Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: If You Want It Fixed - Fix It
Is the Church of Jesus fallible? SSPX says so.

It seems to me that the other side of this discussion also says this. Vatican II either upheld the eternal Catholic faith, or it changed it. If it didn't change anything then there seems no way a traditionalist could be in error for believing as he does. On the other hand, if one holding the pre-Vatican II faith is in fact in error then there can be no denying that that council did change the faith. And you can't change the faith unless you first insist that what has been believed up to that time has in fact been wrong. Wrong cannot be other than an admission of fallibility.

This is why I find this whole situation both interesting and troubling. If Vatican II is seen as a part of the entire life of the Church then it should be interpreted as such, which means seeing its provisions as lying within the faith which existed then, and not as an introduction of a new faith. I am hopeful that whatever happens with the SSPX that we can begin seeing VII interpreted as a Catholic council rather than as a new religion being built on the ruins of that one, which is effectively how it has been viewed by most up to this time.

11 posted on 06/27/2012 9:07:20 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: cothrige
Vatican II either upheld the eternal Catholic faith, or it changed it. If it didn't change anything then there seems no way a traditionalist could be in error for believing as he does.

Unless the "traditionalist" believes that Vatican II changed the eternal Catholic faith - which Vatican II didn't proclaim itself to do and no Pope since then has taken it as doing.

I am hopeful that whatever happens with the SSPX that we can begin seeing VII interpreted as a Catholic council rather than as a new religion being built on the ruins of that one, which is effectively how it has been viewed by most up to this time.

That's what John Paul II said and Benedict XVI is saying with their "hermeneutic of continuity." The issue with Vatican II is that its wording leaves open the interpretation of a change to the faith - as well as the opposite interpretation.

14 posted on 06/28/2012 7:52:14 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: cothrige; JustSayNoToNannies
Vatican II either upheld the eternal Catholic faith, or it changed it.

Thank you for these posts.

Note also that the burden on proof is on the Curia and not on the SSPX in this, because it is the Curia that promulgated and now defends Vatican II. It is therefore incorrect to view the dispute as such where the SSPX must make some concessions and the Curia must make other concessions. The fact is that despite the formal authority, the true authority is with the Sacred Tradition, against which any innovation has to be justified. It was wonderful that this Pope made the steps toward reconciliation, but clearly another step or steps are needed.

Perhaps firing Levada for apparently not negotiating in good faith would be a good step to restart the reconciliation. I'd like to see the Holy Father engage in it without intermediaries; it is the central task of his pontificate.

19 posted on 06/29/2012 4:58:33 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson