Posted on 09/19/2002 7:43:40 PM PDT by 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."
<> 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." <>
<> 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?<>
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.<>
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? <>
<> 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.<>
The Real Thing
Lots of Catholics talk about Vatican II, but relatively few have actually read the documents of the Council. That shouldnt surprise us. People talk about a lot of things. Few actually know what theyre 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 Universitys 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. Pauls Pauline Books & Media.
Heres what you wont get in Bushmans essays. You wont get superficial or watered-down summariesalthough the volume includes outlines of all sixteen conciliar documents. You wont 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 doesnt expound upon themes theological and pastoral in light of the elusive spirit of Vatican II. He doesnt select those portions of Vatican II he likes, while skipping over the parts he dislikes. He gives readers what the Council taught.
But thats not all. Bushmans 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 todays Catholics, through presenting Vatican IIs 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 Bushmans introductory essays.
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 Councils 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 IXs 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.<>
<> Bud, this is EASY. Their own words condemen them. I just help out by retrieving their words. :)<>
What would be the difference between an infallible and impeccable council in your opinion?
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.
<> Impeccable refers to my sentence construction, not Ecumenical councils. :) <>
<> Other than "The Angelus?"
You reject an Ecumenical Council so I am not sure what you would consider credible.<>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.