Vatican warns traditionalists not to ordain priests

[EnchantedEve]

Citation please. If the Vatican didn’t allow for communion in the hand it would simply outlaw the practice. The Vatican might prefer and encourage reception only on the tongue but it does allow for communion in the hand.
Once again, citation please that communion in the hand is banned by the Holy See.
Cardinal Francis Arinze, who heads the Vatican’s worship congregation, responded by saying that arguments could be made for both Communion practices, in the hand and on the tongue, according to information released by the Vatican. Ultimately, he said, it’s up to bishops’ conferences to decide what is best in each country, but he added that Communion in the hand needs better catechesis.
Refusing to recognize the authority of an ecumenical council is a big deal. Refusing to follow canon law for ordinations is a big deal. Refusing to submit to the authority of the Holy See is a big deal. Those are all things Protest-ants do.
The SSPX can dress itself up in all the twisted and contorted logic it wants, but the fact remains they are not in full communion with Rome. Anyone who seeks ordination by them is participating in widing a rift with Rome and obviously has no desire to maintain the unity of the Church.

POPE PAUL VI (1963-1978). “This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Apostolic Epistle “Memoriale Domini”)

POPE JOHN PAUL II (197. "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11)

“It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.” (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)

Not to mention:
ST. SIXTUS I (115-125). Prohibited the faithful from even touching the Sacred Vessels: “Statutum est ut sacra vasa non ab aliis quam a sacratis Dominoque dicatis contrectentur hominibus…” [It has been decreed that the Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than by those consecrated and dedicated to the Lord.]
POPE ST. EUTYCHIAN (275-283). Forbad the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.

ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379). “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in time of persecution.” St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.

POPE ST. LEO I THE GREAT (440-461). Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.

SYNOD OF ROUEN (650). Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege. SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbad the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication.

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274). “Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Pars III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)

COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”

Even if one could argue that the Vatican since 1969 has not issued yet another decree explicitly against the practice, the fact that the US bishops know the Holy Father has written against it, the Church has condemned it, AND STILL DOES IT ANYWAY only confirms a rather “protestant” viewpoint, it would seem.

 

[bobzills]

POPE PAUL VI (1963-1978). “This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Apostolic Epistle “Memoriale Domini”)

POPE JOHN PAUL II (197. "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11)

“It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.” (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)

Not to mention:
ST. SIXTUS I (115-125). Prohibited the faithful from even touching the Sacred Vessels: “Statutum est ut sacra vasa non ab aliis quam a sacratis Dominoque dicatis contrectentur hominibus…” [It has been decreed that the Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than by those consecrated and dedicated to the Lord.]
POPE ST. EUTYCHIAN (275-283). Forbad the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.

ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379). “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in time of persecution.” St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.

POPE ST. LEO I THE GREAT (440-461). Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.

SYNOD OF ROUEN (650). Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege. SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbad the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication.

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274). “Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Pars III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)

COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”

Even if one could argue that the Vatican since 1969 has not issued yet another decree explicitly against the practice, the fact that the US bishops know the Holy Father has written against it, the Church has condemned it, AND STILL DOES IT ANYWAY only confirms a rather “protestant” viewpoint, it would seem.

But it looks to me like the Vatican has changed its teaching on this since there have been pictures of the Popes giving Communion in the Hand? Actually, I think they have changed the teaching on a whole lot of things since Vatican II. For example, the use of profane musical instruments and clowns at liturgical services; the use of women to distribute Holy Communion or to say the Communion service without head covering.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Refusing to recognize the authority of an ecumenical council is a big deal. Refusing to follow canon law for ordinations is a big deal. Refusing to submit to the authority of the Holy See is a big deal. Those are all things Protest-ants do.
The SSPX can dress itself up in all the twisted and contorted logic it wants, but the fact remains they are not in full communion with Rome. Anyone who seeks ordination by them is participating in widing a rift with Rome and obviously has no desire to maintain the unity of the Church.

I can only guess at your knowledge of this subject, based on what is written here, but there appears to be a misunderstanding about the nature of the SSPX argument. Bishop Fellay has himself affirmed the SSPX accepts Vatican II when interpreted in a traditional manner (though some may disagree): in DICI Bishop Fellay claimed SSPX accepted 95% of Vatican II, and stated regarding the Holy Father’s letter: “Far from wanting to stop Tradition in 1962, we wish to consider the Second Vatican Council and post-conciliar teaching in the light of this Tradition which St. Vincent of Lérins defined as “what has been believed at all times, everywhere and by all” (Commonitorium), without rupture and in a perfectly homogenous development. Thus we will be able to contribute efficaciously to the evangelization requested by the Savior (see Matthew 28; 19-20)”

“The Priestly Society of Saint Pius X assures Benedict XVI of its determination to enter into the doctrinal talks recognized as “requisite” by the Decree of January 21, with the desire to serve revealed Truth, which is the first act of charity to perform towards all men, Christians or non-Christians. It assures him of its prayers so that his faith fail not and that he may confirm his brethren. (cf. Luke 22:32)”

Even for the hard-liners, howvever, their hopes to have an ecumenical council revised or de-recognized is not without precedent. The Church has repudiated the Councils of Pisa, and the Fifth Council of Constantinople, once considered valid, and their results overturned or annuled. So rejecting a Council is not a much a “big-deal” as it would seem, though not without ramification and risk, of course. However, there is a precedent that a Council can be annulled or doubted in authority.

Again, I do not see where the SSPX has refused to submit to Rome’s authority. There may be certain matters to which they have disagreed, but unlike some traditional groups, (sedvacantists come to mind) the SSPX recognizes all the Holy Father’s encyclicals, even praising many, and defends the Pope against many calumnies both right and left. However, even in areas of disagreement, they have submitted to Rome to say they wish to discuss them to come to deeper understanding and reunion. If they truly rejected Rome, why would they bother? Most in the SSPV or sedevacantist groups could care less about Rome, so this type of activity on the SSPX part is a sign of goodwill, and it goes both ways. I do not see where being faithful means always having to be in 100% agreement. The Holy Father is not infallible in all things.

 

[EnchantedEve]

But it looks to me like the Vatican has changed its teaching on this since there have been pictures of the Popes giving Communion in the Hand? Actually, I think they have changed the teaching on a whole lot of things since Vatican II. For example, the use of profane musical instruments and clowns at liturgical services; the use of women to distribute Holy Communion or to say the Communion service without head covering.

This is not due to a change necessarily, but out of practicality. As I pointed out earlier, the Holy Father did this because of the widespread ignorance of proper reception in this country, and trying to distribute the proper way to all might cause difficulty (i.e. when in Rome…). However, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the Holy Father stemmed this tide in Italy, as well as in Poland, and so receiving in the hand was generally frowned upon in those countries, for example.

As for the other things you mention, nothing changed there, people just did what they wanted, regardless of what Rome thought. Certainly, Rome never approved of clowns or some of the other nonsense we often see now, but people did as they wished anyhow.

 

[bobzills]

This is not due to a change necessarily, but out of practicality. As I pointed out earlier, the Holy Father did this because of the widespread ignorance of proper reception in this country, and trying to distribute the proper way to all might cause difficulty (i.e. when in Rome…). However, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the Holy Father stemmed this tide in Italy, as well as in Poland, and so receiving in the hand was generally frowned upon in those countries, for example.

As for the other things you mention, nothing changed there, people just did what they wanted, regardless of what Rome thought. Certainly, Rome never approved of clowns or some of the other nonsense we often see now, but people did as they wished anyhow.

I read that Cardinal Ratzinger approved women leading the Communion service and giving out the Holy Communion.

 

[TMC]

I can only guess at your knowledge of this subject, based on what is written here, but there appears to be a misunderstanding about the nature of the SSPX argument. Bishop Fellay has himself affirmed the SSPX accepts Vatican II when interpreted in a traditional manner (though some may disagree): in DICI Bishop Fellay claimed SSPX accepted 95% of Vatican II, and stated regarding the Holy Father’s letter: “Far from wanting to stop Tradition in 1962, we wish to consider the Second Vatican Council and post-conciliar teaching in the light of this Tradition which St. Vincent of Lérins defined as “what has been believed at all times, everywhere and by all” (Commonitorium), without rupture and in a perfectly homogenous development. Thus we will be able to contribute efficaciously to the evangelization requested by the Savior (see Matthew 28; 19-20)”

“The Priestly Society of Saint Pius X assures Benedict XVI of its determination to enter into the doctrinal talks recognized as “requisite” by the Decree of January 21, with the desire to serve revealed Truth, which is the first act of charity to perform towards all men, Christians or non-Christians. It assures him of its prayers so that his faith fail not and that he may confirm his brethren. (cf. Luke 22:32)”

Even for the hard-liners, howvever, their hopes to have an ecumenical council revised or de-recognized is not without precedent. The Church has repudiated the Councils of Pisa, and the Fifth Council of Constantinople, once considered valid, and their results overturned or annuled. So rejecting a Council is not a much a “big-deal” as it would seem, though not without ramification and risk, of course. However, there is a precedent that a Council can be annulled or doubted in authority.

Again, I do not see where the SSPX has refused to submit to Rome’s authority. There may be certain matters to which they have disagreed, but unlike some traditional groups, (sedvacantists come to mind) the SSPX recognizes all the Holy Father’s encyclicals, even praising many, and defends the Pope against many calumnies both right and left. However, even in areas of disagreement, they have submitted to Rome to say they wish to discuss them to come to deeper understanding and reunion. If they truly rejected Rome, why would they bother? Most in the SSPV or sedevacantist groups could care less about Rome, so this type of activity on the SSPX part is a sign of goodwill, and it goes both ways. I do not see where being faithful means always having to be in 100% agreement. The Holy Father is not infallible in all things.

The SSPX accept Vatican II only in the sense that I can accept that grass is orange, by “interpreting” orange to be a new word for green. The Pope has said that the real problem with full communion for SSPX is doctrinal, and specifically acceptance of Vatican II and the teaching authority of the Magisterium.

I agree that there is plenty of precedent for groups agitating to change Church teachings. I support it and think its healthy. But I think there are two ways to go about dissenting. The first is to say, “I accept your authority to set Church doctrine, but I think you are wrong here and should change. In the meantime, I will teach the Faith the way you have instructed or not teach it at all.” The second is to say, “I cannot remain in a Church that teaches thus, so I am leaving. Let me know if you change your mind and I’ll come back.” SSPX is doing neither, it is not just saying that the Magisterium is wrong, it is saying that it lacks the authority to set the Catechism and to control ordinations. If that is what they believe, they should depart. If they do not wish to depart, they must accept the authority of Rome and work from within to change the things they perceive as broken. They are trying to have a little of each, and that is not on the menu.

 

[EnchantedEve]

I read that Cardinal Ratzinger approved women leading the Communion service and giving out the Holy Communion.

Out of curiousity, do you remember where you read this, and the context?

 

[EnchantedEve]

The SSPX accept Vatican II only in the sense that I can accept that grass is orange, by “interpreting” orange to be a new word for green. The Pope has said that the real problem with full communion for SSPX is doctrinal, and specifically acceptance of Vatican II and the teaching authority of the Magisterium.
I agree that there is plenty of precedent for groups agitating to change Church teachings. I support it and think its healthy. But I think there are two ways to go about dissenting. The first is to say, “I accept your authority to set Church doctrine, but I think you are wrong here and should change. In the meantime, I will teach the Faith the way you have instructed or not teach it at all.” The second is to say, “I cannot remain in a Church that teaches thus, so I am leaving. Let me know if you change your mind and I’ll come back.” SSPX is doing neither, it is not just saying that the Magisterium is wrong, it is saying that it lacks the authority to set the Catechism and to control ordinations. If that is what they believe, they should depart. If they do not wish to depart, they must accept the authority of Rome and work from within to change the things they perceive as broken. They are trying to have a little of each, and that is not on the menu.

I am relieved you say that it is healthy to agitate for change. Sometimes people on these forums make it sound as if we should just slavishly lie down and take whatever the Church dishes out to us, as if the hierarchy alone were the Church and not the laity.

Howvever, aside from that, I do not see where the SSPX is out of their depth if you follow their logic. They truly feel the Faith is endangered by some of the teachings of Vatican II. They are now getting what they always wanted- an opportunity to clarify and discuss these doctrines to understand how they fit in to the perennial magisterium. Think about it- Church leaders are telling you it is now okay to do thing that only 50 years ago in the 1917Code of Canon Law were a cause of grave sin, including public scandal (ecumenism). You are now told that aspects of the sacraments, as recently as Pope Pius XII’s apostolic letters, that were indispensible for their validity, are now substantially removed from that sacrament (ordination). The list could go on. You can at least see from their view point how much of this makes no sense, and unless clarified or better explained how can they follow it? As St. Paul himself said “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” (Galatian 1:8-9)

I agree that their approach at times pushes the mark, however this appears to be a question of prudence vs. boldness, a matter of style. I am not saying I agree with how the SSPX has handled every issue that comes its way, however surely you can admit that if one thinks something is flat out wrong, one would not teach that to others (possibly endangering their souls) just because the hierarchy tells you to. To do so would be absurd. But if what you perceive as error is being preached instead, would you not feel the need to counter it with orthodoxy? Would you sit on the sidelines and say “I am sitting this one out?” Certainly Our Lord would not expect us to. They feel they must disobey to respond to a higher call, whether they are right or wrong is what they a currently discussing with Rome.

Again, what you are saying about the SSPX is a distortion of their position. They feel they are taking these actions out of necessity, emergency, obeying God rather than men. They do not “believe” the Church does not have power over ordination, does not have authority over the Catechism, etc. They feel they are acting out of necessity, and certainly Canon Law is on their side, even if they were wrong. The matters in question are not small, and until they can affirm otherwise they feel compelled to act as they do, even if unconventional.

Again, I feel at times they are pushing the mark, and even sending out mixed signals. However, I feel their official position is a good one “We are not sure what happened at Vatican II, and we choose not to speculate until the Church reviews the question,” has merits, their personal opinions notwithstanding.

The time of decision may be fast approaching for SSPX, though, so let us pray that the Holy Trinity guides both sides in their desire to preach the Faith whole and entire.

 

[bobzills]

The SSPX accept Vatican II only in the sense that I can accept that grass is orange, by “interpreting” orange to be a new word for green. .

I don;'t know of anyone anywhere who has ever reported that the color of grass is orange. I know that without watering the color of grass will turn brown, but that is a different color. I believe that you are in error here and may be speaking of flowers which are orange, since the color of grass is not orange.

 

[bobzills]

Sometimes people on these forums make it sound as if we should just slavishly lie down and take whatever the Church dishes out to us, as if the hierarchy alone were the Church and not the laity. .

I believe that you are in error according to what was declared at Vatican I, according to which the Roman Pontiff has the plenitude of the full and supreme power of jurisdiction in all matters of aith and morals and discipline of the Church: “If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, or over the churches altogether and individually, and over the pastors and the faithful altogether and individually: let him be anathema.”

 

[EnchantedEve]

I believe that you are in error according to what was declared at Vatican I, according to which the Roman Pontiff has the plenitude of the full and supreme power of jurisdiction in all matters of aith and morals and discipline of the Church: “If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, or over the churches altogether and individually, and over the pastors and the faithful altogether and individually: let him be anathema.”

I fear I do not follow your logic here. No one is denying that the Supreme Pontiff is indeed supreme in all areas over which he had jurisdiction, but only in those areas. The Pope cannot make himself, for example, the Queen of England (although it would be fascinating to see him try!). Put in another way, the President of the United States is Commander in Chief of the armed forces, but does not posses the power to declare war on a foreign nation (the contrary notwithstanding). The lawgiver (i.e. the Constitution) did not give him this power, so even though he is ultimate head of the military, his power is limited by the law. The same goes for our Sovereign Pontiff. The Lawgiver Himself, Christ, gave the Holy Father power but not omnipotence. The Holy Father’s supreme power is real but limited by the law, and therefore our obedience relies on his faithfulness to that law. It is in interpreting his faithfulness to the Law that matters get complicated.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Pope Benedict made this very clear in his March 12, 2009 Papal Letter. In that letter the Pope said repeatedly that SSPX is not in full communion because of its doctrinal errors:
I am rejecting the baseless claim that there is any difference in teaching authority between the “pastoral” Vatican II and the previous councils. Not every word that drips from a council’s pen is infallible, but the standard for infallibility does not change from council to council. There is absolutely no basis for the claim that Pope John’s comments somehow stripped Vatican II of its teaching authority. Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul both made this perfectly clear. The Dogmatic Constitution of the Church published by Vatican II is THE Dogmatic Constitution of the Church. It is not the musings of a group of theologians, it is the authoritative teaching of the Church. Pope Benedict has said that SSPX will not gain full communion until they recognize that…

But SSPX is not so different. The Old Catholics have been in clear schism for over a hundred years. SSPX is in this twilight sort-of schism state, and has been for only twenty years. Its hard to pin down exactly what SSPX teaches; maybe they don’t have one official set of teachings yet. From what I have seen, they are already drifting fairly far from orthodox on certain issues. Since I know you will ask, I would include EENS and some related issues, as well as what I would call a tendency to meld their faith to match their cultural viewpoint. If the Pope can not bring them back into the fold, if they insist on taking their separate path, in a hundred years they will be as different as the Old Catholics are now, although probably in different ways.

Whew, finally found time to answer this one.

First of all, being in the state of doctrinal discussion does not automatically imply error. Even prior to the Council, theologians had their works examined by the then Holy Office and when necessary had canonical trials before their views were considered errors. It is absolutely true what the Holy Father says, and I have nothing to correct in it. Had there not been a doctrinal issue, the SSPX would never have been in the position it is in today and would actually probaly hold a status similar to FSSP. To interpret their doctrinal differences as automatic errors is unjust, and not in keeping with Church process. In fact, the Holy Father never even says they need to recant their errors, only not question Vatican II, and positive and negative “error” are two very different things which must be distinguished.

No one is denying (okay, except some sedes) that the Vatican II Council was a valid council with true teaching authority, only that there were some areas where they may have overstepped their bounds doctrinally. A Council, in all its authority, cannot make that which was always false true, and always a sin virtue. The two theological alternatives then would be that it was A) A false council. This has happened before, so it is not impossible to occur again. Or, (more probable) certain parts of the Council are obtuse or unclear, and therefore need further clarification to be followed. This happened with the Council of Pisa. The Council of Constance found the decisions at Pisa poorly considered and ill-informed and therefore threw out the entire council. This was a drastic example, but a future Council or even Holy Father could revise Vatican II to make it more “palatable” theologically. This is a very complex doctrinal and theological move, however, and will likely be brought up in Rome’s SSPX dialogues. If the Dogmatic Constitution contained error (whether this is true I am in no position to say, I use only for example) than it would be ipso facto false, and therefore not binding or infallible. A forged license is not license, and a false teaching is no teaching at all. Again, this will probably come up in SSPX dialogues.

Again, what erroneous doctrine condemns the SSPX? You mention the EENS issue, but what has this to do with SSPX? This is not even one of their top concerns!

I must repeat I fail to see the Old Catholic parallel in this response. The Old Catholics installed dissident doctrines in less than 10 years from the schism, even less than 5 years in some cases. The fact that SSPX has promoted no proven innovations is signifigant in this regard. The SSPX merely teaches the old pre-Vatican II view, and if that is considered error than we have larger problems than the SSPX. If a pope proclaims a new teaching does the old teaching become error? Can the Holy Father even make new teachings? One can see the dangerous patch this leads to. Unless doctrinal innovation can be found in SSPX, than it simply remains “old-fashioned” not erroneous. Please point to one area where the SSPX teaches clear error in contradiction to perennial Catholic teaching.

 

[TMC]

Whew, finally found time to answer this one.

First of all, being in the state of doctrinal discussion does not automatically imply error. Even prior to the Council, theologians had their works examined by the then Holy Office and when necessary had canonical trials before their views were considered errors. It is absolutely true what the Holy Father says, and I have nothing to correct in it. Had there not been a doctrinal issue, the SSPX would never have been in the position it is in today and would actually probaly hold a status similar to FSSP. To interpret their doctrinal differences as automatic errors is unjust, and not in keeping with Church process. In fact, the Holy Father never even says they need to recant their errors, only not question Vatican II, and positive and negative “error” are two very different things which must be distinguished.

No one is denying (okay, except some sedes) that the Vatican II Council was a valid council with true teaching authority, only that there were some areas where they may have overstepped their bounds doctrinally. A Council, in all its authority, cannot make that which was always false true, and always a sin virtue. The two theological alternatives then would be that it was A) A false council. This has happened before, so it is not impossible to occur again. Or, (more probable) certain parts of the Council are obtuse or unclear, and therefore need further clarification to be followed. This happened with the Council of Pisa. The Council of Constance found the decisions at Pisa poorly considered and ill-informed and therefore threw out the entire council. This was a drastic example, but a future Council or even Holy Father could revise Vatican II to make it more “palatable” theologically. This is a very complex doctrinal and theological move, however, and will likely be brought up in Rome’s SSPX dialogues. If the Dogmatic Constitution contained error (whether this is true I am in no position to say, I use only for example) than it would be ipso facto false, and therefore not binding or infallible. A forged license is not license, and a false teaching is no teaching at all. Again, this will probably come up in SSPX dialogues.

Again, what erroneous doctrine condemns the SSPX? You mention the EENS issue, but what has this to do with SSPX? This is not even one of their top concerns!

I must repeat I fail to see the Old Catholic parallel in this response. The Old Catholics installed dissident doctrines in less than 10 years from the schism, even less than 5 years in some cases. The fact that SSPX has promoted no proven innovations is signifigant in this regard. The SSPX merely teaches the old pre-Vatican II view, and if that is considered error than we have larger problems than the SSPX. If a pope proclaims a new teaching does the old teaching become error? Can the Holy Father even make new teachings? One can see the dangerous patch this leads to. Unless doctrinal innovation can be found in SSPX, than it simply remains “old-fashioned” not erroneous. Please point to one area where the SSPX teaches clear error in contradiction to perennial Catholic teaching.

I don’t agree with your view of the Pope’s comments. He said that the impediment to full reconciliation with SSPX is, and always has been, doctrinal, specifically acceptance of Vatican II and the authority of the Magisterium. I don’t know how that could mean anything other than that the Church’s view is that SSPX is in error on at least those two topics.

As for what their doctrinal errors are, I think that EENS is a major issue for SSPX and if I am right that they reject the Church’s teaching on salvation, that it a pretty big deviation. If EENS is not a big issue for them, what is? Everything I read from Bishop Lefebvre and the current leaders of SSPX seems to focus on ecumenism. It was always my impression that they reject ecumenism because they reject the notion that their is any value in other faiths or any chance for salvation for members of other faiths. If I am right about that, that is a significant deviation from the teaching of the Church.

As for whether its OK, or less bad, to hold to a rejected teaching, I don’t see how that is any different. At different times in Church history there have been different interpretations of the earthly Church’s role in salvation. At times the prevalent interpretation has been that formal membership in the Catholic Church is a prerequisite for salvation. Vatican II clarified that such a narrow view of salvation is not consistent with the deposit of faith. SSPX’s refusal to accept that an Ecumenical Council has the authority to make that clarification, or to otherwise teach the Faith in any way that does not accord with their personal opinion, is the real error that remains between the SSPX and full reconciliation.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

POPE PAUL VI (1963-1978). “This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Apostolic Epistle “Memoriale Domini”)

Are you kidding me? How on God’s blue marble called earth is a statement saying that one thing is to be retained mean that something else is banned? You’re failing Logic 101.

And let’s see what treply he Vatican’s Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship issued in 1977 in response to the US Bishops’ request for permission for communion in the hand::
In reply to the request of your conference of bishops regarding permission to give communion by placing the host on the hand of the faithful, I wish to communicate the following. Pope Paul Vl calls attention to the purpose of the Instruction Memoriale Domini of 29 May 1969, on retaining the traditional practice in use. At the same time he has taken into account the reasons given to support your request and the outcome of the vote taken on this matter. The Pope grants that throughout the territory of your conference, each bishop may, according to his prudent judgment and conscience, authorize in his diocese the introduction of the new rite for giving communion. The condition is the complete avoidance of any cause for the faithful to be shocked and any danger of irreverence toward the Eucharist.

POPE JOHN PAUL II (197. "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11)

Sigh, have you read this document? Do you know what the very next sentence states? Here it is: To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist. It is obvious that the Church can grant this faculty to those who are neither priests nor deacons, as is the case with acolytes in the exercise of their ministry, especially if they are destined for future ordination, or with other lay people who are chosen for this to meet a just need, but always after an adequate preparation.

“It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.” (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)

This has nothing to do with communion in the hand, it is about how the passing out of communion is to take place. Even extraordinary eucharistic ministers are to receive the chalice or ciborium from the priest and not just take it off the altar themselves.

You either have not read these documents or you are intentionally misleading about them.

Furthermore, in Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11 in clearly states:

In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See.

And later in the same section it refers to abuses that have resulted and goes on to state:
This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized.

Not only are you incorrect that communion in the hand is banned, the very documents you claim for support clearly explain that it is authorized by the Holy See. Nice try.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

New England, do rest assured that the proper citations will be provided he couldn’t have countered you more perfectly. Communion in the hand in the US as a whole is something to be looked down upon.

Yes, the citation that was given was from Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11. The only problem is that the very same section clearly states that communion in the hand is authorized by the Holy See.

Not to mention the fact that a good over half percentage of girls in modernized Churches dress horribly when they approach the body of Christ. This is what Vatican II’s lax and worldy stance is doing to the church. Catholic schools in the U.S. are horrible, I can’t even tell you how many people I have talked to who claim to be raised Catholic and actually think that “Catholics” are different from “Christians”.

Wow, let’s see what else we can throw around and see if it sticks? People dressing down for Mass has nothing to do with the official teachings of Vatican II nor does the state of Catholic schools or the thought process of the “average” Catholic. All irrelevant to the issue at hand.

 

[PetoOfVerum]

Yes, the citation that was given was from Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11. The only problem is that the very same section clearly states that communion in the hand is authorized by the Holy See.

Wow, let’s see what else we can throw around and see if it sticks? People dressing down for Mass has nothing to do with the official teachings of Vatican II nor does the state of Catholic schools or the thought process of the “average” Catholic. All irrelevant to the issue at hand.

First issue you are dead wrong, and by your own post you prove that, now who is in logical fallacy? You said
“It is obvious that the Church can grant this faculty to those who are neither priests nor deacons, as is the case with acolytes in the exercise of their ministry, especially if they are destined for future ordination, or with other lay people who are chosen for this to meet a just need, but always after an adequate preparation.” OOOk well, the people who receive Communion in the hand do not take any adequate preparation and the Holy See has described Communion to the mouth as “The Superior method”, as quoted and cited earlier in this thread. Therefore Priests should only administer the body of Christ in a “superior” way, to do otherwise would be sinful.

Besides what is with your name, Pries? Are you a Priest? Do you give Communion in the hand? Sounds like a chord is being struck. I have to laugh we are all Catholic and look at the inner turmoil we are bickering over, but it needs fixing. “What else we can throw?” Are you kidding me it’s BECAUSE OF VATICAN II’s extremely lax stance and changing of the Traditional Church that the American Church largely tolerates things like people “dressing down” at the mass. They don’t just “dress down” most of the younger girls at St. Paul’s Church in North Canton Ohio approach the Holy Eucharist dressed as whores, and it’s shameful. The state of Catholic schools has directly fallen because of Vatican II’s lax stances with regard to ecumenism and Church tradition.

On to the next bit of dribble you posted, “Not only are you incorrect that communion in the hand is banned, the very documents you claim for support clearly explain that it is authorized by the Holy See. Nice try.” You aren’t paying attention, those documents say exactly as Eve quoted them, and then the Church authorizes Communion in the hand, thus SSPX’s scoff at the absurd practice. Again, now who is committing logical fallacy? Your Apologetics for this are unfounded as they are defending a newly come about practice, Protestants receive in the hand, with the early Church this wouldn’t be an issue. People knew better than to receive by hand.

 

[PetoOfVerum]

Are you kidding me? How on God’s blue marble called earth is a statement saying that one thing is to be retained mean that something else is banned? You’re failing Logic 101.

You are just being silly now, by saying Communion on the tongue must be retained one logically can infer that to do that, one would not receive it in the hand, you sir, are failing logic 101, you Apologetic skills regarding inter-Church matters are weak at best, and directed toward the wrong view point. Why are you so against a return to the traditional ways anyway?

 

[EnchantedEve]

Yes, the citation that was given was from Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11. The only problem is that the very same section clearly states that communion in the hand is authorized by the Holy See.
Wow, let’s see what else we can throw around and see if it sticks? People dressing down for Mass has nothing to do with the official teachings of Vatican II nor does the state of Catholic schools or the thought process of the “average” Catholic. All irrelevant to the issue at hand.

It is true that the matter of dress is irrelevant to our case here, however, I believe our confrere was merely trying to point out that the general attitude toward the Holy Eucharist is lacking in something , and at the minimum current practices do not seem to be helping to increase reverence.

I think you will find that nowhere did I say the Holy See had banned Communion in the hand, and I do not wish to be misread. I think you will observe there is a big difference between permit and tolerate, between “You can, if you must,” and “Of course, your more than welcome.” One could not help but observe that other than the post-Vatican II pontiffs, no comment was raised concerning the dissaproval of the practice prior to the Council. Is the pre-Vatican II Church irrelevant? Do they not speak to us as clearly as the current Holy Fathers do? Does not their concerns any more matter?

It appears observable from the nature of the Pontiff’s writings, it seems that a spirit of “Since you insist. it is possible to do,” can be found in the language of these documents. Look at the language yourself: “The Church can…,” “authorized” etc. Nowhere does the Holy Father act as if he is endorsing or approving of the practice, only that it is permitted under certain conditions.

Speaking of those conditions, it does not appear even those are often met: “The condition is the complete avoidance of any cause for the faithful to be shocked and any danger of irreverence toward the Eucharist.” I think we can justifiably say that the introduction of this manner of giving Holy Communion, at least in this country, was not handled in this way, and that many bishops have imposed it regardless of the faithful’s welfare or concern. Stories of abuse of this practice are legion, yet this seems to not bother some now since “the Holy See permits it.” The exact concerns many of the saints elicited regarding this practice are ringing true and sacraliges are occuring. How can the bishops ignore this?

Do not examples like this cause even a moment of hesitation:
SYNOD OF ROUEN (650). Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.
SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbad the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication.

Not to mention the others. The Church and saints have consistently disapproved of this practice, so even if the Holy See permits it under certain conditions (which are not generally observed), we should still avoid it. How could someone justify supporting a practice under these conditions? Is not observable that there is a clear contradiction between what was once prohibited and now “permitted”?

However, I will cite of more examples of Roman reservation to further elaborate on this theme:

Inaestimabile Donum #10. "The faithful, whether religious or lay, who are authorized as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist can distribute Communion only when there is no priest, deacon or acolyte, when the priest is impeded by illness or advanced age, or when the number of the faithful going to Communion is so large as to make the celebration of Mass excessively long. [Cf. Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction “Immensae caritatis,” no. 1.]

You also see how the Code of Canon Law treats extraordinary ministers as uncommon: books.google.com/books?id=X5rcnhLnRYMC&lpg=PA1105&ots=ExnbqmIFVE&dq=pontifical%20commission%20authentic%20interpretation%20February%2020th%201987&pg=PA1105.

It seems that if Rome is this reticent about regular distribution and handling of Sacred Vessels by the laity duly deputized, than how much more so for just the average lay person regularly handling the Sacred Host.

Again, there was no precedent for the Holy See tolerating this practice, and the fact that it does tolerate it, even though it evidently sees a problem with regular handling of the Sacred Host by laity, shows exactly the degree to which Rome has changed its approach, even to Church discipline, since Vatican II. Does this not cause at least some concern? Does this extraordinary change not give at least some pause?

 

[EnchantedEve]

I don’t agree with your view of the Pope’s comments. He said that the impediment to full reconciliation with SSPX is, and always has been, doctrinal, specifically acceptance of Vatican II and the authority of the Magisterium. I don’t know how that could mean anything other than that the Church’s view is that SSPX is in error on at least those two topics.

As for what their doctrinal errors are, I think that EENS is a major issue for SSPX and if I am right that they reject the Church’s teaching on salvation, that it a pretty big deviation. If EENS is not a big issue for them, what is? Everything I read from Bishop Lefebvre and the current leaders of SSPX seems to focus on ecumenism. It was always my impression that they reject ecumenism because they reject the notion that their is any value in other faiths or any chance for salvation for members of other faiths. If I am right about that, that is a significant deviation from the teaching of the Church.

As for whether its OK, or less bad, to hold to a rejected teaching, I don’t see how that is any different. At different times in Church history there have been different interpretations of the earthly Church’s role in salvation. At times the prevalent interpretation has been that formal membership in the Catholic Church is a prerequisite for salvation. Vatican II clarified that such a narrow view of salvation is not consistent with the deposit of faith. SSPX’s refusal to accept that an Ecumenical Council has the authority to make that clarification, or to otherwise teach the Faith in any way that does not accord with their personal opinion, is the real error that remains between the SSPX and full reconciliation.

I must again emphasize that it appears you are making more of what the Holy Father is saying that what is actually there. The popes do not generally beat around the bush, and if there were errors to be condemned, the current Holy Father especially would be the first to specify them. The fact that he does not seems to indicate that the matters of doctrinal disagreement are still be flesched out, and that is the nature both of the SSPX situation and of the foreward going dialogue. I cannot see how you can read so much into such a brief statement (two errors, no less!).

Your statements on Church teaching regarding salvation appear to be very much in error, and hold no correlation to the traditional teaching.

First, the statements about the SSPX view about EENS are vague, so I cannot tell what point you are trying to make about them. Nevertheless, the Church teaching is clear, and the interpretation you seem to present here is not it. How can Vatican II “clarify” a view that is set in stone dogmatically? The “narrow” view of formal membership is the orthodox view. While it is true some rare exceptions apply, they do not apply to most situations, including rejection of Catholicism and regular membership in a non-Catholic sect.

How else does one reinterprit this:

“The Catholic Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Cantate Domino, Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence)

This was infallibly defined by the Church. How does one clarify this to have another meaning? It seems the example you gave of calling grass orange etc. applies here in triplicate. Numerous pontiffs have expounded on this theme over and over again, so there is no room left to “clarify” the doctrine of the Church into another meaning. What exactly do you perceive Vatican II clarified, may I ask? What was unclear before? What deposit of Faith did Eugene IV, Boniface VIII, Pius IX, Pius X, Pius XII, et al. miss out on that they defined doctrine contrary to it. and which Vatican II suddenly rediscovered?

I yet again fail to see where you are bringing your point from. The SSPX is not attempting to defend it’s “personal opinion” against Church teaching. They are attempting to defend previous Church teaching against perceived novelties. Again, they never said an ecumenical council did not have authority over doctrine. They are saying a council cannot redefine an already defined dogma. It simply is not in its power. How can you keep saying they are acting in a manner which they are clearly not? A rejected teaching? Can an ecumenical council reject infallible dogmas? I strongly urge you to give us real examples of SSPX errors, from their own words, and what exactly they contradict in Church teaching. Making undocumented assertions about their presumed errors does not give us evidence to deal with. Your gracious sharing of this information would greatly help us to understand exactly where these “errors” arise from. I truly appreciate your sharing this with us.

 

[EnchantedEve]

I would like to again emphasize that Vatican II did not define anything and did not bind the faithful to believe in doctrines of Council as defined truths, since the Council was pastoral in nature and solemnly defined nothing. To again emphasize the pastoral nature of the Council, I add further references:

“The magisterium of the Church did not wish to pronounce itself
under the form of extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements…” --Pope Paul
VI, discourse closing Vatican II, December 7, 1965

“There are those who ask what authority, what theological
qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it
avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible
teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar
declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the
pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary
manner any dogmata carrying the mark of infallibility.” --Pope Paul VI,
General Audience of January 12, 1966

“Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic,
but disciplinary and pastoral.” --Pope Paul VI, August 6, 1975, General
Audience

EXPLANATORY NOTE OF THE THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION OF THE COUNCIL
ADDENDUM TO “LUMEN GENTIUM”

    The Notificatio of March 6, 1964, of the Theological Commission of

the
Council concerning the authority of the Council was as follows: “In view of
the conciliar practice and THE PASTORAL PURPOSE OF THE PRESENT COUNCIL, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only
when the Synod itself openly declares so” [Ex Actis Ss. Oecumenici Concilii
Vaticani II, Notificationes Factae ab Exc.mo Secretario Generali Ss. Concilii
in Congregatione Generali CXXIII diei XVI Nov. MCMLXIV].

THEOLOGICAL NOTE OF THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE COUNCIL

    The Council's General Secretary, Pericle Cardinal Felici, Cardinal

Prefect of the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, the Church’s
highest theological tribunal, issued the “theological note” of the
council, i.e., the level of theological authority of the particular
council: “We have to distinguish according to the schemata and the
chapters those which have already been the subject of dogmatic
definitions in the past; as for the declarations that have a novel
character, we have to make reservations.”

and of course:

The Cardinal Prefect of the Supreme Sacred
Congregation of the Holy Office (Doctrine of the Faith) later confirmed
this theological note: “The truth is that this particular council
defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest
level, as a merely pastoral council” (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now His Holiness Benedict XVI, Prefect
of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, El Mercurio, July 17,
1988).