. Athanasius and his followers. The Arian crisis is a parallel of our day, and as such provides many usefull lessons for us.

First, I do not believe it to be a parallel. Furthermore, I recognize that calling it a parallel is the logical fallacy of begging the question, or circular logic; something that can only be seen if you already believe it to be so.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=310397&highlight=godwin

Note I used the phrase “temptation to schism.” I was think particularly of the letter by Msgr. Perl (see link at the top of this forum).

If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin.

as well as Ecclessia Dei:

In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law

No, I do not put any of those associated with the SSPX on the same level as St. Athanatius. They may see themselves that way, but I do not.

 

[LRThunder]

First, I do not believe it to be a parallel. Furthermore, I recognize that calling it a parallel is the logical fallacy of begging the question, or circular logic; something that can only be seen if you already believe it to be so.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=310397&highlight=godwin

Note I used the phrase “temptation to schism.” I was think particularly of the letter by Msgr. Perl (see link at the top of this forum).

as well as Ecclessia Dei:
No, I do not put any of those associated with the SSPX on the same level as St. Athanatius. They may see themselves that way, but I do not.

Not to mention the Arians held heretical views, whereas the SSPX does not. There are doctrinal issues to be resolved, but nothing that can’t be overcome unlike what the Arians tried to pass off as doctrine (and I think they were a much larger group than the SSPX in any case).

 

[Seamus_L]

Had V2 never happened, I believe we’d have a much stronger more vibrant church than we do today. I believe the Church would have served as a much heavier moral counterweight against the radical changes we saw in the 60’s and afterwards. Instead of the church in many cases going the way of the world, I believe it would have had a far greater positive influence in shaping the society we live in. In America in our cities, I believe a much high percentage of our parishes would have remained open, and in many cases, prevented neighborhoods from being transformed into crime ridden urban wastelands.
If I have the time today and get motivated, I'll give the figures regarding how many parishes in Chicago prior to V2 we're entirely English speaking. That the pre-V2 Church was primarily ethnic is an utter fallacy.

 

[Seamus_L]

I just checked mass listings in Chicago for the year 1942, and out of 259 parishes in the city only (didn’t count the suburbs) 161 were entirely English, with many of the remaining 98 offering at least one homily in English. That’s hardly an ethnic church.

 

[Ottaviani]

Not to mention the Arians held heretical views, whereas the SSPX does not. There are doctrinal issues to be resolved, but nothing that can’t be overcome unlike what the Arians tried to pass off as doctrine (and I think they were a much larger group than the SSPX in any case).

I think you you may have your players switched on this one. it’s uncontroverted that the SSPX doesn’t have heretical views (unless perhaps you’re an aging flower child bishop that likes liturgical dancing). however, the crisis of modernism, a heresy that Pius X called the “sum of all heresies” has taken hold of much of the Church. Modernism here would be analogous to arianism, a different heresy that in it’s time wasn’t condemned, but instead those following tradition were sent into the desert.

 

[pnewton]

. Modernism here would be analogous to arianism, a different heresy that in it’s time wasn’t condemned, but instead those following tradition were sent into the desert.

All the more reason while I think the analogy is false. Modernism, as defined by St. Pius is not being taught by the Church. What we have to day is a media intensive, micro-break down of every action the Holy Father takes to see if there is a seed of heresy or, for some, to see if it can be twisted to make it look like heresy. We also have modernists in the Church that people love to point to as examples of the why the Church is in heresy. The strange irony is that this is one area in which some of the more extreme Traditionalist are just like the more extreme liberal media.

 

[Yours_Truly]

All the more reason while I think the analogy is false. Modernism, as defined by St. Pius is not being taught by the Church. What we have to day is a media intensive, micro-break down of every action the Holy Father takes to see if there is a seed of heresy or, for some, to see if it can be twisted to make it look like heresy. We also have modernists in the Church that people love to point to as examples of the why the Church is in heresy. The strange irony is that this is one area in which some of the more extreme Traditionalist are just like the more extreme liberal media.

I have a question for you. Liberalism and Modernism are closely alligned and virtually the same.

Now, Traditionalists claim that virtually the entire hierarchy, including this Pope and the last, are Liberals. Traditionalists claim that this Pope and the last have not only embraced the formally condemned errors of Liberalism by are now presenting them as the official teachings of the Church. I’m sure you would disagree and would not admit that the current and previous Popes are teaching these formally condemned errors.

My question is this: What would you say if our current Pope admitted, openly and clearly, that the formally condemned errors of Liberalism no longer apply, and that what was previously condemned by the Church as an error is now the “official” teaching of the Church? In other words, what would you say if the Pope admitted what the Traditionalists claim - that what was formally condemned as an errors of Liberalism is now being taught as true by the Pope and virtually every Bishop in “union” with him?

 

[pnewton]

I have a question for you. Liberalism and Modernism are closely alligned and virtually the same.

I do not agree with the basic premise. I know of St. Pius writing against the heresy of Modernism (philosophical modernism, not the way the word is often used). I know that Liberalism has been a catchword, a bogey monster of Conservatism. I do not see the two as equivalent.

 

[Yours_Truly]

I do not agree with the basic premise. I know of St. Pius writing against the heresy of Modernism (philosophical modernism, not the way the word is often used). I know that Liberalism has been a catchword, a bogey monster of Conservatism. I do not see the two as equivalent.

Rather than us getting off on that subject, I’ll just ask you to respond to the other part, which was my question. I’ll state it again.

What if the Pope was to admit that what the Traditionalists say is true? That formally condemned errors are now the official teaching of the Church, and to be a good Catholic today one must adhere to formally condemned errors.

So, what sayest thou? What would you say if the Pope admitted that the Church now teaches formally condemned errors, and that the SSPX is wrong for not embracing these formally condemned errors that are now taught by the Church. If he clearly stated this, what would you say?

 

[novaslasher]

Thank you, Agent Snake-eyes, for imposing this dangerous plot. Rosthchilds, Romanovs, holocaust denial, and a promise to die on your feet not on your knees…this is a unique conspiracy theory, especially the part that involves the Jews “sewing confusion”. I’d sure like that quilt.

Seriously, that’s insane.

I loled

 

[pnewton]

Rather than us getting off on that subject, I’ll just ask you to respond to the other part, which was my question. I’ll state it again.

What if the Pope was to admit that what the Traditionalists say is true? That formally condemned errors are now the official teaching of the Church, and to be a good Catholic today one must adhere to formally condemned errors.

So, what sayest thou? What would you say if the Pope admitted that the Church now teaches formally condemned errors, and that the SSPX is wrong for not embracing these formally condemned errors that are now taught by the Church. If he clearly stated this, what would you say?

For instance?

I’m not going to play games of rhetoric. Chances are slim you are going to show something that hasn’t been seen here in the last four years.

In any case, I would question my understanding as I try to understand the Church. I admit that I do not know everything.

 

[Yours_Truly]

For instance?

I’m not going to play games of rhetoric. Chances are slim you are going to show something that hasn’t been seen here in the last four years.

I didn’t think you would answer that simple question.

In any case, I would question my understanding as I try to understand the Church. I admit that I do not know everything.

But I’m not talking about your understanding or interpretation. I’m talking about the Pope himself admitting that he and the rest of the hierarchy are teaching FORMALLY CONDEMNED errors of the Church, and further stating that to be in union with him a Catholic must adhere to said formally condemned errors.

If we get into particular examples you will deny a contradiction. You will claim that any quotes I produce are not substantially different than what is being taught today. Therefore, rather than us debating whether or not something is a contradiction, I am asking what you would say if the Pope himself admitted what you deny - that is, that the Church today is teaching exactly what was condemned by the previous Popes prior to Vatican II; and that the SSPX is wrong for not adhering to and embracing errors that have been formally condemned by the Church.

 

[pnewton]

If we get into particular examples you will deny a contradiction. You will claim that any quotes I produce are not substantially different than what is being taught today.

You are probably right. So why are you here? SSPX evangelists that come to convert faithful Catholics usually do not last long. If you have a point, and if it has to do with the topic out with it. I will answer your question not more than I will answer Mormons or JW’s at the door that try the same type of circular logic entrapment.

As Jesus said, “Neither will I answer your question.”

 

[TMC]

Rather than us getting off on that subject, I’ll just ask you to respond to the other part, which was my question. I’ll state it again.

What if the Pope was to admit that what the Traditionalists say is true? That formally condemned errors are now the official teaching of the Church, and to be a good Catholic today one must adhere to formally condemned errors.

So, what sayest thou? What would you say if the Pope admitted that the Church now teaches formally condemned errors, and that the SSPX is wrong for not embracing these formally condemned errors that are now taught by the Church. If he clearly stated this, what would you say?

The problem here is with the phrase “formally condemned errors.” The Church is never going to say that present teaching is in direct conflict with past “formally condemned errors.” The Church simply doesn’t work that way. Did the Council of Nicea or the Council of Trent ever say that the Church was wrong in the past and the Council was now teaching something that directly contradicted past teaching? They clarified the teaching, expressed it differently or more fully. The Church does the same today.

Why is this? Because the Truth doesn’t change - but our understanding of the Truth can deepen and grow. There is nothing taught today that is not consistent with the Truth taught from the beginning, but that is not the same thing as saying there is nothing taught today that is not different from what was taught in the past.

I constantly see posts here complaining that the Church has not explained how the teaching of today relates to the teaching of the past. That is simply untrue. The Church has discussed the topic ad nauseum. One of the more useful discussions is also one of the most quoted, and sometimes least understood – Pope Benedict’s 2005 Christmas address:

It is clear that this commitment to expressing a specific truth in a new way demands new thinking on this truth and a new and vital relationship with it; it is also clear that new words can only develop if they come from an informed understanding of the truth expressed, and on the other hand, that a reflection on faith also requires that this faith be lived.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/december/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_roman-curia_en.html

Read the whole thing, he addresses many specifics, as well as explaining the general thrust of the Council.

 

[PBTY]

YoursTruly,

Since pnewton evades your question of the Pope admitting formally condemned errors are now being taught, allow me to give an answer; I think the Pope has already admitted that and is exactly why he lifted the excommunications on the SSPX bishops. He admitted in his latest communication that the “flame” of Catholicism is in danger of being extinguished and he is well aware that he needs the SSPX and their adherence to traditional Catholic doctrine to help keep it alive. They’ve already proven that they are defenders of the Faith no matter how painful it has been for them (and they continue to be shamefully persecuted). There’s a reason the Pope wisely sees a necessity for doctrinal discussions on Vatican II.

 

[Yours_Truly]

You are probably right. So why are you here? SSPX evangelists that come to convert faithful Catholics usually do not last long. If you have a point, and if it has to do with the topic out with it. I will answer your question not more than I will answer Mormons or JW’s at the door that try the same type of circular logic entrapment.

As Jesus said, “Neither will I answer your question.”

I didn’t think you would answer, which is very interesting in itself. I won’t forget this conversation and in fact will probably be relating it often. You may even see me refer to it from time to time on these boards.

BTW, believe it or not, I am not SSPX. I am simply a Catholics who realizes that what the SSPX are holding to is nothing less than what the Church has always taught; and what they refuse to accept are errors that the Church has formally condemned.

 

[Yours_Truly]

Why is this? Because the Truth doesn’t change - but our understanding of the Truth can deepen and grow.

What you said is true, but we must be careful here. It is true that our understanding of truth grows, but the understanding never contradicts the previous understanding. Let’s use an example.

The Church always taught that the Eucharist was the body of Christ. Jesus taught it, St. Paul taught it, and the Church fathers taught it. This teaching developed using the metaphysics of St. Thomas in such a way that we now understand that the “substance” of the bread changes completely into the body, blood soul and divinity of Christ, while the “accidents” (that which is percieved by the senses) remains that of bread.

This is true developement, with no admixture of change. The Eucharist is still understood to be the body of Christ, only now it is understood with more specificity and clarity.

There is nothing taught today that is not consistent with the Truth taught from the beginning, but that is not the same thing as saying there is nothing taught today that is not different from what was taught in the past.

On the surface that statement seems false, but through charity I’ll assume you didn’t mean it the way I understood it.

One of the errors of the Liberals and Modernists is to claim that the doctrines handed down by Jesus are not necessarily to be believed always in the same way, but are to be adapted to the times. While they may not admit that the doctrine has changed, they accomplish the same by claiming that our “understanding” of the doctrine has changed with time. This is false and heretical. They are attempting to mask the condemned error of “evolution of doctrine” under the guise of developement of doctrine. To counter this error, the First Vatican Council taught the following:

Vatican I: "For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.

"Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

"May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding

Let us not be fooled by those who claim that our understanding of the doctrines changes. The doctrines do not change and neither does our understanding of them. Our understanding can increase, but always in “the same sense, and the same understanding”.

 

[Yours_Truly]

YoursTruly,

Since pnewton evades your question of the Pope admitting formally condemned errors are now being taught, allow me to give an answer; I think the Pope has already admitted that and is exactly why he lifted the excommunications on the SSPX bishops. He admitted in his latest communication that the “flame” of Catholicism is in danger of being extinguished and he is well aware that he needs the SSPX and their adherence to traditional Catholic doctrine to help keep it alive. They’ve already proven that they are defenders of the Faith no matter how painful it has been for them (and they continue to be shamefully persecuted). There’s a reason the Pope wisely sees a necessity for doctrinal discussions on Vatican II.

I hope you are right.

 

[Ottaviani]

All the more reason while I think the analogy is false. Modernism, as defined by St. Pius is not being taught by the Church. What we have to day is a media intensive, micro-break down of every action the Holy Father takes to see if there is a seed of heresy or, for some, to see if it can be twisted to make it look like heresy. We also have modernists in the Church that people love to point to as examples of the why the Church is in heresy. The strange irony is that this is one area in which some of the more extreme Traditionalist are just like the more extreme liberal media.

So you would say that the modernists in the church are a minority? This is obviously where we differ. I’ve seen, heard, and experienced them to be the vast, sweeping majority.

 

[Ottaviani]

BTW, believe it or not, I am not SSPX.

It should be pointed out that going to an SSPX chapel doesn’t make one “SSPX” any more than going to a Benedictine run parish makes one a “Benedictine”. No doubt you understand this, but I figured it was worth mentioning for the sake of those that don’t.

SSPX parishoners are Catholic, nothing more, nothing less, they choose only to avoid the novelties of this modern crisis.