SSPX: We wait for “serious debate” which will bring ecclesiastic authorities back to Tradition

WDTPRS ^ | July 19, 2012 | Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

[NYer]

At the SSPX site DICI we read the General Chapter Statement.

Bottom line: Not negative, but clarificatory. They left the door open for more discussions under Archbp. Di Noia.

You can read the whole thing there, but here is the most interesting part with my emphases and comments:

[...] We have recovered our profound unity in its essential mission: to preserve and defend the Catholic Faith, to form good priests, and to strive towards the restoration of Christendom. We have determined and approved the necessary conditions for an eventual canonical normalization. We have decided that, in that case, an extraordinary Chapter with deliberative vote will be convened beforehand.

[...]

The Chapter believes that the paramount duty of the Society, in the service which it intends to offer to the Church, is to continue, with God’s help, to profess the Catholic Faith in all its purity and integrity, with a determination matching the intensity of the constant attacks to which this very Faith is subjected nowadays.

For this reason it seems opportune that we reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation; our faith in its monarchical constitution, desired by Our Lord himself, by which the supreme power of government over the universal Church belongs only to the Pope, Vicar of Christ on earth; our faith in the universal Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Creator of both the natural and the supernatural orders, to Whom every man and every society must submit. [A reference, I think, to the question of religious liberty.]

The Society continues to uphold the declarations and the teachings of the constant Magisterium of the Church in regard to all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors, ["Pour toutes les nouveautés du Concile Vatican II qui restent entachées d’erreurs et pour les réformes qui en sont issues, la Fraternité ne peut que continuer à s’en tenir aux affirmations et enseignements du Magistère constant de l’Eglise..." If I read this correctly, they make a distinction between, on the one hand the Magisterium and, on the other, the teachings of Vatican II and the reforms that came from it, as if what pertains to Vatican II doesn't really belong to the "constant Magisterium". On the other hand, the SSPX would not see as error what we read in Lumen gentium about the Pope being able to teach infallibly. They would not say that what we read in Gaudium et spes concerning abortion as an abominable sin being in error. So, clearly, some teachings of the Council are fine. They can't be rejecting the entirety of the Council's textual content.] and also in regard to the reforms issued from it. We find our sure guide in this uninterrupted Magisterium which, by its teaching authority, transmits the revealed Deposit of Faith in perfect harmony with the truths that the entire Church has professed, always and everywhere. [Thus, since they perceive errors in what came from Vatican II, Vatican II can't be part of the Magisterium.]

The Society finds its guide as well in the constant Tradition of the Church, which transmits and will transmit until the end of times the teachings required to preserve the Faith and the salvation of souls, while waiting for the day when an open and serious debate will be possible which may allow the return to Tradition of the ecclesiastical authorities. ["...en attendant qu’un débat ouvert et sérieux, visant à un retour des autorités ecclésiastiques à la Tradition, soit rendu possible." The English is not entirely clear. Such a debate would, for them, aim at "ecclesiastical authorities" returning to Tradition. "Authorities" would include, I suppose, Benedict XVI. I hope the "ecclesiastical authorities" don't take that as being inflammatory. I suspect the SSPX did not intend it as inflammatory.]

We wish to unite ourselves to the others [sic] Christians persecuted in different countries of the world who are now suffering for the Catholic Faith, some even to the extent of martyrdom. Their blood, shed in union with the Victim of our altars, is the pledge for a true renewal of the Church in capite et membris, according to the old saying sanguis martyrum semen christianorum. [It seems that the see themselves as being persecuted, perhaps in the role of "confessors".]

“Finally, we turn our eyes to the Blessed Virgin Mary, who is also jealous of the privileges of her Divine Son, jealous of His glory, of His Kingdom on earth as in Heaven. How often has she intervened for the defense, even the armed defense, of Christendom against the enemies of the Kingdom of Our Lord! We entreat her to intervene today to chase the enemies out from inside the Church who are trying to destroy it more radically than its enemies from outside. May she deign to keep in the integrity of the Faith, in the love of the Church, in devotion to the Successor of Peter, all the members of the Society of St. Pius X and all the priests and faithful who labor alongside the Society, in order that she may both keep us from schism and preserve us from heresy.

[...]

Given at Ecône, on the 14th of July of the Year of the Lord 2012.

Déclaration du Chapitre général de la Fraternité Saint-Pie X
Dichiarazione del Capitolo generale della Fraternità Sacerdotale San Pio X
Declaración del Capítulo General de la Fraternidad Sacerdotal San Pío X
Grundsatzerklärung des Generalkapitels der Priesterbruderschaft St. Pius X.

Meanwhile, in “Eternal Rome”, there was issued a Communique concerning the SSPX:

Vatican City, (VIS) – Early this afternoon, the Holy See Press Office released the following English-language communique concerning the declaration which emerged from the General Chapter of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X.

“The recently concluded General Chapter of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X has addressed a declaration regarding the possibility of a canonical normalisation in the relationship of the Society and the Holy See. While it has been made public, the declaration remains primarily an internal document for study and discussion among the members of the Society.
“The Holy See has taken note of this declaration, but awaits the forthcoming official communication of the Priestly Society as their dialogue with the Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’ continues”.

So, the Holy See now waits for the SSPX to communicate officially with the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei“. An internal document is one thing, and what they tell the PCED is another. This statement, though internal to the members of the SSPX (priests) is, however, public. It is therefore also aimed at the people who support the SSPX. Over the years we have seen some bombastic public rhetoric even while Bp. Fellay has moved the SSPX into a dialogue (serious or not) with the Holy See.

On the other hand, I am not sure how entering into a “serious debate” with the aim of getting the authorities of the Holy See to “return to Tradition” is going to win them any points. Perhaps they will leave that part out of their next official communication with the Holy See.

In any event, perhaps this will keep the door open for new discussions with Archbishop Di Noia at the helm. Benedict XVI moved him there for a reason.

[Rashputin]

Following along from the link you provided, here's a sentence that will make you do a real double take when you're reading rapidly:

The cunningness of the Devil knows no boundaries!

Cunningness isn't as commonly used as a similar word. Anyway, I hurt my eyeballs zapping them back across the page to that sentence then started laughing. Just shows how often some formerly unmentionable things are now mentioned.

Regards

[ebb tide]

“I say that it is up to the Magisterium.”

That’s a very interesting statement. You appear to be referring to the current magisterium as opposed to the eternal Magisterium, as if the former trumps the latter whenever there is obvious conflict between the two.

And please don’t try to tell me there isn’t conflict between the two.

“Extra Ecclesiam nulla sallus” will be my first rebuttal to your defense, if any, of the current magisterium and its teachings.

[Rashputin]

"Probably a more accurate parallel would be the bishops who rebelled after Nicea in 325. Some of them were very well meaning. However, they were wrong. "

That's a helpful comparison, thanks.

[annalex]

I am not sure how entering into a “serious debate” with the aim of getting the authorities of the Holy See to “return to Tradition” is going to win them any points.

No, Fr. Z, with all respect, this point is exactly what makes it a serious debate. If a bridge exists between the left wing interpretation of Vatican II and the immutable Holy Tradition, then it is incumbent on the Roman Curia to demonstrate it, and if there isn't such bridge then it is incumbent on the Roman Curia to issue a clarifying doctrinal document that draws a sharp line between the true magisterial teaching and the Catholic liberalism.

It is clear now that SSPX won't reconcile unless the conversation is elevated to this point, and the entire Church is better for it.

[MarkBsnr]

That’s a very interesting statement. You appear to be referring to the current magisterium as opposed to the eternal Magisterium, as if the former trumps the latter whenever there is obvious conflict between the two.

Since the current Magisterium is the portion of the eternal Magisterium that occurs now, they are one and the same. No conflict.

And please don’t try to tell me there isn’t conflict between the two.

There isn't.

“Extra Ecclesiam nulla sallus” will be my first rebuttal to your defense, if any, of the current magisterium and its teachings.

Very good. I will point to the current feeble state of the Feeneyites and their warring factions as a first riposte. If they were the one true and traditional Catholic Church, they would not have broken down so quickly into internecine warfare.

Secondly, we have the words of Paul in Timothy 2:4 in which he says that God wills that all men be saved. Not all men who have died are within the Catholic Church - indeed many have never heard of it, or else have dismissed it. Is that God's fault or ours - who have been charged with evangelizing the world?

Am I a Universalist? Nope. There will be many who will be thrown into the everlasting fire based upon their own particular Judgement.

However, there is the hope of salvation. Aborted babies are rarely baptized before they are murdered. Are they within the Catholic Church? Are they condemned to hell because their mothers decided to have them dismembered alive and sucked into a sink?

Don't know. I ask God for mercy upon them, as I do for myself. Lord knows that I deserve eternal punishment a whole lot more than an innocent baby. How about a Protestant or Jewish or Hindu or Buddhist baby that is aborted. Do you think that they go to eternal hellfire?

We hold out the hope to which St Paul constantly writes, about our salvation. Do you have hope or do you subscribe to OSAS? Or predestination to Heaven or Hell?

[annalex]

Are you aware that the < pre > tag you are using is screwing up the formatting for the entire page? It causes all the lines to wrap to the length of your longest line of text formatted with this tag.

Please avoid it.

[MarkBsnr]

"Probably a more accurate parallel would be the bishops who rebelled after Nicea in 325. Some of them were very well meaning. However, they were wrong. "

That's a helpful comparison, thanks.

Very good. There really isn't anything new under the sun w.r.t. Church history. Not much anyway. A lot has been done in the last 2000 years, and some much worse than has been done recently...

[annalex]

The Magisterium should condemn the liberal interpretations of the so-called “liberty of conscience” just like it condemned Feeneyism, because both are contrary to the Holy Tradition.

[MarkBsnr]

The Magisterium should condemn the liberal interpretations of the so-called “liberty of conscience” just like it condemned Feeneyism, because both are contrary to the Holy Tradition.

Completely agree. I think that the pendulum is definitely swinging in the right direction - the crackdowns on the renegade priests and nuns are good examples. However, the public declarations have been sorely lacking.

For this particular Catholic, anyway...

[Rashputin]

Sorry. I usually take those out after viewing and editing but have forgotten to do so today, maybe other times, too. You're the first to mention it screwing up the whole page, though, so no, I didn't know that as it doesn't modify a thing on this end or seem to change anything but the line it's on. I'll go back to composing in something else and pasting it here before posting.

Regards

[ebb tide]

“Aborted babies are rarely baptized before they are murdered.”

How do you baptize an unborn baby? Secondly, you should have no concern about whether that baby was baptized or not since the current “magisterium” (as Cardinal Ratzinger) has dissed the idea of Limbo of the Unborn. Makes it much easier for a mother to murder her child thinking he’ll go straight to Heaven rather than Limbo, since Limbo doesn’t exist.

Do you not think this recent, and new, teaching of the magisterium has led to abortions, that would not have occurred otherwise without the above encouragement that all unborn babies go to Heaven?

[annalex]

You may be viewing it in a browser that is open in a sufficiently wide window. Try artificially shrinking the window width: the text inside the < pre > won't wrap.

Or send me some money, I'll buy a bigger monitor.

Try font face="Courier" or something similar to indicate a quote. That will wrap: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

[MarkBsnr]

“Aborted babies are rarely baptized before they are murdered.”

How do you baptize an unborn baby?

It's called sarcasm, a reasonably useful literary device at times.

Secondly, you should have no concern about whether that baby was baptized or not since the current “magisterium” (as Cardinal Ratzinger) has dissed the idea of Limbo of the Unborn. Makes it much easier for a mother to murder her child thinking he’ll go straight to Heaven rather than Limbo, since Limbo doesn’t exist.

That's not the teaching, but I've found that anyone very emotionally attached to a subject may arrive at any justification, grasp at any straw and lie like a Democratic politician in order to try to seem to support their decisions. However, I've known far too many who aborted their babies, and exactly none of them have shared this justification with me.

Do you not think this recent, and new, teaching of the magisterium has led to abortions, that would not have occurred otherwise without the above encouragement that all unborn babies go to Heaven?

Nope. I think that the encouragement of splitting from the Catholic Church and taking theological matters into one's own hands, rather than relying on the Magisterium for correct theological interpretation and instruction has endangered many souls. Were Luther, Zwingli and Calvin evil because of the their persuasive guidance away from the Church?

[ebb tide]

“Not all men who have died are within the Catholic Church - indeed many have never heard of it, or else have dismissed it. Is that God's fault or ours - who have been charged with evangelizing the world?”

That's the big problem, Mark. It is "our (Catholics) fault". Rome has stopped evangelizing, let alone prosletizing. She is now dialoguing and (believe it or not) still searching for some unseen "truth" along with protestants, muslims, hindus, etc. that has not yet been found.

[ebb tide]

“However, I’ve known far too many who aborted their babies, and exactly none of them have shared this justification with me.”

“Far too many”? Where do you meet these people, in your church?

I have stood outside abortion clinics, counseling pregnant woman. All of the ones who proceeded with the murder of their child either said, “It’s not a human” or “If it is a baby, he’ll go to Heaven”.

Thanks, Cardinal Ratzinger.

[ebb tide]

Nope. I think that the encouragement of splitting from the Catholic Church and taking theological matters into one's own hands, rather than relying on the Magisterium for correct theological interpretation and instruction has endangered many souls.

That's the most awkward and inept attempt to deflect a topic I have ever seen. Congrats!

But, since you've jumped the rails already, what theological principles are in dispute? And since when does one delve into what you call "theological interpretation".

It's very spooky when one talks about "interpreting" theology. Are you a Jesuit?

[ebb tide]

How about a Protestant or Jewish or Hindu or Buddhist baby that is aborted. Do you think that they go to eternal hellfire?

There's no difference between them. None will go to Hell.

Their parents might, however!

[MarkBsnr]

“Not all men who have died are within the Catholic Church - indeed many have never heard of it, or else have dismissed it. Is that God's fault or ours - who have been charged with evangelizing the world?”

That's the big problem, Mark. It is "our (Catholics) fault".

Quite agree.

Rome has stopped evangelizing, let alone prosletizing.

Negatory. We are very involved in evangelizing. That does involve some of the, shall we say, folks less adhered to the Faith, unfortunately.

She is now dialoguing and (believe it or not) still searching for some unseen "truth" along with protestants, muslims, hindus, etc. that has not yet been found.

We are looking at drawing them into the Faith. That is a part of evangelizing.

[MarkBsnr]

“However, I’ve known far too many who aborted their babies, and exactly none of them have shared this justification with me.”

“Far too many”? Where do you meet these people, in your church?

In my everyday life. I do not shun all of those who many find distasteful.

I have stood outside abortion clinics, counseling pregnant woman. All of the ones who proceeded with the murder of their child either said, “It’s not a human” or “If it is a baby, he’ll go to Heaven”.

It'd be interesting if you found out how many of them professed Catholicism. I suspect very few.

Thanks, Cardinal Ratzinger.

He's a better man than I am, Gunga Din.

[MarkBsnr]

Nope. I think that the encouragement of splitting from the Catholic Church and taking theological matters into one's own hands, rather than relying on the Magisterium for correct theological interpretation and instruction has endangered many souls.

That's the most awkward and inept attempt to deflect a topic I have ever seen. Congrats!

How does one differ from a Protestant when one considers that one can discern theologically better than the Pope and the entire Magisterium?

But, since you've jumped the rails already, what theological principles are in dispute? And since when does one delve into what you call "theological interpretation".

What makes you different from Calvin except that you have not published a theological text and subjugated Geneva?

It's very spooky when one talks about "interpreting" theology. Are you a Jesuit?

Heavens, no. Knight of Columbus, yes.