Rorate Caeli

SSPX-Rome: Important - Father Schmidberger speaks on conditions and current status of negotiations with Rome
Updated: video with subtitles

Fr. Andreas Steiner, spokesman of the German District of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), interviewed Germany’s current District Superior and former Superior General of the Society Fr. Franz Schmidberger.

Fr. Schmidberger spoke on the most recent General Chapter, the current situation of affairs between Rome and the SSPX, and on the relationship with Abp. Müller (head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - and President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei).



[Click on "captions" for English subtitles]

Following is an adapted, but reasonably accurate, summary of the 17:21-long video.

On the first question, dealing with the General Chapter, Fr. Schmidberger remarks about the gain for the SSPX itself: “the General Chapter has provided us with a new unity within our own ranks, [a unity] which had suffered a bit in recent times; and that is a big grace of God, I would say”. Concerning the external aspect of the General Chapter, Father remarks that there are three points which must be demanded from the authorities if a visible union with Rome will be established. These are: firstly, that the SSPX will be given the freedom to expose the errors of Vatican II; secondly, that the SSPX will be allowed to only use the liturgical books of 1962; and thirdly, that there must always be a bishop in the Fraternity from within its own ranks.

The second question deals with the situation between Rome and the SSPX. Around Pentecost (of this year) people thought that a visible union was close, but, as Father remarks, the meeting of Cardinal Levada and Bishop Fellay changed this. The proposal that was presented by the Cardinal contained not only the proposal [translator's note: for a doctrinal preamble] that Bishop Fellay had sent to Rome earlier, but it added to that proposal new requirements to be fulfilled by the SSPX, but which the Bishop deemed unacceptable for the Fraternity.

These additional requirements consist, according to Father, of the recognition of the “licitness” [in German: Lizeität - translator's note: see also the foreword to the SSPX’s German District’s Mitteilungsblatt nr. 404 of September 2012, in which the same word is used, strengthening the belief that this words stems directly from the proposal of Cardinal Levada] of the new liturgy [translator's note: Father firstly presents the term Lizeität as “permissiveness”, but he then immediately interprets it as meaning “rightfulness”]; and also of the recognition of the uninterrupted continuity between Vatican II and all former councils and doctrinal statements of the Church. And that is impossible, according to Father, as there undeniably are ruptures with Vatican II and “we therefore cannot accept the hermeutic of continuity as such” [emphasis added by translator].

Following on that meeting, Bishop Fellay sent a letter to the Pope, asking him whether these additional requirements were wished for by His Holiness, or that they were his co-workers's demands. The Pope assured Bishop Fellay that he really wishes these requirements to be fulfilled.

The SSPX will send its concerns about these additional requirements to Rome in the hope that they can be resolved. Already with the doctrinal discussions it became clear that there are big differences between the teaching of the Church during the last centuries (represented by the SSPX) and the doctrinal concepts of the representatives of the current authorities in the church. As long as these are not resolved, Father says he believes that there will be no real exodus of the Church out of the current problems.

The third question, then, deals with the relation between Archbishop Müller, the current prefect of the CDF, and the SSPX. The Archbishop has not been very favourable of the SSPX when he was the local ordinary of the diocese in which the SSPX has its German seminary; however, what worries Father much more is the heterodoxy of the Archbishop in certain points of the Faith [translator's note: see this Rorate post, at number 2], whereas the head of the CDF is supposed to watch over the Faith and protect it.

Father Steiner then asked whether Fr. Schmidberger expects new excommunications if the SSPX does not fulfil the two abovementioned requirements. Father Schmidberger, however, thinks that that is very unlikely. He sees the Fraternity not only as a community of about 570 priests, some sisters and some Catholic schools, but – without wanting to come across as pretentious – he also believes that the SSPX is in a certain way the backbone of all those who want to keep the Tradition of the Church alive. For all those, the SSPX is in a certain way a point of reference. If this point of reference would be discredited in such a way, this would mean a huge “demoralisation” of the traditional and conservative forces in the Church. It would therefore be a tremendous catastrophe, not so much for the Fraternity, but for the Church itself.

Finally, the last question sought the opinion of Fr. Schmidberger as to whether the talks with Rome have had any benefit. Father believes that the talks have had huge benefits. Firstly, they have proven that the SSPX really does search a normalisation; that the SSPX regards its current situation in light of the current crisis, as being not normal; and every abnormality lingers for a normalisation. The current abnormal situation is, however, not the fault of the Fraternity; it is a necessity in the current crisis if one wants to keep the ancient liturgy, the ancient doctrine, the ancient discipline integrally and if one wants to live homogeneously as a Catholic on this fullness.

On the other hand, the discussions have shown that there exist doctrinal differences; and the deviations do not exist on the side of the Fraternity, but on the side of – one has to, sadly, admit this – those representatives of the Church that organise the Assisi meetings, that practise that which has been explicitly condemned in the past by the Church, by the Popes, by the councils.

And thirdly, the talks have led to a process of clarification within the Society. The Society does not agree with those that, out of principle, reject talks with Rome. Father ends the interview by saying: "The Fraternity has never worked for itself; it has never regarded itself as an end in itself, but it has always striven to serve the Church; to serve the Popes. Archbishop Lefebvre has always said this: we want to be at the disposal of the Bishops, of the Popes; we want to serve them, we want to help them lead the Church out of this crisis, to restore the Church in all her beauty, in all her holiness; but this can, of course, only happen outside of any compromise, of any false compromise. That is of great importance to us and we have in truth tried to resettle this treasure in the Church, to give it right of residence again. And maybe one or another has worked out in a certain way. The Fraternity has also, through these doctrinal discussions which I have mentioned, certainly made people think about the Second Vatican Council and about certain statements of this Council.”

[Translation: IM. Source: Pius.info]

123 comments:

St. Michael the Archangel's supplicant said...

With the clarifying consolation of these words still sounding in our souls, let us turn with CONFIDENCE to St. Michael the Archangel imploring his pristine intercession during the novena in advance of his feast: September 29

"May the most just, most high and most adorable WILL of GOD be in all things done, praised and magnified forever and ever. Amen"

Anne said...

Father Schmidberger is right on. The points he makes remain obstacles for the SSPX but they are willing to discuss these with the authorities in Rome. What more can they do? The Catholic Faith cannot be "negotiated" or "compromised" under the false flag of obedience.

El Eremita said...

Let's see...

Regarding the "licitness" of the novus ordo missae, don't we already have an official definition of the term thanks to the dubia recently answered by the PCED? (see here). Does the SSPX deny that the NOM has been "duly promulgated by appropriate procedures of ecclesiastical law (ius ecclesiasticum)"?

Regarding the continuity issue, I am really baffled... How can the Holy See be so [self-censure] to demand the affirmation of a theological continuity which has not been demonstrated, which is still a matter of theological debate, and that isn't even necessary for unity in Faith? Wouldn't have sufficed to demand affirming that the texts of the CVII contain no heresies?

I don't know... maybe I am not in full communion and didn't even notice it...

cyrillist said...

"secondly, that the SSPX will be allowed to only use the liturgical books of 1962..."

...or before.

Whats Up! said...

El Erimita,

I have read the following analysis on what canonically makes the promulgation of a form of Mass licit or legitimate:

"So, what does “legitimate” mean?
(1) Well, it could just be a synonym for “legal” as some have argued above. I do not think that is a complete enough definition, but let’s just explore that for the sake of argument. The SSPX would probably answer the “legal” argument with something along the lines of saying that it represents an abuse of power since (a) human laws must ultimately be in line with divine laws and the New Mass opened the door (by removing obstacles and prohibitions) to abuses and equivocations that cannot be in line with divine law, and (b) its promulgation was done in an abusive manner that was only finally corrected in 2007 with the “numquam abrogatum” statement.
(2) But legitimate means a lot more than just “legal” because we are talking about liturgy. Liturgy does NOT become legitimate by promulgation by legitimate authority alone: it must also be something rooted in an organic development. This is what Cardinal Ratzinger was criticizing when he wrote: “What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it – as in a manufacturing process – with a fabrication, a banal on -the-spot product.” Hence, one could postulate that the SSPX ought to refuse to recognize the New Mass as “legitimate” based on the writings of the present Pope himself."

J.R.L. said...

"The current abnormal situation is, however, not the fault of the Fraternity; it is a necessity in the current crisis if one wants to keep the ancient liturgy, the ancient doctrine, the ancient discipline integrally and if one wants to live homogeneously as a Catholic on this fullness."
So... you can't be fully/integrally Catholic unless you share the SSPX position and movement? hmmm...
swell.

Matt said...

"Bishop Fellay sent a letter to the Pope, asking him whether these additional requirements were wished for by His Holiness, or that they were his co-workers's demands. The Pope assured Bishop Fellay that he really wishes these requirements to be fulfilled."

Very disaapointing it was the Holy Father who did that but not shocking.

Anil Wang said...

El Eremita,

What the Pope has stated should be noncontroversial.

(1) If the Pope declares a council valid, it is valid and if he declares it invalid, it is invalid. A Pope cannot undo the declaration of a previous Pope.

(2) If a council is valid, it cannot be in contradiction with any previous council or "De Fide" or "Fides ecclesiastica", although it might contradict lower levels of dogma such as "Sententia communis". If you see a contradiction, then your understanding of the teaching is in error or you're mistaking "Sententia communis" for dogma.

WRT (1), it is very clear that several Popes have declared VII is valid. There can be no dispute on this, so unless you want to open a can of Martin Luther worms and say Popes can be make invalid judgments on the validity of Councils or that the Pope is invalid, you'll have to accept this.

WRT (2), it is a fundamental assumption of the faith. If councils can contradict other councils, the whole faith falls apart. If we can pick and choose which councils we accept, then modernists can reject every council before VII and still call themselves Catholic. This is the entire "Spirit of VII" crisis we face today. To give in on this point is to give in to the modernists.

So like it or not, (1) and (2) must be accepted by any Catholic.

BTW, if you have an issue with any part of VII, please read the footnotes since they provide the context for the documents from Tradition. Without this context, VII can easily be misinterpreted. Someone really needs to create a "Companion to Vatican II" similar to the "Companion to the Catechism" or at least annotate the existing VII documents with the essence of the references.

CredoUtIntelligam said...

Anil Wang said

What the Pope has stated should be noncontroversial.

(1) If the Pope declares a council valid, it is valid and if he declares it invalid, it is invalid. A Pope cannot undo the declaration of a previous Pope.

(2) If a council is valid, it cannot be in contradiction with any previous council or "De Fide" or "Fides ecclesiastica", although it might contradict lower levels of dogma such as "Sententia communis". If you see a contradiction, then your understanding of the teaching is in error or you're mistaking "Sententia communis" for dogma.


To my knowledge, the Magisterium has never stated Vatican II contradicts a lower level statement (e.g. sententia communis) of the previous Magisterium. Identifying which old teachings have been replaced by Vatican II would at least provide some clarity.

But according to RC's summary, it sounds as if the Vatican required an acknowledgment that Vatican II was in perfect continuity with all previous teachings regardless of the level of theological authority:

These additional requirements consist, according to Fr., of . . . the recognition of the uninterrupted continuity between Vatican II and all former councils and doctrinal statements of the Church.

That sounds like the SSPX was forced to accept the claim that Vatican II does not contradict any previous teaching, regardless of the level of authority of that teaching. The SSPX apparently finds that hard to accept, which I can understand . . .

El Eremita said...

Anil Wang,

CredoUtIntelligam already stated my opinion.

The most plausible interpretation of the requirements of Rome as reported by father Schmidberger, is that they are asking the SSPX to affirm that the Second Vatican Council didn't change any pre-conciliar teaching, not even non-definitive teachings. This is very problematic because it can be easily argued that there was a change in some non-definitive doctrines. (I am not saying that it has already been demonstrated, but I think that it is perfectly possible to hold it as a plausible theory without harm to unity).

On the other hand, if, as you say, Rome is only asking to acknowledge that there is no contradiction on "de fide" doctrines, then it would have sufficed to demand a statement affirming "The texts of the Second Vatican Council contain no heresies when rightly interpreted" or something similar, which would have been easier for the SSPX to accept. As a matter of fact, according to a conference given by father Pfluger, Fellay's doctrinal declaration already contained a similar statement (see here).

The entire tradition of catholic faith must be the criteria and guide in understanding the teaching of the second Vatican council, which, in turn, enlightens certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself [the council] and not yet formulated.

The affirmations of the second Vatican council […] and of the posterior pontifical Magisterium concerning relations between the Catholic Church and non-Catholic Christian confessions […] must be understood in the light of the entire and uninterrupted Tradition in a manner which is coherent with truths previously taught by the Church and without accepting any interpretation whatsoever.

That is why it is legitimate to promote through a legitimate discussion the study and theological explanation of expressions or formulas of the second Vatican council and the ensuing Magisterium whenever these do not appear reconcilable with the Church’s previous Magisterium.


So, I don't know what to think...

El Eremita said...

Whats Up!,

I won't turn this thread into a discussion over the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo, but let me tell you that if the analysis you brought up is the official position of the SSPX, then they are missing the point completely.

First of all, because their arguments are purely speculative and based on theological opinions instead of facts. E.g., that the promulgation of the N.O.M. is the cause of the liturgical abuses, that the Popes have no authority to abrogate the Tridentine Missal due to Quo Primum Tempore, that modifications introduced to the liturgy must be "rooted in organic development", etc. As good and/or plausible as some of these hypothesis are, they are just that: hypothesis, opinions, etc.

Secondly and most important, that the only authority on earth who can judge over these matters is the Pope. So if the Pope judges that the N.O.M. is legitimate, then we are bound to consider it legitimate as well, for there is no higher authority in liturgical matters than the Pope. Obviously, this is unless it could be objectively demonstrated that the N.O.M. is against Divine Law (e.g., if it could be demonstrated that some of its texts contain heretical propositions), but then again, the only thing the "critics" have are private opinions, theological hypothesis, etc., and this is not enough to justify a formal denial of the legitimacy of the NOM.

Sixupman said...

Somewhat of an aside: the Catholic Directory [England & Wales]2012 contains lists of Non-Catholic organisations, one or two 'way-out', with whom the Bishops' Conference confers - but not of course SSPX. and, as far as I can tell, neither FSSP or ICKSP.

They do include an outfit, with the Archbishop of Westminster as Patron, which promotes LGBT aims.

Talk about parody!

Romanitas said...

Something I find to be quite difficult is the Pope's "hermeneutic of continuity." To say that the most recent Council should be interpreted in light of tradition is fine, but what does one do when one compares Libertas Praestantissumum (Leo XIII) or Quas Primas (Pius XI) with Dignitas Humanae? The substance and style of the former two documents are incongruous with the latter one. If the Church said Her position on religious liberty is non-binding and subject to prudence, that would be fine. One could argue Dignitas Humanae was a reaction against Communionism and against the use of the Church as a tool of Franco's Spanish regime, but no authority has done this. It is as if we are supposed to swallow Dignitas Humanae and forget the other encyclicals.

Far from creating continuity this "hermeneutic of continuity" idea simply supposes it exists. In practice, with religious liberty and with the Mass, it means plugging one's ears, closing one's eyes, and yelling "Nothing's changed! Nothing's different!" until those invocations come true.

I hope the Society remains steadfast.

Romanitas said...

El Eremita said:

"So if the Pope judges that the N.O.M. is legitimate, then we are bound to consider it legitimate as well, for there is no higher authority in liturgical matters than the Pope."

With all due respect, the Pope is the highest authority in legal matters, which makes the Pauline Mass legal and legitimate, but doesn't make it good. Also, can we say that the Pope is the highest authority in liturgical matters? Popes routinely defered to Roman (or local) tradition in liturgical matters until the 20th century. Surely Papal history suggests that either the Pope is bound to uphold liturgical tradition, or at least that there is a difference between what the Pope can do and what he ought to do.

Inquisitor said...

@ Anil Wang

If a council is valid, it cannot be in contradiction with any previous council or "De Fide" or "Fides ecclesiastica", although it might contradict lower levels of dogma such as "Sententia communis". If you see a contradiction, then your understanding of the teaching is in error or you're mistaking "Sententia communis" for dogma.

Your statement is a bit vague. It says that dogma cannot contradict dogma except when it contradicts dogmas. I think I understand what you mean, but for purposes of clarification let me state this:

The term dogma can only refer to something infallible (i.e. something in the De Fide or Fides Ecclesiastica categories). A teaching that has only the level of Sententia Communis is not a dogma, it is a doctrine. (All dogmas are doctrines, but not all doctrines are dogmas.)

Also, where can you find an infallible statement that says a council cannot contradict another council or pope at all? This assertion is not entirely clear. It may be possible for an explicit contradiction to occur in a council depending on what level of the magisterium the council/pope exercises in the promulgation of the teaching.

It is a fact of dogma that when an ecumenical council exercises the extraordinary magisterium through the pope, that an ecumenical council is infallible and cannot contradict the infallible statements of previous popes and ecumenical councils. However, it is important to point out that a council possesses three kinds of magisterium: the Infallible Extraordinary Magisterium, the infallible Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, and the fallible Ordinary magisterium.

The first two types of magisterium are infallible and cannot ever contradict. The third kind is not infallible and therefore can in theory explicitly contradict another pope or council.

Unfortunately, it is often times very difficult to distinguish between the two types of Ordinary Magisterium. A teaching of the ordinary magisterium can only be in the infallible category if the teaching has been reiterated multiple times by previous popes or ecumenical councils. However, the fact that a teaching is made on a single instance by the ordinary magisterium does not necessarily make it infallible.

WRT (2), it is a fundamental assumption of the faith. If councils can contradict other councils, the whole faith falls apart. If we can pick and choose which councils we accept, then modernists can reject every council before VII and still call themselves Catholic. This is the entire "Spirit of VII" crisis we face today. To give in on this point is to give in to the modernists.


Yes. When a council or a pope teach De Fide or Fides Ecclesiastica teachings there can be no contradictions. However, not all teachings of ecumenical councils are in those two categories. It is thus in theory possible for a council to teach contradictions under the ordinary magisterium. It is up to the pope to clarify which category of magisterium the teachings of the council fall into.

The SSPX does, I believe, accept VII as a valid ecumenical council. The SSPX only disagrees on what level of magisterium was exercised by the council. The SSPX seems to be asserting that the parts of VII with which they disagree were not promulgated by the infallible charism of the council, but rather they were promulgated validly by the fallible ordinary magisterium, and therefore may be in error.

The SSPX is asking the pope to correct these "errors." If the pope accepts this view that the points in conflict are not part of the infallible teaching of the council, but rather are fallible parts of the Ordinary magisterium, then there may be a solution to the rift between the SSPX and the pope.

I am not Spartacus said...

As long as these are not resolved, Father says he believes that there will be no real exodus of the Church out of the current problems.

So, Fr. wants the Magisterium to follow the sspx in its exodus from the Church.

I rarely gamble but I am willing to bet that aint gonna happen

Beautiful Providence said...

Praise God for such a beautiful clarification of the events.

As we all can recall Bp Fellay believed that normalization was veritably a "fait accompli" and announced so to the world. He was a humble and wise leader throughout. It made no sense that it was he and the SSPX who suddenly turned away. Rather it was Rome that changed the terms at the last minute.

Providence lies in these events --even though they are beyond our human understanding. God has a beautiful plan for His Church despite the Passion it is now enduring. The work of the continued restoration of the Church still remains heavily in the hands of the SSPX. The worst of battles against the gates of hell may well be in front of us and not behind. God will not abandon the faithful "backbone" His Church.

Francis said...

El Eremita said:"First of all, because their arguments are purely speculative and based on theological opinions instead of facts. E.g., that the promulgation of the N.O.M. is the cause of the liturgical abuses, that the Popes have no authority to abrogate the Tridentine Missal due to Quo Primum Tempore, that modifications introduced to the liturgy must be "rooted in organic development", etc. As good and/or plausible as some of these hypothesis are, they are just that: hypothesis, opinions, etc."

El Eremita, are you serious? You don't think that the Novus Ordo, a calvinist inspired service invented in the 1960's by a devout freemason (Annibale Bugnini) and six protestant "ministers" hasn't led to liturgical abuse and loss of faith? This isn't merely the opinion of many, if not all in the FSSPX and other traditional Catholics, but that is fact! Maybe the Novus Ordo service isn't the only reason there is/was liturgical abuse (modernist and liberal bishops and priests in the 1960's and today helped also) but it definitely is a big reason.

Whats Up! said...

El Eremita

Yes, that passage is what most SSPX priests and bishops believe and there is a lot to be said for the sense they make.

There will very obviously be no regularization with the Holy See, because there is too much pride involved.

I just pray that the good priests of the Society are given jurisdiction to absolve sins and witness marriages, until that time when there is resolution of this matter.

Matamoros said...

Not again. Why do we all have to tu, carn into theologians and canon lawyers in order to preserve our faith. Come what may no authority on earth or beyond ("if an angel should tell you..." St. Paul) can make us protestantise ourselves, or accept the liberalism of today's world. To say that it is Protestantism to reject the neo-Protestantist tendencies of today's Church because they happen to be proposed by Church authorities.

How is it that the living Magisterium can get it wrong apparently is not a question we should be obssessed; we only need to believe absolutely that the Church will provide us with a suitable explanation in due course. In the meantime, the only real obligation is to keep the Faith, recognise the hierarchy, and attack it when it speaks nonsense.

I am not Spartacus said...

You don't think that the Novus Ordo, a calvinist inspired service invented in the 1960's by a devout freemason (Annibale Bugnini) and six protestant "ministers" hasn't led to liturgical abuse and loss of faith?

Dear Francis. The Immemorial Mass was the normative Mass offered by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council.

Was that Mass responsible for what the sspx claims are the errors of Vatican Two ?

Anil Wang said...

Personally, I think that the statement "Accept VII" is too vague a statement for the SSPX to accept.

IMO, the way forward is to address VII itself, by simply having the SSPX annotate the documents of VII with comments such as "in the eyes of the council, this change in policy was necessary, but the SSPX thinks this is imprudent" or "this statement is sententia communis, but the SSPX disagrees".

According to Bishop Fellay, the SSPX accepts 95% of VII so the list of annotations can't be that big. If the list of annotations is acceptable to the Pope, the SSPX should have no problem accepting VII.

Mike said...


Francis,

I have heard the Protestants at the Council and perhaps afterwards in regard to the NO were advisors.

They didn't make anything.

Jan said...

"If the pope accepts this view that the points in conflict are not part of the infallible teaching of the council, but rather are fallible parts of the Ordinary magisterium, then there may be a solution to the rift between the SSPX and the pope."

Well, he has had ample opportunity during this exchange to do exactly that, and his affirmative answer to Bishop Fellay puts the punctuation on it. Have you followed Benedict's The Church in the Middle East? He just re-stated his belief in a fairy-tale Good Secularism, which he wants muslims to endorse, which is so contradictory to Quas Primas and so conciliar, and he furthermore called for Catholics in the middle east to attend 'joint services' with non-believers, right back to Assisi. That was Number 163 of the Vatican Information Service, which was a summary. Hasn't Bishop Fellay already said, in another statement, that we can't expect any further development under this pope? @ those who continue to cite the 'spirit of the council' and not the Council itself, would you please consult the Gleize summary so that you can finally see the problems do stem from specific words in the constitutions, not some later misinterpretation. We must fight the Council itself! Bishop Fellay is not the only one who needed to wise up (I personally forgive him for giving it the shot, though--only my guardian angel cares, but still). It's in the words of the Council, yes, or they would not be intent on everybody finally giving in to it, forget about spirit, and it's in the heart of this papacy. Nowhere is it written that the Holy Spirit's protection must be instantaneous, that it won't take a little time, and so we should not give up. It would seem, though, that we could move on, now, finally, from positions that have been discredited, like the two mentioned ("it's not in the Council, it's in the spirit," and "the Holy Father will fix this as soon as he finds out." Otherwise it's too much like Groundhog Day the movie!

El Eremita said...

Francis,

What you describe as a fact is far from being it, at least if we follow the rules of logic. E.g., it is true that non-catholics were involved in the development of the Novus Ordo, but from this it doesn't follow that the N.O.M. has the power to harm the Faith of the faithful. It is true that there is a temporal correlation between the promulgation of the Novus Ordo and the increase of liturgical abuses, decrease in vocations, etc., but "correlation doesn't imply causation". And we could go on like this with each and every argument against the “licitness” of the novus ordo.

So, you may hypothesize that the Novus Ordo caused all these evils, but you can't prove it as a theological fact. So if the Pope asks you to accept the N.O.M. as licit, you just do it, unless you value your own opinion more than unity with the See of St. Peter, or that you can establish your hypothesis about the malignity of the N.O.M. as an uncontested theological fact.

Donna W said...

"three points which must be demanded from the authorities"

"must be demanded"

"demanded"

And around and around we go!

Francis said...

"..it is true that non-catholics were involved in the development of the Novus Ordo, but from this it doesn't follow that the N.O.M. has the power to harm the Faith of the faithful".

You truly believe that the protestant, modernist and worldly novelties found in the Novus Ordo such as "altar girls", lay Eucharistic "ministers", Communion in the hand, standing while receiving Communion, the outright denial of Transubstantiation and the real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist by the majority of lay Catholics, and many in the clergy, a modernist and liberal "inclusive Bible (the NAB) versus populum, sappy "homilies" Cramner tables and other modernist syncretist and relativist novelties haven't caused a loss of faith?

@Mike, read the Rhine flows into the Tiber" if you haven't already.

Mike said...


Francis,

I have read much of it. Still, advisors, not writers.

Also: I fear the tragedy of the SSPX at this moment is that they are 90% right re the crisis. But there lies the rub--the 10%.

They should read V2 with the footnotes, and accept Peter's request for reconciliation with the Holy See.

Jan said...

@ Matamoros, are you using voice activated software? This part of one paragraph makes me think so: 'to tu, carn into theologians.' If you are, you have to read back over it, until it gets really well trained.

But I like your perspective very much: we have to cling to tradition, and speak up to those who do not, no matter what, no matter whom. Not that it's been easy to figure out what tradition is--or rather where it may be found, in an attic or a yard sale, since so many publishers only put out post-conciliar material, and that's especially glaring in Spanish, there's no TAN books, no nothing.

I really liked this part of what you said: "How is it that the living Magisterium can get it wrong apparently is not a question we should be obssessed; we only need to believe absolutely that the Church will provide us with a suitable explanation in due course. In the meantime, the only real obligation is to keep the Faith, recognise the hierarchy, and attack it when it speaks nonsense." I think Bishop Fellay believes absolutely that the Church will eventually change and that SSPX must be ready, not complacent, even powerful, on the outside. He took so much abuse for it, from all sides, but he was right to try, and right to abandon it as it developed. The time is not right now, but it will come. The Church will heal. We have the promise, and we will do our part if we do as you say, speak the truth to power, and be at peace with it. (Did you know that some people want to leave the truth to power speaking up to SSPX? And that's why they were so upset when it didn't happen!)

Why do you call yourself Matamoros? Like their soccer team? Like their town, with the mountains all around, purple at sunset? Like the way it sounds? I lvoe all those things about Matamoros.

dcs said...

Personally, I think that the statement "Accept VII" is too vague a statement for the SSPX to accept.

I very much doubt that the Holy Father would have asked the SSPX to sign anything phrased in such a way, especially considering what Msgr. Lefebvre was asked to accept in the 1988 Protocol of Agreement (http://www.fssp.org/en/protoc5mai.htm).

El Eremita said...

Francis,

The question shouldn't be if one thinks or not that such things have caused the loss of Faith (and some of the things you mention like “sappy homilies”, lack of discipline, denial of dogmas, etc., are not directly related to the promulgation of the N.O.M. and can be easily and more plausibly attributed to other causes), I was saying, the question shouldn't be if one thinks or not that such things have caused the loss of Faith, but if it can be established with enough degree of theological certainty that the N.O.M. is contrary to Divine Right so as to justify outright disobedience to the Successor of Saint Peter in a matter in which he is the highest authority on earth.

Considering the complexity of the crisis and the fact that some of the elements which contributed to it were in motion long before the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, I think that it would be impossible to establish that the N.O.M. is the efficient cause of the loss of faith.

On the other hand, traditional sacramental theology provides strong evidence against those theories which attribute to the Novus Ordo a capacity of harming the Faith of the faithful. See, it is a dogma that the Sacraments produce sanctifying grace ex opere operato, so, affirming that a Mass celebrated according to the N.O.M. lacks the capacity to produce an increment of sanctifying grace would be heresy. Now, if the N.O.M. produces per se an increment of sanctifying grace, how could it be possible for it to be cause of the loss of faith?

One could argue that there are elements in it that constitute impediments to the reception of grace, destroying the proper disposition... but the problem is that disposition is something very subjective, so it would also be impossible to determine that these things which you condemn and the Church allows (communion in hand, "altar girls", extraordinary ministers, etc.) have an inherent and universal capacity of destroying the proper dispositions to receive grace (unless it could be demonstrated that they are sinful).

Do they at least reduce the proper disposition? Probably. But affirming that they have the inherent capacity of making people lose the Faith or impeding them to receive the Sacramental grace produced in the Mass is, in my humble opinion, at least rash.

Confused in California said...

I find it sad that, in a desire to dialog about the "letter" of V2, the SSPX missed the opportunity to dialog about the "spirit."

If V2 is a pastoral council in its entirety, then by definition none of what it teaches is dogmatic or binding on the faithful. In such a framework, the council is pastoral advice written to a particular historical period.

The documents that cause so much conflict, especially DH, can be accepted as merely pastoral. A failed attempt to express to a new generation, in an era of rapidly changing technology (think how much the world changed from V1 to V2) the mind of the Church. Pastoral and not dogmatic. Sadly, the pastoral non-dogmatic attempt was not what it could have been.

Though, perhaps I am wrong to blame the society for not pushing this line of thought. Perhaps it is ultimately the responsibility of the Holy Father to express such things to the faithful.

It's all just so sad. The last 50 years, and those of us that remain dwell amidst the ruins. I pray that the Holy Father will comfort his children by offering the Mass of Ages in public.

John said...

To say that the most recent Council should be interpreted in light of tradition is fine, but what does one do when one compares Libertas Praestantissumum (Leo XIII) or Quas Primas (Pius XI) with Dignitas Humanae?

The answer to that is actually pretty simple, too simple for the arrogant SSPX. So long as they remain outside the normal structure of the Church they can argue all they want back and forth. However if they were to accept what was offered it puts the onus back on Rome to prove they the SSPX position is wrong. It could happen like this, Bishop Fellay accepts the conditions that Vatican II is recognized as being in continuous agreement with previous councils and doctrinal teachings. Now that he and the SSPX are fully back in a regular situation within the Church they can and should continue their teaching of doctrines according to their traditional non-Vatican II interpretation. At this point one of two things can happen. Either the Vatican remains silent and allows Bishop Fellay and the rest to continue teaching according to their traditional interpretation or they are accused of teaching contrary to the Catholic Faith. If that happens the Vatican would have to prove its case that the SSPX are wrong. They would be forced into acknowledging that either the SSPX was right or the documents of Vatican were. Thus the ambiguity which exists in the Vatican II documents would have to be clarified and that could only be done according to the traditional interpretation.

Maria said...

I hope FSSP & ICKS will grow and dioceses will promote the formination/training of priest of dual faculties. This way, people from different cultures and traditions can celebrate the sacrifice of the mass. By so doing, this comment will be nil and void: "without wanting to come across as pretentious – he also believes that the SSPX is in a certain way the backbone of all those who want to keep the Tradition of the Church alive."

Maria

Inquisitor said...

Dear Jan,

You said:

@ those who continue to cite the 'spirit of the council' and not the Council itself, would you please consult the Gleize summary so that you can finally see the problems do stem from specific words in the constitutions, not some later misinterpretation. We must fight the Council itself!

I'm not sure if this comment refers to my post or not, but I did not say that there weren't problems with VII.

If this is directed at my comment, it is a straw man argument. I did not say that VII's texts were free of all error. I clearly said that it is in fact possible for ecumenical council documents to to contain errors, so long as they occur in parts of the documents which only use the fallible Ordinary Magisterium.

We must fight the Council itself!

Although, this is an oversimplified statement, my post did not deny that point, there are parts of VII that need to be corrected or clarified, but you must remember VII is still a valid ecumenical council. Therefore, you must be careful in saying we must "fight" the council. There are parts of the Council which are most likely INFALLIBLE under the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. You CANNOT fight these parts of VII and remain in the Catholic Church. (e.g. parts of Lumen Gentium concerning the infallible teaching magisterium of the popes.)

However, the fact that some points of the council are probably infallible under the Universal magisterium does not mean that Catholics must accept ALL parts of the Council. There are parts of VII that are fallible and therefore can be opposed in good faith by Catholics. If a conciliar teaching contradicts the infallible teachings of the Church, these teachings can be resisted.

There ARE problems in the texts of the Second Vatican Council that should either be corrected or clarified. However, you must realize that you cannot fight the entire Council since it is a valid council. You can only resist those parts of the Council which belong to the fallible magisterium, but you do have to give religious assent to the parts of the council that do not contradict the faith.

The council itself has many difficulties which must be corrected. The point in my post was that it IS possible to correct the documents of VII because the council did not use its infallible magisterium to promulgate many of its teachings. Some things can be corrected some parts of the council are irreformable because they belong to the Universal magisterium.

Only the pope has the authority to decide which parts of the Council are infallible and which parts of a council can be dropped, changed, or clarified. Pray for him. He needs God's grace to help him have the courage and strength to accomplish this difficult task and the Church needs him to do it with all haste. May God save us all from the jaws of the ravenous lion who roams freely through the land devouring souls, and may God save his Holy Catholic Church.

John L said...

Much the same as what I heard from Bp. Fellay in Australia, which indicates that the SSPX leadership is singing from the same hymn sheet.

Malta said...

Though problematic, the real problem runs deeper than VII, and that problem is modernism, which currently infects about 90% of the prelates in the world.

It is so infectious that from priest to cardinal, they don't know how infected they are.

They truly believe mass is a meal and not a sacrifice.

ReluctantDissenter said...

I heartily said "amen!" to what Fr Schmidberger said.

Though personally, I agree what "cyrillist said...
'secondly, that the SSPX will be allowed to only use the liturgical books of 1962...'...or before."

And I also think that the "one Bishop from within the Fraternity bit" is unwise.

Archbishop Lefebvre was wise to consecrate 3, because unless God called all three to their Eternal reward in one fell swoop, there would always be someone who knew how to do it.

If this "one" Bishop were to be called to his Eternal reward, who would consecrate the next Bishop?! 1 is unwise. 3 is wise. So my humble opinion is that the SSPX insist on that.

As for the who V-II debate which has been sparked off...
I just don't understand...
Doesn't anyone read?

V-II was a German weapon of Mass Destruction. They were launched from France, Holland and Belgium. There was no defence against them, because no one had encountered that sort of genius offense before. One cannot defend against what one does not know.

Add to reading list: the Rhine flows into the Tiber and Michael Davies series on Liturgical Revolution.

Long-Skirts said...

Fr. Schmidberger said:

"We would love to sign the Credo with our own blood."

Simple.
Clear.
A CATHOLIC Priest!

"too simple for the arrogant..."

Jan said...

Thank you, Inquisitor--I don't know if you are correct or not, that only the papacy can make the decision as to 'which parts of the Council are fallible, which infallible.' I think even under that there is the statement that tradition--some directly inspired, most written down in human language, which is itself governed by rules, although we depend so much on it, that yes means yes and no means no, that it's like the air, and yet modernism violates those ancient language rules--I have to repeat the beginning of that sentence, tradition is what really distinguishes what is okay from what is not okay. So I don't know if even the papacy has the right to say what is fallible and not, if what is meant is the redefining of a single iotum of the tradition handed on since Christ. (And this argues for me to attend SSPX's upcoming Kansas City conference regarding this very topic of the papacy.) I was thinking of not going due to my enormous disappointment that last year's conference, which was absolutely electrifying, was not followed up by practical steps to implement Fr. Rostrand's admonition to go out and run for office under the banner of Chist the King.

If however I'm correct in saying that tradition trumps the papacy, what that means is that the thing has to be fought out in words. And you know, the talks between SSPX and Rome didn't do that. They got to a point, and then it became: do you love tradition? Really? Then you have to love the Council, because it is tradition.' By fiat, not by the demonstration of concordance with tradition. (Bishop Fellay's Candlemas sermon.)

Thank you for your intention to educate me, in such a kind way.

Dr. Timothy J. Williams said...

As Bishop Fellay has noted several times, the SSPX and its bishops accept more of what is contained in the Vatican II documents than most religious orders and most bishops in the world today. It is the current head of the CDF who needs to be questioned and required to sign an unambiguous profession of faith! All this talk of VII is a red herring. The real problem is the Mass and the freedom of the SSPX to promote it. This is what terrifies the Novus Ordo Church, including B-16.

Dismas said...

The following thoughts were attributed to Fr. Schmidberger, “he also believes that the SSPX is in a certain way the backbone of all those who want to keep the Tradition of the Church alive. For all those, the SSPX is in a certain way a point of reference. If this point of reference would be discredited in such a way, this would mean a huge “demoralisation” of the traditional and conservative forces in the Church. It would therefore be a tremendous catastrophe, not so much for the Fraternity, but for the Church itself."

"The current abnormal situation is, however, not the fault of the Fraternity; it is a necessity in the current crisis if one wants to keep the ancient liturgy, the ancient doctrine, the ancient discipline integrally and if one wants to live homogeneously as a Catholic on this fullness."

If the SSPX prays the Confiteor at every Mass (mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa) and the Credo (Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam) how can they possibly think the current 'abnormal situation' is not the fault of the SSPX? How does this thought actually reflect on the morals of traditional and conservative forces outside the Church, ancient liturgy, and lex orandi, lex credendi in general?

c matt said...

but "correlation doesn't imply causation".

Actually, it does. It may not prove causation, but it at least implies it. In fact, all of the points you list are what's known in the legal biz as circumstantial evidence, which is enough to find one guilty. It is like finding the defendant holding the bloody knife in his hand over the victim's stabbed body. No one may have seen him do it, but the evidence indicates he did, and a jury could so legitimately infer. Doesn't mena you have to find the evidence credible (maybe you believe his testimony he just happened on the victim after the fact and picked up the knife), but it is evidence.

jasoncpetty said...

[M]odernism ... currently infects about 90% of the prelates in the world. It is so infectious that from priest to cardinal, they don't know how infected they are. They truly believe mass is a meal and not a sacrifice.

You accuse too broadly. I'll agree that 90% today believe it's a meal (which is not a belief inherent in modernism), but probably only 5% of those believe it's not a sacrifice, and that 5% is a shame to us all. Now, whether that 90% act like it's a sacrifice is another matter with regard to their liturgical praxis... But you can't just call men's beliefs into question if you don't know. It's a both-and crowd we're dealing with now, a meal-and-a-sacrifice.

c matt said...

the N.O.M. is the efficient cause of the loss of faith

Is it a symptom, or the disease? Is it the cause, or one of many causes? Yes, these things are hard to determine, but to say there is no evidence to support the conclusion that it contributes to the loss of faith seems a bit wrong.

Is it licit? Sure, I don't see why not.

Was it a good idea? Perhaps in original intent, it might have been. But then, we all know where good intent can land you. Even as post VII Catholic, I am still puzzled why the N.O.M. was even promulgated in the first place.

Canisius said...

"These additional requirements consist, according to Father, of the recognition of the “licitness” [in German: Lizeität - translator's note: see also the foreword to the SSPX’s German District’s Mitteilungsblatt nr. 404 of September 2012, in which the same word is used, strengthening the belief that this words stems directly from the proposal of Cardinal Levada] of the new liturgy [translator's note: Father firstly presents the term Lizeität as “permissiveness”, but he then immediately interprets it as meaning “rightfulness”]; and also of the recognition of the uninterrupted continuity between Vatican II and all former councils and doctrinal statements of the Church. And that is impossible, according to Father, as there undeniably are ruptures with Vatican II and “we therefore cannot accept the hermeutic of continuity as such” [emphasis added by translator].


Following on that meeting, Bishop Fellay sent a letter to the Pope, asking him whether these additional requirements were wished for by His Holiness, or that they were his co-workers's demands. The Pope assured Bishop Fellay that he really wishes these requirements to be fulfilled."

All have been said.

There will be no agreement during this papacy. This is the will of Benedict XVI.

Regards,

Tom said...

I believe that each Catholic who clings to the Faith has, in a sense, agreed to the requirements in question that Bishop Fellay rejected.

That is, each orthodox Catholic has submitted to Pope Benedict XVI's authority to teach, govern and sanctify the People of God.

Tom

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

"The entire tradition of catholic faith must be the criteria and guide in understanding the teaching of the second Vatican council, which, in turn, enlightens certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself [the council] and not yet formulated."

The bolded part is not correct. "Within itself" refers to the "Church". This was later corrected by the translator in the site referenced.

Whats Up! said...

"That is, each orthodox Catholic has submitted to Pope Benedict XVI's authority to teach, govern and sanctify the People of God."

Tom,

So has Bishop Fellay.

Barbara said...

Father Schimidberger is a very clear – and I, who have never met anyone in the FSSPX would support everything he said.

“A guardian of the purity of the faith – the intactness of the faith.” With reference to the Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith. Does Archbishop Mueller fit this bill? I am sorry I don’t trust him after reading about those theological theories of his. I was very upset about that and something shifted in me with that appointment – more scales fell from my eyes…

“Things like that are very strange” with reference to the appointment of Archbishop Mueller and Archbishop Roche as the Head of liturgical matters and how he opposed the Motu Proprio of the Holy Father. You can say that again Father – very, very strange!

“The doctrinal differences do not come from our side ” – I think that is true – after all wasn’t Vatican II only pastoral ? After what I have read about that Council and seen and lived its effects– I don’t see how it can be accepted fully without major adjustments in its interpretation – which no-one is really doing – because I don’t think they know where to start. All the suggestions are like placing band-aids on a festering wound.

They FSSPX have not invented or manipulated a thing regarding the faith and morals. Can we say that about many other clerics in the Church?

Sorry to say – but, at present, I think I would trust the FSSPX teaching of the Faith more than anything coming from Rome at the moment. How can we forget the recent lauds that Cardinal Martini, progressivism’s “pope” , received after his death? (R.I.P.) Come on – sometimes I think the hierarchy think that all ordinary lay Catholics are real dim-wits with the word-games they play.

Instead Father Schimdberger is crystal clear. "We would love to sign the Credo with our own blood."

That touched me too Long-skirts!

Prayers.
Barbara

Syl said...

Is it unusual for an organization within the Church to have a guarantee of a bishop being drawn from its own ranks?

If it is unusual, is it unusual in a good way or in a bad way or does it depend on certain other factors?

I don't know the answer though I can imagine why SSPX would make the request. Very much appreciate your thoughts.

mlivohi said...

The SSPX are hopelessly entrenched in error.

V2 has reinforced the traditional doctrine according to which the authentic interpretation of the Word of God (here the V2 means both the scripture and the tradition, as the V1 does in D 1792) is entrusted exclusively to the LIVING magisterium DV 10/2(here V2 refers to Humani Generis).

The past documents of the magisterium belong to tradition, and can therefore, for us here and now, be authentically interpreted exclusivelyly by the present, living magisterium.

But the SSPX deny this, claiming that the authentic interpretation is entrusted to them, even if contrary to the living magisterium. In this way they claim the same about the interpretation of TRADITION what the PROTESTANTS claim about the SCRIPTURE (namely that it is to them as individuals, not to the magisterium, that the interpretation of scripture is entrusted).

So, in this matter the SSPX and the Protestants do not differ in principle, but only in the objects of their respective claims. However, as the both objects belong to the Word of God, so both the SSPX and the Protestants claim to themself the interpretation of the Word of God, which is actually entrusted to the magisterium of the Church, not to them.

Picard said...

mlivohi:

No, the sspx does not say that she is the instance where we get the authentic interpretation of traditional texts.
They say that most of the texts in the past are so claer that they do not need any special hermeneutics but are self-explaining, crystal-clear and every Catholic (and even every man) can understand what they say
without special interpretation-tools or "authentic" "re-interpretation".

The idea that texts are never clear in themselfes and you can never detect the real meaning of them ("texts are open"), that you need always some hermeneutics and special-interpretation, is a modern view, coming from the German (pseudo-)philosophers Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Gadamer & epigons - ending in dekonstruktivism and konstruktivism.

They say there is an endless process of interpretation and you can never end it and say: "Now it is clear, we understand what the text means."
Texts are always "open", no man has the capacity to detect the real meaning of them.

So here. If even in the old, clear teachings you can not detect what they really mean and have to wait for an "authentic interpretation" of the "livin mag.", then it destroys all thinking, debating and believing.

Because then you could also argue that this new interpretation is also not that perfectly clear and you have to wait for the next authentic interpretation of this interpretation of the living mag. And then for the interpretation of the interpretation of the interpreation - and so on.

That´s absurde. It´s modernism and modern (pseudo-)philosophical hermeneutism.

But it is not Catholic.

No, most of the old texts are so clear that you can understand them without waiting for an endless process of always new interpretations of the living mag., that themselfe then must always be interpreted again by the following living mag. etc.!
To call this absurd, all clear thinking destroying modernism is the point the sspx has!

Picard said...

El Eremita (and al., f.e. non-spartacus):

It is not the main question if the N.O.M. effectively led to abuses or even to some destroying of the faith.

What is at least clear (we can establish this as a historical fact, we have more than evidence - we have even express testimonial of the inventors of the N.O.M. what their intentions were!) is, that the N.O.M. was intentionally constructed in an ecumenical way, and that therefore the reformators did pusposely supress Catholic expressions and elements and substitute them with ambiguous, heresy-tending expressions and elements.

So even if by some miracle of God this "bastard-Mass" did fail to effectively destroy the faith the N.O.M. was still constructed in a way that deserves at very least the censure "male sonans" and "captiosus" and is therefore evil.

Not all "captiosi" things do really lead to error - but they easily can do. So it is not interesting or crucial if they do in fact or not - they are evil independent of their consequences. It´s not (only) the effect that makes sth. evil (that would be modern morals - modern moral says that it is always the consequences that count. But that is wrong.)

If the people in the pew stay Catholic and do not loose the faith it is not because of the N.O.M. but instead of it.

(And your argumentation, Non-spartacus, is a non-sequitur or straw-man,btw.
That after the old Missal there was some evil does of course not show that the Missal is evil.
But if after a change of the Missal there is some exponential growing of liturgical abuses and heretical views held by lay-Catholics then there is a great probability that there is some causal connection.
But as I just explained, even if there were not any causal connection, the N.O.M. would still be evil because it is construed in an anti-Catholic way - what is evil, independend of its consequences!)

Picard said...

El Eremita:

Let me bring some parable, some simile:

If sbd. takes a good cake and then some poison and poisons the cake, but only with some weak poison - and there is a man with a good phyisical constituion and does not die eating the cake - can we say: oh, he did not die, so it was morally ok. to poison the cake?

No - of course not. It´s independend of the accidential consequences evil.

Or a better simile:
You take a very good meal, from the best cook, very delicious - and then you take not poison, but you take the best parts away, add so many salt that is not delicious any more etc. etc. - the result will be some food that will not kill you and perhaps is still better than nothing.
But would we say it was ok. to destroy it that way? - No, of course not.
And when the modern "cooks" would admit that they purposely did so - then we would condemn such an attitude of course.
And we would call the product more than deficient (we would say it is really bad tasting...) - independent of the consequence that perhaps some very poor person would eat it and say: Better than nothing and some starving person would even be strengthened by it...

Well, I have to think of even more fitting comparisons. But I hope it still got clear. Surely there will be even better similes, better showing that not only the act of destroying or poisoning is evil but also then the (destroyed, poisend) product and result... and that it is evil independend of some accidential consequentes.

Timothy Mulligan said...

mlivholi, before and after his election to the papacy, Pope Benedict has shown that he understands that he is constrained by Tradition and cannot do anything he wants:

After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope's authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not "manufactured" by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity.... The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition.

GQ Rep said...

I support the SSPX 100%

I think the new demand by Benedict XVI in the negotiations showed bad faith, and disappointed millions of tradiitonal Catholics.

He is not the friend of Catholic tradition some think....but he is still better than recent past popes.

GQ Rep said...

I support the SSPX 100%

I think the new demand by Benedict XVI in the negotiations showed bad faith, and disappointed millions of tradiitonal Catholics.

He is not the friend of Catholic tradition some think....but he is still better than recent past popes.

Dave K said...

mlivohi is correct. The SSPX seems to be setting themselves up as the supreme judge of Tradition while denying the Living Magisterium of the Church in the same process. This is the same fundamental error the Protestants made when they accused the Church of distorting sacred scripture and peddling the vain doctrine of men in its place. The fact that there was great corruption in the Church at the time made their claims easy enough to sell even though they were the heretics and schismatics. Their errors could have been avoided by submitting to the Living Magisterium which exists to settle disputes and preserve the Faith and unity of the Church.
The claim that Church decrees of the past are easily understood by all, and clearly contradict present day teaching is obviously false. The Living Magisterium is well aware of these same documents, bases its teaching on them, and tells us there is no contradiction between past and present day teaching. This was just as true in the past. In his Bull confirming the Council of Trent Pius IV said this; “Furthermore, to avoid the perversion and confusion which might arise if everyone were allowed to publish, as he saw fit, his commentaries on and interpretations of the decrees of the council, we by our Apostolic authority forbid all persons, ecclesiastics, of whatever order, condition or rank they may be, as well as laics, with whatever honor and power invested, prelates, indeed, under penalty of being prohibited entrance into the church, and others, who ever they may be, under penalty of excommunication latae sentential, to presume without our authority to publish in any form any commentaries, glosses, annotations, scholia on, or any kind of interpretation whatsoever of the decrees of this council, or to decide something under whatever name, even under the pretext of greater corroboration or better execution of the decrees, or under any other color or pretext. But if anything therein should appear to anyone to have been expressed and defined in an obscure manner and for that reason stands in need of some interpretation or decision, let him go up to the place which the Lord has chosen, namely, to the Apostolic See, the mistress of all the faithful, whose authority the holy council also has so reverently acknowledged. For if difficulties and controversies relative to those decrees shall arise, their explanation and decision we reserve to ourselves…” This again underlines the necessity of accepting and submitting to the Living Magisterium, something the SSPX is unwilling to do.

El Eremita said...

Picard,

You are missing the point. When you say that there are "male sonans" or "captiosi" propositions in the Novus Ordo, or error-inducing elements, you are just stating your own opinion or the opinion of some theologian.

But in the same way you have your opinion, others have theirs. Who are we to believe? The competent authority. Unless you could demonstrate that your opinion is a fact... but, alas, you can't.

Just look at your refutation of he-who-isn't-Spartacus' argument: "after a change of the Missal there is some exponential growing of liturgical abuses and heretical views held by lay-Catholics then there is a great probability that there is some causal connection". Here you avoid the "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy by saying "there is a great probability" instead of "there is", but you admit that it is a "probability" and not an established fact. That's because a correlation is not enough to establish a causal relationship between the correlated events. It is enough to make an hypothesis, yes, but not enough to establish a fact.

A similar thing could be said about your other accusations. You could say, for example, "this proposition X which is in the novus ordo is 'male-sonans'". In order to establish this as a fact, you must find a magisterial pronouncement condemning the proposition as such. If you can't find such condemnation, your opinion remains an opinion.

And that is the point which you are missing: A personal theological opinion or hypothesis, no matter how plausible, does not justify disobedience to the Sovereign Pontiff in a matter in which he is the supreme authority. If the Pope were to command you to hold as true something which is false, then you would be right in disobeying. At this moment, the Pope is demanding traditionalists to hold the N.O.M. as licit (according to the definition recently given by the PCED). Can you or any theologian establish as a theological fact that such proposition is false? No. So, you are in danger of committing a grave sin of disobedience.

Scott Quinn said...

I agree with GQ Rep and have a question I hope someone can answer. So it now appears that Benedict was indeed responsible for the bait-and-switch from the earlier preamble that was supposedly agreed to by the SSPX. Does that mean that, contrary to what many of us thought (namely, that some anti-SSPX cardinals were behind the second document) is not true? It would appear to be that way. But if the second (and rejected) preamble reflects the will of Benedict, then isn't it safe to say that there are cardinals on the side of the SSPX who tried to pull a fast one with the first preamble that presented so much promise? If so, I definitely see the wisdom in delaying any further negotiations with Rome. What's needed apparently is new blood.

Rick DeLano said...

David K:

How differently things would have proceeded after the Council, had the Popes taken matters in hand with the splendid and unambiguous courage of Pius IV!

We are truly disoriented, all of us, because of the strange new ambiguity, the disunity, the din.

I am afraid something different is going on this time.

But I fervently agree with Pope Pius IV - the good of the Church has depended for a long time now on setting forth with doctrinal clarity, and with the full authority of the Pope, exactly what we are now required to believe for salvation, and exactly how this is in complete and organic unity with what the Church has always believed.

Peterman said...

" So it now appears that Benedict was indeed responsible for the bait-and-switch"

Yeah right, I believe about 2 of the people that surround the Holy Father. I trust them not at all.

John L said...

'So it now appears that Benedict was indeed responsible for the bait-and-switch from the earlier preamble that was supposedly agreed to by the SSPX. Does that mean that, contrary to what many of us thought (namely, that some anti-SSPX cardinals were behind the second document) is not true? It would appear to be that way. But if the second (and rejected) preamble reflects the will of Benedict, then isn't it safe to say that there are cardinals on the side of the SSPX who tried to pull a fast one with the first preamble that presented so much promise?'

The Pope obviously agreed to the bait-and-switch. Whether he wanted it, or whether he gave in to pressure, is not known; but the balance of the evidence seems to suggest the latter.

Tom said...

"That is, each orthodox Catholic has submitted to Pope Benedict XVI's authority to teach, govern and sanctify the People of God."

Whats Up! said..."So has Bishop Fellay."

You are wrong.

Bishop Fellay has insisted that the documents of Vatican II contain "errors" and "ruptures" and therefore, the Society has refused to accept Pope Benedict XVI's hermeutic of continuity.

1. The Vicar of Christ has taught that Vatican II does not contain errors.

2. The Vicar of Christ has taught that Vatican II does not contain ruptures with Catholic teachings.

Therefore, Bishop Fellay does not accept the Vicar of Christ's teachings in said matters.

Pope Benedict XVI has declared the bishops and priests of the Society of Saint Pius X do not exercise legitimate ministries within the Catholic Church.

Bishop Fellay needs to end his and the Society's protracted, boring and pointless resistance to Pope Benedict XVI's "requirements" in question.

The FSSP, ICK and millions of Catholic Traditionalists are docile to Pope Benedict XVI's authority and rulings.

Bishop Fellay and the Society need to follow that example.

Tom

Gratias said...

Gratitude is the main thought that comes to mind when thinking about Benedict XVI. He is the best Pope we could have hoped for to guide the Church at present.

This was a missed opportunity. Obedience is a virtue.

Barbara said...

"So, in this matter the SSPX and the Protestants do not differ in principle, but only in the objects of their respective claims. However, as the both objects belong to the Word of God, so both the SSPX and the Protestants claim to themself the interpretation of the Word of God, which is actually entrusted to the magisterium of the Church, not to them."

This is not correct mlivohi. They say that some interpretations of traditional teachings were changed with some of the texts approved by the Council. These texts contain modernist ideas always condemned by previous Magisterium and Popes. In other words these Vatican II texts contradict the perennial Magisterium.
Please, the Protestant accusation dealt the FSSPX is a load of old rubbish. At present, we have more "protestants" in the Church fully normalised and actively promoting their errors. Examples could be most of the parish priests in my vicinity - I have heard them all.

You are right Picard - people have kept the faith in spite of the protestant-pleasing New Mass. Couldn't agree more.

Adrian UK said...

If the Melkited don't accept the First Vatican Council, because, as they say, it was not ecumenical, they can be in Full Communion (as they are). But if you are Traditionalist and you accept 95% of the Second Vatican Council, then you need to repent and abandon your arrogant quest for perfect orthodoxy.

Coherence is definitely not a growing asset.

Adrian UK said...

Ok, the situation is as follows:

- If you are a Melkite, you don't need to accept the First Vatican Council to be in Full Communion.

- If you are a Traditionalist, you need to accept every single letter of the Second Vatican Council as the voice of Jesus himself, as a voice coming from the Burning Bramble-bush. 95% is not enough, you need to read the Documents of the Council every at the end of every night as prayer.

Coherence is not a growing asset.

Fr. Sanchez said...

Concerning the disputed points, what are their level of teaching? This question needs to be answered not only of the disputed teachings of Vatican II, but also the disputed teachings of the prior Magisterium. If the Holy Father pronounces a judgment on these things will the SSPX be docile? What if he says that both positions are presently valid Catholic positions and leaves the question open for the time being? Will the SSPX be docile then? Only the Magisterium can settle this dispute. Does the SSPX believe this or not? This is what should be stated clearly on the agreement between the SSPX and Rome. Anything less is wanting of divine Catholic faith.

John McFarland said...

Bishop Fellay gave a very long conference (better than two hrs.) in Adelaide, Australia, in early August. You can readily Google up the audio recording. It will fill out Fr. Schmidberger's brief summary in a number of useful -- and inspiring -- ways.

I would also beg of you to read Fr. Mattias Gaudron's "Catechism of the Crisis in the Church" for an accessible and intellectually solid summary of the SSPX's position on all the evils that beset us.

If you don't know at least these two things, and don't understand them, you really have no business second-guessing the Society or anybody else on the matters at issue.

Let me also offer a few specific comments on points raised in this string.

1. Some of you don't seem to realize that there's an equivocation in the notion of "living tradition." When the SSPX uses the term, it means tradition as it is understand by particular human beings. When the NO uses the term, it means that tradition itself is living, and like all living things, changes. This is why the Vatican insisted that tradition can change) made the demand that the Society accept Vatican II as part of tradition, and why the SSPX refused.

2. For those who are not just making a snide remark in saying that the SSPX considers itself the arbiter of the Faith: you're wrong. As Abp. Lefebvre used to say, we have the (pre-1962) catechism; it takes no genius to see that what it said there doesn't jibe with what has been said since 1962. But as the conciliar regime has generally succeeded in keeping anyone who didn't know the old catechism from learning its contents, it is certainly true that the SSPX is the best place to learn the old catechism. If you'll forgive my using an old sports metaphor, the SSPX are men among boys, and the boys should go and sit at their feet.

3. I am not aware of any evidence that the Holy Father engaged in a "bait and switch." In his Adelaide talk, Bp. Fellay indicated that he was inclined to think that the resistance to regularization was so great -- he mentioned in particular the Jews and the bishops' conferences -- that the Holy Father didn't go forward with the no-strings regularization that he'd proposed to the Society. That proposal, which Bishop Fellay said was communicated by people close to the Holy Father, was the reason why Bishop Fellay requested confirmation from the Holy Father that he supported the demand for the acceptance of Vatican II.

MOT said...

Regarding the Melkite Church, Bishop John Elya of Newton has declared: "It would be a simple rekindling of the old controversy of conciliarism to suggest that some councils are less ecumenical than others. With the promulgation of the Holy Father, the doctrinal content of the various councils is a part of the sacred magisterial teaching of the Church to which Melkites in full communion with the See of Rome give wholehearted assent" (https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/what-is-the-melkite-view-of-the-post-schism-ecumenical-councils).

John McFarland said...

You should be aware of something else in connection with the SSPX. I put it here because I don't know where else to put it.

In his latest Eleison Comment published today, +Bishop Williamson finished a rather curious line of argument against the SSPX Declaration after its Chapter with the following:

"Contrast [with the Declaration] the force of Archbishop Lefebvre’s irreversible attack on the errors of Vatican II in his famous Declaration of November, 1974. He declares that Conciliar Rome is not Catholic Rome because the Conciliar reform is “naturalist, Teilhardian, liberal and Protestant.. poisoned through and through.. coming from heresy and leading to heresy”, etc, etc.. His conclusion is a categorical refusal to have anything to do with the Newrome because it is absolutely not the true Rome."

As +Fellay is wont to say: I beg your pardon?

ABL's famous declaration came in 1974.

Thereafter, he had a number of meetings with church officials, both in Econe and Rome. He met with both Pope Paul and Pope John Paul II. In 1979 he was called on the carpet at the Holy Office, and discussions continued for a while thereafter. In 1985, ABL sent 39 Dubia to the CDF. In July 1987, Cardinal Ratzinger and ABL met in Rome, and the ultimately fruitless negotiations went on for a year thereafter. Those interested in the particulars can find them in +Tissier's biography, The SSPX and Rome, and Michael Davies' Apologia.

So +W's last sentence above is not so much false as surreal. It has no connection with reality.

I don't know what to make of this, but I do know one thing. After this, it is impossible to take +W seriously.

Jordanes551 said...

If you are a Melkite, you don't need to accept the First Vatican Council to be in Full Communion.

As MOT showed, that's complete rubbish. If you don't accept the First Vatican Council, you're not in full communion -- that is, you don't hold the Catholic Faith whole and entire.

Knight of Malta said...

Tom, the Pope is fallible unless he declares a dogma ex cathedra, and that hasn't happened in over fifty years.

Vatican II was non-dogmatic.

Frrancis said...

Entrenched.

Tom said...

Knight of Malta said..."Tom, the Pope is fallible unless he declares a dogma ex cathedra, and that hasn't happened in over fifty years. Vatican II was non-dogmatic."

The bottom line is that each Catholic in communion with the Apostolic See must accept that the Second Vatican Council contains neither "errors" nor "ruptures" with Catholic teachings.

Those are teachings held by Pope Benedict XVI.

Bishop Fellay does not exercise a legitimate ministry within the Catholic Church, according to Pope Benedict XVI.

Bishop Fellay would do well to follow the collective lead of the FSSP, ICK and countless Traditional Catholic laymen who are docile to Pope Benedict XVI's authority to teach, govern and sanctify the People of God.

The bottom line is that the Vicar of Christ has made it clear that the Second Vatican Council contains neither errors nor ruptures with Holy Tradition.

God has chosen Pope Benedict XVI, not the Society of Saint Pius X, to interpret the Council's documents.

Tom

Mlivohi said...

Pickard
(about the SSPX).“They say that most of the texts in the past are so clear that they do not need any special hermeneutics but are self-explaining, crystal-clear and every Catholic (and even every man) can understand what they say” – is exactly their fundamental error.

What is “crystal clear to them” is not necessarily so to “every Catholic”, and it is certainly the laughing stock to me. But they go even further: it must be “crystal clear” to the Living Magisterium too; or else the latter is in “error”.

They even imply that, say, Pius XI would confirm, should he be accessible on the phone, their claim that his Mortalium Animos contradicts the Decree on Ecumenism. And I am sure he would tell them off and send them to Benedict for a repentance.

They think that their interpretation of the said Decree should also be “clear to everybody”, including the Pope Benedict, and even more more, that their comparison of the two documents, as “clearly” interpreted by them, by which they have revealed a “contradiction” should also be “clear to everybody”, including that unresonable Benedict.

A true meaning of a text is in the mind of its author, not in what a reader makes out of it unless the latter is exactly what is in the mind of the author. Strictly speaking the text ON ITS OWN is a meaningless collection of letters, words, passages etc. It is only the means of the author’s communication. The reader who understands the language, and reads the text, creates in his mind the meaning “of the text”, which is true only if it corresponds to what is in the author’s mind – this is an authentic interpretation. Should he create the meaning which is different from what the author means – it is a misinterpretation.
But when it comes to the Church documents, the meaning of each should be understood in the context of all of them that deal with the same subject, from the beginning up to now. And it is the Church alone who knows the true meaning, because she is, ultimately, their author. And it is the living magisterium of the Church who alone can articulate this meaning to us here and now.
You say: “… then you could also argue that this new interpretation is also not that perfectly clear and you have to wait for the next authentic interpretation of this interpretation of the living mag. And then for the interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation - and so on.”

Correct. The Council of Nicea asserted the Divinity of Christ, but ended the Creed with “and in the Holy Spirit”, which was followed by the controversy about His Divinity. Constantinople I clarified it in the Creed as we have it now, but did it in a muted fashion, which needed further clarifications provided in subsequent symbols, and in the Liturgy (Preface of the Holy Trinity). Dogma on Divinity of Christ, required a clarification of relationship between Divinity and Humanity, resulting in the Theotocos controversy (Ephesus)… etc. Each time there was an "imperfection" which required reinterpretation in the light of fresh insights.

Dave K is right

Just Wanna Be Catholic and Gettin' Real Tired of This said...

Tom,

When have FSSP or ICR ever officially, openly, authoritatively declared that there are absolutely no errors in the Second Vatican Council documents? I've never heard them affirm this, and have heard unofficial rumblings from their quarters that at least some of their priests rather quietly entertain the real possibility that there are errors.

And, on another subject, enough of the Byzantine-rite inspired doctrinal revisionism and crypto-schismatic/heretical 'Orthodoxy'. Any Byzantine-rite Catholic who aspires to be 'Orthodox' in communion with Rome can be shown the door.

Francis said...

Modern day rebellion in the cloak of sanctimony.

Picard said...

El Eremita:

I understand your point.
And, yes, you rightly quoted me saying that there is only probability of some causal-relation between N.O.M. and the following abuses, loss of faith etc.

But my main point was, that the quality (and evilness) of the N.O.M. is independent of this factual/accidential consequences.

The main problem is, as I said, that the NOM was purposely created in an ecumenical way, to please the Protestants and modern people!

It was created purposely ambiguos.

And that´s NOT an opinion [so that is my main argument], it is a fact that can be easily proofed and established as such.

We have not only the texts themselfes and the changings we can see (what should be evidence enough!) but also express testimony of the reformers themselfes that the NOM was created with an ecumenical goal, so to weaken all the elements that are an obstacle for the Protestants.

We have written testimony f.e of Bugnini (in the OR - I would have to look up the exact number, but it is a well known fact).
See also others like Lengeling etc.


To call this only an opinion but not a fact is like saying that Napoleon lived is only an opinion but not a historical proofable fact.

And the fact that we have a rite, purposely construed in an ambiguos way to please heretics makes it evil of course - and even very evil! (In some aspect more evil than directly and openly beeing heretic!) (objectively, so even if the reformers had some good intentions and did it bona fide.)

Picard said...

Mlivohi:

There is no question that in some magisterial texts can be some imperfectness so that you need some later clarification of the living mag. to interprete it in the right way.

That´s not the question and nobd. denies this.

The question resp. the problem is to say that always and in every case, in all mag. texts (even in very clear passages) there is such an imperfectness that you never ever can say: "This is the exact meaning, I do not need any further interpretation."

We have many old texts (like Mortalium animos, yes) that are so clear that I have no doubt to see the right meaning of them.

If you doubt that and say that we need first some interpretation of the current mag. to understand them then you make every understanding impossible - because, as I said, if even so claer texts like Moertalium animos are not clear enough to grasp their right understanding, then this new mag. interpretation will be also not clear enough and I never could be sure to understand it right ( I would have to wait for the next interpretation etc. - so I could never be sure to understand them, I could never be sure!)

That´s modernism, modern hermeneutism and scepticism.

No, I can be sure of the meaning of texts - if not, well, again, that would lead to total scepticism.

Mlivohi said...

Picard
To say that the text is “so clear”, is to believe that one has understood it, i.e. interpreted it, correctly, and found it clear, and so has “no doubt”, sees “the right meaning”. But this SUBJECTIVE certainty is objectively justified only if that “right meaning” is what was meant by its author, i.e. what the author intended to convey by the text he has written. In this case, the interpretation is correct.

If you write me a letter intended to be a friendly one, and to me it seems hostile, however much it were “clear” to me that it was hostile, the ultimate authority to say what it was is you not me. (You might have expressed yourself clumsily, but this is another matter. We are dealing with intentions.)

But, to continue the previous paragraph, if the “right meaning” is not what the author intended to convey, it is a misinterpretation.

Now, if I too find the text “so clear” to be in “no doubt” as to “the right meaning”, and yet the two “right meanings” differ; and if we have a possibility of direct communication with the author, the right meaning is that which he says that it is the right meaning. If we don’t, the situation arises analogous to that of the present numerous Protestant denominations each claiming to be in possession of the right meaning “of the Bible”. The difference can’t be resolved.

When it comes to the Church past documents we have no direct communication with the authors: we can’t get in touch with Pius XI or summon the V2 to consult it. But there is the way out: the Living Magisterium, provided by Our Lord, and is in living continuity with V2 and Pius XI. So, that interpretation is correct which is in agreement with the Living Magisterium. The latter is the present authentic “spokesman”, interpreter of both Pius XI and V2, because it has taken over from them, it is in living continuity with them. That is what the Hermeneutic of Continuity is all about.

It goes beyond saying that, in the case of an individual’s (the above example is about disagreament between two individuals) problem with interpretation, the judgment of the Living Magisterium as to whether he is right or wrong is decisive for the reasons articulated above.

El Eremita said...

Picard,

There are some distinctions which must be made.

First, let's remember that the essence of the Mass is the unbloody renewal of Sacrifice of the Cross, which is produced by the double consecration. All of the other prayers, rites, gestures, etc., are non-essential (accidental). So, it is an uncontested theological fact that the essence of the Catholic Mass remains untouched in the NO.

Second, when you say that the texts were created to be ambiguous, it would be one thing for them to have been created with the intention of positively confusing the faithful... this would be undoubtedly evil, but, to my knowledge, there is no proof of this. Another similarly evil intention would have been for Bugnini et al. to provide texts designed to be interpreted by catholics in one way and by protestants in another... but not only this would have been stupid (and therefore unlikely)… it would also mean that they failed: just to mention some examples, the Orate Fratres is there and it's simply impossible to interpret it in such a way that it would not mean that the Mass is a Sacrifice; The Quam Oblationem is there, and it is also impossible to interpret it in such a way so as to deny that the intention of the celebrant is to effectuate the transubstantiation (the same can be said about the epiclesis in the other anaphoras). There are also clear expressions of these doctrines in Eucharistic Prayers 3 (offerimus tibi, gratias referentes, hoc sacrificium vivum et sanctum) and 4 (offerimus tibi eius Corpus et Sanguinem, sacrificium tibi acceptabile et toti mundo salutare). So, even if some of the new texts are a less clear expression of the Catholic Faith than those used in the TLM (e.g. the offertory), the NO is still unacceptable for protestants because, as a whole, it presents the Catholic Truth about the sacrificial nature of the Mass and Real Presence in an unambiguous way.

Third, that we must distinguish between the alleged historical fact that there were ecumenical intentions behind the development of the Novus Ordo, and the alleged theological fact that it is evil. An example: Suppose I am an evil scientist pretending to create some powerful poison, but instead, due to some errors in my calculations, I end up creating a drug which cures cancer. Here we could prove historically (maybe due to the diary of the evil scientist) that the act of trying to create this poison was evil… but from this it doesn’t follow that the drug he created is evil, as it has an ontological reality totally distinct from the act in which it was created. The same can be said about the NO: even if we found a confession by Bugnini saying: “Yes, I am a mason and I created the Novus Ordo to destroy the Church“, that wouldn’t logically prove that the NO has the actual power to destroy the Church, confuse the faithful, etc. It is true that, in such case, prudence and decorum would dictate that we should drop it or study it thoroughly (in the same way that upon the discovery of the confession of the evil scientist, additional studies should be made on the drug in order to discard any harmful side-effects), but we wouldn't immediately gain new theological knowledge about its alleged evilness.

Moreover, the first two distinctions that I made already exonerate the texts of the NO of any evil nature. The second one also builds a strong case against the accusation that it was created to please heretics or confuse the faithful, as the doctrines of the sacrificial nature of the Mass and Real Presence are still unambiguously stated, and if it were true that Bugnini wanted the NO to be acceptable for protestants, then these statements would had probably been removed. I don’t deny that possibly there was some kind of ecumenical intention among the objectives pursued by the consilium, but there simply isn’t enough evidence to affirm that Bugnini tried to make the texts ambiguous enough for them to be doctrinally acceptable for protestants… and even if he had that intention, the truth is that they simply aren’t.

Matamoros said...

Oh my goodness, does that mean that protestant liturgical texts like the nook of Common Prayer contain as an uncontested theological fact the essence of the Catholic Mass, because they contain the words of the double consecration. No indeed!

Picard said...

@ Mlivohi:

Two problems:

1. If the "living mag." does not use its infallible power and only utters an authentic interpretation fallibly (as in the most cases) then this interpretation could still be wrong.

2. You do not seem to have gotten my main point and at least did not answer it:
If we principially never can claim to have grasped undoubtfully the right meaning of a text [as you suggest and you accuse the sspx of claiming so!] then also an authentic interpretation does not help - because this authentic interpr. is itselfe a text and according to your principle we can not claim to have grasped undoubtfully the right meaning of it.
So we have to ask again for an authentic interpretation of the living magisterim of this interpretation.

But this new interpretation of the interpretation is again a text.
So according to your principle we can not claim to have grasped undoubtfully the right meaning of it.
So we have to ask again for an authentic interpretation of the living magisterim of this interpretation of the interpretation.

But this new interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation is again a text.
So according to your principle we can not claim to have grasped undoubtfully the right meaning of it.

So we have to ask again for an authentic interpretation of the living magisterim of this interpretation of the interpretation of the interpr......
..........

- that´s Schleirmacher, Dilthey, Gadamer and Heidegger resp. their epigons - but it is definitively not Catholic! It destroyes all knowlegde and discussion. - These modern thinkers say: You can never claim to have grasped the right meaning of any text.
But Catholic sound philosophy says: Of course you can detect the right meaning of a text - and can claim that you have undoubtly understood this right meaning.

Again, I and everybody else admit that in some cases it is not that easy or clear or that in some cases we need some authentic interpretation. That was never questioned or doubted.

But you can reach a point when the meaning is cleared up - and then everybody, including the sspx, has the right to claim to have grasped the true understanding.
If you deny this then you fall into the absurde "circle" (resp. infinite process) of the modern philosophers described above.
So either you admit that the sspx and me and others are principially allowed to claim that an old text of the mag. can be so clear that we grasped the right meaning of it

- or you still deny this and accuse the sspx of "private - protestant - judgement" - but then you fall into this vicious, absurde circle (or better: infinite process) and every discussion would be led ad absurdum.

Perhaps you will object: after one authentic interpretation we then can claim to be sure of the right understanding.

But that is illogical - because, as said, this auth. interpretation is itselfe a text and words - that need an interpretation.... (and who should decide where to stop - you? so that´s not private, subjective judgement? - Or a new utterance of the living mag. - but how to interprete this new utterance?? ...????)

And, btw., most of the old texts had some authentic interpr. or sufficient scholarly and/or semi- or implicit authentic interpretation, so that it is sufficiently clear what they mean, so that we should be sure of the right meaning - - - an if you now object: oh, but these old interpretations are not clear enough, we need some new one of the living mag. - then, voilá, this is the absurde circle (or process) I pointed to......

Sad, bad modern philosophy...!

Tom said...

Just Wanna Be Catholic and Gettin' Real Tired of This said..."Tom,
When have FSSP or ICR ever officially, openly, authoritatively declared that there are absolutely no errors in the Second Vatican Council documents?

Feel free to cite FFSP and ICK documents that reject the Apostolic See's teaching that Vatican II does not contain errors.
-------------------------

"I've never heard them affirm this, and have heard unofficial rumblings from their quarters that at least some of their priests rather quietly entertain the real possibility that there are errors."

"Unofficial rumblings"...what does that mean?

"...some of their priests rather quietly entertain the real possibility that there are errors."

That is unfortunate (if you are correct) as said FSSP priests reject Pope Benedict XVI's teaching in regard to Vatican II.

Certain FSSP priests, if you are correct, have joined the ranks of priests who "quietly entertain" false teachings.

Let us pray that said FSSP priests cast aside arrogance in favor of holy docile acceptance of Pope Benedict XVI's authority to teach, govern and sanctify the Pope of God.

Tom

El Eremita said...

Matamoros, please...

The essence of the Mass is the actual double consecration, not the words employed to do it.

The book of common prayer or any protestant service may include the words of the double consecration, but the double consecration doesn't take place (invalid minister and defect of intention).

On the other hand, when the words of consecration are said in the Novus Ordo, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass takes place.

John McFarland said...

Tom,

The Pope has made no ex cathedra pronouncement regarding Vatican II, and I daresay he would tell you so if you were to ask him.

What he has done is to insist (or more likely, he has gone along with those who insist) that the SSPX agree that Vatican II is part of the tradition of the Church.

The SSPX can not and will not do that, because the statement is false if "tradition" means what the Church always meant by tradition before 1962. It is only true if tradition means something different, and it is 1900-odd years too late to redefine it.

Matamoros said...

I will have to contradict you there Eremita. The double concecration is the essence or the moment of the sacrificial element contained in the Mass. Whether the double concecration alone is the essence of the Mass is a matter of theological opinion. For example it is is de fide that the words of concecration are necessary for a valid Mass, but whether these words exclusively are sufficent is a matter of opinion still.

So your saying that all other words and prayers in the Mass are non-essential or accidental is jumping the gun theoligically. Of course you are free to have this opinion, but it is only as strong as the arguments and authorities you advance to sustain it. Of course these could make it theoligically probable, but that is not dogma yet.

That is why there has always been so much trouble about the NO, despite its having the words of concecration intact; the other words and prayers are very important, if not for validity hen certainly for its integrity as a Catholic rite.

El Eremita said...

Matamoros,

I think that there can be little doubt that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is the essence of Mass. As a quick proof I can cite the Catechism of Saint Pius X: "The Holy Mass is the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ offered on our altars under the appearances of bread and wine, in commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross". Here the saintly pontiff establishes an identity between the Mass and the Eucharistic Sacrifice. After a quick search, I couldn't find any solemn definition (the Council of Trent condemns the proposition "in Missa non offerri Deo verum et proprium sacrificium" and not "Missa non est verum et proprium sacrificium"), but, at the very least, it is common teaching.

In any case, if someone were to affirm that there are other elements which are essential to the Mass other than the Eucharistic Sacrifice (and that the Novus Ordo lacks such elements), the burden of proof would lie on his side... and it must be kept in mind that the rite of the Mass took many different forms along history, all over the globe, so any candidate to "essential element" must be present universally in each and every rite (historical and present) which we consider catholic.

Mar said...

Mlivohi,
You said to Picard: 'Now, if I too find the text “so clear” to be in “no doubt” as to “the right meaning”, and yet the two “right meanings” differ; and if we have a
possibility of direct communication with the author, the right meaning is that which he says that it is the right meaning. If we don’t, the situation arises analogous to that of the present numerous Protestant denominations each claiming to be in possession of the right meaning “of the Bible”.'

Supposing that about 50 years ago the Church set to one side close to 2000 years of genuinely Catholic biblical scholarship and renounced Her right of being the sole interpreter of the Holy Book. And then, in an ecumenical spirit of openness, started explaining the 'right meaning' of the Bible in terms of one of the Protestant
denominations that you mention. How would this reflect the true nature of the Hermeneutic of Continuity and what you call the 'Living Magisterium'?

Would the faithful be conscience-bound to 'obey' the novel interpretations or would they have the option to stick to the tried and true exegetes starting with the Fathers of the Church?

This is no mere speculation. The Church has embraced the Historical-Critical method of exegesis despite the warnings of very sound Catholic biblical scholars. It is well known that the H-C method is rooted in a Protestant ideology which rejects the influence of traditional interpretations and accepts the rationalism of Spinoza. It is also known that one of its leading lights was Bultmann, a Protestant who lost his faith and helped others to lose theirs, and who, by the way, was influenced by the likes of
Heidegger and Kant.

Gratias said...

This is a big setback for tradition in the Catholic Church. Those of us that are in it will just have to work harder.

Sixupman said...

If my memory serves me correctly, around the time of the promulgation of the NOM the CofE promoted the ASB - whilst not identical they are very similar and CofE clergy showed much interest in the NOM Missal. The Anglo-Catholic position was different, because they tended to utilise a vernacular prayer book almost identical to the pre-1962 Tridentine Missal.

What is more important, the degree to which Catholic clergy actually believe in Transubstantiation!

Matamoros said...

Eremita, of course the Mass is the sacrifice, and the sacrifice is essential, and theologians state that it takes place at the double concecration. But while to infer that the double concecration exclusively is all that is necessary for a Mass may seem all too logical to most, it is still in the realm of theological opinion. That's the way it is. A Catholic may still have other opinions on the subject. It's not so simple, and the consequences when it comes to toying with the rites are there for all to see. Our authorites may have all the jurisdiction and grace of state that one could wish, but they have been very foolish to be hypnotised by the world around them. We traditionalists have been called all sorts of names but we are not following them into their swamp.

Barbara said...

On the back-cover of my copy of Iota Unum by Romano Amerio, there is the following which sums up a lot of things being discussed here :

INSIDE IOTA UNUM:
Against false philosophy of religion: "If the Christian religion is to become something wholly different from itself, then there is no one subject to which the terms of the argument relate and there is thus no continuity between the present and future Church. It is a religious error because the kingdom which does not originate from this world experiences temporal change only as accidental to its being and not as affecting its substance. Of this substance iota unum non praeteribit. Not one jot will change.”

POPE PAUL VI: “ The Church is in a disturbed period of self-criticism, or what would better be called self-demolition. It is almost as if the Church were attacking herself.”

On the denial of Catholic authority: “If heresy consists in holding a truth to have been revealed, not on the authority of its having been revealed, but because it accords with a subjective perception, one can say that… the whole concept of faith is converted into the concept of heresy.”

On positive interpretation of the crisis: “The optimism with which some people regard the declining faith, social apostasy, abandonment of worship and depravation of morals, is born of a false philosophy of religion. It is said that the crisis is a good thing…The Pelagian denial of evil is implicit in these assertions.”

I realise Church documents are written by learned men who have studied the Bible, theology, philosophy, history, many languages much, much more than I ever will – it is not my role - but the final documents themselves should be accessible to the ordinary faithful especially in matters of teaching doctrine and morals – the truths of the faith. Not all of the faithful are so inclined to read them but many are. The present Magisterium (living tradition as it is put here) ought not in substance contradict what has always been taught.
Some of comments here on this thread - - in their circular thinking lost me completely and left me thinking what the point was in such wordiness. Smacks of relativism. Following that line of thinking – what would remain for us to hold on to ? Our faith – I have been told should be grasped in the heart and INTELLECT– reasonable – logical – and certain – not left to the subjective whims and ambiguity of proponents of the New Theology which has penetrated the Church.

Gregory said...

"…but now, for example, a new secretary has been appointed to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Bishop Roch (sic) from England who is a known adversary of the Motu proprio and has tried everything to hinder, not support, the old Mass in his diocese. Things like that are very strange…" - Fr Schmidberger

From England:

In conscience, it is only fair to provide some factual evidence in defence of Bishop Roche, based on sound, local knowledge. Whilst it may be true that His Lordship is no supporter of the Old Mass, it is certainly not true that he is also, a per se "adversary" of the motu proprio; nor is it so that he has "tried everything to hinder, not support" the TLM in his old diocese (Leeds).

The truth is that Bishop Roche's response to the motu proprio was, generally (deliberate use of that word) one of the more accommodating amongst the English & Welsh hierarchy. To the extent that he appointed a priestly Extraordinary Form "Diocesan Co-ordinator" (one who was/is a supporter of the Traditional liturgy, no less) to handle local provision. To my certain knowledge, there are only two such "Co-ordinators" in England & Wales (there may be a third). Certainly one can assume that Bishop Roche's action was undoubtedly borne of pragmatism, nevertheless it was a rare step to effectively delegate the practical local co-ordination of all things EF to a Trad-friendly priest (Fr Timothy Wiley, the first priest to celebrate an Old Mass in the newly refurbished Cathedral at Leeds).

Whilst supporters of the Old Mass - like me - will always wish there to be greater EF provision (ultimately for the TLM to be celebrated again in every parish in the world), the post-motu proprio record in Leeds, under Bishop Roche, bears very good (relative) scrutiny. For not only are there seven locations where one can regularly attend EF Mass in Leeds diocese (400sqkm bigger than New York City; 1200sqkm v 1,600sqkm) - with Sunday, weekday and Holy Day provision - but, in addition to the aforementioned fact that Old Mass has been celebrated in the cathedral (quite rare in England), it is one of only seven (out of 22) such ecclesiastical territories in the country to offer a full Sacred Triduum. Moreover, when one considers that four of those locations - Canning Town, Clapham Park, Reading and City of London - lie within what can reasonably be called the "Greater London catchment area", then there were just three other locations in the whole of England & Wales where one was able to attend EF Sacred Triduum in 2012. One of them was Leeds.

There are also other anecdotes - but facts nonetheless - that I could supply in order to balance (that's all) the perception of Bishop Roche's attitude to the EF but I hope I've already achieved that.

Fr Schmidberger's criticism of Bishop Roche - disseminated as it is around the world now - is easily refutable (especially when he presents it as stridently as he does). I am keen that the SSPX does not leave itself vulnerable in this regard. It does not do its cause any favours. That is my only motivation in submitting this comment.

I can sympathise with Fr Schmidberger, for I suspect I know from where, or how, he received the dis-information about Bishop Roche (for his is an easily Googled name and it is true that it has not been an uncontroversial one in English Traditional circles over recent years - but that's not for discussion here). False dichotomies do tend to prevail, though, especially on the web.

Regardless of whether other parties care or not to research their facts, one would hope that the SSPX - with a reputation for being punctilious about its rhetorical output - should perform the due diligence that supports every anecdote. Especially when it drills down to local specifics.

I have also conveyed this information by telephone to a priestly SSPX contact this morning in the hope that it will be passed through its communication channels.

AMDG

Long-Skirts said...

Gratias said...

"This is a big setback for tradition in the Catholic Church. Those of us that are in it will just have to work harder."

...and make Sacrifice like those of us who are marginalized, start Catholic schools, convents, monasteries, retreat houses and many, many seminaries and keep our marriages open to children, Deo Gratias for those who truly live and believe the words of Christ, "Be not afraid!"

THE
REAL
GOOD
NEWS

The Good News is…
In fear and joy
That apprentices are
Still altar boys.

And Tabernacles on
Sacrificial altar
Rebound the sounds
Of David’s Psalter.

The entire year
Our missals hold
Celebrating cerebrally
The new and the old.

Sarcophagus seasons
Of abstinence and fast
Absolves the flesh
Buries sins past.

And liturgy’s vernacular
Constantly feigned
Pales fore Precambrian
Death’s Latin had reigned.

For truth nails eternal
In Catholicity
Through minutes of centuries’
Mediocrity

Jack Burton said...

Beautiful Providence said...

"Rather it was Rome that changed the terms at the last minute."

And, GQ Rep said...

"I think the new demand by Benedict XVI in the negotiations showed bad faith, and disappointed millions of tradi[ti]onal Catholics."

Yes. That is exactly right. Got all the way to one step before the finish line, then moved it (i.e., the finish line).



Dr. Timothy J. Williams said...

"The real problem is the Mass and the freedom of the SSPX to promote it. This is what terrifies the Novus Ordo Church, including B-16."

Yes, this is also exactly right.

The Modernists in the Church, of which it is now crystal clear that His Holiness is one, are deathly afraid of the traditional (Latin) Mass.

This begs the question, "Why?"

Traditionalists already have the answer. Modernists appear to enjoy equivocating.



c matt said...

"Is it [the Novus Ordo Mass] a symptom, or the disease?"

It is more like a sucking chest wound, inflicted by Liberals both inside and outside of the Church.



Tom said...

"1. The Vicar of Christ has taught that Vatican II does not contain errors.

2. The Vicar of Christ has taught that Vatican II does not contain ruptures with Catholic teachings."

The Vicar of Christ also had a mistress back during the Rennaissance. So, what's your point?


"The FSSP, ICK and millions of Catholic Traditionalists are docile to Pope Benedict XVI's authority and rulings."

Yes, and they've also been castrated and, therefore, present no major concern to the Liberals in the Church.



Tom said...

"The bottom line is that each Catholic in communion with the Apostolic See must accept that the Second Vatican Council contains neither "errors" nor "ruptures" with Catholic teachings."

This is sheer and absolute nonsense.

John McFarland said...

Tom,

I have never had any contact with the FSSP, and of course it keeps a very low profile, but I would be amazed if there were not substantial numbers of FSSP priests who believe that the acts of Vatican II contain errors.

It is bound to be the case that many of them believe more or less the same thing as SSPX priests, but were not willing to accept the Society's irregular situation. That was certainly the case with the original members of the FSSP.

You can castigate them if you like, but you should also ask yourself why they take that position. Presumably it is out of loyalty to the Pope that they are in the FSSP rather than the SSPX. The path of least resistance for them is to deny that there are errors. Are any and all FSSP priest who can't bring themselves to do that prideful and arrogant? Or do they see problems with the document that can't be solved by the Pope's demanding that they be accepted in some sense or other?

John McFarland said...

I'm having some trouble figuring out what the fight about the essence of the Mass is all about.

The Mass is a propitiary sacrifice. To deny that is to cease to be a Catholic.

The basic problem with the New Mass is that it is clearly intended to, at best, play down the sacrificial essence of the Mass.

The program of playing it down has been wildly successful. Only a tiny handful of the faithful have a clue about the sacrificial essence of the Mass.

Abp. Lefebvre said that that is basically why the Church is in the state that it's in. Because most Catholics do not recognize the Mass as sacrifice, they do not recognize that the centrality of sacrifice in their own lives, and so cease to be Catholic.

It is hard to take issue with that diagnosis.

For us laymen, understanding that, and deepening that understanding and our devotion to the Mass as sacrifice, is what we need to do.

Matamoros said...

Hello there. The problem here is that it is often asserted that the words of consecration are sufficient for a valid Mass. This is an opinion which one may hold,and many theologians believe this but it is not doctrine of the Church,at least not yet. When discussing the integrity of the NO as a rite, it simply is not sufficient to say that the words of consecration are there and that's all there is to it.

Tom said...

"The bottom line is that each Catholic in communion with the Apostolic See must accept that the Second Vatican Council contains neither "errors" nor "ruptures" with Catholic teachings."

Jack Burton said..."This is sheer and absolute nonsense."

Pope Benedict XVI teaches that it is simply sheer and absolute Catholicism to accept that the Second Sacred Vatican Ecumenical Council contains neither errors not ruptures with the Faith.

The Holy Father, as granted to him by God, alone possesses the ultimate authority to interpret Vatican II.

His Holiness has been charged by God to teach, govern and sanctify the Pope of God.

In the course of said holy duties, Pope Benedict XVI has guaranteed that the Second Sacred Vatican Ecumenical Council is free from errors and ruptures with the True Religion.

Anybody who has rejected Pope Benedict XVI's teaching in that regard is guilty of having espoused sheer and absolute nonsense.

Let us pray that all members of God's flock will reject arrogance and errors in favor of holy docility which, in turn, will allow them to accept holy shepherd Pope Benedict XVI's teachings.

Tom

Tom said...

John McFarland said..."Tom, The Pope has made no ex cathedra pronouncement regarding Vatican II, and I daresay he would tell you so if you were to ask him.

"What he has done is to insist (or more likely, he has gone along with those who insist) that the SSPX agree that Vatican II is part of the tradition of the Church.

"The SSPX can not and will not do that, because the statement is false if "tradition" means what the Church always meant by tradition before 1962.

"It is only true if tradition means something different, and it is 1900-odd years too late to redefine it."

Then the Society will remain, unfortunately, mired in its current state — that is, the Society's bishops and priests do not exercise legitimate ministries as Pope Benedict XVI has declared.

Tom

Jan said...

The problem for the SSPX lies in Vatican 1, which is a digmatic Council, which states :

"Wherefore we teach and declare that,
by divine ordinance,
the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
episcopal and
immediate.
Both clergy and faithful,
of whatever rite and dignity,
both singly and collectively,
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.
In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd [50] .
This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation."

Therefore the SSPX are bound to submit to the authority of the Holy Father, otherwise they set themselves up as a separate Magisterium with all the consequences which flow from that.

Pope Benedict has also said that Vat II is not a super dogma but a pastoral Council. All I believe he is asking is that the SSPX accept it is a valid council, which after all ABL accepted. The SSPX appears to have moved away from ABL on that.

As regards the NO Mass, from all I have read it is valid because the words of consecration by an ordained priests (not Protestant ministry which is not valid) constitutes the Mass. After all we know that the form of the Mass has changed over the centuries. The NO will die out naturally, as attendance at the NO Mass is decreasing. The FSSP and other traditional orders are building up the Church, and the SSPX needs to be part of that, otherwise the restoration will take place without them, unfortunately. But that is their decision. We can do no more than pray.

Mlivohi said...

Mar
The TERM “Living Magisterium” is present in DV 10 and several subsequent documents, and before V2 I noted it in Humani Generis (21 in CT edition); while the CONCEPT is implicit in all magisterial documents. Each new document involves the Living Magisterium's interpretation of previous documents in so far as they deal with the same subject, it is addressed to us here and now (or to the contemporaries at the time when it is written), and expects our assent.

Here and now we have no access to the deceased popes or past councils’ fathers: what they have left us has to be interpreted, and no individual can do it authentically. That is why God has left us the Living Magisterium (here and now: Benedict and bishops who are in communion with them}.

The Church position on interpretation of the Holy Scripture is in Divino Afflante Spiritu, V2 (DV 12) and the CCC (109-114). The Historical Critical method is permitted, not embraced, and the ultimate judgment in any particular instance is subject to the Church, not to scholars (DV 12). We are not supposed to accept their results, be they modern or old, but take them “cum grano salis”.

An excellent guide of how the Church interprets the scripture is in the CCC: one has to read the text and then follow all the references therein (re: Bible, there must be at least 1500).

Wendell Willkie said...

Tom said...

"Pope Benedict XVI teaches that it is simply sheer and absolute Catholicism to accept that the Second Sacred Vatican Ecumenical Council contains neither errors not ruptures with the Faith..."

Blah, blah, blah.

Yeah, right, Tom. The "Second 'Sacred' ('Sacred'? Did you just make that up?) Vatican Ecumenical Council countains neither errors no[r] ruptures with the Faith."

Do you know how stupid that sounds in the face of, now, 47 years of utter chaos and destruction in the Church in the wake of Vatican II?

"His Holiness has been charged by God to teach, govern and sanctify the [People] of God."

No kidding? (Wow, the things you learn on the internet...)

Unspoken in your little declaration is *what*, exactly, the Pope is supposed to teach. Since Vatican II, it doesn't look like he's teaching Catholicism, and he's given away a lot of his governing power (well, except when it comes to SSPX traditionalists: then he and his buddies are all over them like flies on feces), so consequently his ability to sanctify the "People of God" (and who are *they* supposed to be, exactly?) has been compromised.

"Anybody who has rejected Pope Benedict XVI's teaching in that regard is guilty of having espoused sheer and absolute nonsense."

Really? Okay. Since you're defending Vatican II lock, stock, and two smoking barrels, I'll take that as a compliment.

"Let us pray that all members of God's flock will reject arrogance and errors in favor of holy docility which, in turn, will allow them to accept holy shepherd Pope Benedict XVI's teachings."

Yeah. And, while we're at it, let's all skip and go naked to the next Assisi meeting, too. I mean, since we have to accept holy shepher Pope Benedict XVI's teachings, and all...

McFarland Fan said...

John McFarland,

While I generally agree with you about most everything, I'm going to take some issue with you regarding the Archbishop Lefebrve statement asserting that lack of recognition of the sacrifice at the mass leads to lack of sacrifice in the lives of all too many Catholics and the root of the crisis we are in.

Please consider the following: the traditional mass and general full awareness of its sacrifice was used throughout the 1950s, into the early 1960s, and during the Glorious Council .

This didn't prevent the Second Vatican debacle from happening, though we can say that Novus Ordo has intensified the debacle. Pope Paul VI assuredly believed the tradtional mass was a Holy Sacrifice, and believed he was living a life of sacrifice when he informed the faithful that we would be called upon to sacrifice traditional worship in exchange for Novus Ordo so we could pursue unity with other Christians and attend to the so-called needs of our time.

Your thoughts?

Mlivohi said...

Picard
AD 1. “If the ‘living mag.’ does not use its infallible power and only utters an authentic interpretation fallibly (as in the most cases) then this interpretation could still be wrong.”
– Of course, but that is how God has seen fit to provide, and doesn’t release us from moral obligation to religious assent (not to be confused with the assent of faith, which is due to what is proposed infallibly). In fact, a dissent is an evil act. That is the classical moral theology. See Grisez: The Way of the Lord Jesus, Vol. I Ch.35, Qu. F and G; Vol. II, Ch.1, Qu. H and Y. The text of all three volumes is on his website.
– Besides, one who thinks that the Magisterium is wrong can himself be wrong in his thinking, which is highly likely, because he is not on equal footing with the Magisterium. Even if, objectively, he were right he could not be sure that he is, and it is highly likely that he is not.
- Furthermore, to assume that an Ecumenical Council, with all the expertize that has been put into it, and the whole Church for forty years thereafter, have got it wrong in such a serious matter, implies that Our Lord has badly let down those to whom He had promised to be with forever.

AD 2. “ If we principially never can claim to have grasped undoubtfully the right meaning of a text [as you suggest and ….”
– To start with, there is no such thing as “the right meaning of a text”: the right meaning is in the mind of the author who uses the text to communicate to others what he has in mind, and the reader can grasp it or misunderstand it, depending on whether what he has made out of the text is what the author wanted him to make of it, OR he (the reader) has used the text as a mould to fit into it his own mind.
- Re: “undoubtfully”, depends on what precisely you mean by it. We certainly can’t grasp it as God does. Nor can we grasp it, as the angels do, by some kind of mind-to-mind photocopy, because our communication is mediated by language with all the ambiguities inherent in it. Nor are we copiers, which reproduce the original “exactly” and understand – nothing. We can’t verify our grasp by consulting an author who has deceased, but from the circumstantial evidence only make various degrees of guess as to what the author might have had in mind. If he is alive we can verify our grasp with him directly; if we don’t we can, again, only make a guess.
- This possibility of direct verification is the reason why “an authentic interpretation DOES … help”, although, as you observe, it theoretically doesn’t solve the problem entirely. However, for practical purposes, that should be enough; otherwise the people wouldn’t be able to communicate at all, and we do communicate. As you say: one “can reach a point when the meaning is cleared up” – but: if it is possible to communicate with the author.
- Still, this is not the same as when somebody tries to “clear up” the meaning in the mind of a deceased authority with whom a direct communication is not possible, and that is exactly the SSPX’ difficulty.
- As for the current authority, i.e. the living magisterium, it acts for us on behalf of the deceased authority (both are one Magisterium), and so, we do not need a recourse to the latter, while the SSPX are doing exactly that, and doing it in opposition to the living authority. If we assent to the living magisterium the “clear up” point you refer has been reached - for Catholics.

- You have now answer to all your objections, and any further issue can be inferred from what I have said thus far without involving me. My heretical thesis is: the SSPX and the Protestants do not differ in principle, but only in the object (tradition v. scripture) of their respective dissent: both deny the charisma to the Living Magisterium to interpret authentically these sources (i.e. the Word of God), and usurp it to themselves.

Hilltop said...

Bishop Felley has clearly stated that nothing more is to be expected from the current Pope.

and, as Barbara wrote above quoating Fr Schmidberger:"Things like that are very strange” with reference to the appointment of Archbishop Mueller and Archbishop Roche as the Head of liturgical matters and how he opposed the Motu Proprio of the Holy Father. You can say that again Father – very, very strange!

The B16 tide is ebbing?
His Excellency's words are not idle and Father's words point to a new strangeness in the Vatican...

Sixupman said...

A solidly traditional priest, complete with parishioners on his side, was dismissed by ++Roche and without thought for the welfare of those parishioners.

Matamoros said...

No Mihlovi. The big difference between Arbishop Lefebvre and the Protestants is that they were harking back to a mytholigical "early Christianity" of which they knew very little, while he could point to the abrupt about-turn taken by the Church with regard to practice and teachings that are in everyone's memory still. Yes, it's all a bit difficult to handle the humain frailty of our Church leaders when we had been brought up to believe in their inherent holiness.

The modernists who who rule the roost have been dining out on this one since the council, but it never worked, because there were always enough like Archbishop Lefebvre to point out that the emperor had no clothes. No magisterium can get us to follow the liberalism that has been condemned by the Church of all time. The more teaching authority is misused this way, the more question marks it places over itself, that's all.

Indeed, as Vatican I made clear, the Church of Rome and its bishop is supreme. Which is why all efforts to censure, muffle, distract attention away rom its responsibility for what has happened are misguided and counterproductive.

In the meantime, no compromise. "We demand that Peter, BE Peter!" (Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre)

Mlivohi said...

Matamoros
You seem to have read only my last comment. There are three more:
21st Sept. at 19:18; 23rd Sept. at 7:20 and 19:49. You may also wish to have a look at Dave K comment on 21st at 23:25.

Harumphster said...

Mlivohi,

With regard to religious assent of mind and will, one must be seamless and consistent.

So when looking at our most recent popes and prelates, did they maintain an assent of mind and will during the 1950s and 1960s with regard to all that the Church authoritatively taught, even areas where they might have had some concerns or difficulties, such as church/state relations and the relationship toward material heretics and schismatics? Or did they take the opportunity of growing numbers and the convening of an ecumenical council to depart from traditional teaching, in certain respects, and their obligation toward proper assent of mind and will to introduce novelty?

You cannot have it both ways, turning an effective blind eye toward the lapses of our most recent leaders with regard to assent of mind and will, but, once novelties have been promulgated, re-instating the demand for assent for the novelties to be given by the post-council faithful.

CH DUPUY said...

@ Mlivohi:
You keep insisting that conciliar texts, or traditional documents or pronouncements of past Popes need interpretation because they are already dead and cannot be summoned to clear their meaning. So, they need to be interpreted by the "living Magisterium" (meaning I suspect, the living present Pope). But if past documents including VII texts need further interpretation, then we have to conclude that they are written in such an esoteric language that its meaning is only available to the initiated. This of course is nonsense, because Church documents including conciliar ones are to be written in such a way that the both the laity and the clerics understand what the Church teaches. If they are proclaimed at all by a Council, its object must be that everyone understand clearly what the Church teaches, because if not what is the purpose of proclaiming them at all?
So, BXVI's "hermeneutic of continuity" is shrouded in obscurity, because he refuses to clear out how this continuity is accomplished. What is more he avoids making any definitive pronouncement about the questioned documents of VII, but only says that there is no rupture beetween VII and pre-VII teachings. However, he himself has acknowledged that Lumen Gentium corrected or contradicted the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX and justified it by the argument that said syllabus was proclaimed to combat the abuses of the French Revolution, and that nowadays they were no longer necessary. He even called LG a sort of "counter-syllabus". So if this is not rupture, I do not know what it is.
At least Pope JPII was more consequential because to him pre- and post VII Cacholicism were radically different. He even stated that the pre-VII Church had been left behind forever.
So those of us that grew up before VII, were wrongly taught what Catholicism was about.
CH DUPUY

Mlivohi said...

Harumster and CH Deputy.
What you say is irrelevant to what i I have said. See my comments to Picard 21st Sept. at 19:18; 23rd Sept. at 7:20 and 19:49; 25 September at 14:08. Also to Mar 25 September at 06:27, first two paragraphs. I can't go over the same ground again. If interested peruse it, buy it or leave it. I stand by what I have said.
(You may also wish to have a look at Dave K comment on 21st at 23:25).

CH DUPUY said...

@Mlivohi:
So what I say is irrelevant. Maybe your meaning of "irrelevant" needs interpreting by other bloggers; but seriously: I have read all your comments and you go round and round with the same subject, i.e.: that past magisterial teaching and conciliar documents require authentic interpreting by the "living Magisterium" and this interpretation may be subject to a subsequent interpretation and so on endlessly. But your argumentation in the final analysis is purely retorical, because you cannot ask for a clear interpretation of a Church document and expect that the Supreme Authority (the Pope) comply with your petition. That might be the case with VII documents, that are deliberately ambiguous. The only clarificacion ever issued was the famous "Nota Praevia" (at the foot of the document!!) issued by Paul VI on the document about collegiality, that is so confusing that it does not clear out anything. Anyway it has been ignored by the pertinent authorities because said note never is published attached to the document.
To contrast VII documents with past Magisterial teaching by the Popes, I have read The Syllabus of Errors by Pope Pius IX and the propositions are quite solemn and clear, always ending with the phrase "anathema sit", that was "anathema" to the conciliar fathers at VII, possibly because they were scared to death that it might offend our dear "separated brothers".

Harumphster said...

Mlivohi: I'll second what CH DUPUY said. Your position [and apparently that of David] seems, when all the bells and whistles are clear out, to amount to an assertion that Catholicism solely consists of whatever the present pope likes and teaches. That's simply not a viable Catholicism in any way whatsoever. 'Anathema sit' is serious business. And it's clear that our recent popes have not accorded certain of those teachings the recognition they deserve.

CH DUPUY: Two quick things. First, in fairness to the Holy See can it not be said that they did issue clarification of the 'subsists in' teaching in a 2007 note? Also, can you tell me where/when JPII said that the pre-VII Church had been left behind forever?

CH DUPUY said...

@Harumphster:
Thank you for your favorable comment on my position.
Yes, I read that quote in one of the writings by JPII, but unfortunately failed to save the exact citation, but I can assure you that it is authentic.
I remember it vividly, because I used to have a certain admiration for the guy and that sentence struck me deeply because the pre-VII Church, the Catholic Church of times past founded by our Lord, is the same that nurtured him in his infancy and taught him when he entered the priesthood, and this quote saddened me very much.
He was one of the more enthusiastic promoters of the reforms of VII, and seems he had a certain animosity agaist Tradition, the same as Hans Kung, Ives Congar, etc. However, typical of post VII thinking, he kept insisting that there was no rupture between pre- and post-VII Church. Seems that contradiction is no problem in post VII thought.
I will try to google JPII documents and see if I can retrieve such quote.
Regards,
CH DUPUY

CH DUPUY said...

@Harumphster:
I think that it was not the Holy See but Joseph Ratzinger as Cardinal, that issued a clarification of "subsists in" and if I remember well it said that it meant that the Catholic Church "is" the Church of Christ, but with verbal sleight of hand avoided to make a definite pronouncement.

Harumphster said...

CH DUPUY, thank you for the response. I will try to find the JPII quote as well.

With due respect, my assertion regarding the 'subsists in' note of clarification is actual, official, and magisterial. It's a June 29, 2007 statement from the CDF, written and signed by Cardinal Levada, and officially ratified by Pope Benedict XVI.

God bless.

Mar said...

Mlivohi,
In your answer (25 September, 2012 06:27) to what I wrote you show that you have not understood the point that I was trying to make. In broad terms it is as follows.

Some - including yourself - are trying to demonstrate that the issues debated in this discussion are 'cut and dried', and require nothing more than a mechanical application of solutions, a one-size-fits-all type of approach. On the other hand, by making an example of the Historical-Critical method I was attempting to show that it's not quite that simple or easy.

If the very persons who make up what you regard as the 'Living Magisterium' (and to whom you insist that we should give unquestioning loyalty) have demonstrably taken a Protestant position - giving it credence at best, and wholeheartedly embracing it at worst; I repeat, when such is the case then to assert - as you do - that to oppose these positions is 'Protestant' is a nonsense. That was my point.

In my book, when the majority of the exegetes in the so-called mainstream Church use the Historical-Critical method with the sanction of higher authorities, then, yes, the Church *has* embraced the said method. And if the provenance of the
Historical-Critical method is so clearly Protestant (as can be easily shown), then to even 'permit' it is a very bad thing. Are you simply buying time by splitting hairs? The last 40 or so years in the Church are full of examples of what was 'permitted' with the most disastrous results.

As to the CCC, a recent commentator on RC (on a different thread I think) has given sufficient reasons why that document cannot be considered a reliable point of reference. More like to be taken “cum grano salis”.
[to be continued]

Mar said...

[continuation]
It is important to note what Father Joseph de Sainte-Marie, O.C.D. says about contradictions and how they should be appoached. Fr. Joseph is no slouch - he is a
Roman theologian who teaches at the Pontifical College of the Teresanium.

He says - quote:
It will suffice to recall... the Institutio Generalis, which introduces the Novus Ordo Missae, particularly its celebrated Article 7. There the dogmas of the Eucharist and the priesthood were presented in such ambiguous terms, and so obviously orientated towards Protestantism - to say no more - that they had to be rectified. This Institutio, however, constituted an ‘intervention by the Magisterium.’ Should it be accepted on that account, when it was going in a direction manifestly contrary to
that of the Council of Trent, in which the Church had engaged her infallibility? If we were to follow the approach urged by Joseph Kleiner and so many others, the answer would be: ‘Yes.’ But to do this we would have to swallow the contradiction by denying that there is a contradiction - which is in itself contradictory. This would be a real abdication of the intellect, and it would leave us defenseless in the face of a
principle of authority that would be totally outside the control of truth. Such an attitude is not in conformity with what the Magisterium itself requires of the faithful... Faith demands the submission of the intellect in the face of the Mystery that transcends it, not its abdication when confronted with the demands of intellectual coherence which pertain to its sphere of competence; judgment is a virtue of the intellect. That is why, when a contradiction is evident, ... the believer’s duty (and, even more, the duty of the theologian) is to address the Magisterium and ask for the said contradiction to be removed.
End of quote