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."

[Snuffington]

So, I guess we can oppose Cardinal Ratzinger to himself and then we can indeed assert that an Ecumenical Council approved Documents that opposed Tradition.

Two problems with your apparent conclusion regarding the Ratzinger quote you provide.

First, Ratzinger speaks about individual teachings and doctrines. You speak about entire documents, of which those particular teachings and doctrines are only a part. This inaccurately expands the scope of what Cardinal Ratzinger is stating.

Secondly, this is not a statement about consistency with tradition. It is a statement about showing proper submission to the authority of the Church. There is no doubt the Church does teach that Vatican II properly aligns with Church tradition. But that's not the topic Ratzinger is speaking about in the quote you provided.

You are obviously and intelligent and well-researched person. Many times (including in this thread) you have provided great sources that have enhanced my understanding of the issue being discussed. However I wonder if your passion for the topic sometimes clouds your understanding of the very sources you provide.

[ninenot]

Yadda, Yadda.

The regulation of the Liturgy is a matter of Canon Law, not the Magisterium. It is assigned, canonically, to the Holy See, and ONLY the Holy See.

Thus, if the Pope declares that the Old Rite will be a Universal Indult, it will be so.

And if the Pope declares that the Old Rite will immediately and totally supplant the Novus Ordo, it will be so.

Given the ordinary prudence, cautions, etc., 'innovations' are allowed.

IT IS NOT A MATTER OF INFALLIBILITY

[ninenot]

Never. Knee Jerk Papal Loyalty is the sine qua non of Catholicism, at least in my household.

Good.

Then you will, with knee-jerk obeisance to the Pope, attend Old Rite Masses which THIS POPE AUTHORIZED EXPLICITLY.

[Snuffington]

...I would certainly defend his statement:

"this was not an impediment given that the Council had not promulgated any binding dogmatic definition."

Actually, to get a bit picky, I believe there may have been some binding dogmatic definitions that were promulgated by the Council. It's just that those particular dogmas had also been declared binding by previous Councils, and are not in dispute by the traditionalists.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I'm going from memory here.

[Tantumergo]

"I believe there may have been some binding dogmatic definitions that were promulgated by the Council. It's just that those particular dogmas had also been declared binding by previous Councils, and are not in dispute by the traditionalists."

I think you are right in the sense that in several places, the documents say "Following the Council of XYZ, this sacred synod teaches...etc."

However, I think the point that Both Ratzinger and Blet were making was that there were no new "binding definitions" in V II.

I certainly have not come across any previously defined dogmas that traditionalists object to.

[Snuffington]

However, I think the point that Both Ratzinger and Blet were making was that there were no new "binding definitions" in V II.

Well I admitted I was being picky. :-)

I think the missing element in Blet's statement was the word "new."

Of course I do not understand the documents well enough to support or refute the revised statement either. But that seems to be the essense of the issue in dispute.

[Catholicguy]

As part of his position is easily supported by previous cited quotes from Ratzinger and the Catholic Encyclopedia, I would certainly defend his statement:

<>I am glad you are backing away from\m supporting it in its entirety.<>

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..."

<> That IS pure protestantism.<>

[ninenot]

The referent post is clearly marked along the bottom-left-hand side of my responses.

[Catholicguy]

Sorry, you are wrong in your definition of V.II as "infallible." The Fathers of the Council defined it as "pastoral."

<> Sorry, you are worng. I have been beating my head against the Wailing Stone Walls of the Traditionalist Fortress trying to get this point across and even along The Watchtower the Guards of that ever decreasingly-populated stronghold are now admitting that ALL Ecumenical Councils ARE Infallible.

Have them drop you a lifeline.<>

[Catholicguy]

<> If the Pope told me I had recourse only to that Liturgy, I wouldn't hesitate to go.

Now, ask your friends if they will go to the Pauline Rite once the Indult is scuppered.<>

[Snuffington]

Sorry, you are wrong in your definition of V.II as "infallible." The Fathers of the Council defined it as "pastoral."

<> Sorry, you are worng. I have been beating my head against the Wailing Stone Walls of the Traditionalist Fortress trying to get this point across and even along The Watchtower the Guards of that ever decreasingly-populated stronghold are now admitting that ALL Ecumenical Councils ARE Infallible.

Ok. I'm getting a little frustrated watching people continue to talk past each other about this. I'm not sure there is even a real disagreement about the issue of infallibility, because every time it comes up the debaters seem to use the word in a distinctly different context from one another.

Ecumenical Councils are ALWAYS infallible in the sense that they are invested with infallible authority, much the same as the Pope is invested with infallible authority. I believe this is the point Catholicguy is making (jump in if I'm wrong).

The teachings produced by a Council may or may not be infallible, depending on whether the Council and the Pope declare them to be so. Those who question the infallibility of the Coucil seem to be questioning whether the specific teachings of that Council were ever declared to be infallible, not whether the Council had the authority to do so if it chose.

If anyone thinks the issue is different than I frame it above, please correct me.

[Tantumergo]

<> That IS pure protestantism.<>

If you mean the following is protestantism:

"Everyone therefore has the right to examine what he feels able to accept..."

then I do agree that he appears to be leaning in that direction, but as I have read his work before, I know that is certainly not characteristic of him.

To some extent though, a lot of this hinges on how you define "religious submission of intellect and will".

Have you come across any sensible definitions of what this means?

[ninenot]

OK. You define it any way you want--it's useless to quote authorities like the Council's own documents, or Ratzinger, or whoever.

Funny. You can't abide the Trads who are wrong--and you can't abide the folks, like me, who simply take the Council at its own word.

Where are you going with this??

[Catholicguy]

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ382.HTM

Check out this link. Questions OPEN prior to the Vatican Two Council are now CLOSED due to the decisions taken at Vatican Two.

[ninenot]

The Indult won't be scuppered.

Having said that, were it to become the case, many of my friends would simply disobey.

It will be quite sad--and this possibility is the SINGLE SPECIFIC reason that the Old Rite indult will be perpetual.

[Snuffington]

To some extent though, a lot of this hinges on how you define "religious submission of intellect and will". Have you come across any sensible definitions of what this means?

To complicate matters, the Church teaches that this submission of intellect and will is distinct from assent. Ponder that for a while. I'm not sure I truly get it.

[Catholicguy]

Infallibility In general, exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure; in particular in theological usage, the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals. In this article the ubject will be treated under the following heads:

I. True Meaning of Infallibility

II. Proof of the Church's Infallibility

III. Organs of Infallibility

Ecumenical Councils

The Pope

Their Mutual Relations

IV. Scope and Object of Infallibility

<> That is from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Itis not my definition. ALL Ecumenical Councils ARE Infallible. Period. <>

[ninenot]

Conditionally accepting your line of thought, we can go back to the original topic: the Old Rite Mass.

The Council did NOT teach infallibly about the Rite of the Mass. The Rite is a CANON LAW matter, reserved to the Holy See.

It is regulatory, not doctrinal, not dogmatic.

Catholic Guy doesn't want to understand this. Perhaps he had a bad experience someplace, or has a headache, or has a sizeable investment in the New Rite.

In any case, he is simply wrong.

[Loyalist]

Where are you going with this??

CG: Yes, God gave us all a heart to love Him. But he also gave us a mind to know Him.

You don't want to think. You don't want others to think. You demand blind obedience, not with full assent of the will, but with obliteration of the will. That is not Catholic; that is Islamic.

[ninenot]

Submission means conditional acceptance. Assent is unconditional.