Rorate Caeli

Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta chairman of the SSPX commission

The Argentinian Catholic website Panorama Católico Internacional published this week the news that the current Rector of the Seminary of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) in Argentina, Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, has been named chairman of the SSPX side of the joint Vatican-SSPX commission in charge of the theological discussions.

Panorama adds that sources "close to the SSPX" inform that the Bishop will remain as rector in Argentina for the moment, but may change if his duties in Europe (that is, as part of the commission) deprive him from the time that is deemed necessary for the activities of the seminary.

102 comments:

Irenaeus of New York said...

My hope for this dialog is first and foremost, that the RCC will issue an unambiguous clarification of the more misunderstood documents that came out of Vatican II. Sadly, I don't expect such a clarification will go far enough for many in the SSPX...I am reminded of the Eastern Orthodox demanding Vatican I be scrapped or diminished to a local council before any fruitful talks can be had.

Tanqueray said...

I anticipate the SSPX getting beaten up pretty badly in these discussions.

Having studied with the Jesuits and later at Econe briefly, I have first hand experience of the intellectual disparity between mainstream theology and that of the Society.

The SSPX are very much stuck in dusty "manual theology" of the late 19th century. They do not understand or have an appreciation for the advanced theology and scholarship of the past century.

They are pragmatists concerned only with busy parochial matters. Theology that extends any further than the basic concerns of parish life does not register.

This is fine. The Church needs its pragmatists. What is odd, however, is that rather than humbly submitting to those with far greater learning, those who are engaged in wrestling deep theological matters as a occupation, they instead wag the finger arrogantly.

In this way they are not terribly far removed from those "bible Christians" who, not understanding theology, condemn everyone to hell who questions their simplistic interpretation of the bible.

Anyway. We will see. Interesting times...

Oliver said...

One never knows the hidden forces behind this futile drive for V2 clarifications after forty years of apostasy in Rome. But one must be reminded of the broad strategies likely to be employed by the parties and speculate on whether these may change over a long drawn out period of discussion. The Vatican will doubtless use its ability to interpret generously what was written during those years of reforming zeal and try hard to give the Society what it wants to hear. And the Society will for its part put to good use its experience over decades of translating Vatican-speak. The outcome should be more a clarification of the life on two planets than of the so obvious Vatican 2 goals. But it seems we must have these talks to round off Ratzinger's interest in bringing the traditionalist remnant into his broad church and for the Society to signify that it is a big fish in the Catholic world. Contradiction and linguistic acrobatics will know no equal in this whole affair. Post-Ratzinger, people will ask why this thing was ever entertained in the first place.

Peter said...

Tanqueray: Calling the 20th century theology "advanced" is a misunderstanding, as abstract and mysterious for the uninitiated profanes as it may be it's just diving in the false philosophies that have originated among the Protestants.

It's virtual reality, not theology. I bet you have learned the contempt you're treating thomism with from the modern Jesuits. It's popular among them.

Classic theology can't be "beaten" by some hegelian phantasies, just like truth can't be "beaten" by imagination. They just may don't understand each other since they talk about different things and live in different worlds.

That the SSPX didn't try to push theology further and has "stuck" in "obscurantism" (or any other insult the modern so-called theologians like to use to belittle traditional doctrine and beliefs) is a real blessing.

After all, the discussions are about the VERY BASICS.

Anonymous said...

Tanqueray:

You're kidding, right? I mean that the Modernists are legends in their own minds but the rest of us do not associate overcomplexity with intelligence.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I'll venture a prediction or three:

1. The two parties will start with the easier qq. so that victories in understanding can propel them forward. Rome needs an excuse to 'recognise' the Society faculties early on. Why? Because the Society will not accept any juridical structure in the foreseeable future and the Pope does not want to leave this problem insoluble into the next pontificate. I expect them to discuss liturgy, the Sacraments, and the status of Council documents first. Once there are certain victories, the Pope can declare that they are 'Catholic' through and through, no matter how 'limited' their understanding may be. And that can accompany a unilateral declaration that their faculties are all valid on grounds of an honest belief that there is an emergency situation.

2. After some clarifications in the Society's favour, then come the tougher issues, esp. religious liberty and œcumenism. Rome's strategy, in the end, will be to declare that the Society's positions are all (or almost all) completely acceptable Catholic positions, but then she will refuse to impose same on the rest of the Church.

3. At some point, the Society will demand that anathemas be attached to specific positions contrary to its own, and it will paraphrase leading liberals' statements for this purpose. At this point, Rome will undertake to consider the proposals and to decide them 'in due course', which means never (or at least not in our lifetimes).

4. At a certain point, when there is an impasse, to avoid an irrevocable break, Rome will declare a period of 'prayerful reflection' and undertake to resume the talks at the appropriate juncture, which means until after all the Vatican II periti have died off.


As for this bumk about the Roman theologians being more brilliant than Newton and Bach, this is the usual liberal intellectualism, which confuses complexity with truth. The two are sometimes aligned but usually not. Satan has the mind of a Vatican II theologian, I'm sure.

What we see in 'sophisticated' liberal theologians is arrogance and pride and a trust in their own abilities. Good theology is all about letting God tell us what the truth consists in, and He is not there to confuse us. God is not some Christan version of Karl Marx but quite the opposite. In fact, He is perfectly simple in His perfection.

The old manual theology of the nineteenth century, however unsubtle, has the value of simply being correct. Being right does have its advantages, I suppose.

P.K.T.P.

Gideon Ertner said...

"Calling the 20th century theology "advanced" is a misunderstanding, as abstract and mysterious for the uninitiated profanes as it may be it's just diving in the false philosophies that have originated among the Protestants."

Let's leave that up to Rome to decide, shall we?

Mar said...

Tanqueray, it seems you've missed the mark. The point is not whether the SPPX will get beaten up pretty badly in these discussions but whether they will defend with all their strength the perennial teachings of the Church against the "mainstream theologians" you hold in such awe. It is as simple as that. And if you seriously think that the SPPX are "pragmatists concerned only with busy parochial matters" you reveal your ignorance and you'd better think again.

To get a more accurate picture of what those "engaged in wrestling deep theological matters as a (sic) occupation" are doing these days I suggest you have a look at this website:

http://goodjesuitbadjesuit.blogspot.com/2009/08/new-definition-for-ruined-for-life.html

Oliver, you too have missed the mark. In what appears to be essentially a counsel of despair
you demonstrate a very superficial understanding of what is going on, and your glib and cliche-like observations fail to convince.

Interesting to see who is coming out of the woodwork to comment on the imminent discussions. Not the usual Rorate clientele apparently.

Timothy Mulligan said...

Tanqueray, we worship a God who became a baby, was crucified and Who gives Himself to us under the appearance of a piece of bread. Sophistication and self-importance don't seem to hold much truck with Him. Bet on the SSPX.

John said...

Anyone else find it ironic that dialogue (i.e., ecumenism) is agreed by all as the way forward for the SSPX and Rome?

Comical...

Angelo said...

Tanqueray

May I suggest that you read "A History of Modernism: From Aristotle to Vatican II" by Fr. Dominique Bourmaud, Angelus Press?
A reading of the text by this erudite scholar will dispel the notion that the Society is caught in some sort of theological time warp.

Gideon Ertner said...

PKTP,

I find your analysis of the FSSPX talks brilliant. However, regarding 19th century theology, for all its "unsubtlety" and objective truthfulness it could not stem the tide of Secularism and Modernism and the progressive loss of the sense of the transcendent dimension and of the value of authority.

Brian said...

"regarding 19th century theology, for all its 'unsubtlety' and objective truthfulness it could not stem the tide of Secularism and Modernism and the progressive loss of the sense of the transcendent dimension and of the value of authority."

What was needed was not Congar, De Lubac, and Schillebeeckx; but rather, St. Teresa of Avila.

She, of course would never have been able to understand the "advanced theology and scholarship" of "those with far greater learning, those who are engaged in wrestling deep theological matters as a occupation."

Paul Haley said...

Tanqueray,

Since you have allied yourself with "mainstream theology" perhaps you could tell us poor intellectually challenged folk what it is that the SSPX must accept that is not in accord with what the Church has always held, taught and professed to be true from day one? And, while you're at it, perhaps you could tell us what the SSPX holds that is different from what the Church has always held and professed to be true. Good luck doing so.

Sean said...

Gideon, you said...

"However, regarding 19th century theology, for all its "unsubtlety" and objective truthfulness it could not stem the tide of Secularism and Modernism and the progressive loss of the sense of the transcendent dimension and of the value of authority."

The Gospels, for all their sublime beauty and objective truth, haven't converted the Moslems either.

So what's your point?

Sean

Anonymous said...

Anyone else find it ironic that dialogue (i.e., ecumenism) is agreed by all as the way forward for the SSPX and Rome?

Comical...


It's not dialogue. They demand "clarification". Everybody, whether faithful or not, has right to demand it, because Truth is for everybody.

Let's leave that up to Rome to decide, shall we?

Rome has already condemned the ideas of "brilliant, modern theologians". The problem is whether they're ready to recollect that.

Wm. Christopher Hoag said...

Tanquery said: "Having studied with the Jesuits and later at Econe briefly, I have first hand experience of the intellectual disparity between mainstream theology and that of the Society."

I was at Winona and then studied under the Jesuits and then at Catholic University of America. I agree that the FSSPX is headed for one monumental smack-down from the CDF in this dialogue.

The FSSPX are theological midgets compared to many of the persons at Rome's disposal.

Biggus Headdus said...

P.K.T.P.:

"this is the usual liberal intellectualism, which confuses complexity with truth."

"Satan has the mind of a Vatican II theologian, I'm sure."


What you said above is priceless and brought a smile to my face!

Brian said...

A sermon which Bishop de Galarreta gave on March 15 is roughly translated here:
http://sspx-cagayandeoro.blogspot.com/search/label/Bishop%20de%20Galarreta

Bishop Galarreta reports that the SSPX was offered almost unconditional practical canonical solutions, which they reject. He explains:

In January, on days when the decree was published we received before, of course we are offered two times higher than absolutely canonical solutions which people have accepted as priests or as fields of the Institute of the Good Shepherd. That is, we are offering solutions canonical almost unconditionally, yet reject. Why?

Bishop Galarreta explains the reason that the SPXX rejects such practical solutions is because doing so would restrict their ability to confront Rome about the doctrinal “demolition” of the faith since Vatican II, which they argue is important for the Church.

Because that puts us in an ambiguity as to the public confession of faith and, secondly, because it throws us into the dynamics of a purely practical arrangement that puts us in the royal order, under his command and influence.

. . . we have said many times and I repeat it, since we, the successor of Monsignor Lefebvre, come into contact with Rome, made it clear that absolutely exclude a purely practical. Neither seek nor accept it or are willing to receive it. We know that it would be the end of our struggle, because how can we get down to and obey the orders of those we send them the systematic demolition of the Faith and the Church, embracing modernism and liberalism?

. . . this is also our position, practically unanimous position of the fraternity, we are ready to doctrinal confrontation with Rome. We are ready to go to witness to the true faith and where we must really where you can solve this crisis in the Church, which is in Rome.

. . . that is what the Pope proposes and what the Pope said. And so will include the Commission Ecclesia Dei, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is, at long last recognized that the issue is doctrinal and faith, and finally agree to discuss and agreed to discuss the Second Vatican Council. That, at least to our eyes, is a big step.


Looking at Tanqueray’s above opinion from a different perspective, Bishop Galarreta compares the theological discussions with Rome to David and Goliath:

Nor, obviously, is beyond us that is a struggle disproportionately. Do not ignore the disparity of this struggle, which is like David and Goliath. We are very small, we have very few resources compared to everything that this institution and this machinery of the Vatican. However-and it certainly will take things very carefully and with great caution, do not believe we're going to go anyway, or in any condition. That we will go is not to say that we are willing to do it anyway. We will, as far as we can, with caution, vigilance and distrust each other.

In contrast to Tanqueray’s comment, however, Bishop Galarreta is confident of the outcome will be a victory for the Catholic Faith against the liberalism and modernism of post-Vatican II theology.

But then again, I remind you that it was David who won the battle, and not Goliath. And David won the battle because their cause was the cause of God. And what he was looking for its own sake or his own glory but the glory of God, and because it was in God's name-in-nomine Domini and because confidence in God. I do not see why we would have to fall into fearful attitudes, faint-hearted or half-hysterical, because they simply have to go to because of our faith wherever we have to go and where we know that will resolve this crisis. It is precisely what we are fighting for forty years to have this possibility.

humboldt said...

I really have my misgivings that this so called "discussion" between the SSPX and the Holy See will, by itself, fix the crisis that has engulfed the Catholic Church for such a long time. It is preposterous to expect that a small community, which in general is despised by the Conciliar Catholic Church, which is the supermajority in the present Catholic Church , will have the power to do away with all that is wrong in the Church. As long as the Pope does not put his heart and soul to fixing the problems of the Catholic Church, nothing will happen. We need a pope with the will of a Gregory the Great, and Benedict XVI is no Gregory the Great. I just hope that the SSPX will be able to secure her position as defender of the Tradition of the Church in today's times.

Anonymous said...

Hoag makes this risible claim:

"The FSSPX are theological midgets compared to many of the persons at Rome's disposal."

Again we see the intellectual pride of the left rearing its ugly head. If Rome's thinkers were so amazingly brilliant, how can one explain the disaster which has befallen the Church while they were ruling her? THey didn't just get it wrong: they got the polar opposite of the truth on every count. They are not just incompetent; they are idiots.

The incorrect assumption here is that this is a rugby match between two teams. On the Rome team, we have all the best athletes. WHat they have to say is so complex that even they don't understand their own pronouncments. It's incredibly 'intellectual'. On the Ecône team, there isn't a Rahner to be found. All their players are cripples. Some have broken knees, some are missing intellectual limbs, some can't stand up.

But that is a misrepresentation. The players on the Ecône team are fools for Christ but they have God on their side. On the Rome team, we have the Modernist theologians, who are like Milton's Satan, endlessly imaginative but always trapped by their own egos and their own errors, turning and twisting in a self-referential loop which leads only back to the dust they are.

Rome cannot say that Ecône is wrong because then the Church of 2,000 years was wrong. Rome can only say that the Church allows perspectives other than those which Ecône insists on. And that is what the Modernist theologians at Rome will do, mainly for political reasons.

To reiterate, in the end, Rome will say that Ecône's views are are (or almost all) permitted (however laughingly simplisic) but she will refuse to condemn and anathematise other, more Hegelian and more advanced views. That will create an impasse and a suspension of the talks for a long time. Eventually, the liberal losers will die off and we can get back to truth, which has nothing to do with the endless compmlexities of Luther or Hegel. Truth comes from its Absolute source (on a level NOBODY shares, Jordanes) to us. It is for us merely to accept it into our hearts. All others pay cash.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I agree with most (even all) of what Humbolt has to say here. But I think that Benedict XVI merely hopes to begin a process. Let the next Gregory the Great complete it! The task does indeed look impossible. NewChurch does indeed have a 'supermajority' (excellent term, by the way). But I suggest that all the Rahnerite and other errors go back to two or three simple mistakes. They have created a complexus of confusion but it all goes back to three or four Satanic heresies. Denouonce those heresie and their entire superstructure collapses like a deck of cards. It is like a house filled with dry rot. Benedict XVI was trying to figure out what to do about it. While considering this, he leaned on a counter and fell right through the wall. Of course, the dry rot partly proceeded out of his own mind some decades ago .... But the greatest man is the one who recognises a mistake and is good enough and man enough to admit it (hint, hint, to someone on here).

P.K.T.P.

poeta said...

Why all this talk of the SSPX getting "beaten up" or "smacked down"? Is that really meant to be either the purpose or tone of these discussions? I for one am glad that Rome is not speaking in such pugilistic terms.

Anonymous said...

I appreciated Tanqueray's comment.

Etienne Gilson expressed his deep frustration with the manual theology for "its out-of-date methods, its lack of historical sense, the ignorance of or the snobbish inability to understand the latest research, the need to create heretics to cup up, in short... a spirit quite unlike the Angelic Doctor's."

Paul Haley said...

The concept that the SSPX are "theological midgets" about to be eaten alive is preposterous on its face. Why? For over 20 years the SSPX has been working on the sidelines for the restoration of the true Faith and Mass and, guess what, they are still alive and well. In fact, many think were it not for them and many independents like them we would not have seen Summorum Pontificum and the slow but steady turn towards Tradition in the Church at large.

Jordanes said...

Truth comes from its Absolute source (on a level NOBODY shares, Jordanes) to us.

I'm so very glad we agree, Mr. Perkins.

Everyone: let's all of us watch our tones, and endeavor to avoid strident or immoderate rhetoric, especially as regards the sensitive and crucial matter of the theological dialogue between the Holy See and the SSPX.

Anonymous said...

I will say that if the SSPX goes into theological discussions with the same misconceptions as many posters here -- that students of Rahner and students of de Lubac, of Kung and of von Balthasar, Schillebeeckx and Congar all agree with each other, much less like each other -- then the SSPX will learn a LOT!

Anonymous said...

To say that "SSPX are "theological midgets" is really exaggerated. There are brilliant members amongst them, how do you think they got this far? It would be nice if they would present a united front on so many of issues. Let us pray for all involved.

Bryan Dunne said...

In that letter accompanying the Motu Proprio Summorum Pont. the Holy Father said:

"Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to enable,(sic) for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew."

I think Pope Benedict sees that it is necessary to engage now and with urgency with the SSPX and "to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity" before the SSPX move to a second generation of Bishops. This is the critical moment.

For me, one of the elements of the SSPX consecrations that few comment on is that the four bishops for the SSPX have never lost their unity and gone off on their own. They have never, either separately or together, consecrated other Bishops. They have remained united. Yes priests of the SSPX have left them to found for example the SSPV but these groups (SSPV etc)have been on the whole sedevacantist and have repudiated the SSPX Bishops.

As the Bishops age it will be necessary for the SSPX to consecrate further Bishops if they are to be able to continue to ordain priests for the Society.

Pope Benedict is therefore right to do all he can to reconcile the SSPX now before this may happen.

I would only add that in these talks I am sure the SSPX will have no trouble in putting forward their views, even if the Vatican does employ their best Theologians. After all, the SSPX have been discussing, thinking about and contemplating the doctrinal problems that Vatican II raises since the 1970's. Therefore one would hope and expect the Vatican to use their best theologians to discuss these issues. They are unlikely to be easy discussions.

Bryan Dunne

M.A. said...

You know what is laughable? To imagine that Tanqueray's admiration and appreciation "for the advanced theology and scholarship of the past century" is shared by the Church suffering and the Church Trimuphant!

LeonG said...

"I anticipate the SSPX getting beaten up pretty badly in these discussions."

This cannot be a serious remark. The ruination post-conciliar liberal modernism has has inflicted on the neo-catholic church indicates severe anomalies which have been and continue to be well-documented. In addition, the fact that most of the new church fails to comprehend what exactly which direction its institution is going in indicates abundant confusion and lack of clarity. The NO liturgy is a case in point as the liturgical flagship of the modernist era - there are countless permutations and horrific abuses. Its presbyterate is disappearing and, finally, some of the older hierarchs have at last had the courage to speak out now they do not have jobs to lose. Furthermore, by reading Professor Amerio and other learned commentators on the modern church it is transparently obvious that there is a paradigm change in what is being narrated to us as "catholicism". It is nothing more than a new philosophy with strong anthropocentric emphasis that seeks compromise with the world.

Even Our Blessed Lady had revealed as much at Akita - a divided leadership tainted with the spirit of compromise. A message which is approved by the church itself. A church which has lost its way as objective evidence demonstrates. A church which needs to rediscover the sure pathway of Sacred Tradition and the authentic interpretation of Sacred Scriptures.

Anonymous said...

I anticipate Rome getting beaten up pretty badly in these discussions. We have already seen that the Modernist theologians and Vatican II periti are so stupid that they almost destroyed the Catholic Church. Devils from hell could hardly have done more damage. We shall see if the Romans will be honest enough to stop trying to confuse one another and face the simple Truth which comes from God. The S.S.P.X has done nothing but preserve that Truth. The Society is not prideful enough to try to add to it.

Let's hope that the Society theologians can expose the subjectivist first principles of the Romans so that twentieth-century theology can be ditched in the trashcan where it belongs, along with twentieth century music and cubism.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Some worship Jean-Paul Sartre, some worship Karl Rahner, some worship Christ. Rahner is far mroe interesting than Christ: Rahner even gives himself headaches reflecting on his own brilliance. After listening Sartre or Foucault or Derrida, students have been seen reeling, having to grab at bookcases to prevent a collapse from dizziness, so overwhelmed are their tiny minds. One can weave almost endless nonsense out of two or three fundamental errors. Entire schools of thought lead nitwits on wild goosechases to nether worlds. But we who trust in Christ allow Him to lead us. Our doctrine is given unto us, not devises by us. Our Mass is given by God the Holy Ghost, not concocted in committee by heretics on the advice of six Protestant ministers.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I'm a bit disappointed that de Galarreta will be leading these discussions for the Society. I specifically requested that Williamson lead them. Oh, well.

P.K.T.P.

Traditional Seminarian said...

Many of the old manuals are quite excellent at accomplishing the mission for which they were intended: training parish clergy. Others, however, as a professor once warned my class, are tainted by Suarez and are not really faithful to St Thomas. I hope we would not think that the only alternatives are the aping of manuals from 1900 on one hand and the mind-numbing complexity of "brilliant" moderns like Rahner on the other. The dichotomy is false. John Senior, who could not be accused of modernism (and whose books are sold by the SSPX), also complained about the poor state of scholastic theology before Vatican II. He even went so far as to say that for many Thomas had become a "superstition": formulae were too often regurgitated because theology students had not the academic background (in the liberal arts and philosophy) which had been the intellectual patrimony of the first scholastics. I am sure none of us is daft enough to think that the restoration of the Church -- in liturgy or in theology -- simply involves reproducing every particular of pre-Vatican II Catholicism.

Anonymous said...

"For me, one of the elements of the SSPX consecrations that few comment on is that the four bishops for the SSPX have never lost their unity and gone off on their own. They have never, either separately or together, consecrated other Bishops."

What about Campos?

Rick DeLano said...

I thank the participants for one of the more interesting threads in some time. Tanqueray, you have certainly introduced yourself in a memorable fashion, but let's face it.

The thread goes to PTKP:

"Let's hope that the Society theologians can expose the subjectivist first principles of the Romans so that twentieth-century theology can be ditched in the trashcan where it belongs, along with twentieth century music and cubism."

Bingo.

This really *is* for all the marbles, and I also wish it would have been Bishop Williamson speaking for the SSPX.

But God knows how He will effectuate the restoration of His Church.

I simply wish I could be a fly on the wall.....

Anonymous said...

Mr De Lano,

Granting the truth of your posting (and you are, in fact, right), let's just make one thing clear for readers of these comments - it doesn't follow from you being right, that the criticisms raised by Dr Senior are mistaken - and I'm not saying you asserted that they are. I just want to make things clear, that's all.

bryandunne said...

Anon at 02.17 23rd August.

Thank you for pointing out a weakness in my argument. Yes agreed Bishop de Mallerais did consecrate Licinio Rangel as a successor to Bishop Castro de Mayer. It would have been more correct if I had added "for the SSPX" to the sentence you quote.

However the exception proves the rule. The consecration of Bishop Rangel was to allow Campos to have a bishop who could continue the work of Bishop Castro de Meyer, he after all, had been the co-Consecrator at the Econe consecrations. It would have been strange if the SSPX had refused to provide Campos with a Bishop to continue the work of Bishop Castro de Meyer.

Your comment also highlights another interesting point viz. that since Bishop Rangel was reconciled to Rome the SSPX did not seek to consecrate a rival Bishop for Campos (to the best of my knowledge).

So I think it is still true to say that the SSPX Bishops have never consecrated another Bishop (apart from Rangel).

In caritate Xp.,

Bryan Dunne

Oscar said...

Mar ...

I don't suppose any of us will know the real reasons for the discussions. We can only guess. The best guess is the SSPX leadership is feeling tired and its expansion has been halted with all the other entrants into the old Mass market. It peaked some years ago. It can continue the fight on the doctrinal front but how many of the faithful are listening? They just want their Latin and incense and Rome is happy to oblige ... in principle. I am afraid the guarantee that the faith will stay intact does not depend exclusively on the fortunes of the Society. The independent trad movement is far larger.

Anonymous said...

Tanqueray is absolutely right.

A perfect example--albeit a somewhat surprising one--is liturgical studies. Don't get me wrong, I am more than sympathetic to the SSPX's critique on the current state of the liturgy. But they simply lack the intellectual wherewithal to convince Rome on their more controversial claims.

Somewhat analogous to Tanqueray's observation that the SSPX relies on "manual theology" is the fact that they also rely on outdated accounts of the development of the Roman liturgy. When talking with many of the them, it's as if the last century of liturgical research--and all its attendant discoveries--simply have not happened. To be sure, even more recent revelations have undermined many of the ideas in vogue at the time of the Second Vatican Council (e.g., the date and authorship of the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus). But no one in the SSPX is really capable of exploiting these discoveries to their advantage. Instead what the SSPX turns out are reprints of older, pious tracts or polemical works that no one takes seriously.

The hard truth is that no one in the Society--past or present--had or has the historical grounding to compete with the liberal liturgists.* And until they do, they're going to have a hard time persuading Rome.

*An example: Josef Jungmann & his works take a lot of grief from the SSPX. (I've noticed some criticism of Jungmann even in the comments on this blog, even though he was pretty moderate in his conclusions.) All that criticism notwithstanding, Jungmann forgot more about the history of the Roman rite than is contained in all the heads at Econe.

--Beefeater

Dan Hunter said...

Anonymous,

There has been absolutely no new Revelation since St. John the Evangelist died.

Many, even many in the Curia take those "pious tomes" you speak about very seriously.

I know for a fact the Holy Father does.

God bless.

Anonymous said...

To be brutally honest, as someone within the contemporary theological world, the SSPX needs to demonstrate to me that they understand that a "theology" is not the same as "doctrine."

De Lubac introduced a new theology along side Thomistic theology. Everyone knows this. Later, Rahner offered a theological system which accounted for Kant's turn to the subject. Everyone knows this.

Yet, the SSPX says: "This isn't The Tradition! You follows a New Theology!!!!!"

Well, so what? A contemporary theology--like Ratzinger's--can be just as orthodox as the manual theologies were, while being "better"--offering a better explanation of the liturgy, a more comprehensive use of Scripture, deeper awareness of the Church Fathers--while following the same doctrine.

The real challenge which the SSPX faces in talking with Rome is this: Everyone knows we changed the theology of church and state, the theology of individual freedom. No one else, besides the SSPX, thinks that is a problem, because the position on church and state, the position on religious freedom, *do not demonstrably belong to the Apostolic Deposit of the Faith.*

Doctrine and dogma are binding because they are necessary elucidations of Public Revelation, which ceased "with the death of the last Apostle," as the manuals used to say. Not everything in a theological system is part of Public Revelation, and it will be necessary for the SSPX to prove to me, but importantly to Rome, not simply that their positions belong to manual theology (as we all know so well), but that they belong to the Public Revelation of Our Lord.

Good luck, honestly, but I'm open to a good argument.

Henri

Jordanes said...

Mr. Hunter, Anonymous wasn't referring to new divine revelations, but to new things that have come to light in the field of the history and development of the liturgy. Somethings that the liturgical reformers of last century thought were historical, and thus used as justification for some of their reforms, have turned out not to be so.

Paul Haley said...

Some lessons in elementary Logic for a previous poster:

Tanqueray is absolutely right.

No one is absolutely right except Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God the Father in Heaven and the Holy Spirit and the Church Christ founded – i.e., when speaking ex cathedra according to the specific limitations outlined in the First Vatican Council.

“But they simply lack the intellectual wherewithal to convince Rome on their more controversial claims.”

No explanation given of “their more controversial claims.” What is controversial about teaching what the Church has always held, taught and professed to be true from day one? The author has no proof; therefore his premise is without foundation.

…”they also rely on outdated accounts of the development of the Roman liturgy..”

Again, no proof given and premise without proof is nothing more than a false premise. By the way, St. Pius V would disagree with such a premise as he insisted his Missal would stand unchanged “in perpetuity.”

“The hard truth is that no one in the Society--past or present--had or has the historical grounding to compete with the liberal liturgists.

A self-serving proclamation having no basis in fact. Evidently, even St. Pius V would not be able to compete with “liberal liturgists.” Fact is, he didn’t need to; he had all the apostolic authority he needed to lay them waist. To claim that modern-day theology is better than the illustrious doctors of the church and luminaries like Saints Thomas Aquinas and Augustine is preposterous on its face.

Jungmann forgot more about the history of the Roman rite than is contained in all the heads at Econe.

Another claim lacking specific proof. One wonders where the author received his formation in Theology, Philosophy and Church history. Many have graduated from Econe and I know of no one of those graduates who have their theology described as heretical or problematical by the Church. I can think of a few modern-day theologians who have received such discipline from the Church (Kung, Rahner, etc)

In summation, it takes more than a series of dubious claims to prove one’s point if, in fact, that is one’s intention. Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, St. John. Scripture and Revelation along with Tradition with a capital “T” form the basis for the Faith and the Liturgy up to and including the present time. Instead of making outrageous claims, the poster must reveal how the SSPX departs from this standard. Once again, good luck in doing so.

Anonymous said...

It's not even really a matter of who has the better theologians...

it's a matter of what documents clearly have said and have not said. Then it is a matter of the application of what those documents have and have not said, in continuity with Tradition.

It's difficult for anyone to argue that the implementation of Vatican II was consistent with the documents of Vatican II. One need not be the Angelic Doctor to see such a truth.

Again, one need not be St. Augustine to see that the infallible and unchanging teaching of the Church on certain 'ecumenical matters' has never changed, but that the implementation has been flawed, and that practices have not matched with the Church teaching.

Since men are fallen, these things always happen. We need not dwell on the past in a great fashion, let historians dwell on the past. Rather, if we can collectively resolve to earnestly strive to avoid such failings in the future, then we will have made significant progress towards fuller unity between the SSPX and Rome.

Jordanes said...

Mr. Haley said: By the way, St. Pius V would disagree with such a premise as he insisted his Missal would stand unchanged “in perpetuity.”

I'm not sure what premise you're referring to. Do you mean the premise that the Roman liturgy has developed and will continue to develop as the Church continues Her pilgrimage through history? St. Pius V certain had no problem with that premise, nor does his "in perpetuity" forbid the future development of and change in the Roman liturgy.

Jordanes said...

Etienne Gilson expressed his deep frustration with the manual theology for "its out-of-date methods, its lack of historical sense, the ignorance of or the snobbish inability to understand the latest research, the need to create heretics to cup up, in short... a spirit quite unlike the Angelic Doctor's."

I've read similar criticisms of "manual theologians" and Neo-Scholasticism, distinguishing them from Thomism.

Brian said...

To be brutally honest, as someone within the contemporary theological world, the SSPX needs to demonstrate to me that they understand that a "theology" is not the same as "doctrine."

De Lubac introduced a new theology along side Thomistic theology. Everyone knows this. Later, Rahner offered a theological system which accounted for Kant's turn to the subject. Everyone knows this.

Yet, the SSPX says: "This isn't The Tradition! You follows a New Theology!!!!!"

Well, so what?

A contemporary theology--like Ratzinger's--can be just as orthodox as the manual theologies were


I trust that you understand that "New Theology" does not mean the thought of a recent theologian, as you seem to argue; but refers to nouvelle théologie, which was criticized by Garrigou-Lagrange and deounced by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis.

Are you aware of a reasoned reply to the arguments brought forth by Garrigou-Lagrange? If so, I would like to read it.

Paul Haley said...

St. Pius V certain had no problem with that premise, nor does his "in perpetuity" forbid the future development of and change in the Roman liturgy.

Quo Primum says his missal may be used freely and "We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this Missal and that this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law." What does the force of law mean?

No one is claiming that the Mass cannot updated to more accurately reflect its intended purpose(s). The premise, however, that it can be changed radically is not what St. Pius V had in mind. Whether subsequent changes accurately reflect the original intended purposes, is IMO an open question and not one would would automatically put the SSPX on the defensive.

Anonymous said...

Paul Haley:

I don't know where to begin, so lets just go down the list.

(1) Yes, you're right. No one is ABSOLUTELY right beside God. I don't think any reasonable reading of my comment suggests that I am saying Tanqueray is absolutely right in all matters or possesses any other of the Divine attributes. But thanks for clarifying that just in case other readers, like you, are confused.

(2) An example of a more "controversial claim"--although, according to my understanding, not widely held within the Society--is the invalidity of the Novus Ordo. I have heard no convincing argument on this point from SSPXers. (Since the Pontiff is the supreme legislator when it comes to the liturgy, I take it the burden is on proof is on the deniers.) In any event, early accounts of the Roman liturgy had many of the elements in the NO found so offensive to SSPXers (e.g., emphasizing the Eucharist as an act of thanksgiving with less emphasis on its sacrificial nature). Now the Churches understanding has developed and matured since the 2nd & 3rd century, but it's hard to cast aspersions on the NO without overlooking early liturgical practices.

(3) Read some scholarly works on liturgy and you'll see that there is a disconnect in the historical understanding between modern, non-SSPX liturgists (whether liberal or traditional) and SSPXers. I'm sorry if I can't give a simple proof for this assertion; it requires doing some reading.

Also, I think you misunderstand the nature of St. Pius V's proclamation in Quo Primum. Of course another POPE could change the liturgy. St. Pius V made a similar statement regarding the "perpetuity" of the Roman Breviary, but subsequent popes almost immediately began making changes.

Moreover, Pope St. Pius X--someone I assume the SSPX holds in high esteem--made a rather revolutionary reform of the Roman Breviary notwithstanding St. Pius V's language of "perpetuity." (Alcuin Reid has written extensively on this.)

(4) I never claimed that modern theology is superior to the teachings of St. Thomas, St. Augustine or the other great doctors of the Church. Rather, I think that the Vatican has theologians that understand the theological treasures of the Church a heck of a lot better than the SSPXers.

Also, you write:

"[St. Pius V] had all the apostolic authority he needed to lay them waist [sic]."

Pope Benedict has the same apostolic authority as St. Pius V. Why is he not owed the same obedience?

(5) I don't doubt that Econe turns out good priest that are well-grounded in the basics of theology and moral philosophy. (As Tanqueray noted, the SSPX has mainly pastoral concerns and their formation & curriculum reflects that.) I am not aware of any top-flight professor on liturgy affiliated with the SSPX who has extensively studied the historical development of the Roman rite, let alone one that can take on the legion of formidable liturgical minds Rome can rely upon, including the Holy Father himself. If you know of one in the SSPX, please inform me.

--Beefeater

arturovasquez said...

I too studied with the SSPX, this time in La Reja, and yes, they are incredibly rigid, and not at all cosmopolitan. But they do have a nose for B.S., and that I am afraid is all that these "heavy weight" theologians that Rome will be sending to the dance can offer. I have known people who have studied in Rome, and they are a pretty jaded crew who barely believe in their own mothers. Yeah, you can basically prove anything with historical scholarship. With advanced historical scholarship, you can probably find some Syrian monk who thought the Holy Ghost was a camel with purple and yellow stripes, or a Coptic priest who consecrated the bread during the Eucharist wearing a cap shaped like a duck and whistling the Yellow Rose of Texas... that is hardly the point. No amount of scholarship can turn a "subsitit" into an "est", and no amount of rhetoric will make the strong language of the Syllabus of Errors go away as if in a cheap magic trick.

Yes, for the rest of the world, it would look bad. Rome will no doubt muster up some fancy scholars in the hope of dazzling their interlocutors into submission. But the SSPX also has very smart, very prayerful people, and they will be far from convinced by whatever Rome's point men will bring to the table. It will probably just be a bizarre stalemate in which the all-star scholars will try to convince the SSPX that it is really raining on a bright sunny day if the Pope says it is. But in the end, I would rather hear a sermon from Galarreta (who I have heard preach before, by the way), than all the Ph.D.'s in Rome.

Wm. Christopher Hoag said...

P.K.T.P. wrote: "Again we see the intellectual pride of the left rearing its ugly head..."

Sir, I am firmly a man of the Right.

There seems to be an assumption among some here that the FSSPX has "kept the Tradition" during these many years in the desert. They simply have not. What they have maintained is a very narrow understanding of the Church which fails to appreciate the diverse historic experiences of the Catholicism. They are mired in the worst form of neo-scholasticism, and it is doubtful that they could even engage other forms of theology.

Pablo said...

I'm with Timothy Mulligan on this one: we worship a God who became a baby, was crucified and Who gives Himself to us under the appearance of a piece of bread. Sophistication and self-importance don't seem to hold much truck with Him.....

By the time Bishop De Galareta gets done with them, the Curia members who oppose Christ's will should soon lament they did not have Bishop Williamson negotiating.

I am happy and grateful that Bishop Fellay decided to stay in Menzingen.

Deo Gracias.

Pray for the Holy Father.

Anonymous said...

Henri writes:

"To be brutally honest, as someone within the contemporary theological world, the SSPX needs to demonstrate to me that they understand that a "theology" is not the same as "doctrine."

To brutally honest, the S.S.P.X doesn't need to demonstrate anything to you, or to Rome. The Society is not embarking on an enterprise to defend or justify its own position, which is simply that it follows the perennial teachings of the Church. The Society is merely asking Rome certain questions regarding how conciliar and post-conciliar teachings can be reconciled with previous teachings. If anyone is on trial here, it is de Lubac and Rahner and the other moderns, most of whom were censored by the Holy Office for error; some of whom were removed from their teaching positions for error; some of whom were material heretics at one time or another; all of whom were responsible for erasing the diligent work of the 871 scholars who drew up the prepatory schema for the Council. They may or may not be 'brilliant' theologians. I don't know, although I suspect that they are only legends in their own minds and the minds of their fawning political disciplies. They have no more authority for the faithful than has Jean-Paul Sartre. We need only listen and adhere to what the Church teaches, not to what they opine, even if the latter turns out to be correct (we all need a good laugh once in a while so we should at least consider the possibility).

One poster here has correctly stated that these moderns are divided among themselves. I note that Ratzinger and de Lubac formed Communio in opposition to some of the others. So I would not be surprised if this Pope agrees to condemn some of the errors of various modern theologians, although I doubt that this will satisfy the S.S.P.X.

I find in my own profession that worship of intellectual complexity usually means that would-be scholars are awestruck by what they don't understand. They feel that the sophisticated drivel they hear or see must be brilliant, since it is opaque to them. They automatically assume that it is impenetrable because they are wanting in ability, not because its formulators are incompetent, 'intoxicated by the complexity of their own verbosity'. Indeed, the real reason for the impenetrability of the writings is often the turbid minds of the writers. Just try reading Rahner--in any language. Reading his books would be a far greater mortification than fifty lashes with a whip. Reading him is painful. The true scholar is the man who can express subtle ideas simply. That is what takes real talent and intelligence. If you can't articulate your ideas well, they're probably not worth having.

In closing, I draw attention to the arrogance of the worshippers of liberals here. Notice how they are convinced that their heroes are the very oracles of God. And yet they offer no evidence to support this risible contention, this unrestrained emotion. True, this blog affords little space for that, but then why make such claims? It reminds me of the same confidence had by secular liberals. They are sure that 'history is on their side'. They are in for a shock. God does not make manifest His work in fools.

P.K.T.P.

Paul Haley said...

Beefeater,

But thanks for clarifying that just in case other readers, like you, are confused.

Nice try at sarcasm, my friend, but you were the one that said Tanqueray was absolutely right and when challenged all you could do is say that is not what you meant. I chose to present to this forum what I believe to be wild claims unsupported by evidence. You used the term "absolutely" and that is not a word that should be used carelessly. One can say I believe so-and-so is correct in my opinion and give reasons why but to use the term "absolutely" implies no room for discussion.

An example of a more "controversial claim"--although, according to my understanding, not widely held within the Society--is the invalidity of the Novus Ordo. I have heard no convincing argument on this point from SSPXers.

Who said the NO was invalid? Since this view is not widely held in the SSPX, why do they need to give you a convincing argument? The only thing I've heard the SSPX say is the NO could be invalid if proper matter, form and intention are not present. From some of the antics I've seen in the NO, there is reasonable doubt on such matters.

Read some scholarly works on liturgy and you'll see that there is a disconnect in the historical understanding between modern, non-SSPX liturgists (whether liberal or traditional) and SSPXers. I'm sorry if I can't give a simple proof for this assertion; it requires doing some reading.

Scholarly works, eh? By whom? Requires some reading, eh? Presumably, we poor illiterate slobs have no understanding of the nuances of theological discussion as you do. Intellectual snobbery? You're right about one thing, though, and that is you can't give a simple proof for your assertion, so why make it?

Moreover, Pope St. Pius X--someone I assume the SSPX holds in high esteem--made a rather revolutionary reform of the Roman Breviary notwithstanding St. Pius V's language of "perpetuity." (Alcuin Reid has written extensively on this.)

Your sarcastic assumption is correct - they do hold St. Pius X in high esteem but not because he made changes to the Breviary but because he warned against the dangers of Modernism. Apples and oranges here. The papal bull Quo Primum was about the Missal issued by St. Pius V and that dealt primarily with the Mass. No one is arguing about changes in the Breviary which will have to be changed as new saints are proclaimed.

I never claimed that modern theology is superior to the teachings of St. Thomas, St. Augustine or the other great doctors of the Church. Rather, I think that the Vatican has theologians that understand the theological treasures of the Church a heck of a lot better than the SSPXers.

I'm glad to hear you don't think modern theology is not superior to that of St. Thomas, St. Augustine or the other Doctors of the Church but I'll leave it up to the readers of this blog whether you gave that impression in your initial post. As for now, your cheap shot that "the Vatican has theologians that understand the theological treasures of the Church a heck of a lot better than the SSPXers" is another of those clueless, false and unsupported claims that have no place in this forum.

Anonymous said...

"To brutally honest, the S.S.P.X doesn't need to demonstrate anything to you, or to Rome."

PTKP is, of course, right. My statement that the SSPX "must" demonstrate an awareness that the manual theology is not the same as doctrine presumes that the SSPX want to be relevant to the wider Church. (Ottaviani's inability to make this distinction largely accounts for the disagreements between de Lubac, Congar, Chenu, and the Holy Office mentioned above.)

I enjoy pseudo-Chestertonian rhetoric as much as the next Catholic. But I note that my only substantive point remains unaddressed--that only Public Revelation constitute binding doctrine, and that I know of no arguments against religious freedom or the distinction between church and state which are rooted in our Lord's Public Revelation, which ended "with the death of the last Apostle" and has been passed on through the Fathers. In fact, Our Lord's own conduct often presumes the separation of church and state and the freedom of religion.

Henri

Jordanes said...

Henri said: only Public Revelation constitute binding doctrine

I suppose that depends on what one means by "binding" and "doctrine."

I know of no arguments against religious freedom or the distinction between church and state which are rooted in our Lord's Public Revelation, which ended "with the death of the last Apostle" and has been passed on through the Fathers. In fact, Our Lord's own conduct often presumes the separation of church and state and the freedom of religion.

First, there's a serious difference between "distinction between church and state" (which the Church has always recognised and insisted upon) and "separation of church and state" (which the Church has spoken out against in the past).

Second, much depends on what we mean by "religious freedom."

Third, what examples of Our Lord's conduct presumes the separation of church and state and the freedom of religion?

Jordanes said...

The papal bull Quo Primum was about the Missal issued by St. Pius V and that dealt primarily with the Mass. No one is arguing about changes in the Breviary which will have to be changed as new saints are proclaimed.

Beefeater's argument, however, is that St. Pius V enacted the Breviary with the same kind of "in perpetuity" language that he used in Quo Primum. I don't know the facts in this matter, so can't say if his argument is correct, but if he's right about what St. Pius said of the Breviary, it would demonstrate that Quo Primum doesn't forbid future popes to make changes to the Roman Missal.

those clueless, false and unsupported claims that have no place in this forum.

Well, as a moderator here, I've both rejected AND approved comments that could be said to include "clueless, false and unsupported claims." And as a commenter here, I've occasionally made such comments.

Anonymous said...

Henri:

What you or I may know is also not at issue. It doesn't matter if you don't know of any limit to religious freedom in public revelation. The question at stake is whether the perennial teaching of the Church on the relation of Church to State is contradicted by D.H. and whether or not D.H. is consonant with earlier Church teaching as contained, e.g., in Quanta Cura.

I agree with you about one thing: the issue of religious liberty is one (of two) which will be the problem. The other one is œcumenism but, in its case, the problem is less a matter of principle and more a question of application of established principles in how we communicate with members of other relgiions.

I suspect that these two items will be last on the agenda and that they won't be resolved successfully in the forseeable future. I predict a suspension of the talks, even for some years, over them.

The question of interest to me is what juridical accommodation the Pope will make in the interim.

As for religious liberty, my Bible on that is Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of Errors. For a while, I even had them on the second shelf of my bedside table.

I am praying that the Pope will unilaterally declare that the Society is operating under what it honestly believes to be a state of necessity, thereby invoking supplied jurisdiction. I have insisted on this constantly on this blog. Why? Because I don't believe that the doctrinal talks will be resolved for at least thirty years. In the mean time, it would do immense good both for the Society and for other traditionalists to have their faculties declared valid.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On Jordanes's points about Q.P., 1570:

I don't see how Q.P.T. can be interpreted to mean that popes are forbidden or unable to change the Mass or other liturgies. The question becomes how much and what sort of change is allowable given the fact that what is hallowed by long usage is a gift of the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity: it is He Who inspires the fathers and popes to arrange for a fitting celebration of Mass.

Exactly how much change is allowed in the Ordinary? This is ultimately a matter of judgement which God Himself decides in the end as He speaks through subsequent popes. Liturgists have established ways of assessing the impact of changes. Older forms have more authority than more recent forms, and new forms should grow organically out of existing forms.

There are several ways to change a liturgy, such as by substitution, addition, deletion, re-ordering, recasting, and innovation. Obviously, innovataions are mutatis mutandis more disruptive than are additions.

St. Pius V expresses in Q.P.T. his awe and respect for the ancient liturgy. His purpose was not to alter it but to preserve it and remove errors and accretions. Once the Mass of a Rite has undergone its formative period, the rôle of prelates is to preserve, foster, cherish. This doesn't meaan that they cannot change a comma or alter a word but they should do so only if the good of the Church genuinely requires this.

It is at least arguable that it is beyond the office of any pope to concoct a Liturgy right out of the blue. While this did not happen in 1970, it is arguable that the degree of innovation was far too great, making the act ultra vires. In fact, this is my view: the New Mass is valid but illicit! I won't repeat my argument on this blog. Anyway, faithful who attend the New Mass do not sin, for they obviously act in good faith (or we must presume so).

It remains to be seen if the New Mass will one day be proclaimed to be the result of an abuse of power. I don't pontificate on this: I leave it to future popes, but I merely opine that I can't see how the substition of a New Offertory could be justified; nor can I see how a Eucharistic Prayer (No. 2) which had no previous approved usage as such (the Hippolytan one on which it was based may never have been used for all we know) could be added. And that's just for starters.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

the Hippolytan one on which it was based may never have been used for all we know

VERY, VERY loosely based . . .

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes:

"Beefeater's argument, however, is that St. Pius V enacted the Breviary with the same kind of "in perpetuity" language that he used in Quo Primum. I don't know the facts in this matter, so can't say if his argument is correct, but if he's right about what St. Pius said of the Breviary, it would demonstrate that Quo Primum doesn't forbid future popes to make changes to the Roman Missal."

In 1568, Pope St. Pius V promulgated the Roman Breviary in Quod a nobis. This Apostolic Constitution contains many expressions that parallel the text of Quo Primum--e.g., the perpetual force of law and the prohibition of adding/changing/omitting anything.

And, as a noted above, St. Pius X made rather fundamental changes to the Roman Breviary. Maybe St. Pius X was imprudent when he reformed the breviary, but he certainly had the authority to do so. Same goes for Paul VI and the 1970 Missal.

--Beefeater

Paul Haley said...

if his argument is correct, but if he's right about what St. Pius said of the Breviary, it would demonstrate that Quo Primum doesn't forbid future popes to make changes to the Roman Missal.

We are talking about major changes to the missal for the Mass and there's not the slightest doubt in my mind that St. Pius V did not foresee and would not have countenanced the NOM in which according to Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci "the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent". The very same Council which gave St. Pius V the task of reforming the Missal which had accretions that were not considered appropriate.

Stop drinking the kool-aid. The modernists knew this and yet went ahead and radically changed the Mass thus affecting the Faith of millions and, today, in the Latin Rite we have the dreadful results regarding the practice of the Faith depicted in the statistics published by E. Michael Jones.

Look at my website http://phaley.faithweb.com and find the article entitled "State of Necessity" and then, with a straight face tell me that there is no state of necessity and that those responsible for these changes in liturgy, practice and belief were merely updating and making the liturgy conformable to modern-day circumstances and that the modern-day theologians have it all over those of the past. Egads, it boggles my mind that you cannot see what devastation we have experienced in our beloved Church due in large measure to Kung, Rahner, Schillebeeckx, de Lubac and the like.

beng said...

I just read the whole coment of this blog entry.


To Tanqueray, Wm. Christopher Hoag, Beefeater

... ya'll can't be serious....


If the Church has such brilliant liturgists then where in the world are they in the last 60+ years? Deep in the library doing the oh so important historical research that will blow minds away and explain why girls are allowed to serve the altar?


Let's stick to the cold hard facts.

Jordanes said...

Who are you addressing in your comment, Mr. Haley? Your words don't seem to apply very well to anything I've said here or anything I believe.

Now, I've said and implied many times that I think the unprecedented liturgical overhaul of last century was a collosal blunder, a botch-up, a pastoral disaster. I'm inclined to the view that the Supreme Pontiff's authority to modify the liturgy does not include the moral authority to make such major, sweeping changes to the liturgy in so short a time. I don't think Quo Primum establishes that, however, though perhaps a case can be made that it is implied.

Paul Haley said...

Jordanes,

My words apply to anyone who follows the line that changes can be made to immemorial custom in the liturgy without alienating the Faithful. The words also apply to those claiming that modern-day theologians or 20th century Theology has it all over that of the past. They apply as well to those who refute the fact that theologians and the theology that for 19.5 centuries has guided the Church and to which the SSPX, to my knowledge, subscribes is somehow defective.

You were the one that posted the remarks which I italicized in my post concerning if changes could be made to the Breviary then it logically follows that the same could be done with the Missal for the Mass. In referring to Beefeater's premise you said: if he's right about what St. Pius said of the Breviary, it would demonstrate that Quo Primum doesn't forbid future popes to make changes to the Roman Missal."

Notice that we're talking about changes to the Roman Missal of St. Pius V and not the fabrication of a completely new missal with different prefaces, canons and, sadly, even words of consecration. I don't argue with the authority of the Pope to do this but I certainly do question its advisability and its fruits.

All I'm saying is that I don't believe St. Pius V foresaw or would condone the radical changes that have been made to the liturgy in the 20th century. If this liturgy is demonstrative of the brilliance of modern-day theologians and the superiority of 20th century theology, then I am John Foster Dulles.

It appears my words have, as they say, struck a nerve so I'll be leaving this subject for now as I have many more things I have to do this week, including having the Pilgrim Virgin Statue of Our Lady of Fatima in our home. We'll be praying for all and I do mean all who visit this forum.

humboldt said...

This dialogue is bound to fail. Benedict does not believe that a fundamental change has to be made to the Church. After all he called the Constitution Gaudium et Spes the fifth gospel and this constituion is rejecte by the SSPX.

Jordanes said...

This dialogue is bound to fail.

Perhaps you hope it fails?

Benedict does not believe that a fundamental change has to be made to the Church.

No Catholic may believe that a fundamental change has to be made to the Church. You just can't be a Catholic and believe nonsense like that.

After all he called the Constitution Gaudium et Spes the fifth gospel and this constituion is rejecte by the SSPX.

When and where did he called G&S the fifth gospel? I'm aware that he's criticised it as Pelagian or near-Pelagian in parts, but I can't recall reading that he has pronounced that it is the fifth gospel.

Jordanes said...

My words apply to anyone who follows the line that changes can be made to immemorial custom in the liturgy without alienating the Faithful.

There's no denying that changes can be made to immemorial custom without alienating the faithful. The only questions are what changes, how many of them, and how they are made.

You were the one that posted the remarks which I italicized in my post concerning if changes could be made to the Breviary then it logically follows that the same could be done with the Missal for the Mass.

Yes, I recognised which words were mine. That's why I was wondering why you said all those other things that didn't have anything to do with what I said.

Notice that we're talking about changes to the Roman Missal of St. Pius V and not the fabrication of a completely new missal with different prefaces, canons and, sadly, even words of consecration.

As seriously problematic as I believe the Pauline Missal to be, it still isn't a "completely new missal," just a mostly new missal, or almost entirely new missal.

I don't argue with the authority of the Pope to do this but I certainly do question its advisability and its fruits.

We agree on that.

All I'm saying is that I don't believe St. Pius V foresaw or would condone the radical changes that have been made to the liturgy in the 20th century.

We agree on that too. I was talking specifically about the "in perpetuity" language of Quo Primum, however, and so was Beefeater. Your comments did not address his argument.

Wm. Christopher Hoag said...

I sadly fear that the fruit of these doctrinal discussions will be the formal condemnation of numerous FSSPX positions--positions which I share--together with full censure and canonical penalties against those who hold such opinions.

So many think that the FSSPX has "preserved" the Church during these 45 years in the desert. I am a former adherent of the Society (actually still a member since I have never formally disassociated from the the Third Order) and remain a fellow traveller. But to think that the FSSPX has the truth and that the rest of the Church must recognize and embrace the FSSPX as the possessor and guarantor of such truth is ludicrous if not outright heretical. To the local Church of Rome alone had been granted the special charism of defence and inerrant preservation of the Deposit of Faith. Rome cannot defect from the Faith. To hold such is heresy.

On the natural level, the only good I see coming from this dialogue will be the clarification of Church teaching--which will not be an affirmation of the doctrinal positions of the FSSPX but rather their condemnation. On the supernatural level, I hope for a conversion of hearts and minds for the members and religious and lay adherents of the FSSPX.

Instaurare omnia in Christo!

Anonymous said...

Tanquerey said: "They do not understand (...) the advanced theology and scholarship of the past century."

- Well, who does?

t.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Hoag asserts:

"On the natural level, the only good I see coming from this dialogue will be the clarification of Church teaching--which will not be an affirmation of the doctrinal positions of the FSSPX but rather their condemnation."

The Holy See is not being asked to affirm Society positions. The Society merely adheres to what the Church has always taught. It is true that Rome could reject certain Society positions but it will not want to do that, since it is not being asked to rule on these. Rome will not condemn Society positions. That would only be counter-productive, even were it possible (and I can't see how it's even possible).

The trouble will come when Rome refuses to condemn some conciliar and post-conciliar positions, which is not the same thing at all. I think that Rome will do unto the Society what she did unto Fr. Leonard Feeney: she will agree that the other party has an acceptable Catholic position but then refuse to say that it is the only acceptable Catholic position. (I note, by the way, that Rome even *allows* the 'Feeneyites' to hold the view that their opponents are apparently heretics, but she will not *support* or affirm that they are).

The hardliners in the Society, including Bishops Tissier de Mallerais and Williamson (plus many of its priests) will not accept all of Rome's responses. By paraphrase of the teachings of De Lubac, Congar, Cheney, Rahner, Schillebeeckx and even Benedict XVI himself, they will draw up specific propositions and demand that they be formally condemned and anathematised. Such propositions will be problematical in regard to religious liberty and œcumenism in particular. For example, they will ask that this proposition be formally condemned and its adherents anathematised:

That the Jews can wait for their own Messias.

Here's another:

That members of the Eastern Orthdoox church are not heretics.

Here's another:

That members of the Eastern Orthodox Church are not schismatics.

Frankly, the Society hardliners will frame their proposals so as to be as controversial as possible, since they regard the New Church as an abomination. Their opponents will say that what really motivates them is hatred of liberals and a desire to be as controversial as possible.


Anyway, Rome might condemn a few of the propositions submitted for condemnation by the Society but she will definitely not condemn all of them. When that happens, the talks will be suspended for a period of 'prayerful reflection' (how I hate that term) and Tissier et al. will run off and proclaim that New Rome is irretrievably lost. Hence I pray that the Holy Father recognise their faculties fairly soon. I see little hope of the Society taking even a temporary jurisdiction.

Politically-speaking, Rome cannot do everything the Society wants until this current crop of liberal prelates is dead and gone, which explains Tissier's term of 'at least thirty years'. Please note: I am NOT saying that all the Society positions must be correct. I don't know. However, I have never seen the Society assert a position I found to be problematical. We'll leave it at that.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Haley writes:

"My words apply to anyone who follows the line that changes can be made to immemorial custom in the liturgy without alienating the Faithful."

I agree with most of what Mr. Haley wrties but there should be a word of caution. There are established principles which do allow changes in the liturgy, usually small changes.

If you have a traditionalist perspective on life, you will see a parallel between the development of liturgy and the development of law and the development of language and even the development of, pace Jordanes, styles of address.

Let us keep to the parallel between language and liturgy. Written English went through a formative period in which standardisation proceeded at almost lightning speed. This was the fifteenth century in general and the 1420s in particular (*before* the coming of the printing press in the 1470s: to correct the highschool teachers on that error). To a much lesser extent, forms altered and were standardised in the century following and then there was very little after that; it was mostly the addition of new terms. Hence it is invalid to argue that radical change in language is equally good in all ages.

(We also have this nonsense from ignorant highschool teachers and even more ignorant journalists that language is like a plant, constantly growing and changing. True in general but BY WHAT STANDARD? The truth is that, after the formative period is over, change becomes scores of times less common. Indeed, forms even become fossilised. That's why nobody can abolish the remnant of the subjunctive mood in, for example, 'lest' clauses: no one can change 'lest she be seen' to 'lest she is seen'. In spoken English, we also stubbornly hold on to the two distinct th sounds (as in the and then), even though English is an international language and the only others who can make those sounds are Icelanders.

Well, it was the same for our liturgy. There was an early foundational period and then a formative one in about the seventh century. There was a much less pervasive period of change from the eleventh to the late fourteenth century and then almost no change to the Ordinary for six hundred years. But notice that 'almost none' does not equal 'none at all'. If St. Gregory the Great could re-order even the sacred Canon and later popes add the Gloria and the Roman Offertory (late fourteenth century), we cannot rule out all change by a pope.

Of course, we prescriptivists know that bad change should be resisted. Hence we never miscall the Pope but some familiar term dreamed up by journalists. We follow not style manuals written by nincompoops but established usage and custom.

P.K.T.P.

Paul Haley said...

Allow me to say that the phrase:`"My words apply to anyone who follows the line that changes can be made to immemorial custom in the liturgy without alienating the Faithful" means major changes like new canons, prefaces, words of consecration, etc, where the changes engender doubt that the liturgy retains the same purpose and intent.

I'm talking about the NOM in contrast to the TLM, not mere updating and organic change. I'm talking about a liturgy which has been described as: "a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent."

But, you know we can argue these points until the cows come home and what does it matter? It's up to the participants in the doctrinal discussions to iron things out.

I will simply say I don't believe the SSPX will be going into these discussions in a "theologically challenged" mode as some would suggest. Nor, do I subscribe to the theory that propositions put forth by the SSPX will be condemned and the SSPX itself discredited as perhaps many modernists would like. Not going to happen, folks, not after waiting 20 plus years for this opportunity.

John McFarland said...

Gents,

From a human perspective, there is every reason to think that the exchange will be a debacle -- a dialogue of the deaf, to recall Archbishop Lefebvre's description of some of his own exchanges with Rome. Here's the scenario: the two sides will swap writings that are talking about two different things; and sooner or later, they will lose patience with talking by each other and stop talking, without having accomplished anything.

But the human perspective is not the only perspective, and the Lord our God is full of suprises. From much I propose the following: less blogging, more fifteen decades a day.

John McFarland said...

And furthermore:

Better than 20 years ago, Romano Amerio remarked in Iota Unum on the dramatic falling off of Rome's intellectual specific gravity. It hasn't got any better since then. So about the last thing in the world I'm worried about is the SSPX's being intellectually outgunned in the exchange with The Levada Bunch. Of course, the SSPX has the advantage of believing what the Church teaches -- which, inexpressibility sad as it is to have to say it, the Roman authorities do not. To use my standard description, their magisterium is deficient and adulterated.

The Abbe de Nantes claims someplace that Pope John Paul II only used a handful (he may have said four) scriptural passages. The Abbe said that the reason was that these are the only passages that have any plausible connection to the Pope's magisterium. I suspect that the Vatican is going to have much the same problem in the exchange with the SSPX.

John McFarland said...

It sure was good to hear again the slogans running down manual theology and neo-scholasticism and explaining that those who oppose the new currents are intellectual pygmies. A lot of you probably weren't born the first time I heard them.

Let me offer a few thoughts on this topic. My own educational origins have not been the Jesuits and Catholic U, but the Christian Brothers (B.A.) and Brandeis (Ph.D. in Philosophy) and Yale (J.D.). I also have a son going into his fourth year at Winona, and am very familiar in any amateur way with most of the SSPX literature in English.

As near as I've ever been able to figure out, most of the brilliant new theologizing is just what the SSPX says it is: a mishmash of German Idealism and Masonry whose connection with the Catholic and Apostolic Faith is pretty much non-existent. If you really have to read this stuff, you should probably get hold of Loisy, the guy who started the Modernist crisis: there's been nothing really new since him, and he was both clearer and more candid than, say, Josef Ratzinger as academic, ecclesiastic or Holy Father.

To be sure, the great figures of the deformation of Catholic theology -- Rahner, de Lubac, Congar, Schillebeeckx, etc. -- didn't see eye to eye on everything. But then neither did Fichte and Schelling and Kant and Hegel and Schopenhauer and Nietzsche and Heidegger; but their differences are family feuds, and the same is true of their "Catholic" epigone.

I don't think that the liturgical currents that created the liturgical revolution at and after Vatican II were based on any advances in our knowledge of the history of the liturgy. It's all been a matter of what is to be made of that history. What's been made of it by the "advanced" thinkers is to read it through modernist glasses. For example: where in the history of the liturgy are you going to find any precedent for the ecumenical liturgical thinking that led to the protestantization of the Mass?

Most of the critique of neo-scholasticism and the manuals is really about eliminating the traditional precision of the Church's doctrinal and theological discourse in favor of a vagueness in which the modernists could more effectively sell their heretical goods.

Wm. Christopher Hoag said...

P.K.T.P. wrote: "The trouble will come when Rome refuses to condemn some conciliar and post-conciliar positions, which is not the same thing at all. I think that Rome will do unto the Society what she did unto Fr. Leonard Feeney: she will agree that the other party has an acceptable Catholic position but then refuse to say that it is the only acceptable Catholic position. (I note, by the way, that Rome even *allows* the 'Feeneyites' to hold the view that their opponents are apparently heretics, but she will not *support* or affirm that they are)."

I do very much hope that such an outcome is realised. However, I remain very pessimistic about this dialogue. On the side of the FSSPX, too many persons have unrealistic expectations of a complete surrender of those on the Roman side to the FSSPX positions on oecumism, religious liberty, even general ecclesiology.

Catholics must pray that the Holy Ghost guides this whole process,moving both sides to cooperation with His graces in truth and charity. Again, I say that I am pessimistic in this regard. I hold the FSSPX positions with regard to those areas that the Society finds problematic in the contemporary Magisterium. Since I have parted ways with the FSSPX, I, unlike they, nevertheless recognise that the comtemporary teaching is nonetheless the voice of the authentic Magisterium however difficult its doctrine is to reconcile with previous teaching.

Perhaps we should all pray to Fr. Feeney for his intercession in this grave event.

Wm. Christopher Hoag said...

John McFarland wrote: "Most of the critique of neo-scholasticism and the manuals is really about eliminating the traditional precision of the Church's doctrinal and theological discourse in favor of a vagueness in which the modernists could more effectively sell their heretical goods."

Not so! Perhaps the strongest criticism of neo-scholasticism is its failure to be "catholic". It is very selective, anachronistic, and misrepresentational in its treatment of the Fathers. Further, it had no appreciation for Eastern theology. Neo-scholasticism presents a two-dimensional, ahistorical view of the Faith. That is not to dismiss its own intrinsic value, but it is only one theological methology among many valid Catholic methologies. The movement of "ressourcement" in theology, which seeks to understand the Faith as communicated in the Fathers by a "return to the sources, started as far back as the Counter-Reformation. A good Patrologist will trump a neo-scholastic in any theological conversation since the Patrologist goes to the sources, whereas neo-scholasticism is removed from the sources through the mediation of the manuals.

Wm. Christopher Hoag said...

John MacFarlans wrote: "Of course, the SSPX has the advantage of believing what the Church teaches -- which, inexpressibility sad as it is to have to say it, the Roman authorities do not. To use my standard description, their magisterium is deficient and adulterated."

This claim is proximate to heresy! One could say the churchmen X, Y, or Z in the curia do not as private persons profess the fullness of Catholic teaching. But to broadly paint the Church of Rome as having fallen away from the Faith is grave error contrary to the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church, especially when this accusation touches the person of the Roman Pontiff. It is a claim one finds in the 39 Articles of Religion of the Anglican communion!

John McFarland said...

Mr. Hoag,

Can you offer a quick example or two of these awful neoscholastic defomations of the truth, as opposed to brillant insights of the rassourcement?

I'd also ask you to take a look at you new Testament and point out to me where it says that historical considerations and multiple points of view are essential to the Christian faith? My own reading of it is that Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, came to give a single doctrine, once for all.

Finally, I'd be curious if you have an explanation as to how the brilliant insights of your intellectual heroes have somehow led the Church into its current utter decadence.

Mar said...

Beefeater said: "(4) I never claimed that modern theology is superior to the teachings of St.
Thomas, St. Augustine or the other great doctors of the Church. Rather, I think that the Vatican has theologians that understand the theological treasures of the Church a heck of a lot better than the SSPXers."

Well, that is a rather bald statement and, as Paul Haley has already pointed out, not backed
up by any evidence. But even if it *were* true then why the heck have not these theologians guarded, defended and fought for the treasures of the Church a heck of a lot better than the SSPX?

Take, for example, the theological, spiritual and cultural treasure of liturgical music. With an irony that cuts to the very marrow this treasure has been discarded, the most abject
rubbish put in its place, only to be salvaged by secular musicians who now delight filled
concert-halls with the beauties of a music whose sole purpose once was the glory of God in the Catholic liturgy.

And that is only music.

Anonymous said...

To the person that said that the Vatican's side is light years ahead in theology than the SSPX.

This may be so, but you have to remember this commission is meant to clarify, not to elaborate.
This is important because what needs to be done is to make clear something that is now confused or ambiguous, and modern theology only specializes in making ambiguous what was previously very clear, so that they can accomodate what was previously irreconcilable.
In this case the SSPX will have the advantage, provided they are able to clarify terms at the beginning.
It also has to be remembered that the commission is charged with interpreting V2 in LIGHT OF TRADITION, which means that the Vatican side has to make their case, not the SSPX.
Again this will prove well for the SSPX.

beng said...

Cont from above:

18. Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, ... . What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs concerning the nature and constitution of the Church, is deliberately and habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they profess to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks. The Popes, they assert, do not wish to pass judgment on what is a matter of dispute among theologians, so recourse must be had to the early sources, and the recent constitutions and decrees of the Teaching Church must be explained from the writings of the ancients.

...

21. It is also true that theologians must always return to the sources of divine revelation: for it belongs to them to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition.[4] ... But for this reason even positive theology cannot be on a par with merely historical science. For, together with the sources of positive theology God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church. But if the Church does exercise this function of teaching, as she often has through the centuries, either in the ordinary or extraordinary way, it is clear how false is a procedure which would attempt to explain what is clear by means of what is obscure. Indeed the very opposite procedure must be used. Hence Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, teaching that the most noble office of theology is to show how a doctrine defined by the Church is contained in the sources of revelation, added these words, and with very good reason: "in that sense in which it has been defined by the Church."



Sorry for such a long quote. But if I could I want to quote all the way from Par 11-25

I'm glad to treat Humani Generis, which Romano Amerio called as the third syllabus (Pascendi being the second), as part of my bible.

Anonymous said...

I think that Mr. McFarland's recent comments here are especially good. I have a very small disagreement with only one item, really:

"and sooner or later, they will lose patience with talking by each other and stop talking, without having accomplished anything."

I think that they will accomplish a great deal on the simpler issues, even most matters pertaining to liturgy and Sacraments. But I just cannot see how the two sides can possibly reconcile on œcumenism and religious liberty, not until the Roman side changes by losing its Modernists. The reason is the one Mr. McFarland supplies: the Roman theologians are not thinking like Catholics. They are overwhelmed with a modernistic perspective and approach. You can't read Christ through Hegel.

P.K.T.P.

beng said...

The first part of my post that was missing (the above is the second part. I was adressing Hoag!


Wm. Christopher Hoag
Not so! Perhaps the strongest criticism of neo-scholasticism is its failure to be "catholic". It is very selective, anachronistic, and misrepresentational in its treatment of the Fathers. Further, it had no appreciation for Eastern theology. Neo-scholasticism presents a two-dimensional, ahistorical view of the Faith. That is not to dismiss its own intrinsic value, but it is only one theological methology among many valid Catholic methologies. The movement of "ressourcement" in theology, which seeks to understand the Faith as communicated in the Fathers by a "return to the sources, started as far back as the Counter-Reformation. A good Patrologist will trump a neo-scholastic in any theological conversation since the Patrologist goes to the sources, whereas neo-scholasticism is removed from the sources through the mediation of the manuals.



Ahh, we finally found out the error os Hoag cs. And it's not something we havent heard of. In fact our great pontiff already warn of such error:


Humani Generis - Pius XII

14. In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. ...

15. ... Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. ...

16. ... Nevertheless, the things that have been composed through common effort by Catholic teachers over the course of the centuries to bring about some understanding of dogma are certainly not based on any such weak foundation. These things are based on principles and notions deduced from a true knowledge of created things.

Anonymous said...

John McFarland,

You might start with my twice stated, yet unanswered, questions to PTPK.

Henri

Paul Haley said...

One thing about the discussions bothers me and that is the manner in which they will be conducted. Exchanging papers, it seems to me, leaves all of us out of the loop. Wouldn't you dearly love to see these exchanges and be able to comment upon them? Having said that, I understand fully why they are to be conducted outside the realm of publicity and public scrutiny. In any case we continue to pray they will be successful.

Anonymous said...

Regarding the neo-scholastic "theology of the manuals", I recommend reading fr. Fenton's The Teaching Authority of the Theological Manuals.

In short, his argument is this: "We are dealing with books, which have been employed in teaching in seminaries and universities. If these books all contain common teaching opposed to or even distinct from genuine Catholic doctrine, then the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Catholic Church has been very much at fault during the course of the [first half of] twentieth century."

Of course, since this implication is unacceptable, then, by modus tollens, follows that critics of the manual theology must be wrong.

t.

Paul Haley said...

Just a tip of the hat to Mr. McFarland for his posts which are certainly thought-provoking, intelligent and squarely on target in my personal view.

Wm. Christopher Hoag said...

beng!

You misrepresent me and others. Do not accuse me of the errors of the transcendental Thomists or the Nouvelle Theologie.

I certainly do not hold to such errors, not would any theologian representing the CDF in talks with the FSSPX.

dcs said...

Exchanging papers, it seems to me, leaves all of us out of the loop.

I think that is precisely the point.

dcs said...

However, I have never seen the Society assert a position I found to be problematical.

Yes, in the sense that individuals within the SSPX might take a problematical position while the Society as a whole does not.

Pablo said...

When I was first in a position of authority I had to come before the old guard that had ruled with an iron fist for many years.

I decided to take a mean, old, hungry tomcat in with me. As I entered the room, I twirled the tomcat by his tail and let him fly through the air until he landed smack dab in the middle of the table, where he spat and hissed and clawed and knocked over water pitchers, glasses, cigars, and everything else that got in his way.

It got the attention of those old boys, and not a single one of them has forgotten what I said that day, and neither have they forgotten old tom.

His Eminence Bishop de Galarreta needs to throw a tomcat on the meeting table. Here is a good one:

"With all the Novus Ordo Church closings, why is the SSPX not permitted to purchase or use those properties?

Are we, or are we not, the children of the Holy Father?"

Yep. That should get there attention.

*

Anonymous said...

t.,

Does Fr. Fenton's argument apply to the second half of the twentieth century?

Picard said...

Wm Christopher Hoag (25 August, 2009 03:43)

That is the same non-catholic nonsense that I and others like P.K.T.P. discussed with jordanes & alii days and weeks before.

"To use my standard description, their magisterium is deficient and adulterated."
This claim is proximate to heresy!


- That´s not right. The authentic magisterium of the Pope/Rome is NOT [for the deaf or better: blind:] NOT infallible.

To declare or suggest the opposite (as Chr.Hoag or others try to) is perhaps proximate to heresy or at least erroneouse, but not the the sentence of Mr. Perkins.

To suggest that the authentic magisterium of the Pope would be infallible shows poor theological education.
So it also demonstrates clearly that the SSPX and their defenders are the more differentiated/differentiating and therefore better theologians and that we do not have to worry about their qualifications.
But even in the Vatican I think nobody holds such an absurde and false theory that the authentic mag. would be infallible. They are also more differentiating theologians.

The def. of Vat. I implies that the authentic mag is NOT infallible, otherwise the def. would be nonsensical!

beng said...

Well, Mr Hoag, we'll never know would we. At least until you and your companies substantiate your claim.

As it were, I stand by my judgment.


Amazing how farsighted Pius XII were.

Picard said...

And re the accusation that the SSPX would stick to a poor manual thomism:

For Germany I know for sure that this is not right. I know the seminary in Zaitzkofen and also the teachers there - in the past as in the present.

There were/are such really brilliant men like Fr. G. Mura or Fr. Gaudron. Also Fr. Laroche teaches there.

Then there is a sommer-school in the German district every year in Schönenberg/Bonn with Dr. H.-L. Barth: it is always on the highest academic quality, with Prof´s and Doc´s of public universities of Germany. I was just there the beginning of August.

So at least for Germany I (and every informed man) can attest that within the SSPX and associated/friendly groups you will find a really high theological and philosophical quality/standard.

And btw, mr. Hoag and others:
it is not poor manual thomism vs. patrism.

The German SSPX and friends (I recall Dr. Barth, P. Gaudron, et alii - and on Dr. Barth´s summer schools there were the most famous patrists in Germany speaking!) are also very familiar with patrism.

No, the battle is between real thomism together with patrism against modernism (nouvel theologie etc.)

The modernist are not good patrists - patrism does not lead to modernism, but contradicts modernism - but they are idealists, hegelianists, existentialist, phänomenologists and cantian transcendentalists.

And as PKTP and others have already made claer: they sound very "complex" and "scientific" -- but they are not. it is all only potemkin villages/cities, don´t adore theire "subtleness"!

Picard said...

And last but not least:

There is/was some poor (manual) thomism - and at least the priests in the German district are well aware of that, as I stated before -- and as I am a wittness because I heard warnings against poor thomism myselfe out of P. gaudron´s and other priest´s mouth in Zaitzkofen.

And as also said before Fr. Mura is an excellent example for not beeing a poor but a real and brillinat thomist, who is open for real development and new insights and findings.

But to go that harsh way against manual thomism and to promote "modern" theological methods and systems is condammed by the authentic mag. in Pascendi and Humani Generis.

Now you have to choose and to be consistent:
either you accept that the authentic teaching is NOT infallible - but then this is also true for post-conciliar papal teaching.
Or you hold your (false) opinion and claim that it is infallible - but then the new existentialistic/idealistic-based theology is infallibly wrong. (read HG!!!)

Accoridng to the papal teaching (including a Saint like Pius X) better stick to the poorest thomism than to any of the modern theologies!!

Picard said...

No, Wm Chr. Hoag, we do not missinterprete you.

Read what you have written (and what beng cited 25 August, 2009 08:49) - and what he shows there and in the 2. part of his quotation-comment:

esp. nrr. 14, 15, 18 of HG condemn exact the same opinions Chr. Hoag defended and promoted.

Pius XII shows how subtle the modernists try to play of patrism and especially oriental/eastern patrism and history/historical studies against thomism -- and that they promote modern philosophical and theological systems in fighting agaisnt thomism.

compare what what yourselfe, Wm Chr. Hoag, said with this nrs. - and you will see that beng does not misenterprete but exactly expresses your statements, Mr. Hoag - the same that are condemned by Pius XII.

Like HG you speak of patristic/patrologism, eastern theology, historical resurch - and play it off against (manual) thomism.

please Mr. Hoag, reconsider your opinions!

That´s not meant offensive -- it is meant as a brotherly correction, a help to become aware of the fact that you want to be a man of the Right -- but are not anymore but promote the same modernistic accusation against thomism and in favor of patrism, eastern theology and modern philosophie/theology, that is condemned by the authentic papal magisterium.

please, please reconsider your claims, your assertions, your accusations -- I beg you for the honour of GOD and our Lady of Fatima!

Do not promote the condemmed modernism. - And do not think that would be high-qualitiy theology.

it has only the appearance of it -- but it is not!! (Trust Pius XII and Pius X -- trust them more than Rahner, DeLubac & Co --- I beg you!)

Jordanes said...

That is the same non-catholic nonsense that I and others like P.K.T.P. discussed with jordanes & alii days and weeks before.

Sorry, Picard, but it's not "non-Catholic nonsense," it's authentic Catholic teaching. Mr. Hoag is correct when he says that "to broadly paint the Church of Rome as having fallen away from the Faith is grave error contrary to the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church, especially when this accusation touches the person of the Roman Pontiff." K. Gurries established that beyond all doubt the last time around. There's no need for anyone here to take another ride on that merry-go-round.