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

Sorry CG, but I just wanted to illustrate the fact that sometimes you can be too quick to shoot off and start slinging charges of schism and heresy around, when in fact there are many areas about which it is quite legitimate to debate until matters are settled definitively.

<> No need to apologise. I am still correct. This priest WAS positing a protestant principle and this quote does not suport his posiiton. Reread what the priest said. His principle DOES give the individual authority and this Ecumenical Council, like all the others, does not teach that.<>

The "protestant principle" that you are having problems with is actually based on a citation from the documents of Vatican II themselves:

"Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it has expressly put forward as such." Appendix to Lumen Gentium.

<> Yeah,so? That has nothing to do with what the priest was speaking about. He makes the individual the one with authority over a Council.

I will stand aside and watch you try to use this "key" to try to release yourself from the "prison" of an Ecumenical Council you don't fully accept. I just hope Polycarp doesn't follow you "outside." <>

Father Blet noted that members of the Society had been very warmly received during the Holy Year,

<> What did he expect, that the Pope would send out the Swiss Guards to kick their sorry schismatic asses? <>

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..."

<> Read it and vomit.. That IS pure protestantism and it positis a protestant principle; Individual Judgement and Individual Authority. .."what he feels able to accept..."give me a damn break.

Tantum, I can't believe you are going to try to use a quote lifted from an Ecumenical Council to try and defend this indefensible principle and to try and defend your rejection of parts of this Ecuemnical Council. Just HOW MANY of the Documents do you reject? Why not just come out and tell us forthrightly?

. "I don't feel (what about THINKING?) like D.H. is the correct Catholic Teaching so I am free to not accept (REJECT) it." That is what you are defending Tantum and in trying to "illustrate..( I am).. too quick to shoot off and start slinging charges of heresy...you have wounded yourself and weakened your position in opposing an Ecumenical Council by revealing you approach it with a protestant mindset.

Will you tell us which Documents, in whole or in part, of this Ecumenical Council you do reject, or do you prefer to just attack the Council piecemeal?<>

"Yeah,so? That has nothing to do with what the priest was speaking about. He makes the individual the one with authority over a Council."

Fr Blet may have gone too far in what he said, but his premise is not groundless on the basis that the Council, by its own definition, did not propose any new doctrine or dogma that is top be held definitively by the faithful.

JPII has said on at least 2 occasions that the Council can only be interpreted correctly in the light of all previous Councils and Holy Tradition. Ratzinger has also said as much with his criticisms of those who view Vatican II as some kind of "Super dogma".

"I will stand aside and watch you try to use this "key" to try to release yourself from the "prison" of an Ecumenical Council you don't fully accept."

Who's imprisoned by it? - not me! I have no problem with Vatican II when it is interpreted in the light of previous Magisterial teaching. I think it unfortunate that there are ambiguities in some of the documents that require careful interpretation, but when one considers the amount of verbiage generated, it is not surprising that some unclear passages slipped through - mainly in the more "pastoral" documents.

"I just hope Polycarp doesn't follow you "outside." "

I can't speak for Polycarp, but I'm sure that he would have no reason to follow me anywhere - he strikes me as being the Lord's man. He may not be a conciliar fundamentalist, but that would say nothing about his good standing in the Church.

Personally, I do not consider it my place to judge anyone to be "outside" the Church unless the Pope, a local Ordinary, or they themselves have defined them as such.

Even liberal heretics are still in until declared out!

"Just HOW MANY of the Documents do you reject? Why not just come out and tell us forthrightly?"

There you go - jumping to conclusions again. I don't reject any of the documents because most of them simply re-state traditional Catholic teaching but in a more up to date vocabulary. Some of them contain beautiful expositions of the faith which serve to deepen our love for God.

However, there are some ambiguities that admit of an illicit interpretation, and I would have a problem with these to the extent of wishing to see them clarified by the Magisterium. That is not the same as rejecting an entire document.

For instance, take the following sentence in Gaudium et spes 24:

"This likeness reveals that man, who is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself, cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself.(2)"

I have no problem with the main object of the sentence which is perfectly true and scriptural, however the parenthetical statement in the middle:

"who is the only creature on earth which GOD WILLED FOR ITSELF"

SEEMS to conflict with our notion of God as an impassible being who willed all things FOR HIMSELF, and who alone is non-contingent existence. As various prelates and theologians have taken this phrase out of context to support aspects of their teaching, I think it important that the Church should either correct it at some point, or, as it appears to be a novel doctrine, show clearly how it accords with the rest of revelation. After all isn't this what JPII urged theologians to do in Ecclesia Dei - in order to clear up ambiguities in the Council's document's?

There again I could just say that as the Council did not intend to establish anything as binding which it did not specifically put forward as such, and this phrase has not been promulgated as binding, then I am free to ignore it until such time that the Church clarifies it definitively.

"do you prefer to just attack the Council piecemeal?"

No - I just prefer not to be a conciliar fundamentalist!

<> Conciliar fundamentalist is a new one for me. I have heard of Concilairist as a denigrating term though. There has never been a Council that didn't have statements or documents that didn't admit of ilicit interpretations. That goes for the Ten Commandments also.

To me it is remarkable that folks have a "problem" with an Ecumenical Council and need clarifications prior to , yes, reflexive, acceptance of all of the Documents and statements of an Ecumenical Council. All Ecumenical Councils are, by their nature, Infallible and so one OUGHT to reflexively accept every single word, including "it" and "the" and every single punctuation, including "semi colons" and "parentheses," as having been preserved by the Holy Spirit from error and as having been formulated as spiritual nourishment for us by our Spiritual Fathers, the Pope and the Bishops in union with him.

To me it is a badge of honor to wear the tag of "conciliarist" or "conciliar fundamentalist" while one who withholds their assent until furter instruction (do you need an Encyclical or a moto proprio or a telephone call from the Pope before accepting that the probelm might be with you and not the Ecumenical Council?) faces,potentially, far more serious issues to address; such as, intellectual pride and private judgement.<>

<> I have been too busy to go through my Vatican Two material to respond with citations that show you do have a duty to accept an Ecuemnical Council and its decisions. That poor priest is wrong and his words are dangerous to any Catholic.

As soon as I get to the Council texts, I will show where you are wrong. I can tell you generally that you are wrong to use those words to evade accepting everything a Council decides. As a general premise, one is bound to accept any decision by competent authorities and this is even more so the case when Extraordinary circumstance applies - such as an Ecumenical Council. I see you have difficulty with part of G.S. Well, does that have to do with Faith or not? <>

No - I just prefer not to be a conciliar fundamentalist!

<> I will note that what used to be traditional and normal -faithful docility before The Magisterium of the Catholic Church established by Jesus as the Pillar and Ground of truth - now warrants a weird designation, "conciliar fundamentalist," as though Faithful Obedience were a failure or fault.

Traditionalists often complain the world has been turned upside down yet they NEVER recognise their own participation in turning it upside down. Once praiseworthy, obedience is now denigrated as a type of fundamentalism.<>

<. Maybe those confused about Vatican Two should order the book Mark Brumley references on his blog site.<>

The Real Thing

Lots of Catholics talk about Vatican II, but relatively few have actually read the documents of the Council. That shouldn’t surprise us. People talk about a lot of things. Few actually know what they’re talking about because only a few people take the time to educate themselves before they speak. Unfortunately, too few catechists and religious educators belong to that minority of informed people.

Not so theologian Douglas Bushman. Bushman, director of Ave Maria University’s Institute for Pastoral Theology, is the author of an outstanding set of introductory essays on the sixteen documents of Vatican II, in a hefty volume of the documents published by the Daughters of St. Paul’s Pauline Books & Media.

Here’s what you won’t get in Bushman’s essays. You won’t get superficial or watered-down summaries—although the volume includes outlines of all sixteen conciliar documents. You won’t get an arcane history of how a particular document was fashioned into its final form. Nor will you get an analysis that pretends to tell you what Vatican II says while actually giving you what the author thinks it should have or wishes it had said.

What you do get are sixteen thoughtful, helpful, penetrating essays on what Vatican II said and means for the life and mission of the Church today. The key words there are “said and means.” Bushman tells us what Vatican II actually said; he doesn’t expound upon themes theological and pastoral in light of the elusive “spirit of Vatican II.” He doesn’t select those portions of Vatican II he likes, while skipping over the parts he dislikes. He gives readers what the Council taught.

But that’s not all. Bushman’s essays link the teaching of Vatican II with that of popes Paul VI and John Paul II, who implemented that teaching. In other words, Bushman shows us what Vatican II means for the life and mission of the Church today, as well as what it meant for the Church of 1965. Thus, he fosters a real reception of the Council by today’s Catholics, through presenting Vatican II’s teaching in light of the pastoral issues that have emerged over the last forty years since the Council.

All catechists should know the documents of Vatican II, even as they should all know the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is in many ways the Catechism of Vatican II. And all catechists would immensely benefit from studying Vatican II through the lens of Douglas Bushman’s introductory essays.

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/donatism.html

<>Read about Bishop Fellay and resurrected Donatism and then tell yoursleves everything is peachy-keen with the SSPX.<>

Infallibility of a General Council is intrinsic to its very nature and does not depend upon defining dogmas to be an effective charism. There is a distinction that the SSPX fails to make in their facile separation of dogmatic and pastoral as an excuse to controvert the authority of an Ecumenical Council like schismatics and heretics from days of yore. That separation is between dogmas credenda and doctrines tenenda. Both are infallible and require the same degree of assent.

Vatican II taught several doctrines tenenda but no dogmas credenda. Doctrines tenenda do not require any particular formulas or specific language to be set forth as definitive and binding. (Or to use the oft-abused term "infallibly".) Thus by denying the Council’s teachings or refusing to assent to them is to sever oneself from the Church into a state of schism.

Not all teachings of the Council would fit this criteria of definitive status; however even the lowest level of authority among the documents (the decree of which nine of the sixteen documents were constituted) still are at the level of the authentic Magisterium requiring religious submission of will and intellect. To quote the Cardinal Prefect on the matter, teachings of the authentic magisterium are:

[A]ll those teachings - on faith and morals - presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings are, however, an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect. They are set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or lastly to warn against ideas incompatible with these truths or against dangerous opinions that can lead to error.

A proposition contrary to these doctrines can be qualified as erroneous or, in the case of teachings of the prudential order, as rash or dangerous and therefore "tuto doceri non potest". (Cardinal Rzatzinger Commentary of Professio Fidei)

At a bare minimum one can qualify the assertions of the SSPX as "erroneous", when they controvert the teachings of the Council in the various documents set forth.

The Decrees were primarily (though not exclusively) promulgated to warn against ideas incompatible with the truths of the faith and against dangerous opinions which can lead to error. The Declarations of teaching from the Council (of which there were three set forth) are even higher in authority then the Decrees. These were set forth primarily to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation (most notably Dignitatis Humanae and Nostra Aetate, which specifically set forth to develop doctrine). The Constitutions are of the highest authority and deal with fundamental aspects of the faith. Included among these fundamental documents is a Constitution on the Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium), and a primarily (but not exclusively) Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes). There were also two Dogmatic Constitutions as mentioned previously. (One on the Church and one on Divine Revelation which were promulgated by the Council to finish the work of Vatican I.)...

They were addressed with regards to several teachings contained therein that were clearly set forth definitively (and thus infallibly) in a non-defining manner. But levels of infallibility are not what makes these documents authoritative. Instead, what makes them binding is the authority of the Pope who promulgated them with his Apostolic authority as Pastor of the Universal Church in union with the Fathers of the Sacred Council.

Authority is not contingent upon a teaching being infallible. This ironically is a version of one of the errors condemned in Bl. Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus. Error twenty-two read as follows: "The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church." The modification of the modern ‘traditionalist’ error stems in presuming that infallibility is the criterion of truth. This is not true at all and has never been viewed as a legitimate opinion to hold by the Magisterium.

At a General Council the promulgation of a document by the Pope and the Bishops acting in union with him is sufficient to guarantee the protection of doctrinal or moral error. That does not mean that the documents are verbally inspired of course, only that they are protected from teaching doctrinal or moral error by the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28).

<> Mimic the SSPX or be a faithful Catholic? Easy choice, for me. I stand with the Council and Tradition Catholicsm and I stand unsnookered.<>

Catholicguy have you resorted to surfing the internet looking for anything that will back up your hatred for the SSPX?

<> Bud, this is EASY. Their own words condemen them. I just help out by retrieving their words. :)<>

All Ecumenical Councils are, by their nature, Infallible and so one OUGHT to reflexively accept every single word, including "it" and "the" and every single punctuation, including "semi colons" and "parentheses," as having been preserved by the Holy Spirit from error and as having been formulated as spiritual nourishment for us by our Spiritual Fathers, the Pope and the Bishops in union with him.

What would be the difference between an infallible and impeccable council in your opinion?

McElhinney is straddling both sides of the fence: first he says that it's not wrong to have altar girls, but that it is unwise to have them and the role should be restricted to boys.

Well, if it's not wrong, then what's the harm of having them up there?

Simple: altar girls are vocation killers.

When a boy is of age to begin serving at the altar, he usually doesn't want much to do with girls.

If his parish has altar girls, he will be far less inclined to serve. Other boys will also be so disinclined, and will not serve. Altar girls will fill the role, and the role becomes feminized.

If the traditional role of serving at the altar becomes feminized, because it has been a traditional source of vocations, the priestly vocation becomes feminized, and stigmatized in the minds of young boys and adolescents.

Only a boy with enough precocious self-confidence to brave ridicule--or one with homosexual tendenices--will serve in the role.

Hence we can see that allowing altar girls have not only contributed to the decline in priestly vocations but also to the homosexualization of the priesthood.

What would be the difference between an infallible and impeccable council in your opinion?

<> Impeccable refers to my sentence construction, not Ecumenical councils. :) <>

Do you have any credible sources?

<> Other than "The Angelus?"

You reject an Ecumenical Council so I am not sure what you would consider credible.<>

<> Yeah, I think altar girls is the crucial point and that is why I posted that piece. I mean, the entire thread has been about altar girls.(sarcasm off)<>

Don't you get tired of posting such malarky? It is so wrong-headed it's impossible to know where to begin.

1. The "excommunication" is not valid because Lefebvre did not commit a schismatic act and resorted properly to his right to act in a State of Necessity as provided by Canon Law, the Pope's own canon.

2. Vatican II was not a dogmatic council. Even Rome tacitly admitted this by permitting many transgressions against many of the precepts of Vatican II--such as its insistance on the use of Gregorian Chant and the Latin language in the liturgy.

3. The present ordinary magisterium is not infallible when it departs from traditional teachings. Rome is not protected by the Holy Spirit when it presents for acceptance by the faithful novel teachings, especially when it is clear these contradict pre-conciliar papal teachings which ARE infallible.