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]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11181c.htm

<> Obedience.

I think you folks are doomed to wander endlessly in the arid intellectual deserts to try and find that magical oasis where you will discover the Laver of Liberty you can use to Baptise yourselves as the new Catholic man robbed in Protestant Liberty so you can reject an Infallible Ecumenical Council in whole or in part.<>

[Catholicguy]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11181c.htm

[Snuffington]

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

I'm quite familiar with your link. My concern isn't about the statement that Councils are infallible. It's the way you seem to be mixing the notion of a council being invested with infallible authority and a council making an infallible pronouncement.

The pope is also infallible. But that does not justify the notion that his every word and action is infallible. In fact the Church goes to great pains to specifically define HOW the pope is infallible. It does the same with Ecumenical Councils.

In other words, saying a council is infallible is not the same thing as saying a particular statement by a council in infallible. Councils make both infallible and "non-infallible" statements.

.

[Snuffington]

Try to find any Catholic, traditionalist, modernist, conservative, that has ever described an Ecumenical Council as "impeccable."

The concern is with the misuse of the definition. Not the use of the word itself. Surely you understand that.

[Loyalist]

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.

Traditionalists want to be able to trust the Pope. But we know that such trust can only be reposed not in his person, but in his office, and only so far as he exercises his Divinely-constituted office to protect and promote the deposit of faith.

We follow the Shepherd where he follows his Master. We know how faithfully he follows his Master by where he leads the Church.

We will never reject the necessity for union with and submission to the Pope, for to do so is to reject the Tradition and Deposit of Faith of which he is the fiduciary.

[narses]

The same way the current Indult is, except all priests would be allowed the choice.

[narses]

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing CG. You do have a little. Add in a dash of love and charity, mix in a broad application of humility and you'll be fun to be around again.

[Tantumergo]

"In other words, saying a council is infallible is not the same thing as saying a particular statement by a council in infallible. Councils make both infallible and "non-infallible" statements."

I think you have hit the nail on the head Snuffington and the link that CG supplies is actually very useful in supporting what you say.

What we are all really discussing (ranting?) about here is not whether Ecumenical Councils are infallible or not - I'm sure most of us would agree that they are. What we are contesting here is the "subject matter of infallibility" and whether this devolves on every last "if" and "the" as Catholicguy has claimed.

The link that Catholicguy has provided to the Catholic Encyclopedia on General Councils has this to say on the matter:

"The subject matter of infallibility, or supreme judicial authority, is found in the DEFINITIONS AND DECREES of councils, and IN THEM ALONE, TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE THEOLOGICAL, SCIENTIFIC, OR HISTORICAL REASONS UPON WHICH THEY ARE BUILT UP. THESE REPRESENT TOO MUCH OF THE HUMAN ELEMENT, OF TRANSIENT MENTALITIES, OF PERSONAL INTERESTS TO CLAIM THE PROMISE OF INFALLIBILITY MADE TO THE CHURCH AS A WHOLE; IT IS THE SENSE OF THE UNCHANGING CHURCH THAT IS INFALLIBLE, NOT THE SENSE OF INDIVIDUAL CHURCHMEN OF ANY AGE OR EXCELLENCE, AND THAT SENSE FINDS EXPRESSION ONLY IN THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE COUNCIL APPROVED BY THE POPE. Decisions referring to dogma were called in the East diatyposeis (constitutions, statutes); those concerned with discipline were termed kanones (canons, rules), often with the addition of tes eutaxias (of discipline, or good order). The expressions thesmoi and horoi apply to both, and the short formulae of condemnation were known as anathematismoi (anathemas)."

In answer to our dispute, one sentence above bears re-emphasis:

"The subject matter of infallibility, or supreme judicial authority, is found in the DEFINITIONS AND DECREES of councils, and IN THEM ALONE".

I have spent the last two hours going through the documents of Vatican II looking for definitions and decrees, and have so far found no definitions (nothing even that may be vaguely construed as a definition), and only two of the documents contain specific decrees: Sacrosanctum concilium and Christus Dominus. Even the dogmatic constitutions Lumen Gentium and Dei verbum contain no definitions or decrees.

Most of the documents are pastoral in orientation and therefore you would not expect them to focus on definitions anyway. While they are replete with urgings and exhortations, I am surprised at how few decrees there are. Nevertheless, it is now apparent to me why Cardinal Ratzinger could say:

"The truth is that this particular council DEFINED NO DOGMA AT ALL, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely PASTORAL COUNCIL;"

IF THEN THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA AND CARDINAL RATZINGER ARE CORRECT, the great majority of the subject matter in the documents of the Council comes under the heading of authorised teaching of the Church which is not protected by the note of infallibility. These teachings should be adhered to with religious submission of intellect and will, especially as they contain much of what has previously been declared "de fide" by Scripture, Tradition and the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

However, that does not mean that we should undergo a lobotomy when the non-infallible teaching sometimes appears to contradict Scripture, Tradition and the ordinary Magisterium. As rational human beings we are called to seek for the Truth, and so it must be legitimate to question apparent contradictions and seek clarification from our shepherds.

To do otherwise would be to reduce Catholicism to some mindless Fideism, which the Church has consistently condemned. We would also be doing less than worshipping God with all our mind.

I would contend therefore that it is quite consistent to defend the infallibility of Vatican II, vis a vis the Council's subject matter that pertains to infallibility, while still questioning ambiguities and apparent contradictions in those parts of the documents that are not infallible. It is simply a matter of justice that the Church should explain to her sons and daughters how these may be reconciled with Tradition, and thus far there are several issues which have never been authoritatively addressed.

[dadwags]

"...why could there not be two rites in the west ?'''"
________________________________________________________

I thought that that was what the PFSP (Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter was all about .

[dadwags]

Also, I read that the SSPX in Brazil (or somewhere in South America ) was reconciled to the Church within the last year .

[Tantumergo]

"It has no power to create its own doctrines and religion."

The Pope would appear to agree with you, at least in respect of some of the more substantive issues:

"I declare that the Church has NO AUTHORITY whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."
Ordinatio sacerdotalis.

Its not often that you get an official document actually admitting that the Church has NO AUTHORITY to do things. There are limits even to absolute jurisdiction!

[Snuffington]

Its not often that you get an official document actually admitting that the Church has NO AUTHORITY to do things.

It hasn't been often when such an obvious pronouncement was necessary. But in this age, it is both necessary and welcome.

[narses]

A closely related group -- the SSJV reached an agreement with Rome that left all of their structure intact, including the once "illicit" Bishop and then annointed as Bishop their long time secretary. Essentially, Rome conceded that they are as Catholic as any modern structure inside the Church. It removes the nonsensical argument that the SSPX is NOT Catholic, for if they are not, then neither was Campos.

[narses]

Nevertheless, it is now apparent to me why Cardinal Ratzinger could say {regarding Vatican II}:

"The truth is that this particular council DEFINED NO DOGMA AT ALL, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely PASTORAL COUNCIL;"

IF THEN THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA AND CARDINAL RATZINGER ARE CORRECT, the great majority of the subject matter in the documents of the Council comes under the heading of authorised teaching of the Church which is not protected by the note of infallibility.

Bravo!

[St.Chuck]

It removes the nonsensical argument that the SSPX is NOT Catholic, for if they are not, then neither was Campos.

That's silly. Why did Campos and Rome need to come to an agreement in the first place? Why is the SSPX in negotiations at present? Your conclusion should rightfully read, because Campos was not Catholic, then the SSPX most certainly isn't.

[patent]

A closely related group -- the SSJV reached an agreement with Rome that left all of their structure intact, including the once "illicit" Bishop and then annointed as Bishop their long time secretary. Essentially, Rome conceded that they are as Catholic as any modern structure inside the Church. It removes the nonsensical argument that the SSPX is NOT Catholic, for if they are not, then neither was Campos.

There you go again. Rome didn’t concede that they were as Catholic as any structure in side the Church. Rome welcomed them home, and after welcoming them home, they were then as Catholic as any structure inside the Church because they themselves were inside the Church.

You cannot say the same thing for the SSPX, following as it does excommunicated Bishops.

patent  +AMDG

[patent]

Its not often that you get an official document actually admitting that the Church has NO AUTHORITY to do things. There are limits even to absolute jurisdiction!

Those limits, however, are defined and explained by the Church, not by schismatics.

patent  +AMDG

[narses]

Those married in non-Catholic ceremonies need be remarried in the Church, yes? That isn't happening in Campos. Those ordained in non-Catholic Rites seeking to be Catholic need to ordained again, that isn't happening in Campos either. If the SSJV and the SSPX were non-Catholic then Cardinal Kasper's office would be in charge, it isn't. This is an issue within the Church and is therefore handled within Her structure. To claim that the priests of the SSPX are NOT Catholic is to promulgate a falsehood. They are validly ordained priests of the Roman Catholic Church. And you both know that. Moreover, the point so well demonstrated by the comments from Cardinal Ratzinger support the author of this post regarding the SSPX disputes over the issues around Vatican II, at least to the extent of what the Jesuit Father said.

[St.Chuck]

Are you familiar with general absolution?

[Land of the Irish]

Thanks for you excellent, well documented, posts.