[Update - New Catholic]
In his sermon in the Feast of the Purification, the Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) declared the following, among other things:
"And now, it is asked, will a result be achieved in the discussions with Rome, will we soon have an agreement? Frankly, sincerely, speaking in human terms, we do not see such an agreement in view. What does an agreement mean? On what are we in agreement? On the fact that only through the Church we find the means of salvation? ...
"This does not mean abandoning truth in order to find a middle way, absolutely not; yes, in human terms, we will not reach an agreement, the way we see things, [the talks] do not serve any purpose, in human terms. Yet, when we speak of the Church, we do not speak in human terms, we speak of a supernatural reality to which Our Lord promised that it would not fail, against which the gates of hell would not prevail. And, therefore, even if we face a difficult and contradictory reality, we know that events are in God's hands, He who has the means to put things in order. It would be proper to recall that to talk and to debate is necessary, but it is not enough: when one talks about saving souls, when one considers how God rescued the Church from other crises it faced through the centuries, we see that holiness is that with which He renews and heals the Church. Without grace, and remaining solely at the level of men, all is lost from the beginning. All of us, as Catholics, must, therefore, act, advancing in grace, in the love of God, in charity."
________________________________
Messa in Latino has the news of Bishop Fellay's discourse on the occasion of the reception of 13 new French seminarians for the SSPX on February 2, 2010.
The Messa in Latino article is here:
Fellay: umanamente, gli accordi con Roma sono impossibili; ma la Chiesa non e umana.
The La Porte Latine webpage with the audio recording of the bishop's speech:
Sermon des prises de soutane a Flavigny (See also this link on DICI.)
Rorate will provide a fuller report soon.
The Messa in Latino article is here:
Fellay: umanamente, gli accordi con Roma sono impossibili; ma la Chiesa non e umana.
The La Porte Latine webpage with the audio recording of the bishop's speech:
Sermon des prises de soutane a Flavigny (See also this link on DICI.)
Rorate will provide a fuller report soon.
65 comments:
Good news?
Bad news?
I wish I could read French and Italian.
Thank you for providing the link to the article in Italian. I just finished reading the post and it was pleasant to read that Bishop Fellay takes the hope-filled approach of saying that "humanly speaking an agreement isn't possible, but with God everything's possible," as opposed to "God can do everything, but an agreement is humanly impossible." He also said that "the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church" and that he hopes that the current difficulties in the dialogue with Rome may be overcome as the Church as overcome previous crises. May it please God that the difficulties are resolved soon so that the SSPX may be in full communion. Our Lady of Prompt Succor, pray for us!
DICI English, Bishop Fellay comments Jan 10, 2010
" Please, let us not use the word negotiations, it completely misses the point. This has nothing to do with negotiating, bargaining—nothing at all…. For us, we must really see this opportunity for the discussions with Rome as truly a disposition of Divine Providence, as truly an amazing grace to be able to present to the highest authorities in the Church what that Church has always said and which, thanks be to God, we have kept; thus, to make it resound at the very top of the Church. To bear witness to the Faith is a great grace. And even at Rome, a certain number [of prelates] are expecting from these discussions—and it’s a direct quote— “very much good for the Church.”
…The situation in the Church is truly a nightmare, it’s truly a great tragedy, and so to be able to give utterance to what the Church has always taught at the very top of the Church is really something out of the ordinary, hence extraordinary. It is a great grace, and also a great duty, because, of course, we hear: “What are you going to do in that mess? You are going to get lost…you are going to sell out the Society.” It involves no such thing!
…Humanly speaking, you might say that we are in a bad way! We are in about the same shape as Gideon when he went out to attack 20,000 or 30,000 men of the enemy army with his jars, trumpets, and torches—three hundred men to attack tens of thousands of heavily armed enemy soldiers. They were really in a bad way. It is about the same thing when we go down to Rome with our jars, torches, and trumpets… but we are not counting on our human efforts, we are counting on the good Lord as Gideon counted on the good Lord. We are counting on the promises that our Lord made to His Church, we are counting on this duty… It is the good Lord who has given us the grace of still having the Faith, of not having lost it, of having received the instruments of this Faith, even natural instruments, a sound philosophy. Yes, it is a duty to go and remind them of these truths.
…[These are] extremely delicate theological discussions; [there are] a lot of preconceived ideas [a priori]. We can see very well that we are not at all known… there are all sorts of ideas about us.
…The boat is sinking; humanly speaking, the Church is lost; humanly speaking, the Church is not recovering—notice that I say, humanly speaking, for we know that there are the promises of God, so that she is going to recover. How is she going to recover? We may say that it is in the hands of the good Lord, agreed! But the good Lord asks everyone to act according to his strength and capabilities, in his place, for this recovery. We cannot say that the pope has only to do this or that. It is every member of the Church who must, once again, at his place, according to his powers, according to the grace of the good Lord, do everything he can for the Church’s restoration. Everybody must contribute his efforts—everybody. So let us make this effort precisely by our prayers, by our sacrifices, by all the means that truly give life to the Church. The means that the good Lord commonly uses to restore and uplift the Church is called holiness. It is the life of grace; it is faith. It is absolutely certain that every good action within the Church uplifts the Church. The greater the goodness of the act, the more the Church is uplifted.
…The good Lord doesn’t need numbers, but He does need holiness… He asks us for it, and I should say that this battle, these terrible, horrible difficulties that we have briefly outlined, should be for us a stimulant, a real stimulant towards holiness—let’s dare to use the word, it is a very Catholic word… That will be the best way we can contribute, collaborate, and co-operate in helping to bring about an end to the crisis in the Church."
http://www.dici.org/en/?p=4253
Is the photograph of an S.S.P.X. ordination? If so, what justification is offered for the use of the throne and assistant deacons?
The tone of the speech is positive, and the Bishop's remarks about priesthood are edifying.
I think the post as quoted from DICI might be from an earlier speech? I like it nonetheless.
"Is the photograph of an S.S.P.X. ordination? If so, what justification is offered for the use of the throne and assistant deacons?"
Go ask them.
Is the photograph of an S.S.P.X. ordination? If so, what justification is offered for the use of the throne and assistant deacons?
They have been using the throne since the very beginning. In SSPX chapels and churches they're "home". Archbishop Lefebvre obtained personally in Rome many liturgical privileges, some of them purely practical coming from his missionary experience (e.g., SSPX priests are not obliged to pray Divine Office while travelling), some are honorary. It was as early as 1970 or 1971.
But this kind of question is usually asked by people who don't want to know the answer and think that the obligation of being charitable to your neighbor does not include being charitable to the SSPX, as if they were lepers.
This is positive and keeping with what Archbishop Lefebrve always stated. Whilst Rome is Conciliar,there can be no deal.
The remarks are very hopeful and show profound trust in God and, wisely, distrust in possibility of finding solutions through solely human efforts.
When I read the headline on Rorate I thought that there had been a complete break-down of the talks! Thanks be to God this is not the case and the more I read Bishop Fellay's remarks and consider them, the more I can sense that the outcome will be even better because the victory alone belongs to God.
Ut cuncta nostra oratio et operatio, ad te semper incipiat, et per te coepta finiatur.
Very hopeful statement!
Deo Gratias!
They have been using the throne since the very beginning. In SSPX chapels and churches they're "home". Archbishop Lefebvre obtained personally in Rome many liturgical privileges, some of them purely practical coming from his missionary experience (e.g., SSPX priests are not obliged to pray Divine Office while travelling), some are honorary.
How very interesting. I have some follow-up questions, but I suppose that I shouldn't ask them in light of,
But this kind of question is usually asked by people who don't want to know the answer and think that the obligation of being charitable to your neighbor does not include being charitable to the SSPX, as if they were lepers.
Absolutely not. I admire much about the SSPX, and would claim that, as a matter of historical fact, they prevented the utter and complete destruction of the traditional Roman liturgy. But that hardly means that everything they do is beyond questioning.
Paul Goings:I admire much about the SSPX, and would claim that, as a matter of historical fact, they prevented the utter and complete destruction of the traditional Roman liturgy. But that hardly means that everything they do is beyond questioning.
Well said.
The post-conciliar church likes to pretend there is no crisis and discusses the conciliar paradigm of the church and its signification as though all is fine and normal in the vineyard. However, the reality is that it is not: Bishop Fellay is right to intimate this sense of crisis which exists in radical measure. Therefore, there cannot be an agreement in the near future. Forty five years of disorientation and consequent destruction have to be understood first by those who implemented the catastrophe before the situation can be restored. It is not a faulty understanding of the councils that has brought this about but it is the councils themselves and the liturgy it fabricated for the purpose.
We might as well wait for another Pope of Christian Unity (when he will occupy the Chair of Peter is something that God only knows). The ball is really in the schismatic SSPX's court.
And as many mystics have seen, the Bark of Peter cannot sink despite what some SSPX bishops say.
Dear New Catholic
Thank you for your many postings, including the last one on the talks betwenn the Vatican and the SSPX with Bp Fellay's comment. Frankly I did not expect a break through, knowing the history of the 1988 break down.
The present impasse and the earlier break are symptoms of the loss of faith Holy Scriptures and our Lady at La Salette and at Fatima warned about. All of us, on all sides, are under God's justice now under way 'till the end, when divine intervention brings our Lady's promised victory. Until then we better take her call to penance to heart and act on it. God save us and preserve our faith and our soul. Peace!
Fr. Stephen, o.f.m.
on the eve of Sexagesioma Sunday
Is the photograph of an S.S.P.X. ordination? If so, what justification is offered for the use of the throne and assistant deacons?
When I was an SSPX altar server I witnessed this a lot and heard lots of different justifications from different priests.
By far the most common response was: "I have no idea" [and, by extension, 'I don't really care']. So much for liturgical integrity within the SSPX!
The least frequent but perhaps most rational response was: "In Catholic orders such as the Jesuits there has always been a precedent for the use of the throne in the order's churches by the order's bishops." - But, of course, the SSPX are not a religious order like the Jesuits. They are merely a fraternity.
From my own sacristy experience I believe the real answer is simply that there is quite a bit of liturgical improvisation going on, much of which has entered into the "SSPX tradition". The use of the throne is a prime example. It was always used by Abp. Lefebvre (for which there are another set of justifications), so its use has continued without anyone bothering to question it or without anyone bothering to consult the proper liturgical rules on the subject.
This is hard to accept for people who've never been involved with the SSPX behind-the-scenes. But those of us who have, know that it is not nearly as organised and "by the book" as some might have been led to think... I've witnessed some absolute liturgical howlers over the years.
I'm very sorry that Rorate Caeli, a blog, that as a traditional priest I have always respected, has seen fit to give publicity to Stephen Heiner and his interview with Fr. Couture.
Doing this has the undertone of solidarity with him and his causes especially when presenting the content of the post as from "an old friend of Rorate Caeli"..... and giving no chance to comment publicly.
I urge you to remove this post since it is not helpful to the cause of the Church.
Please go to: http://truerestoration.blogspot.com/2010/02/der-spiegel-real-story.html
Read the side bar:
Interviews and Print Pieces
* A Tribute to Fr. Carl Pulvermacher (for the Angelus)
* Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais (for the Remnant)
* Bishop Daniel Dolan and Fr. Anthony Cekada on pastoral issues
* Bishop Donald Sanborn on cultural issues
* Bishop Donald Sanborn on Vatican II, the SSPX, and the Motu Proprio
* Bishop Richard N. Williamson (for the Angelus)
* Bishop Richard N. Williamson (Video, Part I, London June 2009)
* Bishop Richard N. Williamson (Video, Part II, London June 2009)
* Bishop Richard N. Williamson on cultural issues
* Dr. David Allen White (for the Angelus, hosted by the Cornell Society)
* Fr. Anthony Cekada (for the Four Marks)
* Fr. Daniel Couture Part I (hosted by Rorate Caeli)
* Fr. Daniel Couture Part II (hosted by Durendal)
* Fr. Florian Abrahamowicz (for the Four Marks, English)
* Fr. Florian Abrahamowicz (for the Four Marks, French)
* Fr. Lawrence Smith (for the Remnant)
* Fr. Michael Oswalt (for the Four Marks)
* Mr. Joachim Svensson (for the Angelus, hosted by Rorate Caeli)
* Mr. John Sharpe (hosted by the Distributist Review)
Editorials and Opinions
* BBC Panel on SSPX, Vatican II, and Bishop Williamson
* Contra Der Spiegel
* On the Death of George Tiller
* The Boston College Crucifix Controversy
* The True Holocaust
* TR I: Dating
* TR II: College
* TR III: Sustainable Living
* TR IV: Travel
* TR V: Movies
* TR VI: Cooking
* TR VII: Etiquette
* TR VIII: Cell Phones
* What Haiti should teach us
Poetry Series (with Bishop Williamson)
A Plea for Understanding
This topic impels me to post the following. Let me begin by saying that if I have in any way contributed to division among Catholics both those of the tradtionalist stripe and those which are not, I humbly ask forgiveness. If I have in any way stirred the ire of any poster, I did so unintentionally for my only purpose in blogging is to stand up for Tradition and here is the key, as I understand Tradition formed as I was prior to Vatican II.
Most of you, I believe, know full well that we were charged as little ones to believe in what the Church proclaimed regarding Faith and Morals. Indeed, the words from the Act of Faith are inscribed indelibly in our hearts: “I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches because Thou hast revealed them, who canst neither deceive nor be deceived.” Then came the decades of the 60s and 70s when everything, it seemed, was turned upside down even to the extent that Catholics were turned against each other – father and mother, brother and sister, and so on. The abuses that occurred in the Liturgy and the actions of some priests, bishops and members of the hierarchy, including the occupants of the Chair of Peter, were to us incomprehensible was it not for the influence of Satan who goes about the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Those of us whose conscience was stirred to avoid at all costs these abuses sought refuge in the Traditional Mass and Catechism from any traditional priest who was validly ordained and professed loyalty to the Vicar of Christ. We did so without consigning to Hell-fire those who disagreed with us for we knew that there were many who did not have the benefit, as did we, of traditional formation in our youth who, indeed, had a much different formation than did we. That last statement might even be classified as a vast understatement!
Nuns in the 40s and 50s taught me told me that we could never judge the intentions of another person nor consign that person, even in our minds, to Hell-fire. Yes, it’s true we were told that salvation is only through the Church that Jesus established, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. But, we were told also that Our Lord Himself is the only one that can make that determination and he retains the prerogative of admitting to His Kingdom those whom He wishes, i.e., those not “officially” labeled as catholic by our finite minds.
So, my plea is simply this: that we proclaim what we believe and leave it at that - devoid of all anathemas against those with whom we disagree. Most especially, that we honor the intentions of all those traditional priests, who were validly ordained and who profess loyalty to the legitimate authority of the Vicar of Christ. I see the discussions between the SSPX and the Holy See as hopeful rather than the opposite view.
"The post-conciliar church likes to pretend there is no crisis..."
Our Churchmen are aware that the Latin Church is deep in crisis.
What they refuse to acknowledge is that said crisis is linked to the TLM.
That is, without the TLM at the center of Her liturgical life, the Latin Church has been thrown into a state of confusion — an identity crisis has gripped the Latin Church.
Without the TLM to anchor Her liturgical life, the Latin Church is unable to think and act in traditional Latin Church fashion.
Unfortunately, our Latin Churchmen are not about to return the TLM to front and center status within the Latin Church.
As Pope Benedict XVI declared, "it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite."
Oh, well.
Tim
I admire much about the SSPX, and would claim that, as a matter of historical fact, they prevented the utter and complete destruction of the traditional Roman liturgy. But that hardly means that everything they do is beyond questioning.
Of course. They're not much different than other ED institutes, but other institutes don't have their bishops, even though a bishop was promised to the FSSP 22 years ago... The question of the throne comes back so often that I wonder why nobody asked directly bishop Fellay or his ceremoniaries. It shouldn't be so hard, providing you speak French.
But those of us who have, know that it is not nearly as organised and "by the book" as some might have been led to think...
Liturgy doesn't lie in the books. Liturgy is a living thing, just like the Mystical Body of Christ is living.
Priests learn to celebrate from other priests, not from the books.
There's no "one right way" to celebrate up to the smallest detail.
In the good ol' times there was no way to find two dioceses (sometimes even parishes) with identical liturgy.
The Orthodox are less bound to "books" than Latins are and they (surprise!) preserved their liturgy. But being suspicious is understandable after excessive creativity.
Trying to freeze the organic (as opposed to decreed and implemented top-down) growth of the liturgy is the same kind of nonsense as trying to stop life in the Body of Christ.
This is anathema to "trads", but imposing nearly uniform liturgy on the entire West after Council of Trent was a very bad precedent...
To the Anonymous priest: I see no reason to remove it. It is just an interview, sent by a reader/friend. Our readers are able to see and hear what people in high positions in the FSSPX are thinking.
If you have more concrete reasons for why that post should be removed, please e-mail them to me, at newcatholic AT gmail DOT com. Thank you.
It's funny that some people see what they want to see. Bishops comments are positive, and some bad-willing people still want to create reality according to their bad will so as to spit insults on the SSPX, by pretending that the bishop says what he doesn't say .
Maybe the heading of this should be changed. It appears so discouraging I almost did not want to read the article. Even if in the words of the Bishop it shouldn't read as the headline IMHO.
The photograph is of the ceremony of taking the cassock, presumably the one at which Bishop Fellay give the talk in question. The thirteen men in suits are the seminarians taking the cassock.
I would suppose that a society of common life without vows that is recognized by the Vatican is left to itself to decide the furnishings for this ceremony.
As regards comments of the tone of Bishop Fellay's remarks, I would suggest that they are driven by the basic point: as a purely human matter, the talks can only go nowhere. All the Vatican representatives are Vatican II men, as is he who sent them, the Holy Father. Any breakthrough -- which is to say, the Vatican's recognizing and repenting of its errors -- can only be God's work. Archbishop Lefebvre planted, Bishop Fellay watered, but any increase must come from God.
As regards Stephen Heiner: I too am rather nonplussed by Father Anonymous's reaction. It looks as if the chief issue is Heiner's piece on the latest hatchet job on Bishop Williamson by Der Spiegel, which demonstrates that the Spiegel writers fabricated their "interview" with the Bishop, and implicitly warns that that might not be the only fabrication it contains. Is the point really that Father thinks that Bishop Williamson is "radioactive," to quote the term Der Spiegel attributed to Bishop Fellay?
Is the problem the interviews? They certainly demonstrate rather broad interests: SSPX figures, sedevacantists, the distributist John Sharpe, a black indie priest who writes Marian poems, and others. I have small use for distributism, and none for SVism; and I don't share Doc White's reverence for literature or Stratfordianism. But Mr. Heiner is a very good interviewer, and I found the interviews that I've read (which is most of them) quite interesting and informative.
I presume that the problem is not Mr. Heiner's views on cooking, dating or Haiti.
Any breakthrough -- which is to say, the Vatican's recognizing and repenting of its errors
If it be the case that it is the Holy See that has "errors" to recognise and repent of. Or, if it be otherwise, the breakthrough would involve the SSPX recognising and repenting of its errors and presumption . . .
-- can only be God's work. Archbishop Lefebvre planted, Bishop Fellay watered, but any increase must come from God.
The same may be said, and more appropriately, of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos' and Pope Benedict's planting and watering.
Vatican will not repent for its errors and pride that has caused liturgical and doctrinal revolution. No way. Vatican repents only when liberals want it and sees errors only where liberals want it. It is John Paul II who apologized for the Crusades. Who will apologize for John Paul II? Benedict XVI? No kidding.
Jordanes writes:
"Or, if it be otherwise, the breakthrough would involve the SSPX recognising and repenting of its errors and presumption . . ."
If repeating the Church teaching, which is what SSPX does, is erroneous and presumptuous then the Church before the 1960s was wrong and presumptuous. Indeed, this is what the liberals say about Syllabus Errorum and the Church before the New Pentecost in general.
"The same may be said, and more appropriately, of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos' and Pope Benedict's planting and watering."
It can't be said, as it is SSPX who asked for the talks. Regularisation was offered without them.
It is John Paul II who apologized for the Crusades.
When and where? If you check, you'll see that it wasn't the Crusades he apologised for.
If repeating the Church teaching, which is what SSPX does,
It's not ALL that the SSPX does, however. Besides, it's jumping the gun to pronounce what the outcome of the doctrinal dialogue will be when it's only just begun.
It can't be said, as it is SSPX who asked for the talks. Regularisation was offered without them.
The Pope and Cardinal Castrillon have done a lot more in laboring to reconcile the SSPX with the Catholic Church than just agreeing to a request for doctrinal and theological dialogue.
Jordanes,
The outcome of the doctrinal dialogue is only of interest if it leads to the parties' professing the completed and unadulterated Faith. If you don't profess the whole Faith, you don't profess the Faith.
The SSPX professes the whole and unadulterated Faith.
The Vatican does not. Vatican II is obviously in large part an effort to reach a common ground with the modern world somewhere between the "extremes" of hardcore rationalism and the pre-Vatican II magisterium. What does aggiornamento mean if it doesn't mean that? Of those who know something about the topic and are smart enough to size things up, there are only two camps: those who recognize the obvious radical change in the Church, whether to applaud or weep or yawn; and those who refuse to recognize the obvious.
In his latest encyclical, the Pope teaches that faith (not meaning just the Catholic Faith) and reason (a polite term for rationalism and secularism) must cure each other's shortcomings. The English translation of Bishop Tissier's analysis on this topic is becoming available, but it will simply be a detailed explanation of what the encylical says.
Indeed, this mutual deficiency and assistance is implicit in the whole notion of dialogue; if the Church has all the answers, why should it talk to anyone else except to teach them the error of their ways, and bring them to the Faith? Why soft-pedal Catholic superiority for forty years if you really believe in Catholic superiority?
The SSPX's position is that since the purpose of conciliar and post-conciliar teaching is not to teach the Faith delivered once for all to the saints, but some amalgam and Catholic and secularist views, it is not the teach of the Church, and has no authority.
This will become clearer when the English translation of Bishop Fellay's study of the theology of the Holy Father becomes widely avaiable (you can already buy the hard copy from Stephen Heiner); and the SSPX's Le Magisterium de Soufre, a collection of the papers from a series of annual symposia on Vatican II, is translated.
The outcome of the doctrinal dialogue is only of interest if it leads to the parties' professing the completed and unadulterated Faith.
No, I would say that the dialogue is of interest even if one of the parties finally does not profess and adhere to the Faith, because it holds the potential of clarifying many issues and answering many important questions. Even if, God forbid, at the end of it all the SSPX cannot accept the answers that the dialogue arrives it, all other Catholics will still benefit.
If you don't profess the whole Faith, you don't profess the Faith.
The SSPX professes the whole and unadulterated Faith.
The Vatican does not.
So the See of St. Peter's profession of faith is incomplete and defective, mixed with doctrinal error. How did it come to pass that the Rock on which the Church was founded lost the faith, while a small and de facto independent group is shown to be the only place where one can find the Catholic faith whole and unmixed with doctrinal error?
Well, we shall see whether it is the SSPX or the Church who has the complete and unadulterated profession of faith.
Of those who know something about the topic and are smart enough to size things up, there are only two camps: those who recognize the obvious radical change in the Church
There you go flirting with defectibility again . . . .
In his latest encyclical, the Pope teaches that faith (not meaning just the Catholic Faith) and reason (a polite term for rationalism and secularism) must cure each other's shortcomings.
Yeah, you've made that foolish claim here before. You're still wrong -- the Pope says no such thing in his latest encyclical . . . but you've never yet shown yourself to be able to interpret his writings accurately (it helps not to start right out by violently imposing blatantly erroneous definitions of faith and reason on the Pope's words). Hopefully Bishop Tissier doesn't interpret the Holy Father's words as tendentiously and erroneously as you do.
Indeed, this mutual deficiency and assistance is implicit in the whole notion of dialogue;
Really? Did St. Justin dialogue with Trypho with the understanding that both the Church and the Jews are partly right and partly in error?
if the Church has all the answers, why should it talk to anyone else except to teach them the error of their ways, and bring them to the Faith?
The Church has never claimed to have "all" the answers -- but a dialogue that is not aimed on our part at helping the other party to draw closer to and even to embrace the faith is not an genuine Catholic dialogue.
Why soft-pedal Catholic superiority for forty years if you really believe in Catholic superiority?
Some people don't believe in Catholic superiority, whereas others do believe in it but don't want to end the dialogue before it begins with an introductory announcement of "The Catholic Church teaches the truth and you must accept it!"
The SSPX's position is that since the purpose of conciliar and post-conciliar teaching is not to teach the Faith delivered once for all to the saints, but some amalgam and Catholic and secularist views, it is not the teach of the Church, and has no authority.
If they're right, it would justify their disobedience and their operating independently of the Catholic Church, and it would save the Church from the disaster of having defected from the faith.
The biggest problem with that position, however, is that we must explain how it is that the Church is in fact teaching what the SSPX insists is NOT the teaching of the Church, and isn't teaching what the SSPX says is the teaching of the Church. How did the teachings of Jesus come to be separated from that which Jesus established to be our Teacher until the end of time?
Jordanes, history of the Church is full of people who were right contrary to the contemporary teaching of the Church, and finally the Church has admitted that they were right, not the people who wanted them to pray and be quiet. We all should act in a way that we can explain before God, not just do anything we are told and pretend that it is justified by obedience.
history of the Church is full of people who were right contrary to the contemporary teaching of the Church, and finally the Church has admitted that they were right, not the people who wanted them to pray and be quiet.
Full of people such as . . . ?
"Full of people such as . . . ?"
St. Theodore Studite, St. Athanasius the Great, St. Maxim the Confessor, St. John Damascene...
By no means can those four great saints be said to have been "right contrary to the contemporary teaching of the Church, and finally the Church has admitted that they were right, not the people who wanted them to pray and be quiet." St. Theodore and St. John did not oppose the Church's teaching -- rather, they suffered for standing for the Church's teaching and against the heretical Iconoclast emperors who attempted to impose their false doctrine on the Catholic Church. In the same way St. Athanasius suffered for standing up for the Church's contemporary teaching against the unlawful impositions of the heretical Arian and semi-Arian emperors, and St. Maximus suffered for standing up for the Church's teaching -- and standing with the Bishop of Rome, even defending Pope Honorius and exonerating him from charges of heresy -- against the Monothelites and against the unlawful impositions of heretical emperors. At no time did those four saints ever oppose themselves to or rebel against the teachings of the Holy See. Rather, they were persecuted for their orthodoxy, and the Church vindicated them. At no time did the Church formally condemn their opinions or beliefs or range herself against what they taught.
Bishop Fellay's flowery words make for a great deal of hedging. The impossible outcome anticipated needed some supernatural justification to answer the question that begged: "then, why bother?". That part of the traditional world relying solely on divine intervention for a restoration of the Church will obviously concur with the bishop whatever they think of his frequent trips to Rome. But those who want a more muscular approach to realising such a restoration will be saying it will be business as usual for the idiosyncratic Society. These doctrinal shenanigans are not for them.
I"ve read all the posts written, and the one I will voice is Father Stephen,ofm.
"The present impasse and the earlier break are symptoms of the loss of faith Holy Scriptures and our Lady at La Salette and at Fatima warned about. All of us, on all sides, are under God's justice now under way 'till the end, when divine intervention brings our Lady's promised victory. Until then we better take her call to penance to heart and act on it. God save us and preserve our faith and our soul."
I am a realistic and the reality is that libiralism in the Roman Catholic Church has become a catastrophy, and I don't see much improvement coming anytime soon.
Apostasy has not began, but instead it is well underway.
I think Bishop Fellay is aware that not much change is going to happen under the current pope, aside from the lifting of the excommunication to the four bishops of SSPX.
I believe that we better start praying with all our might, because liberalism and apostasy is the order of the day in the world.
May God help us.
Come quickly Lord Jesus! Come!
Oliver,
Just what did you have in mind that Bishop Fellay would do with his 500 priests and million or so faithful, not to mention the fact that Joseph Ratzinger is the Pope and Bernard Fellay isn't?
Jordanes,
As regards your latest critique of my latest critique:
I can make the basic point by reference to your last paragraph, where you frame the issue quite well from your perspective:
"The biggest problem with [the SSPX's] position, however, is that we must explain how it is that the Church is in fact teaching what the SSPX insists is NOT the teaching of the Church, and isn't teaching what the SSPX says is the teaching of the Church. How did the teachings of Jesus come to be separated from that which Jesus established to be our Teacher until the end of time?
The Church is not teaching something other than the Faith. Those with authority in the Church on earth are teaching something other than the Faith.
Until recently, that was a very rare occurrence. It has now become a very common occurrence.
There is nothing in the doctrine of the Church that says or implies that this is impossible.
Only the Pope as an individual can speak infallibly, and then only when his teaching meets the criteria codified at Vatican I for an infallible act of the extraordinary magisterium.
No conciliar pope has ever said anything in such a fashion as to meet these criteria. The historical relativism that suffuses their thinking ("aggiornamento") effectively made and makes an infallible act of the EM morally impossible.
You are frightened by the bogeyman of Defectibility; that is, you think that if the Pope is making a hash of his obligations to his brethren, that's proof positive that the Church isn't what it claims to be.
But you're wrong. Indefectibility is the province of the Holy Ghost, not of the Popes individually or collectively. The Church survived the morals and the politics of Alexander VI and Julius II, which made the loss of half of Christendom child's play to bring off. It will survive the magisterium of the conciliar popes and (God forbid) worse yet.
The Church is not teaching something other than the Faith. Those with authority in the Church on earth are teaching something other than the Faith.
But here's the rub: they're teaching it authoritatively, even going so far as to convene a valid oecumenical council and to prepare a Catechism enshrining that council's dogmatic and doctrinal teachings. When has it ever happened that the Church's magisterii have taken such measures to endorse and propagate false doctrine? We know that the ordinary magisterium cannot defect.
Until recently, that was a very rare occurrence. It has now become a very common occurrence.
Another telling weakness of the SSPX's hypothesis -- how could it be rare for all of the Church's history up to 1965, and then WHAM!, everything turns around and what hardly ever happened before now happens all the time? What changed about the Church, about God's relationship with her and with Man, that this has come to pass?
you think that if the Pope is making a hash of his obligations to his brethren, that's proof positive that the Church isn't what it claims to be.
No, that's not at all what I think, as I've told you many times before. Your response to my criticisms will not come close to the bullseye until you accept that.
The relevant quote from the First Vatican Council's Pastor Aeternus, interspersed with Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:
"...when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,"
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32)
"he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church,"
I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."
"he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals."
Now, John McFarland, 'splain me how Ordinatio Sacerdotalis does not constitute a post-conciliar exercise of the extraordinary magisterium, having fulfilled the precise requirements of Pastor Aeternus above.
Jordanes,
"When has it ever happened that the Church's magisterii have taken such measures to endorse and propagate false doctrine?"
I take it that by "magisterii" you mean the "magistri": the Pope and the other teachers of the Teaching Church.
We have been seeing it happen since 1962. As Archbishop Lefebve was wont to say, happy those who never had to see it.
"We know that the ordinary magisterium cannot defect."
First of all, you're making what philosophers call a category mistake. Defectibility and indefectibility are not characteristics applicable to the magisterium. For present purposes, the applicable characteristics of the magisterium are fallibility and infallibility.
Secondly, the ordinary magisterium is fallible; only the ordinary and universal magisterium is infallible.
More after dinner.
Jordanes,
"Another telling weakness of the SSPX's hypothesis -- how could it be rare for all of the Church's history up to 1965, and then WHAM!, everything turns around and what hardly ever happened before now happens all the time? What changed about the Church, about God's relationship with her and with Man, that this has come to pass?"
It took about a millennium for most of the Eastern church to go into schism. It took a millennium and a half for half of the Catholic Church to fall into Protestantism. It took two millennia for the Teaching Church to fall into modernism.
Catastrophes are not new to the Church of God. This is the worst of them, because the perpetrators have not left the Church, but stayed. But it is still one catastrophe among others, and it may not be the last. But if God is for us, and we are with Him, who shall be against us?
I would also note that it didn't come upon us in 1965. The rot had started to set in long before that. I know: I was there, and I was part of what rotted. Furthermore, the Vatican II playbook was already written before Vatican II. I have a Paulist Press reprint of some pieces from the Jesuit journal America that date from 1961. One of them is an interview with Yves Congar, O.P. It is quite interesting from this perspective.
Jordanes,
"No, that's not at all what I think, as I've told you many times before. Your response to my criticisms will not come close to the bullseye until you accept that."
What then do you think?
Maybe it's you, maybe it's me; but I don't understand why you persist in following the Pope, and why you persist in avoiding trying to figure out what the SSPX and those of like mind are saying.
Craig,
Let's assume for the moment that Sacerdotialis Ordinatio is a gotcha.
The problem is that for present purposes it's not a very interesting gotcha.
If you can find me a gotcha about any of the issues that have rocked the Church throughout my adult life -- religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality, etc. -- then I'll get interested.
As for whether Ordinatio Sacerdotialis is a gotcha, my recollection is that at the time of its issuance, it was said that the Pope seemed to have been at some pains to avoid using the formulae of the definitions of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. The point seemed to be that he was fighting shy of an infallible pronouncement.
At this stage of the game, it might be hard to find the commentary. But one thing we can both do in the short run is take a look at the two Marian definitions and compare the force, if you will, of the pronouncement to that of SO.
I take it that by "magisterii" you mean the "magistri": the Pope and the other teachers of the Teaching Church.
Correct, by "magisterii" I mean "magisterii," the teachers/magisters and teaching bodies and levels of teaching authority (magisteria) of the Catholic Church, our Mater et Magistra.
We have been seeing it happen since 1962.
Yes, how is it that something that was extremely rare before 1962 is now the ordinary course of affairs in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?
"We know that the ordinary magisterium cannot defect."
First of all, you're making what philosophers call a category mistake. Defectibility and indefectibility are not characteristics applicable to the magisterium. For present purposes, the applicable characteristics of the magisterium are fallibility and infallibility.
You are mistaken. Both defectibility and indefectibility, as well as fallibillity and infallibility, are characteristics that are applicable to the Church's Magisterium. It could not be otherwise, since the Church must always have a living, functioning Magisterium in order for her to BE the Church.
Secondly, the ordinary magisterium is fallible; only the ordinary and universal magisterium is infallible.
Thanks for catching that mistake. I meant to say "ordinary and universal" magisterium. This is where the SSPX critique of the Catholic Church is at its weakest, as it must classify an entire general council and virtually everything the Church has taught since 1965 as being at best merely a function of the fallible ordinary magisterium -- and a magisterium, mind you, that has lost the Catholic faith and actively, exclusively teaches a false gospel instead of the teachings of Jesus Christ. That's a mighty tall order the SSPX must fill, and I find their take on things implausible in the extreme. It has never happened before, nor do Vatican II and the various attendant and subsequent papal and episcopal acts and decrees and divers catecheses show themselves to be merely ordinarily magisterial or less. The Church has even issued with the authority of a papal apostolic constitution a universal catechism. To sustain your opinions, you must sweep all that into the dumper labeled "deficient, adulterated magisterium." I find that to be incredible.
Craig,
I see from the New York Times that after Ordinatio Sacerdotialis in 1994, the CDF made a statement in 1995 (which I could not find on the Vatican website) pronouncing the Pope's teaching "infallible."
Whatever the status of the Pope's pronouncement, it would be at the very least rash for a layman like me to take issue with it. In any event, it would seem infallible by virtue of its being part of the ordinary and universal magisterium.
But is OS an infallible act of the extraordinary magisterium? It's certainly not as clear as either of the Marian definitions, which throw the entire weight of tradition and the Pope's authority behind the definition in no uncertain terms.
Still and all, it's hard to see how the Pope could have said what he said, and considered it reformable. So I think it is a gotcha -- but qua gotcha, not much of a gotcha.
Jordanes,
The plural of magister (master, teacher) is magistri. Magisterium is the action and authority of teaching. Its grammatical plural would be magisteria (although I don't think anyone before Vatican II would even have thought of its having a plural).
From the time of the French Revolution, there came to be incentives for the Church to make its peace with the Modern World. During the 19th century, that was usually in the form of abandonment of the social kingship of Christ. At one point in the 19th century, 70% of the Brazilian clergy were reputedly Masons. There are also figures like Delammanais, and the German historicism that took Ignaz Doellinger out of the Church after 1870. Towards the end of the century, the MW began to infect theology and biblical studies: the modernism condemned by St. Pius X. Modernism went underground, and continued its work, as did the more politically oriented liberal Catholicism. The condemnation of Action Francaise gave the French Church over to the liberals. After WW II, the plotting to take things over entirely began. At Vatican II, it reached its fruition. North America was late to the game, but it supplied the impetus for DH, and otherwise caught up with the general rot quite quickly. One might say, it all started with Judas; that the modernist triumph was just one more manifestation. The suddenness of the collapse resulted from two things: the papal sponsorship of the revolution; and the de facto progressive secularization of the generality of Catholics, North American Catholics included. So when the Pope and the Council told them that not taking the Faith too seriously was the way to go, the generality of the faithful didn't have to be told twice -- even the alleged conservatives.
It is not unusual for something to fall or collapse suddenly, but for the causes to have been building up progressively for a long time.
But quickly or suddenly, it happened; and so I don't see the relevance of the speed with which it happened, or the supposed absence of precedent for its happening.
Jordanes,
"You are mistaken. Both defectibility and indefectibility, as well as fallibillity and infallibility, are characteristics that are applicable to the Church's Magisterium."
You are simply wrong in saying the indefectibility is a characteristic of the magisterium.
"It could not be otherwise, since the Church must always have a living, functioning Magisterium in order for her to BE the Church."
The notion that the teaching authority of the Teaching Church (the Pope and teh ordinary bishops at any particular time) is guaranteed to be "living, functioning" is not a doctrine of the Church, if by "living, functioning" you mean teaching the Faith, the whole Faith, and nothing but the Faith. It is the pseudo-theological rationalization of a sentiments widely held in my youth: that you were always safe following the Pope, and that nowadays we were pretty much guaranteed popes of the quality of the Popes from Pius IX to Pius XII inclusive. People like you and the sedevacantists developed it independently from the same mindset. The SVs use the doctrine to show that the Pope can't be the pope. People like you use it to say that we can't accept the arguments of the "hard" traditionalists because then we'd have no Church.
I have no use for SVism, but SVists at least recognize the problem, although they embrace the wrong solution for the problem. You use substantially the same theory to argue that at bottom, somehow, in some way, there is no problem once one is inside the papal apartments.
But you have no arguments for the soundness of the Pope's doctrine. Rather, you have a standard tactic whose effect is to foreclose any real argumentation: you insist that the burden of proof is on the other guy, and then wave or sneer away his arguments, even though it's pretty obvious that you're not particularly learned in these matters.
The only way you can test the credibility of the arguments of the "hard" traditionalists is by examining them. Arguments of the form "I don't know much about about theory X, but it doesn't seem plausible," have exactly the same value as the the knowledge on which they are based -- not much. I would add that you know perfectly well that the doctrines of Vatican II are, to say the least of it, not obviously consistent with pre-Vatican II doctrine.
Jordanes said, "...and a magisterium, mind you, that has lost the Catholic faith and actively, exclusively teaches a false gospel instead of the teachings of Jesus Christ."
Prime example:
Parish mission preacher coming soon to your neighbourhood.
Google Fr. Tom Allender, S.J.
Watch his Life Journey videos. If this is the Catholic faith then I don't want it. "All you need is love, love love is all you need" The Beatles (a rough comparison to the Jesuit's message).
I will gladly take the dregs from the FSSPX thank you.
Anonymous 06:22,
I don't think we should talk about settling for the dregs of anything, even in jest.
To be a Catholic is to accept the Faith, the whole Faith and nothing but the Faith.
I also think that it's a bad idea to concentrate on the horror stories and the obvious dingbats. Sodomite priests and balloon Masses are symptoms, not the disease. The disease is secularization -- elevating the world over the kingdom of God -- in theory and in practice; and the cure is to know, love and serve God, and go to those priests who can lead us along the strait gate and narrow path of which the Master spoke -- the path that leads to life.
Jordanes,
Consider this passage from Caritas in veritate:
"56. ... Reason always stands in need of being purified by faith: this also holds true for political reason, which must not consider itself omnipotent. For its part, religion always needs to be purified by reason in order to show its authentically human face. Any breach in this dialogue comes only at an enormous price to human development.
57. Fruitful dialogue between faith and reason cannot but render the work of charity more effective within society, and it constitutes the most appropriate framework for promoting fraternal collaboration between believers and non-believers in their shared commitment to working for justice and the peace of the human family. In the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, the Council fathers asserted that 'believers and unbelievers agree almost unanimously that all things on earth should be ordered towards man as to their centre and summit' [136]. For believers, the world derives neither from blind chance nor from strict necessity, but from God's plan. This is what gives rise to the duty of believers to unite their efforts with those of all men and women of good will, with the followers of other religions and with non-believers, so that this world of ours may effectively correspond to the divine plan: living as a family under the Creator's watchful eye."
A few thoughts:
1. Faith and reason seem to stand on an equal footing.
2. The talk of faith does not appear to mean the Catholic faith, but faith generically.
3. As the Pope notes with obvious approval, Vatican II said: “...believers and unbelievers agree almost unanimously that all things on earth should be ordered towards man as to their centre and summit.” I would have thought that for the Catholic faith, everything comes from and returns to God.
4. The Pope speaks of "the duty of believers to unite their efforts with those of all men and women of good will, with the followers of other religions and with non-believers, so that this world of ours may effectively correspond to the divine plan: living as a family under the Creator's watchful eye." So we can all work together to follow "the Creator's" plan. Meanwhile, under the Redeemer's plan, most of this same human family is on the road to Hell for failure to follow the narrow way that leads to eternal life.
But what doth it profit a man if he gain his part in integral human development, and suffer the loss of his soul?
There are problems here, Jordanes; real problems.
You are simply wrong in saying the indefectibility is a characteristic of the magisterium.
Again, you're off the mark. Indefectibility is a characteristic of the Church, who cannot lose her magisterium. Indefectibility is thus a characteristic that can be applied to the Church's magisterium. If she lacked her magisterium, she will have defected, i.e. become defective. More precisely, her infallible magisterium cannot defect, cannot lose anything that it needs to teach the truth infallibly and authoritatively.
The notion that the teaching authority of the Teaching Church (the Pope and teh ordinary bishops at any particular time) is guaranteed to be "living, functioning" is not a doctrine of the Church, if by "living, functioning" you mean teaching the Faith, the whole Faith, and nothing but the Faith.
One the contary, it is not a doctrine of the Church that the Church can at any time lose her teaching authority and function and powers. Not a day goes by that the Church does not exercise some level of magisterium.
People like you use it to say that we can't accept the arguments of the "hard" traditionalists because then we'd have no Church.
If your assertion is correct, then I am not a person like me.
You use substantially the same theory to argue that at bottom, somehow, in some way, there is no problem once one is inside the papal apartments.
That's not even a close approximation of my beliefs or arguments.
But you have no arguments for the soundness of the Pope's doctrine.
We assume the Pope's doctrine is sound unless presented with solid evidence to the contrary. That's just how Catholics do things.
My own opinion, infinitessimally small value that it has, is that Pope Benedict's doctrine is essentially sound, but that he is lacking in certain points.
Rather, you have a standard tactic whose effect is to foreclose any real argumentation: you insist that the burden of proof is on the other guy
It unquestionably is.
and then wave or sneer away his arguments, even though it's pretty obvious that you're not particularly learned in these matters.
My guess is that my degree of "learning" in these matters is not too far inferior to yours.
I would add that you know perfectly well that the doctrines of Vatican II are, to say the least of it, not obviously consistent with pre-Vatican II doctrine.
Some of Vatican II's teachings are, well, at the least in tension with pre-Vatican II teaching, but the vast majority of it is a restatement of what the Church has been professing all along.
As for my confusion and error about "magisterii," "magistri," etc., it was probably the Blue Army of Fatima's publication on "Fashion" that helped lead me astray. I see that is quotes Pope Pius XII (Sept. 1956) as saying, "Our Divine Saviour entrusted the deposit of faith not to theologians, but to the Magisterium of the Church for its authentic interpretation. Hence, the 'sensus ecclesiae' (the mind of the Church) is decisive for the knowledge of truth; not the 'opinio theologorum' (the personal views of individual theologians). Otherwise, the theologians would be the Magisterii, which is evidently erroneous."
That would presumably be some kind of mistranslation of typographical error, perhaps for "Magisterium" or "Magistri," since "magisterii," I find, is a genetive form, not a plural.
Jordanes,
As you know, the magisterium is simply the Church's teaching authority and office.
So when you speak of the Church's "losing its magisterium," you can't mean God's taking that authority and office away from the Church.
So I don't understand what you mean by the Church's "losing its magisterium."
Do you mean the Church's losing its infallibility? It can't do that.
Do you mean the Pope's teaching error?
That would not constitute the failure of his charism of infallibility unless a Pope met the criteria of Vatican I for an infallible act of his extraordinary magisterium, but nonetheless taught error.
I am not aware of any case in which that has happened. Are you?
So I think that all you are defending is the orthodoxy of certain pronouncements of the current Holy Father that are not acts of his extraordinary magisterium, but don't seem at all consistent with the pre-Vatican II teaching of the Church.
But since those pronouncements are not acts of his EM, the Church would not collapse if they turn out to be in error.
So let's stop talking about indefectibility and infallibility and get down to business.
Your other comments are not a matter of getting down to business. You are still parrying. You admit there are problems with the Pope's teaching, but that they aren't very big problems. But don't identify any of them; explain why it is a problem; or explain why it isn't a very big problem. Just one would be a start; but so far you're still out there in the tall grass.
Jordanes,
The moral of this story is that you should be careful about using Latin words if you don't know much Latin, unless you're a lawyer. Lawyers have the professional right to butcher Latin.
By the way: do you think that the current Holy Father agrees with the statement of Pius XII that you quote?
Mr. McFarland said:
"3. As the Pope notes with obvious approval, Vatican II said: '...believers and unbelievers agree almost unanimously that all things on earth should be ordered towards man as to their centre and summit.' I would have thought that for the Catholic faith, everything comes from and returns to God."
I remember Jacob Michael addressing this concern in his article "Gaudium et Spes: A Traditionalist Reading"--I'll quote the relevant text from Mr. Michael's article here:
"A few radical Traditionalists have gone so far as to call this text blasphemous, because of the statement that 'all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown' - this, it is said, puts Man in the place of God, to Whom all things should truly be related as the 'center and crown.' Of course, the text says no such thing. Emphasis here is upon the words 'on earth'; on this created earth, amongst all the creatures of this earth, man is the center and crown. That is the message of Genesis 1-2, and the message of Psalm 8, which uses similar language: 'what is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou dost care for him? Yet thou hast made him little lower than the angels, and crowned him with glory and honor ... thou hast put all things under his feet.' (Ps. 8:4-6)
The council itself is aware of Man's tendency to over-exalt himself, and says as much in the very next paragraph:
'But what is man? About himself he has expressed, and continues to express, many divergent and even contradictory opinions. In these he often exalts himself as the absolute measure of all things or debases himself to the point of despair. The result is doubt and anxiety. The Church certainly understands these problems. Endowed with light from God, she can offer solutions to them, so that man's true situation can be portrayed and his defects explained, while at the same time his dignity and destiny are justly acknowledged. (GS, 12)'
In this, Man's dignity is set in contrast to his defects, and the World is warned about the problem of Man's over-exaltation of himself as the 'absolute measure of all things.' Clearly, the council is not trying to put Man in the place of God."
---------------
Here is a link to the complete article:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060708162157/www.lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=175
do you think that the current Holy Father agrees with the statement of Pius XII that you quote?
Yes, I do. He has issued statements that reaffirm that principle (I'm thinking of his commentary on the profession of faith), and I'm not aware of him saying anything contrary to it.
Kevin, thanks for your helpful comment. I would add that the Incarnation is the key to the proper understanding of the Pope's statement. God the Son was made flesh and dwelt among us. He is both God and Man. Therefore it is impossible to rightly order all things with Man at their center and summit unless you order all things with God at their center and summit, and it is impossible to rightly order all things with God at their center and summit unless you order all things with Man at their center and summit. This we find in St. Paul's treatment of Psalm 8 in Heb. 1-2.
Kevin,
Prior to Vatican II, the doctrine and practice of the Church was all about God. All the vast ascetic literature is an exercise on weaning the Christian soul from a concern with the things of self and world, except insofar as they are understood in and through God. A work of Carmelite spirituality, Fr. Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalene's Divine Intimacy, makes the point over and over and over and over in 365 days of brief meditations. But then so do all the Carmelites that he quotes; and so does St. Augustine in the Confessions; and so does every other master of the spiritual life.
Basic to asceticism is the recognition that the world and one's own ego are always tending to derail our relations with God. The last thing that we need to worry about is that the world and its attractions will not receive their proper due! On the contrary, the spiritual masters are always looking to expose the ways in which the world seeks to worm its way in between God and the soul.
But then all of a sudden, there appears Vatican II's focus on worldly things in general and man's worldly preoccupations in particular.
It is not too much to say that quite apart from the particularities of its language, this focus is entirely contrary to the spirit of the Faith until then.
And all around us, we see the ripe and savory fruits of this change in focus.
To focus on the language of Vatican II, and not its world-loving spirit, is an exercise is straining out fleas and swallowing camels.
Bear in mind, too, that Psalm 8 is a psalm in praise of God, who put him in his place in creation. That place gains us nothing if we end up in hell, any more than the fallen angel's still higher status in creation gains them anything.
And of course, it is said that there is not a single unambiguous reference to Hell in the documents of Vatican II.
There's a lot more to be said; but this is the nub of it. There is simply no way that Vatican II's focus on man and his world can be squared with the Faith. The man-centeredness of modern man is no more a matter for the Church to conform itself to than the idol worship of its ancestors. God is no more impressed by our computers and A-bombs and internal plumbing and electric tootbrushes than he was by the Tower of Babel.
Like most "soft" traditionalists, you're like a lawyer whose client has a very bad legal position that he has to make the best of. The difference is that most lawyers ae perfectly well aware that that's what they're doing.
Jordanes,
In citing St. Paul's reading of Psalm 8, you are moving the discussion in the right direction. But that is not Kevin's (and LG's) direction.
St. Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, reads Psalm 8 as messianic (as, indeed, the Church traditionally read the Psalter in general). The "son of man" is the Son of Man. He has been made lower than the angels in being made flesh and dwelling among us. As St. Paul says, all things are not yet seen as beneath his feet, because the natural hierarchy of creation is just the type of the supernatural hierarchy, whose final consummation and manifestation is still to come.
And other than in its typological significance, I'm unaware of any passage in Hebrews or elsewhere in the New Testament that mentions man's position in the hierarchy of creation -- much less reflects the focus placed upon that position in Vatican II.
Fellay has mastered the art of speaking from both sides of his mouth. But he cannot fool all the SSPX layfolk all of the time!
Anonymous 11:50,
Rather, it's that people like you (1) are suspicious of Bishop Fellay because (2) they have trouble determining the proper relationship between two or more concepts.
You are like those misguided patriots who can't distinguish between (a) opposition to the U.S.'s Asian warmaking and (b) hatred or contempt for those who are doing our killing and being killed.
I have yet to see any credible evidence that a substantial number of the SSPX's faithful are at odds with the Society on the discussions with the Vatican. Do you have any?
As I've been saying for a while now: it may be that Bishop Fellay will sell out, but won't be on the basis on anything I've heard about so far.
Other than Father Meramo in Mexico, do you know of any priest who has left or been dismissed from the Society because of his opposition to the discussion?
And what do you make of the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre would talk with Rome any time Rome would talk with him?
It is reassuring to hear Bishop Fellay's comment that the SSPX cannot "humanly" move Rome.
Along these lines, our pastor, who had met the Superior General last week, noted that the SSPX mission is to "convert" Rome.
Now the dissent among the SSPX ranks concerns this "change of approach" within the Society's hiearchy, since the lifting of the excommunications.
Why are the SSPX faithful wary? Because they intuitively know that the "Conversion of Rome" does not require the loss of our Catholic militancy and identity.
Rather, a militant SSPX has maintained our Faith and brought the graces reponsible for bringing Rome to our door.
The danger lies in being absorbed into the modernized Church as "...just another Motu".
In this case the SSPX will lose enormous leverage.
Post a Comment