Posted on 06/27/2012 4:03:39 PM PDT by NYer
Vatican II can be interpreted as consistent with Sacred Tradition (although, tragically, it can also be otherwise interpreted) - and it is this consistent interpretation that the Pope calls for as a "hermeneutic of continuity" and within which he defends the authority of Vatican II.
Well, either Levada could not interpret it that way, or did not want to, and I think the latter is the case since the acceptable to SSPX interpretation was offered to him and he re-wrote it.
You can take the man out of San Francisco, but you cannot take San Francisco out of the man, if you pardon the cliche.
The changes that they and "Catholic" liberals falsely believe to have been decreed.
If I am understanding you correctly in what you are saying here I still would not be very clear on what heretical error could be placed at the feet of the SSPX. If that body thinks that the Council promoted something innovative and wrong, but the council didn't really do that, that doesn't quite seem to deserve the response or treatment they are currently getting. The pope could simply say "No, we don't believe that or do that, and what you do and believe is certainly just fine." If the council didn't change the faith then there is really nothing to correct as regards the SSPX, but rather the real danger would be the 99% of Catholic priests and bishops who teach that the council actually did make those changes to the faith and in turn enforce them on parishes throughout the world. The SSPX may be wrong in confusing the actions and opinions of the 99% with dogma, but in a practical sense you cannot blame them. Actions do speak louder than words, and Rome has never, to my knowledge, corrected any of those errors.
BTW, in the above I refer to heresy as the SSPX are regularly held up as deserving to be removed or kept out of the Body of Christ for their positions, and that would seem to require something of that kind for such a response to be appropriate. I may be wrong in that though as I can actually not think of any heretics, regardless of how dangerous, notorious or scandalous, which the Church feels deserve such treatment (outside of groups like the SSPX of course). When Fellay is a threat to the faith but Richard McBrien isn't I can honestly say I must not understand anything at all.
The fact is that despite the formal authority, the true authority is with the Sacred Tradition, against which any innovation has to be justified.
What you say here makes sense, and seems obvious to me, but that is really what confuses me about the whole thing. As an outsider (I have never seen a Mass in Latin as they were always banned by the bishop here) I just find it all very confusing. People say that the SSPX are innovative and holding to a different faith than the eternal Catholic one, and yet they are traditionalists. How can that be? If traditionalists don't hold to the "true faith" then it can only be that everybody else's definition of that has changed, and not the other way around. Or so it seems to me. And we see them being required to accept some particular interpretation of Vatican II before being allowed back into the Church, and yet at the same time Anglicans (who have made no bones about denying many councils throughout history) are being brought back in by the droves without ever being asked about particular interpretations of specific councils. Why is that? I was raised Anglican and I am fully aware of the many, many heresies and denials of the faith rampant in that church, and yet they are somehow accepted as being more catholic than the SSPX? How could that even be a little bit possible? Self professing lesbian Buddhists cannot be denied communion, but we can't allow the SSPX back in? Huh?!?
My apologies as I meant to direct the above comment to you as well in case you felt it might impact our conversation. I had done that for post 23 and intended to do the same for 24 but forgot.
“Our last pope made some suggestions about an optional private prayer, i.e. the Rosary, and all the Catholics leapt on it as a direct revelation from heaven which forbade any use of a traditional Rosary throughout the world.”
Ummm...huh?
“The changes that they and “Catholic” liberals falsely believe to have been decreed.”
They may not have been decreed, but they are being taught and practiced. SSPX, like William F. Buckley, stands athwart history shouting “stop.”
Without SSPX there would be no indult allowing bishops to permit the Tridentine Mass.
I am not affiliated with SSPX, but I see among their critics the same malice and dishonesty that I see among the partisans of Barack Kardashian.
I completely share your amazement, except being around this controversy for about 10 years now (since I started really paying attention, in other words), it dulled.
Of course the truth is that the Vatican II produced a number of non-doctrinal documents and introduced some liturgical changes, which, the bishops thought, was in continuity with the Tradition. Then the groups on periphery of Catholicism, both inside of it like the liberal wing of Catholicism, and outside of it, like the secular press and the Jews, took it to mean precisely the opposite, discontinuity. Things got so bad that the Traditional Mass got banned, and the elements of it meant to remain in the Novus Ordo disappeared.
In 21c, and especially, in this blessed pontificate, things began to improve. Several traditionalist ecclesial bodies were received back, like the Fraternal Society of St. Peter, SSPX got from under the excommunications, and the Latin Mass restored withing the new liturgical calendar and with restrictions.
The dialog with SSPX, -- or rather with the serious wing of it, as it has some closet sedevacantists there as well, -- went just fine from there. And now we have gotten to the crux of the matter: is Vatican II, according to the Roman Curia, a new religion that cannot be reconciled with SSPX or is it just a left liberal flavor of Catholicism in continuity with the rest of the Church here and in Heaven.
If the leaked document is to be believed, the way to see it as continuous withing the Church was presented by Bishop Fellay, and it was not rejected outright but rather re-written so that it no longer reflected the desired continuity. So therefore, at least with Levada in charge of the dialog, we have our answers: Roman Curia does not see Vatican II as continuous.
So Levada should be fired, and probably, His Holiness needs to take up the task himself, or else this generation of Catholics will know that the Catholic Church is still on her journey through the desert, unfortunately, and remains unattentive to the needs of our souls.
I did not write the statement that you are quoting. I did, however, read of complaints that the Rosary prayer is discouraged in some churches, but for clarifications you probably need to ask Cothrige, who wrote it in post 18.
Ummm...huh?
Just ask yourself, how often do you encounter prayer books with the traditional format of the Rosary, or which lays out the traditional way of saying it daily? Do you see many churches or groups which say the Rosary publicly according to the traditional form? I don't. I haven't found a prayer book without the Luminous mysteries since they were suggested by Pope JPII. And yet they were optional suggestions given regarding a private prayer. I have had more than one person, when I mentioned that I don't like those mysteries, respond to me with references to needs for obedience. References to obedience, as well as the almost 100% and very enthusiastic adoption of them, show that people want to see these mysteries as much more than mere optional suggestions. And yet, when the pope teaches definitively on matters pertaining to the public worship of the Church, or actually legislates in his role as supreme pastor, what do people, especially priests and bishops, do? Ignore him of course. That has always been interesting to me.
“That has always been interesting to me.”
I see what you mean now.
Of course, the “Luminous Mysteries” changed and diluted a great devotion and blessing, which would explain the theological left’s eagerness to accept them.
I think the Church's relations with the SSPX declined at a time, and as a result, of great confusion - quite possibly extending to Popes - about the continuity of Vatican II with Tradition. I think the current Pope is in the process of getting said exactly the message you suggest.
When Fellay is a threat to the faith but Richard McBrien isn't I can honestly say I must not understand anything at all.
I agree that the time has passed when handling innovators with kid gloves can have any further spiritual benefit (if it ever did), and the time has come to tell them that if they are not for Christ's Church they are against Her.
The SSPX rejected the Church's teaching authority (as reflected in Vatican II) while members of the Church; Anglicans rejected the Church's teaching authority while clearly outside the Church. When the latter ask to join the Church, they make a statement of change that the former do not.
Agreed.
Without SSPX there would be no indult allowing bishops to permit the Tridentine Mass.
Quite possibly so.
I am not affiliated with SSPX, but I see among their critics the same malice and dishonesty that I see among the partisans of Barack Kardashian.
I don't consider myself a "critic" of the SSPX; I regard their separation with regret, and pray for its end. I think few if any of their true critics are anything other than McBrienist innovators.
I agree completely, and behold: Levada retired.
Unfortunately, I don’t think Cardinal Levada’s replacement is any improvement.
The replacement (forgot his name) has the benefit of knowing what had lead the negotiation to a dead end, and is also free from the negative inertia accumulated by Levada.
We’ll see.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.