Post by hibernicus on Jul 1, 2013 11:32:31 GMT
The SSPX bishops have issued a statement in which they reaffirm that Archbishop Lefebvre was right to carry out the consecrations, declare that Vatican II itself, and not merely its interpretation, was inherently flawed, and declare that the NO Mass is founded on a false theology. Game over - I don't see how any further dialogue is possible on this basis, and it raises the possibility that they are preparing to consecrate more bishops:
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/06/for-record-declaration-of-sspx-bishops.html
here are some useful points from the comboxes
EXTRACT
GMMF said...
The ignorance and exaggerations are saddening, as at least Fellay seemed to have bene moving away from such things in more recent times. For example, the Magsiterium teaching in a pastoral way is not new, but has existed as long as the Church has existed and as long as bishops have been pastors (this was formalized as the episcopal pastoral letter). The Church has never only defined truths in the abstract, but has always applied them to concrete circumstances in attempts to achieve the greatest good for the flock and all men. The supreme authority of the Chuch has done this frequently especially since the time of Leo XIII. The times when the supreme authority would only interveren to definitively judge doctrinal questions ended centuries and centuries ago.
From this ignorance, the SSPX err by severing the Magisterium, the teaching authority, from the subject-Church. They claim that by inventing a new form of magisterium (a false claim), the real, authoritative Magisterium has been severed from the subject-Church. This is why the make the false distinction between "eternal Rome" and the Church of Rome existing in history this very moment and deny more recent Magisterial acts even obsequium religiosum.
Unfotunately, this error is a favorite of Fr. Gleize, SSPX, who as ecclesiology professor at Econe is no doubt imbuing it in all his students.
The traditional doctrine, on the other hand, is the teaching authority is not severable from the subject Church and the continuity of that one subject itself is the primary guarantee the continuity of doctrine.
Cardinal Manning articulated this in his work on the Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost:
"The enunciation of the faith by the living Church of this hour, is the maximum of evidence, both natural and supernatural, as to the fact and the contents of the original revelation."
The SSPX, on the other hand, oppose the consistent and repeated teaching of the Magistium since Vatican II, and pit it against certain acts of the same Magisterium prior to the Council.
Again, Manning counters this in the same work cited above. After first admitting apparent contradictions in past teaching he states that the continuity of the subject-Church ensures these are not true contradictions, since the same Magisterium that taught something in the past alone has the ability to properly interpret what it meant back then, and that what it says laters is consonant:
"No critic except the living and lineal judge and discerner of truth, the only Church of God, can solve these inequalities and anomalies in the history of doctrine. To the Church the facts of antiquity are transparent in the light of its perpetual consciousness of the original revelation."
The SSPX have erred by severing the Magisterium from the subject-Church and de facto filling the resulting void themselves, arrogating to themselves the role of that one and only critic and providing definitive pronouncements against the supreme teaching authority of the Church.
27 June, 2013 15:24
GMMF said...
Just to follow up on my previous post and provide a simple example to show the SSPX have proven themselves a poor critic in comparison to the the Magisterium, they claim here the doctrine on the supreme authority of the college of bishops contradicts the teaching of Vatican I. The same Magisterium that promulgated Pastor Aeternus, has also explicitly and consistently taught the supreme authority of the college of bishops as something consonant.
As I mentioned in my previous post, Manning would say that should be enough for any Catholic, but just to show the SSPX to be an unreliable critic, all we have to do is look to the Church's own official interpretive guide to Pastor Aeternus, the relatio provided to the bishops of Vatican I.
The official relatio for Pastor Aeternus states: "The bishops gathered with their head in an ecumenical council—and in that case they represent the whole Church—or dispersed but in union with their head—in which case they are the Church itself—truly have full power (vere plenam potestatem habent). There would be confusion if we were to admit two full and supreme powers separate and distinct from each other. But we admit that the truly full and supreme power is in the sovereign pontiff as in the head (veluti capite) and that the same power, truly both full and supreme, is also in the head united to the members, that is to say, in the pontiff united to the bishops."
27 June, 2013 15:26
GMMF said...
The whole no FSSP without the SSPX is not really a point in the SSPX favor, quite the opposite really. While the situations are not completely the same, it is analogous to saying there would be no Byzantine Catholic Churches with the separated Orthodox Churches.
The FSSP exists because the SSPX leadership committed a "schismatic act" otherwise there would simply be the SSPX. Same with the sui juris Byzantine Catholic Churches which were reestablished after the the schism of the particular Churches who should never have left.
27 June, 2013 15:30
..........
66605 said...
Mr. Werling,
It is true that Pope Paul VI admitted that none of the teachings of Vat2 were endowed with the note of infallibility which attaches to acts of the extraordinary magisterium of the Church. This does not mean, however, that teachings other than that of the extraordinary magisterium are not binding on the faithful. Paul VI made it clear that the teachings of Vat2 belong to the supreme ordinary magisterium of the Church and must be accepted as such by all faithful Catholics. The fact that the teachings of Vat2 were ratified by the Pope and bishops of the world in union with him guarantees its conformity with the faith of the apostles.The unwillingness of the SSPX to accept the teachings of the supreme ordinary magisterium of Vat2, to submit to the authority of the living magisterium (the authority of the Pope) and their refusal to follow Church law places them outside the Church. The SSPX does not understand the hierarchical nature of the Church and how divine authority works through it. They act much like Protestants who believe the Church has defected.
28 June, 2013 03:38
.......................
sparksj3 said...
Dr. Williams,
Goodness, it is not a question of “lying to ourselves” or acting like an ostrich. This is precisely the type of confusion that such statements engender. The Faith is a supernatural gift and can be lost only by heresy or apostasy. Has the pope or the Church in Rome formally committed outright heresy or apostasy? If so, we are in serious trouble. If not, they share in the same Faith as the saints.
That said, one can have the true "faith of all time", but not profess it or profess it poorly. In the example you gave, there is nothing ostrich-like in saying that Pope Francis and Pope Pius X share the same Faith. The profession of that same Faith differs in each, though. Certainly, Pope St. Pius X was clearer in his enunciation of Catholic doctrine and his condemnation of deviances from it. Yet, profession is not the same as possession. As Leo XIII emphasized, one either has the Faith or one does not. There is no middle-way. There is nothing ostrich-like about this—it is the only coherent way of seeing the situation without departing from Catholic truth. There are certain ways in which one can argue with a given pope’s understanding of the Faith or profession of the same, but one may not question the pope’s possession of the Faith. If the pope clearly does not have the Faith, he is not pope. Period.
The core problem here is that it is Catholic doctrine that Rome cannot depart from the Faith. As this is Catholic doctrine, we must give full assent to it, despite whatever we might think our poor little minds tell us. Again, to insist that Rome has lost the Faith, but still claim to be faithful to the same Rome is utterly non-sensical.
I’m not saying this is always easy. There are statements that sometimes come from Rome or practices that are seen there that tempt one to believe that she has departed from the Faith. I’m sure that during the time of Benedict IX or Alexander VI the temptation was very, very great. Yet it is precisely at times such as these that one should renew one’s Faith and pray to Our Lady who stood at the foot of the Cross, cradling the lifeless body of her Son, all the while believing without wavering that He yet lived and reigned.
28 June, 2013 13:15
.....................................
66605 said...
To David,
You accurately document the fact that the Church refused to employ the extraordinary magisterium at Vat2, but here is what the Pope had to say about the supreme ordinary magisterium which was employed. He said,”This ordinary magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility and sincerity by all the faithful, in accordance with the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of the individual documents.” So, it's true that the documents of Vat2 do not demand the unconditional assent of infallible statements but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium. In order to reject the teaching of Vat2 on doctrinal grounds one would have to elevate his own private opinions about Church teaching above that of the living magisterium, the Pope and bishops in union with him, who constitute the teaching authority of the Church. Why can't the SSPX accept the teachings of Vat2 in a conditional way? This is all that is asked of them.You should also remember that before a teaching becomes “infallible”, that is, an act of the extraordinary magisterium (which is a rare event) it belongs to the ordinary magisterium of the Church. So, one needs to be careful about rejecting teachings the Pope says belong to the ordinary magisterium.
28 June, 2013 14:24
Sancte Alphonsus said...
You often hear SSPX Chapel goers refer to the Ecclesia Dei communities as "fruits of the SSPX." In order to be consistent you must also refer to the SSPV, "the nine" who broke from SSPX, and the SSPX "strict observance" as also being fruits.
While I believe the SSPX makes some valid points their assertions that the new Mass is 'evil' and that the FSSP are part of the problem is very problematic.
The textbook definition of schism is 'the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.'
This definition is enough to give one pause when considering the SSPX. True the Church has made no formal declaration of schism as far as I can tell but the Church has warned against attendance at an SSPX Chapel for the very reason of imbibing a schismatic mentality. This mentality is very real and sees faithful sons of the Church (ie. FSSP, ICK etc.) as "part of the problem."
I pray that Rome either admit them "in" or formally excommunicate every member of the SSPX, Bishops, Priests and associated lay faithful for the sake of clarity.
To me it does not seem just to leave the SSPX in this current grey area.
28 June, 2013 15:22
END OF EXTRACT
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/06/for-record-declaration-of-sspx-bishops.html
here are some useful points from the comboxes
EXTRACT
GMMF said...
The ignorance and exaggerations are saddening, as at least Fellay seemed to have bene moving away from such things in more recent times. For example, the Magsiterium teaching in a pastoral way is not new, but has existed as long as the Church has existed and as long as bishops have been pastors (this was formalized as the episcopal pastoral letter). The Church has never only defined truths in the abstract, but has always applied them to concrete circumstances in attempts to achieve the greatest good for the flock and all men. The supreme authority of the Chuch has done this frequently especially since the time of Leo XIII. The times when the supreme authority would only interveren to definitively judge doctrinal questions ended centuries and centuries ago.
From this ignorance, the SSPX err by severing the Magisterium, the teaching authority, from the subject-Church. They claim that by inventing a new form of magisterium (a false claim), the real, authoritative Magisterium has been severed from the subject-Church. This is why the make the false distinction between "eternal Rome" and the Church of Rome existing in history this very moment and deny more recent Magisterial acts even obsequium religiosum.
Unfotunately, this error is a favorite of Fr. Gleize, SSPX, who as ecclesiology professor at Econe is no doubt imbuing it in all his students.
The traditional doctrine, on the other hand, is the teaching authority is not severable from the subject Church and the continuity of that one subject itself is the primary guarantee the continuity of doctrine.
Cardinal Manning articulated this in his work on the Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost:
"The enunciation of the faith by the living Church of this hour, is the maximum of evidence, both natural and supernatural, as to the fact and the contents of the original revelation."
The SSPX, on the other hand, oppose the consistent and repeated teaching of the Magistium since Vatican II, and pit it against certain acts of the same Magisterium prior to the Council.
Again, Manning counters this in the same work cited above. After first admitting apparent contradictions in past teaching he states that the continuity of the subject-Church ensures these are not true contradictions, since the same Magisterium that taught something in the past alone has the ability to properly interpret what it meant back then, and that what it says laters is consonant:
"No critic except the living and lineal judge and discerner of truth, the only Church of God, can solve these inequalities and anomalies in the history of doctrine. To the Church the facts of antiquity are transparent in the light of its perpetual consciousness of the original revelation."
The SSPX have erred by severing the Magisterium from the subject-Church and de facto filling the resulting void themselves, arrogating to themselves the role of that one and only critic and providing definitive pronouncements against the supreme teaching authority of the Church.
27 June, 2013 15:24
GMMF said...
Just to follow up on my previous post and provide a simple example to show the SSPX have proven themselves a poor critic in comparison to the the Magisterium, they claim here the doctrine on the supreme authority of the college of bishops contradicts the teaching of Vatican I. The same Magisterium that promulgated Pastor Aeternus, has also explicitly and consistently taught the supreme authority of the college of bishops as something consonant.
As I mentioned in my previous post, Manning would say that should be enough for any Catholic, but just to show the SSPX to be an unreliable critic, all we have to do is look to the Church's own official interpretive guide to Pastor Aeternus, the relatio provided to the bishops of Vatican I.
The official relatio for Pastor Aeternus states: "The bishops gathered with their head in an ecumenical council—and in that case they represent the whole Church—or dispersed but in union with their head—in which case they are the Church itself—truly have full power (vere plenam potestatem habent). There would be confusion if we were to admit two full and supreme powers separate and distinct from each other. But we admit that the truly full and supreme power is in the sovereign pontiff as in the head (veluti capite) and that the same power, truly both full and supreme, is also in the head united to the members, that is to say, in the pontiff united to the bishops."
27 June, 2013 15:26
GMMF said...
The whole no FSSP without the SSPX is not really a point in the SSPX favor, quite the opposite really. While the situations are not completely the same, it is analogous to saying there would be no Byzantine Catholic Churches with the separated Orthodox Churches.
The FSSP exists because the SSPX leadership committed a "schismatic act" otherwise there would simply be the SSPX. Same with the sui juris Byzantine Catholic Churches which were reestablished after the the schism of the particular Churches who should never have left.
27 June, 2013 15:30
..........
66605 said...
Mr. Werling,
It is true that Pope Paul VI admitted that none of the teachings of Vat2 were endowed with the note of infallibility which attaches to acts of the extraordinary magisterium of the Church. This does not mean, however, that teachings other than that of the extraordinary magisterium are not binding on the faithful. Paul VI made it clear that the teachings of Vat2 belong to the supreme ordinary magisterium of the Church and must be accepted as such by all faithful Catholics. The fact that the teachings of Vat2 were ratified by the Pope and bishops of the world in union with him guarantees its conformity with the faith of the apostles.The unwillingness of the SSPX to accept the teachings of the supreme ordinary magisterium of Vat2, to submit to the authority of the living magisterium (the authority of the Pope) and their refusal to follow Church law places them outside the Church. The SSPX does not understand the hierarchical nature of the Church and how divine authority works through it. They act much like Protestants who believe the Church has defected.
28 June, 2013 03:38
.......................
sparksj3 said...
Dr. Williams,
Goodness, it is not a question of “lying to ourselves” or acting like an ostrich. This is precisely the type of confusion that such statements engender. The Faith is a supernatural gift and can be lost only by heresy or apostasy. Has the pope or the Church in Rome formally committed outright heresy or apostasy? If so, we are in serious trouble. If not, they share in the same Faith as the saints.
That said, one can have the true "faith of all time", but not profess it or profess it poorly. In the example you gave, there is nothing ostrich-like in saying that Pope Francis and Pope Pius X share the same Faith. The profession of that same Faith differs in each, though. Certainly, Pope St. Pius X was clearer in his enunciation of Catholic doctrine and his condemnation of deviances from it. Yet, profession is not the same as possession. As Leo XIII emphasized, one either has the Faith or one does not. There is no middle-way. There is nothing ostrich-like about this—it is the only coherent way of seeing the situation without departing from Catholic truth. There are certain ways in which one can argue with a given pope’s understanding of the Faith or profession of the same, but one may not question the pope’s possession of the Faith. If the pope clearly does not have the Faith, he is not pope. Period.
The core problem here is that it is Catholic doctrine that Rome cannot depart from the Faith. As this is Catholic doctrine, we must give full assent to it, despite whatever we might think our poor little minds tell us. Again, to insist that Rome has lost the Faith, but still claim to be faithful to the same Rome is utterly non-sensical.
I’m not saying this is always easy. There are statements that sometimes come from Rome or practices that are seen there that tempt one to believe that she has departed from the Faith. I’m sure that during the time of Benedict IX or Alexander VI the temptation was very, very great. Yet it is precisely at times such as these that one should renew one’s Faith and pray to Our Lady who stood at the foot of the Cross, cradling the lifeless body of her Son, all the while believing without wavering that He yet lived and reigned.
28 June, 2013 13:15
.....................................
66605 said...
To David,
You accurately document the fact that the Church refused to employ the extraordinary magisterium at Vat2, but here is what the Pope had to say about the supreme ordinary magisterium which was employed. He said,”This ordinary magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility and sincerity by all the faithful, in accordance with the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of the individual documents.” So, it's true that the documents of Vat2 do not demand the unconditional assent of infallible statements but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium. In order to reject the teaching of Vat2 on doctrinal grounds one would have to elevate his own private opinions about Church teaching above that of the living magisterium, the Pope and bishops in union with him, who constitute the teaching authority of the Church. Why can't the SSPX accept the teachings of Vat2 in a conditional way? This is all that is asked of them.You should also remember that before a teaching becomes “infallible”, that is, an act of the extraordinary magisterium (which is a rare event) it belongs to the ordinary magisterium of the Church. So, one needs to be careful about rejecting teachings the Pope says belong to the ordinary magisterium.
28 June, 2013 14:24
Sancte Alphonsus said...
You often hear SSPX Chapel goers refer to the Ecclesia Dei communities as "fruits of the SSPX." In order to be consistent you must also refer to the SSPV, "the nine" who broke from SSPX, and the SSPX "strict observance" as also being fruits.
While I believe the SSPX makes some valid points their assertions that the new Mass is 'evil' and that the FSSP are part of the problem is very problematic.
The textbook definition of schism is 'the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.'
This definition is enough to give one pause when considering the SSPX. True the Church has made no formal declaration of schism as far as I can tell but the Church has warned against attendance at an SSPX Chapel for the very reason of imbibing a schismatic mentality. This mentality is very real and sees faithful sons of the Church (ie. FSSP, ICK etc.) as "part of the problem."
I pray that Rome either admit them "in" or formally excommunicate every member of the SSPX, Bishops, Priests and associated lay faithful for the sake of clarity.
To me it does not seem just to leave the SSPX in this current grey area.
28 June, 2013 15:22
END OF EXTRACT