Tue 22nd Jul 2014 | Last updated: Tue 22nd Jul 2014 at 14:13pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

It is time to reconcile the SSPX with the Holy See

Bishop Fellay has made courageous steps towards ending the 40-year division

By on Monday, 21 May 2012

Bishop Bernard Fellay CNS photo/Paul Haring

Bishop Bernard Fellay CNS photo/Paul Haring

If we really want reconciliation between the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) and the Holy See, now is the time to pray about it.

According to a report from CWN, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) met on 16th May to discuss such a possibility. The meeting concentrated on the response of Bishop Bernard Fellay, the superior general of the SSPX, to a proposed “Doctrinal Preamble” that is hoped could form the basis of a reconciliation. Bishop Fellay signed the Preamble in April, but had suggested some amendments. The CDF’s observations on these will go to Pope Benedict who is expected to make a final decision by the end of this month.

Leaked reports within the SSPX suggest that Bishop Fellay is at odds with his three fellow bishops in the Society over his openness to the Vatican overtures. Could it be that Bishops Tissier de Mallerais, Alfonso de Galarreta and Richard Williamson would rather remain in splendid isolation than return to the fold? Acknowledging these internal tensions, a Vatican statement on May 16th said, “Regarding the positions taken by the other three bishops of the Society of St Pius X, their situations will have to be dealt with separately and singularly.”

Bishop Bernard Fellay CNS photo/Paul Haring

who has himself alluded to the possibility of a split in the ranks of the SSPX over this question, seems a courageous and humble man. Interviewed at his Swiss headquarters on 15th May by the American Catholic News Service, he admitted that certain things “we would have condemned as coming from the [Second Vatican] Council were not in fact from the Council.” Those who have stayed loyal to Rome during the upheavals following the Council have always known that its conclusions and official documents were sometimes wilfully misinterpreted on the ground by liberal churchmen. But for the superior general of the SSPX to accept that the Council itself and what followed it were two separate events is quite something – at least this is the first time I have heard it.

It is also noteworthy that although Bishop Fellay admitted in the interview that he himself would rather “have wished to wait for more time to see things clearer” he accepts that Pope Benedict “wants it to happen now.” In all the years of the “Rome v SSPX” saga, this is the nearest the two sides have come to a firm and lasting agreement. It is understandable that the Holy Father would like to bring reconciliation about before his pontificate comes to an end. And would waiting any longer make things clearer anyway?

Over forty years have gone by already since the SSPX broke away from Rome and records of the dispute must run to volumes. There is something to be said for deciding on closure.
What finally struck me at this interview was Bishop Fellay’s appreciation of the Pope’s purposeful and charitable outreach to the Society. He seemed almost overwhelmed by the Holy Father’s gesture. If the long-lasting fissure is brought to an end, “it [will be] thanks to him and to him alone” the Bishop said. What a wonderful tribute to Pope Benedict: so often portrayed in his time at the CDF as the “Vatican enforcer” and the “Panzer Kardinal” – yet this is the Pope who sanctioned the setting up of the Ordinariate to invite back separated Anglican brethren and who now wants full reconciliation with the followers of the late Archbishop Lefebvre. This is certainly something to pray about right now.

  • Joe Spencer

    “No Catholic may deny any Council of the Church unless the Church herself
    has already done so (a VERY rare occurrence) nor any ex cathedra
    declaration such as the CCC, but Catholics must affirm the infallibility
    of such Councils or declarations.”

    Please let me know where you learned that the CCC is ex cathedra? 

    It is not. 

    It is infallible only in accordance with the ordinary magisterium, that is, insofar as it is in accordance with the tradition of the Church.  So, if it disagrees with tradition, it is not infallible.

    The last ex cathedra declaration was in 1950… not the council, nor the CCC.

  • Jae

    Yes you are right, no written document can interpret itself, that is the reason why we have the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, or the Bible and written tradition with the living Authority of the Church. Up until now there is NO concrete evidence that VII contradicted any from the past, just fallible human opinions with no authority whatsoever.

  • Alan

    I was looking at what appeared to be the official website, reproducing the catechism in full.  One of the headings led me to a section which clearly supported the view that the last 5 Popes have all been anti-popes.  Perhaps it was a fake website, though most of the other stuff (as far as I could see) looked pretty orthodox.

  • Alan

    The website is http://www.baltimore-catechism.com, the section headed “Gregory XVII Siri, the Pope in Red”. 

  • Jae

    Yes we are almost there, the logical fallacy of “post hoc ergo” is what I was referring to being used by both Sedes and SSPX, attributing the cause of secularism to VII…very fallacious. Secondly, the willful evil sins of Kathleen Sebellius, Nancy Pelosi, Biden and the Kennedy’s by supporting and enacting immoral laws not because of their misinterpretation of some ambiguous Teachings of the Church but rather a DIRECT DISOBEDIENCE against the clear and constant Teachings of the Church.

    Where can you find ambiguous teachings of the Church regarding abortion, gay marriage, embryonic stem cell, euthanasia etc? Can you find one?

    Your last statement is very true which the document of VII on Ecumenism is really based on, that Orthodox churches and our Protestant congregations separated from the Catholic Church, they didn’t separate full, they retained in them some Truths that SSPX have made so much fuss about.

  • Jae

    The barb is all about the attitude as some ultra-trad have some similarities with the Protestants (im not saying you are one, ok?), wherein they have this novel idea that they can interpret correctly what the Bible is truly saying apart from the Magisterium of the Church (Bible Alone) with the ultra traditionalists wherein they have this novel idea that they can interpret correctly what Tradition truly is saying apart from the Magisterium of the Church (Tradicio Alone).

    The Catechism was referenced to a lot of sources, mainly from the Bible, Patristic Fathers and VI and VII.

    All I’m saying is I ACCEPT ALL the Councils of the Church from the very beginning in Jerusalem, Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Florence, Trent to Vatican II primarily they are all of the same Authority. We don’t have the luxury of cherry picking which Council is good or orthodox enough for us, like what Jesus Christ said, accept all or none at all. Protestants choose the other.

  • Joe Spencer

    Here’s an interesting one… having to do with tradition, in light of all the banter here…  It’s interesting that Pope St. Pius V said this in the 1500s.  The missal codified then was to be used “henceforth, now, and forever.”

    And to think, there were so many people, both religious and laypeople who took flack for having the gall to think that they had the right to the traditional mass. 

    Interesting eh?  Quote of Pope St. Pius V’s Bull “Quo Primum” follows:

    “…let Masses not
    be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal
    published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout
    all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches,
    collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of
    women – even of military orders – and of churches or chapels without a specific
    congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read
    privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church.

    “We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading
    of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed
    absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty,
    judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors,
    administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of
    whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as
    enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced
    or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be
    revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force”

  • Jae

    Joe, I didn’t say that the Council might not contain error however, this error is attributed to he tterminology of words used in expressing the idea but NOT the essence or substance of the idea (doctrine) it would promulgate.

    Ambiguity doesn’t necessarily mean error, leads to error or license to error, good examples, the Bible is ambiguous about the doctrines of Immaculate Conception, praying to dead christian people (saints) and Assumption of Mary (nowhere in fact) and a lot more, but where did we get and why do we as Catholics believed them?

  • Parasum

    “Closure” is impossible unless Rome unsays its false teaching about Judaism. By failing to do so, it perverts Catholic dogma about the uniqueness of the Catholic Church, and overturns the entire New Testament witness to Jesus Christ & His finality as “the End [in all senses] of the Law”. He is its Goal, its Purpose, its Fulfilment, its Reason, its Conclusion. “Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes” (Romans 10.4) To deny that, is to affirm what St.Paul cannot deny often enough: that righteousness with God comes through the Law. Rome’s current teaching affirms that St. Paul was wrong – on something of great importance.  This contradicts the Catholic Faith, & Christianity in all forms.

    http://niv.scripturetext.com/romans/10.htm

    To quote John Vennari:

     “When Pope Benedict XVI “lifted” the alleged excommunications of the four bishops of the Society of St. Pius X in 2009, a daily secular newspaper in New York State interviewed me on the topic.

    The reporter said a local rabbi told him the following: “We rabbis are concerned about a possible ‘regularization’
    of the Society of St. Pius X. We fear this may bring about the
    Vatican’s return to the pre-Vatican II teaching that the Old Covenant is
    superseded by the New Covenant.”It appears these Rabbis understand the doctrinal issues at stake better than many traditional Catholics.Vatican
    II ushered in a new era that implies the Old Covenant is still in force
    and has never been superseded. A 1985 Vatican document, endorsed by
    Pope John Paul II, propounds this new teaching. Thus we may ask in relation to the ongoing discussions between Rome and the SSPX: if today’s Vatican expects the Society of St. Pius X to accept the post-Conciliar “magisterium”, does the Vatican then expect the SSPX to accept the 1985 Notes that claims the Old Covenant is not superseded by the New?I do not say the SSPX will accept this affront to Catholic truth (they won’t). My question is: will the Vatican expect the SSPX to accept this tenet of the new “magisterium”?…”

    http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page27/page27.html

    ## STM that speaks for itself. As does this, from the 1985 Note:
    “The Holy Father has stated this permanent reality of the Jewish people in a remarkable theological formula, in his allocution to the Jewish community of West Germany at Mainz, on November 17th, 1980: “The people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been revoked.””http://www.sacredheart.edu/pages/12656_1985_6_24_notes_vatican_document_notes.cfm## “[N]ever revoked” in Wojtylism, maybe – but by God, definitely, as the NT & Sacred Tradition show. Until the errors of Wojtylism are condemned by Rome, the SSPX should pray for Rome, but not change its present position.

  • Benedict Carter

    Rejecting strongly what you know nothing about is rather silly.

  • Benedict Carter

    Just do some checking on the internet, and stop blathering at me. You can find plenty of material from well-informed people about the horrors lurking in the JPII Catechism. 

    The current Pope issued the Compendium which puts the Catechism’s errors mostly right. 

    The Catechism isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

  • Benedict Carter

    The entire process Jabba was ENTIRELY uncanonical and therefore has no force at all. The Society has therefore NEVER been suppressed. You can read all about the whole horrible and totally unlawful process in AB Lefebvre’s “Open Letter to confused Catholics”. Rome itself completely ignored the processes demanded by Canon Law and the suppression was therefore totally invalid. Read the book please before commenting on this further. 

  • Benedict Carter

    I have posted the specific documents and the questionable clauses for you twice here before. if you refuse the even look at them, why should I do it a third time?

  • Parasum

    Jesus addressed a certain disciple of his as “Satan”:

     13Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” 15He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18“I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19“I will give you the keys of the kingdom
    of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in
    heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in
    heaven.” 20Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.

     21From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. 22Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You.” 23But
    He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling
    block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but
    man’s.”

    http://biblebrowser.com/matthew/16-1.htm

    Point about desperation taken – but sometimes it may be what needs to be said. After all, if the Papacy is anywhere as importants as the Church believes, where else would Satan aim his darts so fiercely ? He has no need to tempt those who already his or who do his work gladly – it is the Saints, & the greatest means of God’s grace , that attract his bitterest attacks, because those good things of God are exceptionally powerful in casting down the devil’s kingdom. The ferocity of the Temptations of Christ shows this – one of them is repeated in a very subtle & horrid way in this very chapter. The devil is a defeated enemy – his last spasms are all the more dangerous for that.

  • Benedict Carter

    Totally right, Parasum. 

    Those like Jabba, Alan and Jae here are simply unable to bring themselves to question the glaring lack of continuity in doctrine taught before that damned council and afterwards. They accept that there can be no contradiction … but when it is pointed out to them they scream “heretic” at he who informs them. 

    There’s no giving sight to the blind in this case. That will take a Pope who says plainly to the world one day that the Emperor has no clothes. And the light will suddently (or not so suddenly) go on in their brains.

  • Benedict Carter

    Greg, there are several serious problems. Here once again (he said wearily) is the list of questionable areas of Vatican II teaching:

    The points at dispute are four:

    The teaching on religious liberty, as it is expressed in no. 2 of the Declaration ‘Dignitatis humanae,’ contradicts the teachings of Gregory XVI in ‘Mirari vos’ and of Pius IX in ‘Quanta cura’ as well as those of Pope Leo XIII in ‘Immortale Dei’ and those of Pope Pius XI in ‘Quas primas.’

    The teaching on the Church, as it is expressed in no. 8 of the Constitution ‘Lumen gentium,’ contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius XII in ‘Mystici corporis’ and ‘Humani generis.

    The teaching on ecumenism, as it is expressed in no. 8 of ‘Lumen gentium’ and no. 3 of the Decree ‘Unitatis redintegratio,’ contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius IX in propositions 16 and 17 of the ‘Syllabus,’ those of Leo XIII in ‘Satis cognitum,’ and those of Pope Pius XI in ‘Mortalium animos’.

    The teaching on collegiality, as it is expressed in no. 22 of the Constitution ‘Lumen gentium,’ including no. 3 of the ‘Nota praevia’ [Explanatory Note], contradicts the teachings of the First Vatican Council on the uniqueness of the subject of supreme power in the Church, in the Constitution ‘Pastor aeternus’.”

  • Benedict Carter

    Prominent Polish Catholics petition the Pope for a study into certain problematic areas of Vatican II teaching:

    http://www.dici.org/en/documents/petition-by-polish-intellectuals-requesting-a-more-in-depth-study-of-the-second-vatican-council/

  • Parasum

    The matter is one of fact, not persons: either the Church has promulgated errors – or it is not.

    Pius XII in 1947 corrected part of the Roman Catechism of 1566, once it had become clear that the sacrament of order was originally conferred by laying-on of hands and not by  the handing over of paten and chalice (the method of conferral in the West after the 9th century). So a newish document like the CCC can surely put up with a few corrections. 

    Popes have erred – why can a Catechism, however authoritative, not contain error ?

  • JabbaPapa

    ???!!???

    Here you go again, Ben, been a long time since you lobbed one of these at me…

    In fact, both Vatican II and Dominus Iesus teach respectively that the Old Covenant gave way to the New ; and that there is only one relevant Covenant between Man and God, the New Covenant with the Christ.

    I therefore entirely fail to see, as usual, where you imagine this “contradiction” to exist, at least as concerns the doctrinal theology.

    Yes, some other people might propose various contradictions, but the doctrinal teachings of the Church do NOT, including the Conciliar and post-conciliar teachings.

    There are various different ways whereby the replacement of the old by the new can be interpreted, but the current position of the Church is (most sensibly BTW) that the New Covenant is an improvement on the Old Covenant, rather than the two being entirely and absolutely opposed to each other (which would make NO sense WHATSOEVER in ANY kind of sensible theology).

    So — the hermeneutic of continuity can easily discern a continuity between the Old and New Covenants, as well as the Rupture between the two at Easter and Pentecost circa 30 AD, and the superiority of the New Covenant over the Old.

    That is to say that there is exactly ZERO problem of incoherence, unless of course you happen to use the online name Bellator.

    That you might be *confused* by this, and suppose that there is some sort of contradiction, is perfectly plausible, and actually even normal — arguments on the subject have after all been ongoing, and by the way fairly incessantly, for the past 2000 years or so.

    However — where there is a REAL contradiction is in the 2000 year old difference between the Old and New Covenants, provided by Christ (YES, these are indeed two separate religions, and YES Christianity is the true religion) ; NOT between a so-called pre-conciliar and post-conciliar split between “separate doctrines” — the entire notion of this sudden doctrinal “revolution” strikes me as being quite ABSURD by the way !!! But then, that’s extremist liberalism in a nutshell for you …

    As a closing comment, internal contradictions inside Catholicism in the particular case of doctrines that have been defined as being *questions* to be thought about are PERFECTLY NORMAL.

    You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

  • Alan

    When have I screamed “heretic” at anyone?  I’ve been asking the simple question: if you think there is contradiction, why do you assume that the earlier, rather than the later, doctrine must be the correct one?

  • Parasum

    The Baltimore Catechism is roughly analogous to the Penny Catechism in England
    & Wales,except that there are three of them (with a fourth for
    teachers):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_Catechism

    Stuff like this:

    Gregory XVII “Siri” The Pope in Red

    The Coming Great Catholic Monarch

    is part of the site, but nothing to do with the Catechism, which ends at question 1400 at this link:

    On the Last Judgment and Resurrection, Hell, Purgatory and Heaven

    As the following link – which links to a better site – shows, that section on
    the Four Last Things is the last in Baltimore Catechism 3:

    http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/faith/bc3index.htm

  • JabbaPapa

    Interesting eh?  Quote of Pope St. Pius V’s Bull “Quo Primum” follows:

    “…let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women – even of military orders – and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church.

    “We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force”

    Yes, but : 

    When you understand how Latin works, and how 16th century languages work more generally, what it means is that this particular Missal is perpetually authorised for universal usage PROVIDED no modifications are made to it (and such modifications are condemned for the *purpose* that any modified version is thereby not universally authorised) — but the declaration does not actually forbid the use of other Missals, nor the future creation of new ones.

    You see : let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal is NOT a very strong command — it carries Papal Authority, but it remains a request, albeit a fairly IMPORTANT one : but it’s still not a command that new Missals may never be authorised.

    The one far more interesting disciplinary issue is actually that Pope Pius V clearly FORBIDS any prevention of the saying of this Mass, so that all those Bishops who *did* forbid the Old Mass, or who still may do so, were or are very clearly doing so in direct violation of Church teaching. (Although at the time, the Pope was probably making a last-ditch attempt at liturgical reconciliation with the Eastern Church, by specifically authorising all the provinces of the Christian world .. all patriarchs et cetera to use this Missal.

    Anyway, it’s consonant with Pope Benedict XVI’s statement that the *Church* has never forbidden the Old Mass (although some foolish Bishops may have done so illicitly).

  • JabbaPapa

    Only up to a point — the more precisely defined centrally infallible doctrines don’t provide much wiggle room at all !!!

    If you prefer — the linguistic and semantic questions are quite secondary to the philosophical and theological ones.

  • JabbaPapa

    In the English text, many of the errors are perfectly deliberate and intentional, indeed…

    Remember Ben though, that I systematically approach the CCC using three languages, Latin, French, English — and the English version is consistently the least trustworthy text.

    This *does* provide me with a rather different point of view than your own, if you’ll forgive me ;)

  • JabbaPapa

    Yes — the topic of doctrinal evolution, even when it’s just linguistic, is NOT easily understood, and it can be a dangerous one.

  • JabbaPapa

    I am in fact already aware of AB Lefebvre’s views, having consulted his text when you pointed it out to me previously.

    No particular canon procedure is required for excommunication — it occurs immediately once the illicit action has occurred.

    It is true that there was never any trial of the six bishops, but then nor is there any trial in the vast majority of excommunications.

    However, the excommunications were confirmed by the Holy See.

    That there was no further judicial procedure other than the formalising of the excommunications, and the end of the approval by the diocesan bishop, is best understood as an exercise in restraint, rather than as an example of illegality.

    Finally, I find myself (rather surprisingly) reminding you that the Pope has Sovereign Authority over such matters, and is empowered wherever he should so desire to make entirely authoritative judicial decisions concerning such matters with no need whatsoever to submit to the approval of any other Authority than God.

    All he needs do is set pen to paper, write so-and-so is excommunicated, and it’s done, and there is no Court of Appeal nor any other means to overturn this decision than repentance, contrition, and return to Communion.

    Your notion that this was “uncanonical” is a grossly inaccurate one.

  • Parasum

    “…it would mean a formal and clear condemnation by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or by whichever sitting Pope, whereas no such condemnation has ever occurred.”

    ## Which is one of the points Michael Davies insists on in his “Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre”, vol.1. The Abp. did likewise – the entire process (“vendetta” might be more accurate) against him & the SSPX was a nonsense, morally and canonically. The way these fictions have snowballed for 40 years, and quickly been received as true, *only to be implicitly admitted to be false*, is a scandal & a disgrace. And yet he has been called a “a holy man” (Cardinal Oddi in 1992), “this great man of the universal Church” (Benedict XVI in 2005). 

    “”What kind of man was Lefebvre?” I asked.

    “[Abp.Lefebvre] was a very humble man,” Father Michael replied. “He was always very thoughtful. Whenever I came to see him, he always had some gift for me, a book, or some other small item. I felt he was a kind and good man, a holy man.”

    http://www.insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2009/newsflash-jul-01-09.htm

    This is from an interview with a *former* member of the SSPX.

    All these are references to someone who by the time of the quotations had been excommunicated. And they all praise him greatly. This is not how men speak of an excommunicate or a schismatic.  

    “Archbishop Lefebvre died in 1991 at the age of 85 from cancer in Martigny, Switzerland [70] and, eight days later, was buried in the crypt at the society’s international seminary in Écône, Switzerland. Archbishop Edoardo Rovida, Apostolic Nuncio to Switzerland, and Bishop Henri Schwery of Sion, the local diocese, came and prayed at the body of the dead prelate.[71] Later that year, on 18 September 1991, Cardinal Silvio Oddi, who had been Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy from 1979 to 1986, visited Lefebvre’s tomb, knelt down at it, prayed, afterwards saying aloud: “Merci, Monseigneur”. Thereafter Cardinal Oddi said he held Archbishop Lefebvre to have been “a holy man”[72] and suggested that the Society of St Pius X could be granted a personal prelature by the Holy See like that of Opus Dei.” 

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Lefebvre

    ##  That is what one does at tombs – not of schismatics, heretics, excommunicates, or troublers of the Church: but of martyrs, founders, Saints. Maybe the way to get Rome & the Society at peace again is, to pray to him for his intercession.

  • JabbaPapa

    You clearly do not understand the meaning of ex cathedra.

    The expression refers to ANY formally religious announcements of whatsoever nature by one or more Bishops.

    When someone is baptised or confirmed by a Bishop, the declaration that they are baptised or confirmed is an ex cathedra statement.

    The promulgation of the infallibility of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was an ex cathedra statement by the Pope, the contents of which were that the doctrine was infallible. The infallibility is provided by the Magisterial/Papal teaching — NOT by the fact that it’s revealed via an ex cathedra statement.

    When the Pope speaks to Urbi et Orbi, his entire speech is given ex cathedra — it’s just that he refrains from declaring that the contents of his speech are infallible !!!

    Every single sermon and every single formally religious and deliberately pondered teaching by every single Bishop is made ex cathedra, OK ?

    Infallibility is normally pronounced by either Full Councils or by a formal declaration of the Magisterium, whether by a Papal declaration, or via the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, etc.

    The Pope however has the special prerogative of being able to make an ex cathedra statement declaring a doctrine to be infallible, without going through the usual channels (and obviously after proper consultation). He also has the far more normal ability to provide all sorts of other declarations or comments by speaking ex cathedra : “Fr so-and-so is named Vicar General, and is entrusted with the handling of diocesan affairs in cases of my absence from the diocese” is an example of an entirely non-doctrinal ex cathedra statement by a perfectly ordinary Bishop.

    Oh and BTW, AFAIK the latest doctrine so far to have been formally declared infallible is the doctrine whereby women may not be ordained as priests. It was declared infallible by the CDF a few years ago, and the Pope used his normal ex cathedra Chrism Mass address this year to declare that the doctrine is irrevocable.

  • Parasum

    “The reality from the point of view of the doctrinal theology is that the
    whole of any ex cathedra Act of the Church is infallible —
    notwithstanding that any specific Act may include some detail or details
    that may not be infallible in a finer analysis.”

    ## I’m try to see how the whole of a document is infallibly true, even if part of it is false – & failing. I know logic & reason are not everything in theology, but even so… What am I missing ?

    I don’t see how the CCC, a work of many minds & hands, comlosed over several years, can be infallible – the matter is too extensive and varied, and the degree of theological certitude enjoyed by the various contents is too varied, for it to be infallible. It may be the occasion of an authoritative Papal act; it may contain matter that is authentic Catholic teaching; but that does not make it infallible.  Apart from anything else, a prudential *opinion* on the death penalty, however Christian in spirit, cannot be infallible, because it does not propose  any teaching to the universal Church; quite apart from being in conflict with Magisterial acts of earlier times, & causing many serious complications for acceptance of the teaching authority of earlieer Popes. Until the novelties in the CCC are *shown* to be in continuity with the teaching of the Popes it sometimes contradicts, those Popes who  teach the novelties have to be judged by the earlier Magisterium, & not the earlier Magisterium by their teaching. Because it is the atypical, novel teaching that is the problem – not the Traditional teaching; the Church’s Tradition is the foundation for what is built on it – first is the foundation, then the superstructure; not the superstructire then the foundation. To be expert builders, Pope have torespoect the fioundation thet work from, & not innovate by making their own.        

    “I mean — to make a parallel, it is the *entire declaration* of the
    Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary that is infallible — NOT the
    words that happened to be used for the purpose of making that ex
    cathedra statement.”

    ## I have never read anything but the exect reverse – that the only infalliblr part of a Bull (or other instrument, presumably)  that is infallible,is the part containing the definition itself. The prelims, arguments, evidences etc., are not part of the definition, and may even be in error, since they depend on human industry.  Have I mistaken yoiur meaning ?

    “Doctrinal truth transcends the words that are used to describe it. And
    wherever any of those words appear to be dubious or wrongful, then it is
    the words that need to be doubted, but not the doctrines that they are
    attached to”

    ## To most of that – agreed. One caveat: the words are the vehicle of the meaning, which they mediate & express – therefore, the words that define a dogma need to be “covered” by, or invested with, infallibility, as otherwise the infallibly true doctrine cannot be expressed. We should be very wary of altering dogmatic formulae, as we mught losr something in the process. Equally, dogmas are wholly true, but are not the whole truth of the mystery they communicate: hence all those Christological definitions. If words *can* be found that do adequately & fitly & fully express the entire truth of a dogma, in a new or possibly an even more adequate way, then fair enough. But no examples of this last idea come to mind.

  • Parasum

    On the contrary, there is cause for disobedience in certain circumstances, as is explained by approved authors and Saints. The “sacred cow” – it is no more than that – of total obedience to the Pope, no matter what, is long overdue for the knacker’s yard. The notion of total, blind, unquestioning, unconditional, uncriticising obedience is not Christian, but totalitarian & tyrannical, as well as idolatrous. No creature can be given such obedience, but God Alone. Popes need to be withstood when they do wrong, *because* their authority is so vast. It is obedience to God – who is always worthy of all obedience – to disobey wrongful Papal commands; obedience to a Pope is meaningless if it is not for the sake of obeying God.

    Any Catholics who require total, blind, unquestioning, unconditional, uncriticising obedience to the Papacy harm the very thing they seek to uphold and defend. If the command of the Pope is never to be resisted, no matter what, there is no need for conscience, only for robots. The idea is dehumanising. For too long, Popes have been treated as though the least criticism of them were wrong – this is flattery, not worthy of Christians:  

    Blessed Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln (d.1253)  absolutely refused to obey Innocent IV who had commanded him to to give a Papal nephew (confusingly also named Innocent) a position of which he was not worthy. The Pope considered excommunicating the Bishop, but was dissuaded:

    “And when in 1253, the last year of his life, Grosseteste refused to provide Pope Innocent IV’s nephew with a prebend the pope’s adviser cautioned Innocent against retaliation, noting that Grosseteste

    “has not his equal among the prelates. All the French and
    English clergy know this . . . He is esteemed as a great philosopher,
    learned in Greek and Latin literature, zealous for justice, a reader in
    the schools of theology, a preacher to the people, and active enemy of
    abuses.””

    http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/robert-grosseteste-dies

    The Pope had the good grace to back down. Did I mention that the Bishop described the Pope as “the Antichrist” ?

    http://medieval.utoronto.ca/2011/06/letters-robert-grosseteste/

    http://www.bookrags.com/research/robert-grosseteste-scit-021234/

    http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/robert-grosseteste-dies

  • Sweetjae

     What Pope John Paul meant by saying, “The people of God of the Old Covenant which has never been revoked” was in the sense of:

    What Jesus had said,
    “for Salvation is from the Jews”, (John 4:19) and that, “God
    has not rejected His own people (Israel) whom He foreknew.” (Hebrews 6). No boasting is necessary because then all for the glory of God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and Jesus for His inclusion of us, all undeserving, in the story of salvation. 

     As Pope Benedict16 brilliantly pointed out:

    “At
    this time of your most solemn celebration, I feel particularly close, precisely
    because of what Nostra Aetate calls Christians to remember always: that the
    Church “received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people
    with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor
    can she forget that she draws sustenance from the **root of that
    well-cultivated olive tree** onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the
    Gentiles” (Nostra Aetate, 4).”

     

     

  • Sweetjae

    Oh by the way for ALL the “traditionalist” here, when you are looking down unto Pope JPII, we wanted you to reflect your own unworthiness and pride towards the late Supreme Pontiff, we catholics considered him one of the greatest Pope who ever lived during one of the most cruel time in history of the Church (atheistic Communism and secularism) that someday he will be proclaimed, The Great St. Pope John Paul II. Viva Christo!  

  • Sweetjae

    Yes you did but they are  just impressions without any original though on why there is a contradiction.

    Benedict you can’t even reconcile on why Trent taught that Orthodox churches which are clearly outside the boundaries of the Catholic Church can receive salvific grace of God as against your strict interpretation of strict Extra Nulla.

  • Sweetjae

    Again
    the Compendium was issued buy the current Pope not as a *correction of errors*
    but more to be accurate , concise and explained deeply the CCC.The
    materials you cited i went directly to SSPX website on their objections about
    the current Compendium CCC, naturally you would consider them errors because the
    source is from a group you agree with. Anyways, just a sample of the so called
    “errors” by the CCC, “To know the dignity of man: ALL are made in the image and
    likeness of God.”SSPX’s objection is :”Man marked by original sin, is
    born without the grace of God. Therfore he does not have true dignity. This he
    receives at Baptism.”One can easily spot right away the flawed
    interpretation of the SSPX here. What the CCC speaks of here is the very
    INHERENT NATURE created and given  by God to man, the dignity (self-worth,
    self-respect) and rationality of knowing between good and bad, the intellectual
    reasoning abilities that made man in God’s likeness, CCC is not talking about
    the sanctifying grace that is infused to a man when baptized.Besides the
    fact that, if man doesn’t have true dignity only after Baptism which is the
    position of SSPX, then you have to prove to us that Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,
    Moses, David, Elijah etc. have not possess true dignity of man primarily because
    they have not undergone the sacrament of Baptism. 

  • Sweetjae

    My friend, though I agree with you on the past scenarios you cited, however, they are not applicable here primarily because we are not just talking about mere opinions of the pope  nor his own bussiness, WHAT we have here is the FULLEST FORCE of the Church expressed through a validly ratified General Council of VII.

    Big difference.

  • Sweetjae

    These objections are all rebutted already in many Catholic apologetic websites. Try Google “Catholic Legate” and follow the link on ‘ultra-traditionalism’.

  • Alan

    But is this not all about “development of doctrine”?  We have come to a fuller understanding of the dignity of the human person, which is why (for example) the Church now rejects slavery.  And, more relevantly, why we (but not you, apparently) accept the right of all people to practise their religion.

  • JabbaPapa

    Indeed.

  • Alan

    Thanks, that seems to clear it up.  Nevertheless that website is quite misleading.

  • JabbaPapa

    “The reality from the point of view of the doctrinal theology is that the whole of any ex cathedra Act of the Church is infallible — notwithstanding that any specific Act may include some detail or details that may not be infallible in a finer analysis.”

    ## I’m try to see how the whole of a document is infallibly true, even if part of it is false – & failing. Infallibility that is botched, by not operating in all details of the matter to which it applies, is not infallible. A fallible infallibility is a contradiction. I know logic & reason are not everything in theology, but even so… What am I missing ?

    You’re not actually missing anything at all — but you’re looking at it from the wrong angle.

    Well, perhaps on the basis of a rhetorical tradition that is not that of the Church.

    In classical rhetorics, you start by giving your theme ; then you develop and discuss that theme in the rest of your text. The theme is implicitly accepted as the basis for discussion, but disagreements may occur concerning the detailed development and discussion and critique thereof.

    But the theme itself can only ever be accepted or rejected in toto — you either accept it or you reject it, and there is no middle ground.

    The rhetorics of the Church are similar, and they are unlike the Protestant-inspired rhetorics of the English and US liberal education principles in particular — where internal logical coherence is the overriding principle. The overriding principle in the Roman intellectual tradition is that of overall truthfulness, notwithstanding any errors of detail.

    In the Roman tradition, if anyone makes a statement which has an overall general validity, you accept that overall validity, and leave your nitpicking for later.

    Oh — and you seem to make an error in your definitions : you speak of “infallibly true” as if infallible meant that something contained no errors — whereas in fact, “infallible” really means “may not be contradicted by a Catholic” — “may not be described as false by a Catholic” for a more literal definition)

    “I mean — to make a parallel, it is the *entire declaration* of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary that is infallible — NOT the words that happened to be used for the purpose of making that ex cathedra statement.”

    ## I have never read anything but the exect reverse – that the only infallible part of a Bull (or other instrument, presumably)  that is infallible,is the part containing the definition itself. The prelims, arguments, evidences etc., are not part of the definition, and may even be in error, since they depend on human industry.  Have I mistaken your meaning ?

    Yes you have, I think.

    Let us suppose another 300 years of normal linguistic shift, and let us suppose that the words used to make that statement will no longer mean what they did at the time.

    The doctrine remains infallible — but it would need to be expressed in that future time using 24th century language and descriptions.

    The actual words that were used are of an entirely secondary importance to the primary importance of the Truth of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

    One caveat: the words are the vehicle of the meaning, which they mediate & express – therefore, the words that define a dogma need to be invested with infallibility, as otherwise the infallibly true doctrine cannot be expressed.

    See ? Here’s your difficulty in a nutshell.

    Words are not infallible, no more than Popes are — only some doctrines are infallible.

  • pagnol

    Though I understand you I have to disagree. As Michael Davies indicated it’s not reasonable to think the Church can have failed for a period of decades which include the anti-pope accusations. While sedevacantistism has its valid applications, if the anti-pope people had their way the Church would have virtually failed which we know is impossible with Christ’s promise.

    I realize that Ratzinger was never a friend to Tradition and there are many examples of that as there are with most if not all post VII popes…especially JPII. But we have had so called “bad” popes before, one or two actually accused of heresy. Personal behavior may be scandalous or even not catholic, but it’s not “Ex Cathedra as it were and of course is not necessarily valid or binding upon the faithful. Encouraging signs coming from Benedict seem to indicate an effort to return to tradition and I hope that means he’s also trying to gracefully reverse his previous examples. If so, we should encourage him, letting him know we adhere to tradition and want him to as well.

    Instaurare Omnia in Christo

  • pagnol

     Exactly! And Lefebvre IS NOT excommunicated as can be verified by complete and contextual reading of canon law, as well as the remarks made by JPII. The modernists have always intentionally misread or misinterpreted the “excommunication” in their hate for tradition and Marcel Lefebvre, especially in France where that hierarchy is still living in the 1789 anti catholic revolution……not a political upheaval per se but in fact anti Church.

    Thank you Charles Martel.

  • Joe Spencer

     So… there must be two worlds of Catholic Canonical verbiage.  I have not come across your understanding of “ex cathedra” before.  When you make such an offensive statement as “you clearly don’t understand the meaning of ex cathedra”, you best be certain that my understanding is not based in truth.  In fact, it is based on precise definition made at the first Vatican Council.

    I stand by my statements and understanding of ex cathedra.  I often use the Catholic Encyclopedia for reference.  (here’s a link to it, on-line  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/).  It was produced, gained its imprimatur, and was published in the early 1900′s and has been used for a hundred years as a reliable source Catholic information.

    Here’s how the Catholic Encyclopedia, referencing definition of ex cathedra from Vatican Council I, describes the use of the term “ex cathedra”.  In this context, the use of the term ex cathedra denotes statements made by the pope, “from the chair of Peter”, in matters of faith or morals, and carries the weight of infallibility.  Here’s the exact quote (I have not gone back to Vatican I reference to go to the source, I am trusting that the censors and bishop responsible for the imprimatur verified the source).

    “Its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv: “We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.”

    Can you let us know where you came up with the definition you describe of ex cathedra?

  • pagnol

    JabbaPapa,  I am not a canon law lawyer, but it seems to me that one does not have to be a “rocket scientist” or canon law expert to understand that one canon law may not and cannot contradict another. While your logical progression seems valid, what you’re leaving out (just as JPII did in his reference to canon law with regard to “latae sententiae”) is canon law’s clear acknowledgement for just and legal catholic resistance to unjust, sinful, anti Catholic, etc direction. That would apply especially to the religious and particularly to bishops (and popes) whose first title is Defender of the Faith. That was the Archbishop’s first duty, which cannot be subjugated or suppressed. He had no choice in his sworn duty to Christ.

    I am constantly amazed at some novus ordo priests who are my friends and with whom I have discussions, that they are terrified to “disobey” their local Ordinary who is in fact ordering them to sin against the Church in some “new church” manner or other. The vow of obedience precludes sinful or unjust orders from superiors, also obvious and not needing defense, certainly not condemnation. As I have observed in other posts in this forum, the Church will be obliged to recognize the archbishop’s contribution, but I have no doubt the archbishop has always been with our Lord then and now.

  • pagnol

     Alan, are you intentionally misunderstanding what Benedict Carter is saying? Doctrines of VII? There were no doctrines of VII. Whatever doctrines VII included in it’s proceedings were repeated from previous doctrinal councils. Everything else that took place at VII was pastoral. Below are some references.

    Pope John XXIII himself stated in his
    Opening Address at the beginning of Vatican II that the Council was not
    intended to be a doctrinal council concerned with defining any articles of
    Faith; rather it was to be a “pastoral” council that was concerned with representing
    the Catholic Faith in a manner acceptable to the modern world.

     

    “The salient point of this council is not,
    therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine
    of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by
    ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and
    familiar to all. For this a council was not necessary. [...] The substance of
    the ancient doctrine of the Deposit of Faith is one thing, and the way in
    which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be
    taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being
    measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly
    pastoral in character.” (Opening Address, October 11, 1962; Walter M.
    Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 715)

    and

    Paul VI also stated that Vatican II was
    not infallible when he
    concluded it.

     

    “Today we are
    concluding the Second Vatican Council. [...] But one thing must be noted
    here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not
    wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made
    thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which
    today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity, descending, so to speak,
    into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and
    force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral
    charity; its desire has been to be heard and understood by everyone; it
    has not merely concentrated on intellectual understanding but has also sought
    to express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from
    actual experience and a cordial approach which make it more vital,
    attractive and persuasive; it has spoken to modern man as he is.” (Address
    during the last general meeting of the Second Vatican Council, December 7,
    1965; AAS 58)

    and

    Paul VI also stated that Vatican II was
    not infallible when he concluded it.

     

    “Today we are
    concluding the Second Vatican Council. [...] But one thing must be noted
    here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not
    wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made
    thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which
    today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity, descending, so to speak,
    into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and
    force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral
    charity; its desire has been to be heard and understood by everyone; it
    has not merely concentrated on intellectual understanding but has also sought
    to express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from
    actual experience and a cordial approach which make it more vital,
    attractive and persuasive; it has spoken to modern man as he is.” (Address
    during the last general meeting of the Second Vatican Council, December 7,
    1965; AAS 58)

     

    Vatican II did not “issue extraordinary
    dogmatic pronouncements” at all; that refers to infallible definitions,
    none of which were made. That Council was not infallible, did not claim to be
    and it was repeatedly said that it was not. Rather it claimed to “descend
    so to speak, into a dialogue with” man, “with the accommodating
    friendly voice of pastoral charity” and to “express itself in simple,
    up-to-date, conversational style, derived from actual experience and a
    cordial approach”. The Council was intended to reorient the Church to the
    world, to be “accommodating” and “friendly”, “up-to-date”
    with the pluralistic, liberal World Order.

     

    The very same day, the Council’s pluralist
    “Declaration on Religious Liberty”, Dignitatis Humanae (Of the Dignity
    of Man), was finalised as addressed to the whole world.

     

    “Over and above all this, in taking up the
    matter of religious freedom this sacred Synod intends to develop the doctrine
    of recent Popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and on the
    constitutional order of society. This Vatican Synod declares that the
    human person has a right to religious freedom.” (Dignitatis Humanae,
    Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, pp. 677-8)

     

    The Vatican ordered all Catholic countries
    to alter their constitutions so that they would no longer be Catholic
    countries but would uphold liberal pluralism. Francisco Franco resisted and
    the Church attempted to undermine him. Before the Council, the Church had
    given him the title of “Defender of the Church”.

     

    Paul VI gave the theological note of the
    revolutionary Council in his Apostolic Brief for its closing, “In Spiritu
    Sancto”(December 8, 1965), which was read at the closing ceremonies of that
    day by Archbishop Felici, the General Secretary. Paul VI had already stated
    in his address concluding the Council the day before that the Council had not
    “wish[ed] to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements” and
    therefore was not infallible; Felici went on to explain that Paul VI was
    making the Council a matter of religious submission, which is the
    assent given to non-infallible material, as we shall see.

     

    “And last of all it was the most
    opportune, because, bearing in mind the necessities of the present day, above
    all it sought to meet the pastoral needs and, nourishing the flame of
    charity, it has made a great effort to reach not only the Christians still
    separated from communion with the Holy See, but also the whole human family.
    […] We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to
    be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the
    dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. […]
    Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman,
    Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary,
    the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.” (In Spiritu Sancto,
    Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, pp. 738-9)

     

    Paul VI established at the Council’s end
    that “all that has been established synodally is to be religiously
    observed”. The 1983 Code of Canon Law distinguishes the matter of
    religious submission from infallible, definitive teaching.

     

    “Can. 752. While the
    assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect
    and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff
    or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare
    upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to
    proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore
    to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.”

     

    So, “religious
    submission” is given when the Pope, either alone or with his bishops in a
    council, does not intend to “proclaim doctrine by a definitive act”:
    therefore the matter of religious submission is not infallible, which is why
    it does not require “the assent of faith”.

     

    “Can. 749. In
    virtue of his office the Supreme Pontiff is infallible in his teaching
    when, as chief Shepherd and Teacher of all Christ’s faithful, with the
    duty of strengthening his brethren in the faith, he proclaims by
    definitive act a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals. The
    College of Bishops also possesses infallibility in its teaching when
    the Bishops, gathered together in an Ecumenical Council and exercising
    their magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals, definitively
    declare for the universal Church a doctrine to be held concerning faith
    or morals.”

     

    So, when Paul
    VI stated that “all that has been established synodally is to be religiously
    observed”, he was making all the Council texts a matter of “religious
    submission” which is what is given to non-infallible matter. For the
    Council did not “proclaim definitively” any doctrine, “not wishing
    to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements”.

     

    Paul VI again highlighted the
    non-infallible, non-definitive character of Vatican II in a general audience
    a year later.

     

    “There are those who ask what
    authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to
    its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic
    definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The
    answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6,
    1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the
    Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any  dogmas
    carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966,
    published in the L’Osservatore R                     

    omano 1/21/1966)

  • Sweetjae

    Oh yes I pretty much know your position and the attitude you bring in here, very unCathholic.

    You so desperately trying hard to show the alleged “errors” by the CCC coming from a source that you have a strong bond with and I gave you the heads up of going there myself and read about  from the SSPX’s website itself, inside the lion’s den.
    On the Dignity of Man. SSPX argue that CCC made a fatal mistake in saying that the dignity of man is derived from the very Likeness and Image of God and that ALL men have the same equal dignity afforded by God. To the SSPX  dignity of man is only achieved through the sacrament of Baptism and that men don’t have equal dignity and gave an example of a saint is more than a criminal etc.Right off the bat, one could easily see the flaw in SSPX’s exegesis. For one CCC wasn’t talking about the dignity of man through and after the infusion of grace, rather in the very instant when  God created man, He gave him the attributes that characterized his dignity (self-respect, self-worth) as a human being according to His Image and Likeness. These attributes are capacity of rational thinking to know between right and wrong, free will, intellectual ability and conscience that are INHERENT IN MAN’S NATURE at the instant God created him. In other words, God made a car with built-in transmission, engine and braking system. If one strip a man of these qualities (dignity), then man becomes no more than an animal that crawl on earth.   

  • Sweetjae

    Discussion yes, study, yes, disobedience, NO!

  • Joe Spencer

     Jae, is establishing the ecumenical meetings of Assisi a mark of the greatness of a saint?  Where the inaugural act was to place a buddha on top of the tabernacle and pray, together with various religious leaders towards the abomination… and in a Catholic Church?  I acknowledge that he did some very good things… but to put him on the level of saints who shed their blood and entered into glory resisting what he enabled… I can’t go there.

  • Sweetjae

    On the Dignity of Man. SSPX argue that CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) made a fatal mistake in saying that the dignity of man is derived from the very Likeness and Image of God and that ALL men have the same equal dignity afforded by God. To the SSPX  dignity of man is only achieved through the sacrament of Baptism and that men don’t have equal dignity and gave an example of a saint is more than a criminal etc.
    Right off the bat, one could easily see the flaw in SSPX’s exegesis. For one, CCC wasn’t talking about the dignity of man through and after the infusion of grace, rather in the very instant when  God created man, He gave him the attributes that characterized his dignity (self-respect, self-worth) as a human being according to His Image and Likeness. These attributes are capacity of rational thinking to know between right and wrong, free will, intellectual ability and conscience that are INHERENT IN MAN’S NATURE at the instant God created him. In other words, God made a car with built-in transmission, engine and braking system. If one strip a man of these qualities (dignity), then man becomes no more than an animal that crawl on earth.After the sacrament of Baptism, then man becomes worthy to be a son of God.  SSPX is so enamored by itself that it forgot the role and purpose of the Living Magisterium. It just lived in the past and didn’t consider that God is still revealing good stuff only through His Church until the End of Days. (John 16:13).

  • Joe Spencer

     JabbaPapa, if there is no contradiction… or break… or at a minimum ambiguities that can be heretically interpreted to the demise of many souls… then why all the measures that show a sharp decline since the point of the conclusion of the council.  Vocations, belief, attendance, understanding… all measures of health of the Catholic Church, are down. 

    Have you read the “Index of Leading Catholic Indicators”?  Pick it up.  Just a bunch of charts and graphs, but tells an horrific picture.  If things were the same before and after, then why the crisis that has raged for the past 40 years?  Just because a few bad apples have misinterpreted continuity as change?  I don’t buy it.

    The contradictions exist and must be clarified, defined and taught clearly in light of tradition.  I believe that is, ultimately, what will come of the Rome/SSPX doctrinal discussions.  I hope and pray so, anyway.