The Pope, the Mass and the Society of St. Pius X

Una Voce ^

[narses]

The Pope, the Mass and the Society of St. Pius X

Father Pierre Blet, SJ, Professor of Church History at the Gregorian University, celebrated for his defence of Pope Pius XII against the charge of anti-semitism, has given an interview in which he made some interesting comments apropos relations between Rome and the Society of Saint Pius X and the attitude of Rome to the Traditional Mass. This interview was published in the July-August 2002 issue of the journal of Una Voce France. Father Blet considers that there are at present indications that an entente may be reached. Father Blet noted that members of the Society had been very warmly received during the Holy Year, but that things have slowed down a little since then due principally to the question of accepting Vatican II. He added that "this was not an impediment given that the Council had not promulgated any binding dogmatic definition. Everyone therefore has the right to examine what he feels able to accept..."

Where the problem of the Mass is concerned, certain cardinals of the Curia, and not the least among them, would be willing to accept the Mass of St. Pius V. Some of them have celebrated it publicly. Father Blet then made public some information that has remain confidential until now: "The Pope himself celebrated this Mass during his recent vacation." He also reported the suggestion of a cardinal who remarked that in a town in the Middle-East where he had been a missionary the Mass is celebrated in a dozen different rites. "Under these circumstances, he asked, why could there not be two rites in the West?" Father Blet added: "The Curia is ready to make concessions in this matter."

[Catholicguy]

<> The Faithful have always been expected to faithfuly follow the Divinely-Constituted authority. There is nothing impossible about that. Jesus established His Church to operate that way.

What is impossible is to be "Catholic" and Protestant - like you and your ilk are attempting.<>

[ultima ratio]

Catholics who insist on their own tradition and follow the megisterial teachings of the pre-conciliar Church, do not follow their own whims. By definition Traditionalists do not make up their own religion but insist on the true faith as it has been handed-down through the ages, not as it is made up on the spot. Your problem is that you identify the Pope with the Church. But the identity only holds when the papacy is in sync with the rest of tradition. It has no power to create its own doctrines and religion.

[ThomasMore]

A Universal Indult is coming. Smile Sink. It is a good thing.

If a universal indult is applied, how will it work. How will it be applied in parishes? and in what parishes? Will clericalism reign?

[Catholicguy]

<> You saw from my link that ALL Ecumenical councils are Infallible. You have no defense for your protestantism.<>

[ultima ratio]

You write, "All councils are infallible". Wrong. Both John XXIII and Paul VI were wary of Vatican II's pronouncing any new dogmas. They insisted it was merely pastoral and hence not binding. The Modernists themselves insisted Vatican II was merely pastoral, only reversing this once they got in a position to say what was true and not true in any given teaching. But the real bottom line is this: novelty is never protected by the Holy Spirit. Traditionalists know this, and reject the novel interpretations of the faith which come out of the conciliar Church in the name of Vatican II and which contradict Catholic Tradition. They do no more than is done by the Modernists themselves who ignore the proscriptions of the Council whenever it interferes with their own protestantizing agenda. The New Church made no effort to retain the primacy of place in the Liturgy for Gregorian Chant, for instance. Likewise it ditched Latin which was supposed to be protected at all cost. Both were Vatican II teachings, both were abandoned in a milisecond right after the Council closed by the same people who claim Traditionalists are disobedient.

[Salvation]

Father Blet noted that members of the Society had been very warmly received during the Holy Year, but that things have slowed down a little since then due principally to the question of accepting Vatican II. He added that "this was not an impediment given that the Council had not promulgated any binding dogmatic definition.

All the posters to the contrary on FR can take note!

[Salvation]

That makes the individual the one with authority, not The Magisterium. That is a purely Protestant prinicple.<>

Three things must always be present:
Sacred Scripture
Sacred Tradition (with a capital "T"
Magisterial Teaching

[ultima ratio]

Consider this statement in Dei Verbum: "The Church has always venerated the Divine Scripture as she has venerated the Body of the Lord in so far as she never ceases, particularly in the Sacred Liturgy, to partake of the bread of life and to offer it to the faithful from the one table of the Word of God and the Body of Christ." (DV 21.)

The statement is strangely discordant with Catholic truth. The Church has NEVER venerated the two in the same way. One contains the VIRTUAL presence of the Lord, the other the REAL presence. The former was venerated, the latter was ADORED.

Yes, the statement is ambiguous. Yes, everything hinges on the word "sicut" which means "as". Yes, it is a statement that would appeal to Protestants. Yes, it blurs the distinction between Scripture and the Blessed Sacrament. Yes, its meaning demands interpretation. Yes, it ignores the enormous significance of the Real Presence.

But this is precisely the problem with Vatican II. In the past councils declared what was binding and true in ruthlessly clear dogmatic statements. The faithful who are being bound intellectually have an absolute right to at least this much. Jusice alone would demand this. But this is precisely what is lacking in the collection of documents that has come out of the last Council. They say whatever the present magisterium decides, whenever it decides. That is not good enough, especially when such interpretations class with traditional teachings of the Catholic Church.

[ultima ratio]

class=clash

[Catholicguy]

Father Blet noted that members of the Society had been very warmly received during the Holy Year, but that things have slowed down a little since then due principally to the question of accepting Vatican II. He added that "this was not an impediment given that the Council had not promulgated any binding dogmatic definition.

All the posters to the contrary on FR can take note!

<> Do you also accept this Protestant principle?<>

[Salvation]

Do I accept this?

No, my previous post says it all.

Three things must always be present:
Sacred Scripture
Sacred Tradition (with a capital "T"
Magisterial Teaching

Magisterial Teaching was Vatican II.

[Loyalist]

And what do you tell the Protestant brethren, when they see that you confuse infallibility with impeccability?

When legitimately concerned Catholics are denounced as heretics and schismatics for asking questions in good faith?

Such actions only reinforce the most ill-informed misconceptions of obedience of Papal authority as submission to a tyrant, not following a shepherd.

[malakhi]

What is impossible is to be "Catholic" and Protestant - like you and your ilk are attempting.

It seems to me that they are more akin to the Orthodox than to Protestants.

[ultima ratio]

Your link? Is it infallible?

[Snuffington]

And what do you tell the Protestant brethren, when they see that you confuse infallibility with impeccability?

That is a large concern of mine as well. I asked about it earler, but the question was treated as a joke, rather than seriously answered.

I'm sure I'm not the only Catholic on FR who has had to explain the difference between true papal infallibility and the false notion of papal impeccability to Protestants (and some atheists). It is frustrating to explain over and over that not every word from the Pope's mouth, nor every action he takes is considered infallible.

I have a hard time seeing where you draw the line between the true notion of a Council's infallibility - which relates specifically to the definitions and decrees issued by the councils - and the false notion of a Council's impeccability, which would presumably relate to everything else a Council says or does.

This is not to say that statments and teachings which are not infallible are not important. It is also not to say that a Council exercizes no authority other than infallibility. Both of those notions are clearly false. But to casually treat the infallibility of a Council is to invite the same error (i.e. equating infallibility and impeccability) which we so frequently see applied to the pope.

[Catholicguy]

And what do you tell the Protestant brethren, when they see that you confuse infallibility with impeccability?

<> Do you think Ecumenical Councils are impeccable and that is an intrinsic characteristic of them?<>

When legitimately concerned Catholics are denounced as heretics and schismatics for asking questions in good faith?

<> They are not asking questions in good faith. They are granting themselves liberty to reject, in part or in whole, an Ecumenical Council.<>

Such actions only reinforce the most ill-informed misconceptions of obedience of Papal authority as submission to a tyrant, not following a shepherd.

<> The Pope is a Shepherd and he apears to be a tryant to those opposed to him. We, to continue the metaphor, ought to be trusting and obedient sheep, not Lone Traditional Wolves.<>

[Catholicguy]

It seems to me that they are more akin to the Orthodox than to Protestants.

<> The difficulty with that is that Orthodox do not grant themselves Liberty to reject Ecumenical Councils they accept as valid. In this instance, "catholics" want to both admit that Vatican Two was an Ecumenical Council - even though is was "merely pastoral - and they want the liberty to reject it in part or in whole.

They want to grant themselves more authority than an Ecumenical Council and that is a Protestant position. They want to grant the Liberty to themselves to make the final decision on each particular Document promulgated by that Infallible Council, and even each sentence within those Documents and even individual words of those indiviual sentences of each Document. They, it is palpably evident by some of the comments, are the ones with the Divinely-Constituted authority.

That ain't Catholic. <>

[Catholicguy]

http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/TRIGINFL.HTM Here is a link to an EWTN explanation of Infallibility. The reason I treated your accusation I confuse Impeccability and Infallibility is that I think it is a joke. I do no such thing and impeccability refers to individuals not an Ecumenical Council. Sheesh...

Jesus and Mary are Impeccable. All Ecumenical Councils are Infallible, it is intrinsic to their nature. With all due respect, it is you that is confused. Try to find any Catholic, traditionalist, modernist, conservative, that has ever described an Ecumenical Council as "impeccable."<>

[Catholicguy]

http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/TRIGINFL.HTM

Here is the EWTN link

[Catholicguy]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Link to Infallibility. Note it says that Ecumenical Councils are Infallible.