Our friends at Rorate have put up an English translation of an interview by KNA (Katholische Nachrichten-Agentur) with SSPX Fr. Franz Schmidberer. Fr. Schmidberger was once the Superior of the SSPX and he is presently the SSPX Superior for Germany. At you probably know, there is tension in Germany right now especially among the bishops, regarding the SSPX’s intention to ordain priests soon.
Here is Rorate’s translation with my emphases and comments. Be sure to go visit them and see what others are saying there as well.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
IMPORTANT INTERVIEW
"Similar to Opus Dei?"Schmidberger responds: "Somewhat."
Some ordinations of new priests by the Bishops of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) took place in the United States last Saturday. New ordinations are expected for next Saturday in Germany – despite the overreaction of several German ordinaries. Amidst the controversy, the German Catholic News Agency (KNA – Katholische Nachrichten-Agentur) interviewed the former Superior General of the SSPX and current Superior for the District of Germany, Father Franz Schmidberger (source: DomRadio):
The German Superior of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, Franz Schmidberger, has defended the ordination of new priests planned for the coming weekend. In an interview with the Catholic News Agency (KNA), Schmidberger also commented on his assessment of the Second Vatican Council and what he expects from further discussions with Rome.
KNA: Herr Schmidberger, are you a priest of the Catholic Church? [This question strikes me as being provocative, even hostile, from the onset.]
Schmidberger: Of course. I was ordained to the priesthood in 1975 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in Econe.
KNA: You say that without any qualifications? [See?]
Schmidberger: Yes. I live and work in the heart of the Church.
KNA: What does the Second Vatican Council mean to you? [More.]
Schmidberger: There is no doubt that it was an ecumenical council, but among the 21 councils it possesses a unique status as a pastoral council. [A classic distinction. I think this is often used when people don’t want to pay attention to the Council.] Both popes of the council declared that they wished to define no new dogmas. Therefore, the Second Vatican Council does not have the same status as the other councils.
KNA: What about its content?
Schmidberger: The spirit of the council has been described as an evil spirit, even by Pope Benedict XVI. There are ambiguous statements in the documents, and many others that do not agree with traditional doctrine. [I guess that would be a "no" vote, then.]
KNA: What should the theological dialogue between the society and Rome regarding the council look like?
Schmidberger: As far as the external form goes, it could be both oral or written, but primarily it should be written. We have selected representatives from our side and Rome also has chosen its people. [Some good information there.] The discussions will consider: what is ambiguous in the council? What contradicts the traditional doctrine of the Church? [I would love to see the SSPX’s list.]
KNA: Frankly, do you believe that the old and new rites can continue to coexist over the long term?
Schmidberger: Well, we will have to see how things develop. There are profound differences between the two rites; for example, the direction of the celebration. The old rite is God-centered. The new is man-centered. Many of the gestures, symbols, and rituals have been fundamentally changed. Today, the old rite is like a solid rock amidst the pounding surf, that must remain unchanged. The new rite requires radical reworking so that the sacrificial nature is once again explicitly expressed. [Well… I don’t that last observation was entirely accurate. I think the sacrificial nature is explicitly expressed. While it is certain that in many places the Novus Ordo is celebrated with little concept of the sacrificial dimension of Mass, the newer form can be offered in a way consistent with tradition.]
KNA: What does the Society think of the Council’s Decree on Ecumenism [Unitatis Redintegratio]?
Schmidberger: It says that other [Christian] denominations are means of salvation. If that is true, then there is no longer any point in engaging in missionary activity. That needs to be cleared up. [Perhaps we need a little thought experiment: Since one of the effects of baptism is that the one baptized becomes a member of Christ’s Body, the Church, and since many non-Catholic Christian denominations used valid baptism, it seems that the way to salvation is open to non-Catholic Christians even though they are not formally Catholic, though that way is much much more difficult. But, in the main, this all has to be "cleared up".]
KNA: What about Nostra Aetate, which concerns the relationship with the Jews? [A hot button question for this German news agency conducting the interview.]
Schmidberger: Not only the Jews, it also concerns Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. These non-Christian religions are heaped with praise. This has encouraged the expansion of Islam, for example. Today there are 4.3 million Muslims in Germany. The Church has a mandate to work for their conversion, but I do not know of a single German bishop who has made any plans to do so. As far as the relationship with the Jews goes, the statements of the Council cannot be criticized in their essence. But, since the Council, the idea keeps popping up that the Jews have their owns path to salvation. That is completely opposed to the missionary command of Jesus Christ.
KNA: And you also have problems with the description of the Jews by Pope John Paul II as the older brothers of Christians.
Schmidberger: Certainly Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the prophets are. [The forerunners of the New Covenant.] But the Jews of today are not, because they do not recognize Jesus Christ as the one and only redeemer. How could they then be older brothers?
KNA: Is the impression correct, that you, with your positions, wish to set the price for unity with the Catholic Church. [A fair question, though the interviewer still seems somewhat hostile.]
Schmidberger: We want the truth to triumph. It has nothing to do with subjective opinions, it is all about the truth.
KNA: As you define it. [Fair enough. The SSPX leadership seems not to want to submit their minds and wills to the Church’s teaching authority unless the teaching already coincides with what they want to hear.]
Schmidberger: No, we read all of the previous statements of the Councils and the popes. Pope Pius IX spoke out against religious freedom, for example. The question is: do these false religions possess natural rights? The Second Vatican Council answers differently than Pius IX. That is a rupture. [And that needs to be cleared up.]
KNA: Canon law requires priests to submit to the local bishop. Why is that difficult for you?
Schmidberger: It isn’t difficult at all. But we are our own society, [Get that? Thus, they don’t have to submit to the local bishops.] that was even praised by Rome in 1971. [Well, that was then and this is now. Whatever permissions the SSPX originally had were removed.] Afterwards, we developed our own life. Then tensions developed because we refused to participate in the destructive protestantizing reforms. We have questions about the faith of the Church and the bishops only respond by demanding obediance. [Indeed, the SSPX has not been properly treated in this regard. The doctrinal discussions should have been engaged long ago.] But faith is superior to obediance. [This would be a good point for discussion.]
KNA: In connection with the Williamson scandal, Pope Benedict XVI accused the SSPX of arrogance and urged you to refrain from provocations. But the opposite has happened. How can you help to put the pieces back together?
Schmidberger: Naturally, every man has his weaknesses and unfortunate things have been said. But we want to live together peacefully. I have written a private personal letter to the chairman of the bishops conference, Archbishop Zollitsch, but the bishops are not willing to engage in discussions. They reject any dialogue with us. Why do they demand that we obey canon law to the letter while at the same time they assert that we are outside the Church? [I should think that is clear. If you don’t admit that teachings of a Council, obey the law that is in part shaped by that Council and promulgated by proper authority, if you don’t obey the Pope who promulgated the law or the bishop designated to guide a diocese, then… well… why would anyone get the idea that the SSPX is outside the Church?]
KNA: In 2005 there was a conversation in Castel Gandofo, in which, in addition to the Pope, curial Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, and Traditionalist Bishop Bernard Fellay, you also took part. What was agreed at that time?
Schmidberger: We discussed the entire situation with the Society and agreed on the path which we are now following. The Motu Proprio of 2007 and the lifting of the so-called [I love that part. I never tire of it.] excommunications were the first steps. Now comes the theological dialogue. Next, we have to find a canonical structure for the Society with its 500 priests. We are satisfied with the solution that Rome is considering. [This is an important part of the interview.]
KNA: Which is?
Schmidberger: In the direction of a personal prelature. [There it is.]
KNA: Similar to Opus Dei? [I suppose there would have to be some work to figure out how the SSPX functions within dioceses.]
Schmidberger: Somewhat.
KNA: More ordinations are planned for the coming weekend, although Rome has said that they are illict. Why do you insist on these ordinations?
Schmidberger: The supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls. The faithful have a right to the celebration of the traditional form of the Mass. The point is making priests who desire to proclaim the Gospel available. The ordinations are not meant to be an affront to anybody. They are actually being done to help the Pope and the bishops. But it like dealing with patients who do not see what medicine does for their health. [sigh… with this attitude… oh well….]
KNA: And so you claim the role of physician.
Schmidberger: Yes, that is true. Tradition is the only guide to bringing the Church out of the present crisis. In 1950, 13 million Catholics went to Sunday Mass. Now it is just under 2 million. That is a drop of 85 percent. In ten years, all of the Churches will be empty. [He can’t, of course, know that.] Is that what the bishops want? What is going to happen to our children? It is about preserving Christianity in the West.
A good interview, though I think the interviewer sounded a little hostile from time to time.
Fr. Schmidberger kept his cool and only stumbled into an unfortunate turn of phrase a couple times. I think he was trying to be careful, but some things must be pretty ingrained over these years. That business at the end about the Pope and bishops being sick and not knowing that they need the medicine that the SSPX is going to force on them for their own good was a bad stumble in my opinion. The SSPXers would do well to avoid saying this sort of thing.
Loading ...
“But faith is superior to obediance. (sic)”
I think this implies that obedience is at odds with faith, whereas obedience is properly seen as a fruit of faith. If Catholicism is the true Church, as I believe through faith, then obedience to her is the natural consequence of this faith.
Fr. Z: Thank you for this and your continuing coverage of the SSPX. I think I am getting a grasp of what this group believes, and why, thanks in a large part to your posts. They do have a lot of good points, which does not of course make them correct about everything. But especially knowing the situation in Europe, I can see why they believe going ahead with ordinations, for example, is essential for people’s souls. It’s necessary to understand their perspective if we are ever going to reconcile — that’s what the much-maligned term “dialogue” is really all about.
I do hope and pray that they can reconcile with the Church. So many people should not be lost.
Can anyone comment on the canonical distinctions among the basic options for the SSPX? These would seem to include a personal prelature, a non-territorial diocese, an “Anglican Use” option, or what the FSSP have. Anything I’m leaving out?
Fr. Schmidberger’s statements in this interview remind me of the old adage of St. Thomas Aquinas: Parvus error in principiis, magnus error in conclusionibus. His statements on what Vatican II says (notably on ecumenism) are wrong, and the result is that his conclusions are also wrong. It strikes me as tragic that the SSPX position never once considers the possibility that they and not the Church errs.
There is indeed a difference between what is legitimately done and what is an abuse. Of course these abuses did not appear in Vatican II. Certainly the Modernists distorted pre-Vatican II teachings to justify their errors.
With that in mind, I believe the question is: Does the SSPX act out of error or out of distortion when they misrepresent the Council?
Only 2 million Catholics go to church on Sunday in America?
I believe it but does anyone have a source I could check?
Fr. Z wrote: “so-called [I love that part. I never tire of it.]”
The Bugatti of sarcasm. Sweet!!
The 2 million is referring to the Catholic Church in Germany, I believe, since that is where this interview was taking place.
Father, I think this can go back to the post regarding Dr. Peters’ assessment of the Rome/SSPX relationship. Rome has been incredibly gracious in lifting the excommunications and has been even more gracious in not enforcing canons they could easily enforce (for example, this summer’s ordinations).
I agree with a lot of the concerns that the SSPX has. However, the whole illness/medicine comments make me wish they would be endowed with the same graciousness they are receiving from the Holy Father.
Fr. Z.,
Thank you for your commentary. This is a delicate situation, and though there are many things in the exchange between Rome and the SSPX that are said, there are many more things that are unsaid. Many of us are interested in the reconciliation process, but we cannot read between the lines. We appreciate your careful analysis of what the HF and the SSPX are trying to say.
With regards to the part on eccuminism I think that Fr Schmidberger is right about Non-Christian Religions being heaped with praise, the problem I (personally) see with Nostre Astre is that the language used is too ambiguous and whilst it can be read in light of tradition is also to open to a modernist reading of the text. I’m supprised that Fr Schmidberger didn’t refer to Dominus Isus which at the very least cleared up the situaton regarding non Catholic Christians.
Fr. Z mentioned the hostile tone of the interviewer. I think it must be very difficult to give an interview to someone who is obviously using their questions to set traps. I think he did pretty good considering the stress. Charity, once again, should be the rule in all judgements.
His opinions about religious freedom prevent me from ever sympathizing with him, if he is not willing to live in a society where everyone has a right to proclaim whatever they believe, or at least acquiesce to it, then I’m going to see their treatment at the hands of German bishops as a sort of poetic justice.
Noah, since the interview took place in Germany, I’m presuming Fr. Schmidberger was speaking about 2 million Catholics in Germany going to Mass each Sunday.
Fr. Z, The points that I think Fr. Schmidberger is referring to are in his book, have you read it? [I have not.]
Time Bombs Of Vatican II
http://www.angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/8104/time-bombs-of-vatican-ii
Although he contradicts himself throughout the book, he does quote from the Infallible Magisterium of Popes in certain parts, but not all!
*The discussions will consider: what is ambiguous in the council? What contradicts the traditional doctrine of the Church? [I would love to see the SSPX’s list.]*
The SSPX list is readily available on the internet.
*I think this implies that obedience is at odds with faith, whereas obedience is properly seen as a fruit of faith. If Catholicism is the true Church, as I believe through faith, then obedience to her is the natural consequence of this faith.*
Comment by Memphis Aggie — 26 June 2009 @ 9:44 am
Faith is one of Theological virtues. Obedience is a virtue of Justice and is one of the Cardinal virtues. As such, Obedience, a virtue of Justice, is *subordinate* to the Theological virtue of Faith. That is what Fr. Schmidberger means.
Obedience is the duty one owes to his superior, whose authority is derived from God. Thus as a matter of justice obedience is superior to faith for a person in the clerical state.
From what I recall, this is what the Angelic Doctor explains.
Heather,
The list is online, but that is from the past.
Focusing on past grievances often makes moving forward difficult, and so it has been important for a new list of topics for discussion to be produced that is reflective of the concerns that exist today, as opposed to yesterday’s concerns.
For example, with the liberation of the EF, some other concerns related to liturgy may no longer be considered so serious.
THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS CONDEMNED BY PIUS IX
December 8, 1864
(N.B. The following propositions are solemnly condemned)
15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. — Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. — Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.
17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. — Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. — Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.
77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. — Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.
78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. — Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.
79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. — Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.
80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution “Jamdudum cernimus,” March 18, 1861.
“His opinions about religious freedom prevent me from ever sympathizing with him, if he is not willing to live in a society where everyone has a right to proclaim whatever they believe, or at least acquiesce to it, then I’m going to see their treatment at the hands of German bishops as a sort of poetic justice.
Comment by laminustacitus”
This comment itself shows the extent of the problem with religious liberty. The above opinion was precisely condemned by Pope Gregory XVI, Pope Bl. Pius IX, Pope St. Pius X, all the way down through at least Pope Pius XII. The entire history of the Church bears witness to the constant practice and teaching that religious freedom is an error. The State may tolerate false religions for the sake of the common good, but they do not have a freedom to exist, a freedom to proselytize their errors. This came to a head between Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Bea at the Preparatory Commission. Cardinal Bea arguing for Religious Liberty, Cardinal Ottaviani saying that was an error and preferring to speak of Religious Toleration. It may seem a question of polemics, but its not.
To laminustacitus — 26 June 2009 @ 10:20 am
From the Syllabus of Errors:
“Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which guided by the light of reason, he shall have come to consider as true.”
Condemned.
In all this talk about obedience, it is good to remember that obedience is not absolute. Yes, the Bishops authority is from God but Bishops are not God. It is like the State. The state derives its authority from God but if the state issues an unjust or wrong law, we are not bound to obey it. That is the question. We cannot view obedience as absolute. For example, I think the good Father has a point about the salvation of souls. If many existing priests are leading souls astray, and if the Faith is struggling in Europe, why shouldn’t good, faithful priests be ordained? My point is that we cannot view obedience as absolute so that there are never any cases were we simply must not obey.
Pax Christi tecum.
The issue of religious liberty is clearly not going to be settled in the combox – if the answers were that simple, then the SSPX and Rome would have long ago been fully reconciled. The main distinctions lost in these discussions are whether religious liberty is a natural/moral right or not, whether it is permissible to enshrine in civil law, and what the extent of religious liberty is. It is also seemingly forgotten that much of the pre-Vatican II literature, and in particular the papal magisterial documents, have in view a civil government that is Catholic in confession, not a secular government as most Western states have today. This necessarily affects the discussion.
Alongside our prayers for a full rapprochement between the Society and Rome, we should perhaps explicitly petition that the doctrinal discussions provide necessary clarity on these questions that bedevil many people of good will!
“[Well… I don’t that last observation was entirely accurate. I think the sacrificial nature is explicitly expressed. While it is certain that in many places the Novus Ordo is celebrated with little concept of the sacrificial dimension of Mass, the newer form can be offered in a way consistent with tradition.]”
Father, here’s the problem. The Novus Ordo is *almost never* celebrated in continuity with tradition.
Sure, *on paper* it expresses the sacrificial nature—but in practice it doesn’t. Lex orandi, lex credendi… If, after 40 years, the Novus Ordo continues to be celebrated this way almost always, it has become the standard practice through custom. Priests I know who are quite traditional even celebrate it with the horizontalist innovations because they have become so ingrained with the laity (and they would run afoul of their bishop if they did things the traditional way).
So, at this point, it is no longer easy to make a distinction between what is on paper and “how it is celebrated.” The Church has been formed by the rupture version of the Novus Ordo, which has become the standard version by custom.
As you always say, Father, if the sense of mystery is not there, the liturgy has failed. Well, barring any radical reform, it has. Sad, but true.
“His opinions about religious freedom prevent me from ever sympathizing with him, if he is not willing to live in a society where everyone has a right to proclaim whatever they believe”
What tosh. Error has no rights. The civil authorities have every right to suppress harmful doctrines. Do you believe it should be legal to call for genocide, blaspheme God, or promote heresy to impressionable souls? I certainly don’t. Your comment is pure Americanism.
To LCB,
I do not believe your recollection of the Summa is entirely correct. Faith is never subordinate to obedience. We must always obey God before men.
“Religious profess obedience as to the regular mode of life, in respect of which they are subject to their superiors: wherefore they are bound to obey in those matters only which may belong to the regular mode of life, and this obedience suffices for salvation. If they be willing to obey even in other matters, this will belong to the superabundance of perfection; provided, however, such things be not contrary to God or to the rule they profess, for obedience in this case would be unlawful.
Accordingly we may distinguish a threefold obedience; one, sufficient for salvation, and consisting in obeying when one is bound to obey: secondly, perfect obedience, which obeys in all things lawful: thirdly, indiscreet obedience, which obeys even in matters unlawful.”
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3104.htm#article5
As for the SSPX dubia, I don’t believe they will have changed much. Obviously the questions over whether the Mass was abrogated will have been dropped, but I can’t think of any other questions that have been settled.
Personally, I can’t wait to see how we are to reconcile certain documents with Pascendi and the Syllabus of Errors.
First you state that the question concerns “whether religious liberty is a natural/moral right or not.” And then you state “much of the pre-Vatican II literature, and in particular the papal magisterial documents, have in view a civil government that is Catholic in confession, not a secular government as most Western states have today.”
But these are two different things. The principle is not bound by the type of government, religious affiliation of the people, etc. The applcation of the principle is bound up in those things. No one, including the SSPX, is claiming that the United States (or other modern secular states) should outlaw Protestantism tomorrow and recognize the reign of Christ the King. What traditionalists are saying is that State’s can only truly “allow” the practice of false religions for the common good, not that those false religions or their adherents have a right to publicly spread error.
I think this implies that obedience is at odds with faith, whereas obedience is properly seen as a fruit of faith. If Catholicism is the true Church, as I believe through faith, then obedience to her is the natural consequence of this faith.
Comment by Memphis Aggie
The SSPX thinks that they are being obedient to the liturgical tradition of the Church. They have a point–obedience is not merely juridical.
I think that many priests now are required to do things under obedience that militate against their vocations.
It seems to me that the SSPX has been pointing out problems that have arisen due to Vatican II for quite some time, and they have seen virtually all of their concerns materialize, to the detriment of the Church.
This experience, compounded by the disparate treatment of liberals and traditionalists – i.e. heretics and dissenters remain “in communion” with the Church, while those who cling to Tradition are reviled or treated as schismatic – makes the SSPX cautious.
On top of that, the existing ambiguities, ambiguiities that never existed with other councils, commonly result in abuse, plus the questionable activities of many bishops, contribute to the reticence of the SSPX to be normalized under the standard diocesan structure.
Heck, the Tridentine rite was thoroughly suppressed for almost 40 years, then after the Motu Proprio, we were told that it was never suspended. Great liberties and novelties are introduced that on their face deviate from Tradition, but when this is pointed out, the offenders weasel out and either ignore the complaint, or justify it in the most traditional context possible, rather than correct the error.
The SSPX has my sympathy. Those on this board have complained about the same issues, so we should not comport ourselves like the non-prodigal son (Not an accusation, but a call to patience and understanding).
All in all, I think that the best thing for the Church as a whole, and the SSPX in particular will be full communion between the two. Hopefully, the fruit of this will be the clarification of many doctrinal and liturgical questions, the lessening of abuses, and a common and crystal clear knowledge of what the Church both teaches and expects of its members and the world.
the new rite of mass IS mancentered. that is why no priest anywhere dares to celebrate it ad orientem, even though the rite itself presupposes this. that is also why so few people attend it. why go to church to be centered on a man and on the handful of people he chooses to give a united impression to the rest of the silenced congregation. (it is important that the whole church be given the impression that its old systems, like the syllabus of errors, have become irrelevant) i do not think that this priest should be faulted for wishing to be faithful to what priests used to have to take an oath to defend. anyway, how could something be an error in 1959 and okay in 1969?
The civil authorities have every right to suppress harmful doctrines.
A civil authority that has the right to suppress harmful doctrines also has the right to suppress true and beneficial doctrines. Modern secular governments are more disposed towards the latter than the former. One should be careful what one prays for.
Obedience is the duty one owes to his superior, whose authority is derived from God. Thus as a matter of justice obedience is superior to faith for a person in the clerical state.
From what I recall, this is what the Angelic Doctor explains.
Comment by LCB —
Heather had it mostly right. A few points:
1. There are two theological traditions re obedience.
The first is Obedience uber alles. This has Franciscan roots and was later taken up by the Jesuits (and most of the manualist theologians).
The second is that Obedience is subject Conscience. This is Dominican and Thomist. (NB: This does NOT mean acting in opposition to doctrine).
For example, a bishop orders a priest to give Communion to a pro abortion politician. The Franciscan approach would say it’s best to be obedient and do it. The Dominican approach, however, would say that if the conscience of the priest says that it contradicts doctrine, then he is under no obligation to obey the bishop.
One other point: Acc to St Thomas faith is an act of the intellect, not the will.
This interview made me a little sad. If this is representative of the general views of the SSPX leadership, their return to normalized relations with Rome seem much farther off than I feared. This priest, at least, is very far from accepting aspects of Vatican II that even if clarified certainly will not be changed. I suppose the question might be raised as to whether or not the areas where they disagree necessarily require assent by Catholics.
One of his statements in particular struck me, when he referred to the Council disagreeing with Pius IX regarding religious freedom. However, the weight of the Council is greater than the weight of a statement by the Pope. Pius IX was not speaking infallibly or declaring dogma when he spoke out against religious freedom, and so it makes no sense to imply that Pius IX’s statement as Pope requires our assent while Second Vatican Council does not.
I have frequently been pleased with the statements given by +Fellay. This interview with Schmidberger presents SSPX much more as a schismatic group who is very distant from Rome.
Also, I think when Fr. Schmidberger refers to an “evil spirit” of Vatican II and what the current Holy Father has said are two very, very different things. I don’t know how he meant it, but it seems that Fr. Schmidberger almost wants to assert that it was Satan who inspired Vatican II. I hope I’m dead wrong in that, because if it is, then he is committing the most heinous sin identified in Scripture, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. If he is merely talking about the reference that people make when invoking the “spirit of Vatican II,” which is what I believe Ratzinger meant, then that is totally different and I would agree. But my feeling is that this is not what he meant.
One of his statements in particular struck me, when he referred to the Council disagreeing with Pius IX regarding religious freedom. However, the weight of the Council is greater than the weight of a statement by the Pope. Pius IX was not speaking infallibly or declaring dogma when he spoke out against religious freedom, and so it makes no sense to imply that Pius IX’s statement as Pope requires our assent while Second Vatican Council does not.
Comment by Michael Hallman
The same can be said for the religious liberty document of VatII. It was neither declaring dogma nor speaking infallibly.
stigmatized:
The new rite is not man centered. It is God centered because the rite is precisely centered on the Eucharist. This is not to say that far too many man-centered actions have been added, but those have nothing to do with the rite – they are extra-ritual and must be eliminated. But there is no justification in referring to the rite as man-centered.
Michael said: A civil authority that has the right to suppress harmful doctrines also has the right to suppress true and beneficial doctrines.
Not at all. No civil authority ever has the right to suppress true and beneficial doctrines, but a civil authority can have the right to suppress harmful doctrines. You are probably confusing “right” with “ability.”
I didn’t think the questions were hostile; I thought they gave Father a chance to state clearly and without contradiction or argument what he wanted to say. In fact since I don’t know the interviewer or the news agency it would appear to me possible that Father might have given the basic questions to the interviewer. Even the comment “as you define it”, which could be taken as aggressive, gave Father a chance to pursue his point, without argument.
I wonder whether the SSPX will turn out to be among Pope Benedict’s best and strongest supporters in the Church. An Inside the Vatican “Letter from Rome” sent yesterday includes the following statements:
“Behind the pretext of changing Ecclesia Dei, and merging it into the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Pope wants to reopen a theological dialogue concerning Vatican II.”
“The Second Vatican Council provoked an earthquake in the Church,” ….. And now, 45 years later, there is only one group which wants a thorough debate on the meaning of the conciliar documents: the Society of St. Pius X. And the purpose of moving Ecclesia Dei under the CDF is to prepare the way for a thorough debate on the conciliar documents.”
Benedict, knowing that the Second Vatican Council was a watershed in the history of the Church, and knowing also that the interpretation of the Council has led in some unexpected and erroneous directions, has decided to face the basic problem — the problem of the interpretation of Vatican II — by placing the Ecclesia Deicommission in the heart of the most important doctrinal office in the Church, in the CDF.
The letter alleges, finally, that this new motu proprio had been scheduled for release on June 19, but is being delayed by opponents of any such reassessment of the documents of Vatican II.
Re: The meeting at Castel Gandofo:
Schmidberger: We discussed the entire situation with the Society and agreed on the path which we are now following. The Motu Proprio of 2007…
Does this mean that, as the bishops in opposition claim, that Summorum Pontificum was only promulgated to bring the SSPX back into the Church? I would hate to think that is true.
To Jim of Bowie…that is not new information. The SSPX had been asking for the MP since 2000.
The SSPX wanted the Holy Father to proclaim the truth: that the Mass had never been abrogated and that all priests who wanted to could celebrate it. That is the reason for the MP.
Why would that bother you?
A few typos, Father–“obediance” twice instead of “obedience” and near the bottom “illict” ordinations instead of “illicit.”
if the novus ordo is not mancentered then why are we on our knees looking up at the face of men who, as of the last year or so, no longer look back. now there is no looking at one another across the meal table, only us looking at someone who is above us as though they were a statue we should be in awe of. even the three people, out of the thousands who come to church, who are the only ones allowed to do the readings and give the eucharist suddenly have their heads up above others in this statuelike manner. how does this represent togetherness and community? why do something so futile when the priest and people are supposed to be facing the same direction in the first place? what is the point of going to church if all you experience is one person saying whatever he wants and singing those protestant hymns he likes into the microphone he wears and then allowing only three people out of thousands to read or to serve? this same man also bows to the server when she washes his hands and brings him things at the altar. these constant simultaneous bows from an elevated position seven steps above the people while the people are kneeling are very puzzling.
This interview may be of interest to many of you:
http://cathcon.blogspot.com/2009/06/bishop-fellay-video-of-new-interview.html
A Canadian priest is interviewing Bishop Fellay on June 15.
RBrown,
I didn’t say they were infallible. What I said was they carry greater weight than the statement from a pope. They do.
stigmatized:
If you can’t see the point of even going to church when the NO is offered then your faith is far weaker than you realize. I have spoken with EF devotees who actually refuse to go to Mass if there is no EF available. That is unconscionable. It is a direct breaking of the Fourth Commandment and a mortal sin.
And people aren’t gazing at a man. They are gazing at the Eucharist. I agree with your preference of ad orientem, it is mine, as well, and as a priest I hope to celebrate the NO that way frequently. But you are wrong that it is man-centered. It is centered on the Word of God and the Eucharist.
As for your reference to microphones, where in the rite does it mention them?
Arnobius,
While we might agree thet “His[Fr. Schmidberger’s] statements on what Vatican II says (notably on ecumenism) are wrong, and the result is that his conclusions are also wrong. “, I wonder if we would agree on the source of the error.
There is near universal consensus on this blog that what we see in the Church today is not at all what the Council envisioned. How did we get to this state? It seems that nearly everyone got it wrong so Fr. Schmidberger cannot really be faulted.
In any case, I am not convinced he got it wrong. I think we can agree that there is a vast difference between what the Council *said*, and what it *meant*. I think Fr. Schmidberger recognizes this also which is why he is advocating clarification.
It strikes me that all the great spiritual writers throughout the history of the Church, from Catherine of Siena to Teresa of Avila to John of the Cross to Therese of Lisieux, have written about obedience as the great safeguard of humility. It makes sense, because what we see so often from SSPX is sheer arrogance and a total lack of humility, which goes hand in hand with their refusal of obedience.
Michael J wrote: “there is a vast difference between what the Council said, and what it meant.”
I disagree. I think what the Council said is exactly what it meant. I think what many post-Council have said it meant is entirely different from what it did mean, because many modern Catholics don’t care what the Council actually said. They have incorrectly interpreted it to mean that we can do whatever we want now. VII was not a relativisitic Council, but somehow we live in a largely relativistic Church. This is not the Council’s fault, and it will only be fixed by living according to the Council. The Council will not and cannot be abandoned, as some would have us do. The Council was, in fact, inspired by the Holy Spirit and must be recognized as such. Those who refuse to accept its validity are as guilty of a hermeneutic of rupture as those who interpret VII as something entirely new. The extremes on both sides are equally problematic and harmful to the Church.
Michael Hallman said: “It strikes me that all the great spiritual writers throughout the history of the Church, from Catherine of Siena to Teresa of Avila to John of the Cross to Therese of Lisieux, have written about obedience as the great safeguard of humility. It makes sense, because what we see so often from SSPX is sheer arrogance and a total lack of humility, which goes hand in hand with their refusal of obedience.”
Well said! And you could add St. “Padre” Pio Pietrelcina in there as well:
“Do all within the Church, act only within the Church! We must beware of putting ourselves against our Mother… Sweet is the hand of the Church, even when it batters us!”
Hello Michael,
The new rite is not man centered. It is God centered because the rite is precisely centered on the Eucharist. This is not to say that far too many man-centered actions have been added, but those have nothing to do with the rite – they are extra-ritual and must be eliminated. But there is no justification in referring to the rite as man-centered.
Fr. Schmidberger’s comment is a little too bald and unqualified.
But it is true that many of the new propers and collects are much more anthropocentric – more emphasis on our action and less on God’s – than was the case in the classical right. It raises the question of why the sacramentary had to be so thoroughly overhauled. In this respect I recommend the work of Lauren Pristas of Caldwell College (Thomist, Nova et Vetera, etc.)
And this is true even in a very reverently celebrated, Latin Novus Ordo. Which does not make it illegitimate. Or simply “man-centered.” But given the new prayers it is certainly more anthropocentric than was the case in the classical rite.
“Therefore, the Second Vatican Council does not have the same status as the other councils.”
I wouldnt say that, because you have to consider it canon by canon (well, V-II didnt have canons, it had wordy documents, but you know what I mean).
Vatican II in general has the same status as the other councils, but it chose to do less with that authority.
It’s disciplinary and prudential canons have the same authority of those as other ecumenical councils. It’s dogmatic canons also would have…it just chose not to issue any.
This lack of dogmatic canons, however, does not make it’s disciplinary canons any less authoritative in themselves as the SSPX might imply. But neither should we interpret the disciplinary canons as dogmatic, as “inspired mandates of the Spirit,” or as somehow MORE authoritative than the disciplinary canons of all the other councils which came to be superceded or reversed in practice, or were never fulfilled, etc. A future Pope is not bound irreversibly by any of the canons of Vatican II, as certain bishops would seem to imply.
To Michael Hallman
I think that is one of the issues to be resolved, no? Pius IX, (Syllabus) Pius X (Pascendi, Oath Against Modernism) Pius XI (Mortalium Animos) in condemning errors, were restating the constant teaching of the Church. When a document from the pastoral Council is at variance with that teaching, what authority are we to give it?
Michael Hallman,
If “the Council said is exactly what it meant”, then there is no need for clarifications. It also means that *everyone* who gets it wrong does so out of ill will.
I doubt Padre Pio would spit on a crucifix if ordered to do so by a superior.
“we read all of the previous statements of the Councils and the popes. Pope Pius IX spoke out against religious freedom, for example. The question is: do these false religions possess natural rights? The Second Vatican Council answers differently than Pius IX. That is a rupture.”
But not on a matter of Faith and Morals. It is a question in the prudential sphere outside the realm of Public Revelation.
As such…rupture is possible. The Church can make 180-degree-turns on such “prudential policy” questions. I may disagree with the prudence of such a change, especially such an abrupt change, but there really is no “one true teaching” on political questions like this. I believe Pius IX’s teaching is better and more consonant with Catholic principles, but the opinion of more recent popes isnt exactly heresy either.
As such, the true answer is much less satisfying/definitive, but much more intellectually honest, than either side is likely to want:
There was a rupture when it comes to the prudential opinion of modern hierarchs on certain questions, but they werent a matter of faith and morals, so such a rupture isnt impossible or necessarily wrong. At the same time, Catholics are also free to believe the older opinions, they just are no long the opinion on which the Vatican is currently basing its prudential diplomatic policy. But Catholics (even clerics) are free to believe we should go back to the previous opinion and to promote such views.
Novus Ordo Mass = man-centered?
Yes and no. It is not man-centered but priest-centered.
One example from Italy. Many bischops and priests have put their throne on the platform in front of the old altar. They are sitting with their back to the tabernacle. They are performers behind their new altars. The seek eye-contact all mass long.
They are sitting where Christ once sat. They are the object of adoration. So, it is not surprising that people do not attend mass anymore I think that they should be ashamed. It is just outrages.
sometimes you can feel when something might not be valid
Michael said:
“I didn’t say they were infallible. What I said was they carry greater weight than the statement from a pope. They do.”
This is a question from me, not a statement:
Isn’t this one of the possible problems that the Council is criticized for? This idea that the whole college of bishops,speaking together, outranks the Pope?
In my uneducated thought on this topic, it seems Our Lord said “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church”, etc. Our Lord did NOT tell all the Apostles together that they should meet, decide what to say, and speak as a group. I don’t claim to have studied this, but I do not believe the above quotation is correct; or at least if it is deemed today to be correct,that it was an innovation from VII. The Pope’s words, as Our Lord’s Vicar on earth, should outrank any group of bishops speaking collectively. He alone was given the authority by Christ. He is not just one of a group of equals.
“This comment itself shows the extent of the problem with religious liberty. The above opinion was precisely condemned by Pope Gregory XVI, Pope Bl. Pius IX, Pope St. Pius X, all the way down through at least Pope Pius XII.”
What about ever single pope since Pope Paul VI because their teachings on the matter are conveniently absent from your list.
“The entire history of the Church bears witness to the constant practice and teaching that religious freedom is an error.”
“The entire history”? Did the Catholic church cease existing since Dignitatis Humanae?
“From the Syllabus of Errors:
“Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which guided by the light of reason, he shall have come to consider as true.”
Condemned.”
From Dignitatis Humanae:
” A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man,(1) and the demand is increasingly made that men should act on their own judgment, enjoying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty.The demand is likewise made that constitutional limits should be set to the powers of government, in order that there may be no encroachment on the rightful freedom of the person and of associations.”
“2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.”
Rejecting religious liberty is rejecting the social teachings of the Roman Catholic Church as promulgated in Dignitatis Humanae.
“What tosh. Error has no rights. The civil authorities have every right to suppress harmful doctrines. Do you believe it should be legal to call for genocide, blaspheme God, or promote heresy to impressionable souls? I certainly don’t. Your comment is pure Americanism.”
Man qua man has the right to follow his own conscience. In fact, it is only from a free decision that man can be brought into communion with God, coercing individuals into that communion is an insult to its sacredness.
“Not at all. No civil authority ever has the right to suppress true and beneficial doctrines, but a civil authority can have the right to suppress harmful doctrines. You are probably confusing “right” with “ability.””
The poster was more concerned with what really occurs than a pipedream that when civil government is on your side, that they will be your personal lapdog.
“What traditionalists are saying is that State’s can only truly “allow” the practice of false religions for the common good, not that those false religions or their adherents have a right to publicly spread error.”
And who gets to define the “Common good”? It is a term every single demagogue has used to their advantage. Those is control may very well declare Catholicism against the “Common good”, and begin its prosecution based on that, and one must remember (I say this to all the above as well)that giving one’s own faction the ability to declare what man, can, and cannot in law is a loaded gun for one’s enemies for once they get in control, then they will proceed to do the same against you.
Athelstane:
I hear what you’re saying, but even many of the “actions of participation” to which you refer are not always intrinsic to the rite. If you’ve read Ratzinger’s Spirit of the Liturgy he demonstrates how the “actio” in active participation as expressed at Second Vatican Council is precisely the action of God, to which man is called to participate, and the bodily actions which we are called to undertake are the means by which corporeality is rightly expressed in the Liturgy. Those who call for greater bodily participation in various forms simply get it wrong, completely and entirely, and do not understand active participation as it is meant by the Council.
Michael J:
It is utterly absurd to insinuate that someone getting something wrong does so out of ill will. The Council did mean what it said, but that doesn’t mean that some of the points it made don’t require further clarification or expansion. The postconcilliar problems we face in the Church primarily have to do with people taking something that is clearly stated in the Council and interpreting it to mean something else. Whether ill will or not is not for us to decide. We must focus on the issues and pray for the purity of everyone’s intentions, including our own, and do so with humility, not with arrogance. A perfect example is the Council’s liturgical documents and its reference to Gregorian chant and the notion of other suitable hymns. In that case, the Council meant exactly what it said, which is that Gregorian chant must always have pride of place in the Liturgy. It also meant what it said that there are occasions when other suitable hymns may be inserted. What has happened, as you know, is two things: one, people have taken the reference to other suitable hymns as license to remove chant altogether from the Mass, which is neither what the Council said nor what it meant. Two, it has inserted hymns that quite obviously are not suitable for liturgical worship. Again, the Council meant exactly what it said, but in light of events on the ground, so to speak, it is now apparent that the Church also needs to define what is meant by suitable. In this case, it is clear that the Council said what it meant, but it is not clear that those who misinterpreted what is meant by suitable did so out of ill will.
If we are to have any hope of salvaging the liturgy and truly embracing a hermeneutic of continuity, we must all learn to proceed with humility and without accusation or arrogance. This seems to be a problem afflicting both extremes of these Vatican II debates, and it does nothing but harm the Church.
Heather,
Probably not, but he also would never lead a near-schism from the Church because he refused obedience to an ecumenical council.
LCB said: “Obedience is the duty one owes to his superior, whose authority is derived from God. Thus as a matter of justice obedience is superior to faith for a person in the clerical state.
From what I recall, this is what the Angelic Doctor explains.”.
Totally false, the other way round.
Thomas says, obedience is not a theological virtue, and the absolute obedience is the obedience to God, i.e. obedience to faith. So faith is above the obedience to the superior in religious hierarchy.
Fr. Z
You said you would love to see the SSPX’s list of what Vatican II teachings contradict the traditional doctrine of the Church. Such a list is available here:
http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q6_vaticanII.htm
http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/post-conciliar_church_a_new_religion.htm
Here is a sample list:
Ecumenism
Catholic Church: “It is almost impossible to happen that Catholics who mix themselves with heretics or schismatics in any act of worship might be worthy to be excused from this shameful crime.” (Pope Benedict XIV, De Synodo Bk. VI, Chap. 5, Art. 2, 1748)
Vatican II: “It is allowable, indeed desirable, that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren.” (Decree on Ecumenism, #8)
Modern World
Catholic Church: “It is not fitting that the Church of God be changed according to the fluctuations of worldly necessity.” (Pope Pius VI, Quod Aliquantum, Mar. 10, 1791)
Vatican II: “The Church… can and ought to be enriched by the development of human social life… so that she may… adjust it [the Constitution of the Church] more successfully to our times.” (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #44)
Religious Liberty
Catholic Church: “They do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and to the salvation of souls…namely that ‘liberty of conscience and of worship is a right proper to every man, and should be proclaimed and asserted by law in every correctly established society.’ ” (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, #3, Dec. 8, 1864)
Vatican II: “The human person has the right to religious freedom…this right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right.” (Declaration on Religious Freedom, #2)
Collegiality
Catholic Church: “The authority of Peter and his successors is plenary and supreme …the bishops… do not receive plenary, or universal, or supreme authority.” (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, #14, June 29, 1896)
Vatican II: “Together with its head, the Roman Pontiff… the episcopal order is the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church.” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, #22)
To Michael Hallman, that’s not really an accurate description of the situation. Makes for a nice straw man though.
I sometimes wonder who hates the SSPX more…liberals or “conservative Catholics”.
Kat:
No, it is not one of the problems, because it was not just the whole council of bishops speaking – it was the whole council of bishops speaking in union with the Pope. Imagine the difference between Peter saying something and the other 12 either being silent or disagreeing, and Peter saying something with all 12 Apostles agreeing and supporting what he said. What we have in an instance like an ecumenical council (this is true of all the councils) is Peter and all the Apostles speaking in one unified voice. That indeed bears more weight than Peter expressing his personal opinion on something. Scripture in fact bears this out, as Peter was brought to correction by Paul regarding issues related to the Gentiles and their adherence to Jewish Law.
Also, this ultimately gets to questions of papal infallibility. The Church does not – neither before Vatican II nor after – recognize everything the Pope says as being infallible. He is infallible on questions of faith an morals, and then when he pronounces something ex cathedra. The instances where a Pope has proclaimed something infallibly are very rare indeed.
Heather,
It’s not a straw man and it’s an exact description of SSPX. They were not quite schismatic, but doggone close, and most certainly they acted in absolute disobedience to the Church. It is only because of the generosity of the Church that they were not declared schismatic by their egregious actions of illicit ordination of the four bishops.
By the way, Heather, which am I, a liberal or a conservative Catholic? And in what way do I “hate” SSPX? Is it possible to recognize their error without hating them? Is it possible to be an orthodox Catholic as I absolutely am without being a “liberal” or a “conservative”? Or is it easier for you to argue when you are able to neatly label people?
Thanks Dominic for the list.
I guess my question is answered: Collegiality IS one of those questioned teachings of Vatican II.
Steven:
Regarding the position of the throne in relation to the Tabernacle, can you point me to where that is called for in the Rite?
This is the point that we need to understand. There have no doubt been innovations added on top of the rite in many modern celebrations of the Novus Ordo, but they are not the Novus Ordo itself. The NO is not man-centered, but men have attempted to make themselves the center of attention where the rite does not call for such. There is a profound difference.
Poor Fr. Schmidberger seems to have fallen into an utterly false ecclesiology. He has forgotten that it is he who is saved by the Church, not he who saves the Church.
On another note, as a personal prelature or “Anglican-use”-type they would only be permitted to serve in a diocese with the permission of the ordinary. I believe the only structure which would give them total freedom from diocesan oversight would be as a sui juris church – and that’s not going to happen. At some point if they want unity, they will have to recognize the authority of local ordinaries. I cannot foresee the SSPX accepting such accountability.
Kat, it is not one of the issues, because, again, the Pope was the head of the council. The Council is a statement from the Pope, does carry the authority of the Pope, and in so doing is backed by the entire college of bishops. You are creating a false dichotomy, as if the council is all the bishops but one speaking, and the Pope is the Bishop of Rome speaking alone. A plenary council is all of the bishops speaking in union with the Pope.
“This is a question from me, not a statement:
Isn’t this one of the possible problems that the Council is criticized for? This idea that the whole college of bishops, speaking together, outranks the Pope?”
I think you’re onto something here. The statement from Michael you quoted that somehow non-dogmatic decrees of a council outrank a Pope or bind future Popes unless they can convince another council to reverse them…isnt true. And yet it seems to be the assumption a lot of bishops, and even the Pope, are working under. Hence why he feels the need to interpret the policy changes he wants to make “into” Vatican II, instead of just saying, “This is how it is going to be, regardless of Vatican II”.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Ecumenical Councils:
“The council is, then, the assessor of the supreme teacher and judge sitting on the Chair of Peter by Divine appointment; its operation is essentially co-operation — the common action of the members with their head — and therefore necessarily rises or falls in value, according to the measure of its connection with the pope. A council in opposition to the pope is not representative of the whole Church, for it neither represents the pope who opposes it, nor the absent bishops, who cannot act beyond the limits of their dioceses except through the pope. A council not only acting independently of the Vicar of Christ, but sitting in judgment over him, is unthinkable in the constitution of the Church”
“In normal times, when according to the Divine constitution of the Church, the pope rules in the fullness of his power, the function of councils is to support and strengthen his rule on occasions of extraordinary difficulties arising from heresies schisms, relaxed discipline, or external foes. General councils have no part in the ordinary normal government of the Church.”
“It is thus evident that general councils are not qualified to issue independently of the pope, dogmatic or disciplinary canons binding on the whole Church.”
“It is the action of the pope that makes the councils ecumenical. That action is the exercise of his office of supreme teacher and ruler of the Church. Its necessity results from the fact that no authority is commensurate with the whole Church except that of the pope; he alone can bind all the faithful. Its sufficiency is equally manifest: when the pope has spoken ex cathedra to make his own the decisions of any council, regardless of the number of its members nothing further can be wanted to make them binding on the whole Church.”
“These considerations further account for the great esteem in which conciliar definitions have always been held in the Church, and for the great authority they universally enjoyed without any detriment to, or diminution of, the authority of the Apostolic See. From of old it has been customary to place side by side, in the rule of faith, the authority of the councils and that of the popes as substantially the same.”
“The principles hitherto set forth supply a complete solution to the controversy. General councils represent the Church; the pope therefore stands to them in the same relation as he stands to the Church. But that relation is one of neither superiority nor inferiority, but of intrinsic cohesion: the pope is neither above nor below the Church, but in it as the centre is in the circle, as intellect and will are in the soul. By taking our stand on the Scriptural doctrine that the Church is the mystical body of Christ of which the pope is the visible head, we see at once that a council apart from the pope is but a lifeless trunk, a ‘rump parliament’, no matter how well attended it be.”
Anyway, the point is, a Pope would be free to totally override or ignore the disciplinary decrees of Vatican II, or any Council. They do not represent any sort of inspired mandate from God, the “true meaning” of which needs to be “discovered”. They are not binding on future popes in the sense of them not being able to overturn them. They are binding on us only for as long as, and only to the degree that, the Pope continues to use them as a point of reference for his decisions. And we may certainly hope for and argue for the day when the Pope will stop using Vatican II as his reference point. His hands are NOT tied by it, the “humble submission to the will of the Council” act is just that: an act, a political tactic used by Popes who are in no way required to submit to any such nebulous thing.
Before Vaticanum II there was no crisis. The crisis in the Church started after Vaticanum II. But this is just a coincidence? There is no connection? Well, if you believe this, then you are blind.
The Second Vatican Council was highjacked by the reformers. The traditionalists just nodded “yes” and did not put up a fight, because THEY were obedient. Only Lefebvre and a few other bishops organised the resistance.
Lefebvre: “Comment voulez-vous que je prononce, sur le calice de mon ordination, d’autres paroles que celles que j’ai prononcées il y a cinquante ans sur ce calice, c’est impossible, je ne puis pas changer ces paroles – alors nous continuerons à prononcer les paroles de la consécration, comme nos prédécesseurs nous l’ont appris, comme les papes, les évêques et les prêtres qui ont été nos éducateurs nous l’ont appris, afin que Notre-Seigneur Jésus-Christ règne et que les âmes soient sauvées par l’intercession de notre Bonne Mère du ciel.”
I think he was right!
“Before Vaticanum II there was no crisis. The crisis in the Church started after Vaticanum II. But this is just a coincidence? There is no connection? Well, if you believe this, then you are blind.”
Fallacy of causation. Plus, there was certainly a crisis beforehand, look at the Spanish Civil War, and the council was not called by arbitrary whims.
“The Council did mean what it said, but that doesn’t mean that some of the points it made don’t require further clarification or expansion.”
It’s not that simple. What do you mean by “the Council meant”. The Council is not a personal being to which we can ascribe intent, is it? It was made up of thousands of individuals intellects and wills, remember, who wanted different things and comprised on documents, and may have viewed them all differently. How can we ascribe authorial intent to documents that had thousands of authors, who may have interpretted the words they ultimately assented to in different ways??
“The Council” didnt mean anything. Take the document on liturgy, for example. Lefebvre might have seen it one way, Ottiavani another, Bugnini another, and Paul VI another. What did “the council” mean? The fact is, ascribing intent is much more complicated when we’re talking about the actions of a group of thousands of people in more or less agreement or opposition with each other.
The Council therefore ultimately means what the Pope at any given moment uses its documents to justify.
Andy,
Do you really believe that everything was perfect in the Church until 1964 (or whenever the council started)?
Weren’t there considerable problems in the 40’s and 50’s in the seminaries – I mean, judging from the some of the priests who received their formation then.
Also, since I don’t read French, can you translate the quotation from Arch. Lefebvre? Thanks.
I wonder how constructive it is at the present time for people to stake out rigid positions on Vatican II that seem to be at odds with the view that Pope Benedict and the SSPX apparently share — on the present need for reassessment or re-interpretation of the documents of the Council, as indicated in the quotes included in my comment above at 12:19 pm today.
Andy: Do you know the difference between correlation and consequence?
Mark: What I said was not untrue. A personal, non-dogmatic statement of a Pope speaking on his own versus a statement made by another Pope in union with the council of bishops does not carry as much weight. This is plainly obvious. It bears out in Scripture. Did Peter’s initial erroneous view of the Gentile’s need to submit to the Jewish law outrank what was later decided at the Council of Jerusalem, of which he also was head?
Is one Pope more authoritative than another? If not, then why would you expect the statement of a Pope speaking on his own to be either of equal or greater rank than that of a Pope speaking with the backing of the plenary council of bishops? It’s entirely nonsensical.
I will never understand the arrogance of you people who actually want to do away with Vatican II altogether. You are hurting the Church as much as anyone is.
Lefbevre – translation:
“Thus by keeping the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, by keeping His Sacrifice, by keeping this Mass—this Mass which has been bequeathed to us by our predecessors, this Mass which has been transmitted from the time of the Apostles unto this day. In a few moments I am going to pronounce these words above the chalice of my ordination, and how could you expect me to pronounce above the chalice of my ordination any other words but those which I pronounced 50 years ago over this same chalice—it is impossible! I cannot change the words! We shall therefore continue to pronounce the words of the consecration as our predecessors have taught us, as the Pope, bishops and priests who have been our instructors, have taught us, so that Our Lord Jesus Christ reign, and so that souls be saved through the intercession of our Good Mother in heaven.”
People like Ward and Manning were very disappointed when Vatican I did not accept the extreme view of papal infallility which they propagated. Yet they did not leave, or conduct a campaign against the extremely moderate definition adopted by the Council, instead they loyally accepted the settlement of the issue. Newman of course was very happy at the outcome and said that the extreme infallibilists had been over ruled by a higher power. He had regarded the Council as not really necessary. It would help if we all looked at Vatican II in a more historical light and compared it more with Vatican I.
Straight — not arrogant — talk from a smart priest.
We need more of this.
Schmidberger said : “The spirit of the council has been described as an evil spirit, even by Pope Benedict XVI.”
WOULD SOMEONE, INCLUDING FR. Z. PLEASE TELL ME WHERE AND WHEN HIS HOLINESS, POPE BENEDICT XVI HAS SAID SUCH OR WHEN HE WAS CARDINAL RATZINGER OR A PRIEST, OR WHATEVER, SAID SUCH A THING AND IF SO UNDER WHAT CONTEXT. I AM DEVASTATED BY THIS COMMENT OF SCHMIDBERGER AND I AM ASKING GOD TO HELP ME CONTROL MY EMOTIONS BECAUSE IF THIS IS A LIE OR A DISTORTION FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENOUNCING THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL AND THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON HIS SOUL. [Ouch! Please DON’T SHOUT on my blog!]
The Issues that many have with the actual documents of Vatican II, flow from the Council Fathers reflecting upon two questions: (1) Is faith real if it is forced?; (2) What does baptism accomplish? Before dismissing VII as “merely” pastoral it is beneficial to reflect on the theological impact of how one answers those questions.
Stigmatized: What is your understanding of the priesthood?
Michael Hallman
Thank you very much for your comment. You are right.
Bujt, I am 38 years old, so I don’t know the older form, but the more I read about the Council and its aftermath, the more I feel betrayed. They did not have the right to change the liturgy.
You cannot say: “We (Catholics) are right AND they (protestants, jews, muslims) are right.” One of us is always wrong…
What the Coucil said about islam for instance is just… It is almost certain that Muhammad never really lived. His biography was a complete fabrication 150 years later. Islam was invented by some Arabic rulers, to create an enemy (Byzantine Empire).
Islam is a hoax. Man-made climate change is a hoax. Overpopulation is a hoax. The mass-media, Hollywood, the United Nations, materialism, communism, liberalism, etc etc etc are hoaxes. They are inventions of evil politicians to enslave the people.
cjl: You incorrectly separate faith from obedience to the Church. Faith in God necessitates obedience to the Church. Faith demands obedience, for the Church is the prophetic voice of God. To separate yourself from obedience to the Church is to separate yourself from faith in God.
Steven: What do you mean the Church didn’t have the “right” to change the liturgy? What about every other change that has been made in the liturgy over 2,000 years? Did the Church have no right to change that, either? If you feel betrayed then it is you who needs to conform to the Church, not the Church who needs to conform to you. That is what faith demands of you. The onus is on you to accept or reject.
As for Muhammad being a fictitious character, sorry, but you’re going off the deep end here.
Ric,
If you’re devastated by the comment of a quasi-schismatic priest then perhaps you should pray for strength of faith. Let your seed of faith be planted in rich soil, not on rocky ground or among weeds and thorns, nor on the sandy path.
TMG: Very well said.
Steven I totally agree with you about feeling betrayed by the bishops and Paul VI with regards to the liturgy, lets all pray for the reintegration of the SSPX ASAP
Has anyone else noticed the irony and the hypocrisy of those who sit here claiming fidelity to the Popes, when really all they mean is that they like when Popes say things with which they agree, and if a Pope says something with which they disagree then it’s clearly wrong?
Two points Michael, (sorry for the double post) a) the Gregorian Rite was never abrogated (b) to paraphase Thomas E Woods Jr one definition of fanatacism is that many old people whose dying wish was to have their requium Mass celebrated according to the Gregorian Rite have had their wish denied by Bishops who whilst trying to suppress Tradition have foisted their modernist novelties apon up, should we conform to a modernist mindset?
Okay, I am going to start booting people who post over the top comments.
“What I said was not untrue. A personal, non-dogmatic statement of a Pope speaking on his own versus a statement made by another Pope in union with the council of bishops does not carry as much weight.”
Psychologically, perhaps not. But in terms of actual authority vis a vis the ability of a Pope acting unilaterally to overturn the disciplinary canons of a council, it does. A Pope can unilaterally overturn the disciplinary canons of a previous pope and council.
Jack:
Who said it was abrogated? I sure didn’t. The MP makes it abundantly clear that it was not. I’m not really sure what your complaint is. The MP liberated the Gregorian Rite, and while there are still those in defiance of the Pope who need to be dealt with in that regard, nonetheless that doesn’t reflect on Vatican II but on the harmful attitudes of many in the Church who subscribed to modernity in a way that caused a radical distortion of Vatican II and since a radical distortion of the Novus Ordo. This is truly lamentable. But the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI takes the proper view here, and not those who wish to abandon Vatican II altogether. The Holy Father recognizes that VII was indeed the work of the Holy Spirit and now all those reforms and “innovations” that distorted the Spirit’s work need to be done away with and we need to truly become a Church in continuity with Tradition, a Tradition which absolutely and necessarily includes the Second Vatican Council.
Schmidberger said : “The spirit of the council has been described as an evil spirit, even by Pope Benedict XVI.”
WOULD SOMEONE, INCLUDING FR. Z. PLEASE TELL ME WHERE AND WHEN HIS HOLINESS, POPE BENEDICT XVI HAS SAID SUCH OR WHEN HE WAS CARDINAL RATZINGER OR A PRIEST, OR WHATEVER, SAID SUCH A THING AND IF SO UNDER WHAT CONTEXT. I AM DEVASTATED BY THIS COMMENT OF SCHMIDBERGER AND I AM ASKING GOD TO HELP ME CONTROL MY EMOTIONS BECAUSE IF THIS IS A LIE OR A DISTORTION FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENOUNCING THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL AND THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON HIS SOUL.
Two things Ric:
First, the “spirit of the council” Fr. Schmidberger is talking about is not meant to be the spirit inspiring or protecting the Council, but instead the so called “spirit of the council” used as a justification for so much destruction after the council. For example, the Council did not call for ripping out high altars and throwing statues in dumpsters, but such things were done and justified as being inline with “the spirit of the council.”
Second, I translated the document and what was said in the original German is pretty difficult to translate into English. The translation is not literally incorrect, but the alternate translation “false spirit” would also be correct and may be more along the lines of what the Pope actually said.
Mark,
I don’t disagree with that point, but that’s not what’s relevant here. You are talking about the decision of a pope subsequent to a Council to overturn something a Council has decided (unless, of course, a Council has decided something dogmatically. The Council of Nicea is what determined the dogma of the divinity of Christ, and no Pope can overturn that ever). But a council speaking in union with the Pope trumps a statement made by a previous Pope regarding a non-dogmatic matter. Dogma can never be changed, not by council nor by Pope. Non-dogmatic matters can be changed by either, and a former statement of a Pope is overridden by a latter statement of an ecumenical council in union with the Pope.
Put another way, Vatican II did represent the Pope speaking, and in so speaking he spoke in union with the entire council of bishops. Certainly a later Pope can without the bishops override any non-dogmatic issuance of the Council, but until that happens then all Catholics are bound by that Council.
The translation is not literally incorrect,
Sorry I meant to say that the translation IS literally correct.
“I have spoken with EF devotees who actually refuse to go to Mass if there is no EF available. ”
Yes, those do exist, unfortunately, and even worse. I once read a comment online from a poster who proudly claimed she would refuse the Eucharist from the hands of the Pope himself if it had been consecrated at a Novus Ordo Mass, a stunning admission from one who insisted she had not “imbibed a schismatic mentality.”
But I do hope that extremism of the sort that can be found on both ends of the spectrum is not what we’re approaching as the talks begin. I hope.
Michael,
“This is the point that we need to understand. There have no doubt been innovations added on top of the rite in many modern celebrations of the Novus Ordo, but they are not the Novus Ordo itself. The NO is not man-centered, but men have attempted to make themselves the center of attention where the rite does not call for such. There is a profound difference.”
After nearly 40 years of pretty consistent practice and with the (active or tacit) approval of bishops, these disastrous innovations have become *standard.*
Thus that “profound difference” is pretty close to meaningless unless our hierarchs (to whom, as you say, we owe obedience) actually start being obedient themselves to the Church as expressed in Tradition all the way up through Vatican II. By “obedient,” I mean they using their pastoral offices to build up the Church rather than allow Her to disintegrate. A big part of that “building up” is to make sure the Holy Mass is celebrated in their dioceses in a manner faithful to the Church’s tradition and to Vatican II.
One of the reasons why so many laity find it difficult to be obedient these days is because so many priests and bishops are disobedient. It’s chaos on the ground in the Church—whatever you see “on paper.”
I am obedient to my ordinary, a Cardinal Archbishop. However, I find it difficult sometimes to be so when I consider his forbidding of the FSSP in his archdiocese and very lax attitude allowing open scandal and heresy in his own parishes. The last Mass I attended at which he was the celebrant was a “praise-and-worship” type rock Mass. Just dreadful. How “obedient” is he to Vatican II?
Mike
perhaps I should clarify my thoughts: in your response to Steve you said that He should conform himself to the Church, My response was meant to illistrate the fact that many of our Bishops whilst professing hetrodoxy (take the head of the German Bishops confence for example who more or less denied the redemptoin) suppress authentic Catholic Tradition. With regards to V2 I accept it as an valid eccumenical council which teaches authentic Catholic doctrine, however I think that the wording of the council documents like the Second Council of Constantinople are open to erronious interpriations. I hope that helps, now personally I hope the SSPX is reintegrated ASAP so I (and many other Catholics) can attend a TLM (which I regards as asthetically superior the NO) on a regular basis whilst remaining within the bounds of cannon law. This will be my last post on the subject as I don’t want to fall foul of Fathers’ Rules.
“But a council speaking in union with the Pope trumps a statement made by a previous Pope regarding a non-dogmatic matter.”
I dont believe that is necessarily the case. And I believe the doctrinal discussions between the SSPX and Vatican will clarify that Catholics are free to accept either opinion, because the issues in question are of prudential policy, not doctrine, and because later Popes do not trump earlier popes in mere prudential opinions.
To “trump” in a binding way, they’d have to use a higher level of decree, and the only higher level would be to say that it was in fact a question of dogma. A council+pope does NOT carry more weight than an earlier pope, when it comes to an idea of binding our consciences, when both are speaking on a non-dogmatic prudential question.
Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on Ecumenical Councils clearly states: “the great authority they universally enjoyed without any detriment to, or diminution of, the authority of the Apostolic See. From of old it has been customary to place side by side, in the rule of faith, the authority of the councils and that of the popes as substantially the same.”
The authority of the Pope and the authority of the Pope+Council is “substantially the same”. Councils do not imply any diminuation of the Supreme Authority of the Pope.
But even if it werent, even if the decision of a Pope+Council were more binding, even when it comes to non-dogmatic prudential matters, do you really want to start playing Trump Cards? Because even if you can say “Paul VI PLUS Vatican II outweighs Pius IX speaking alone”…we can start saying, “Yes, but 260 Popes PLUS 20 Councils outweighs 5 Popes plus 1 council”. Because it wasnt just Pius IX who had that teaching on religious liberty or ecumenism. Lots of councils called for Crusades against Muslims, for Jews to live in ghettoes, for heretics to be burned, etc. Why does Vatican II outweigh them?
A Catholic is not required to believe in Vatican II’s ideas of religious liberty, they are free to believe in Pius IX’s, or neither. It’s just that the current “official” opinion is what is used to make official external policy.
We cannot “disobey” that policy, but we CAN disagree with it or wish it were overturned in theory. It’s like any discipline in that regard. A Catholic cannot take actions contrary to the discipline of celibacy (ie, get married if they are a priest, get ordained if they are married, ordain a married man if they are a bishop, go to a suspended married priest for their sacraments, etc)…but a Catholic can support theoretically an overturning of that discipline, as long as they dont actually disobey it for as long as it is in force. Breaking the current law is different than wishing for or working for that law to be changed.
When it comes to dogmatic questions, obviously once something is defined, it is forever. When it comes to disciplinary questions, we must obey the current discipline, even if we don’t agree with it. But when it comes to this third nebulous category of prudential opinions, however, outside the scope of Revelation, half-practical and half-theory…it is more unclear. If two Popes can have different opinions, it seems we can too, if we weigh all the relevant teaching throughout Catholic history.
Michael please elaborate on why we should follow V2 when it contradicts defined dogma ,i.e. Council of Trent especially,.
I think there are some V2 statements that ring true, but as a whole
it must be rejected b/c of heretical statement or implied heresy.
Also i have yet to read in V2 documents anything that proclaims it
is infallibly binding on the faithful. please point out the book and line to me.
now if you say it comes under Ordinary Magisterial authority, well
it can’t , if you know the defined dogma on Papal Infallibilty as proclaimed by Vatican 1. thanks.
“Is one Pope more authoritative than another? If not, then why would you expect the statement of a Pope speaking on his own to be either of equal or greater rank than that of a Pope speaking with the backing of the plenary council of bishops? It’s entirely nonsensical.”
Michael, you may be interested in this excerpt from Pius IX’s Encyclical condemning religious liberty, Quanta Cura:
“Amidst, therefore, such great perversity of depraved opinions, we, well remembering our Apostolic Office, and very greatly solicitous for our most holy Religion, for sound doctrine and the salvation of souls which is entrusted to us by God, and (solicitous also) for the welfare of human society itself, have thought it right again to raise up our Apostolic voice. Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.”
As you can see, the document invokes the highest authority possible (the Pope’s Apostolic authority) to condemn liberalism. The Encyclical is obviously binding. Where does Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae invoke similar authority? Until the authority of that document is clearly established, I opt to assent to the teaching contained in Quanta Cura.
Mark, The Mass and its rubrics is not a discipline that can be changed by anyone as taught by Trent.
What many who comment from America (me included) fail to realize is that the Church is many European countries is dying quickly. In France the SSPX nad its members make up 1/3 of all practicing Catholics. Think about that for a second.
If the decline of the post VII church attendance continues at the same rate it is currently at, the SSPX will make up almost half (50%) of practicing Catholics in France within the next 10 years. This must be frightening to the local Bishops. It is why they are reacting with such hostility to the SSPX.
In another 50 years, if the SSPX is not reconciled, the SSPX will far outnumber the “VII” Catholics in most European countries.
Even in my little corner of America, most of the young VII Catholics have very few if any children. They attend church infrequently if at all. What happens when these younger Catholics grow older and their children see how their parents valued their faith?
There is a reason Europe is becoming Islamic. Children are encouraged. When they are born they are taught their faith with a conviction many Catholics would do good to replicate. If we are not careful we will be surpassed by Islam by the sheer number of children.
“Mark, The Mass and its rubrics is not a discipline that can be changed by anyone as taught by Trent.”
Huh? Where have I said that? Though I disagree, if you are implying the same old “Quo Primum” nonsense argument that seems to imply that Pius V somehow bound future Popes in the disciplinary matter of the liturgical texts and rubrics. Regardless of the strong language, he couldnt do such a thing, and I dont think was intending to even, merely to bind lesser prelates who might try to act without the authority of a Pope.
“Put another way, Vatican II did represent the Pope speaking, and in so speaking he spoke in union with the entire council of bishops. Certainly a later Pope can without the bishops override any non-dogmatic issuance of the Council, but until that happens then all Catholics are bound by that Council.”
But to WHAT, exactly? What exactly has it bound us to? That’s the nebulous thing.
There were no dogmatic statements, so we’re not bound to that.
And I cant even think of many clear-cut disciplinary canons. “The Hour of Prime is to be abolished”, for example, was one of the few clear-cut directives, but it mainly for the committee drawing up the new liturgy to “obey,” not an issue for individual Catholics or even priests to consider.
And, indeed, the new LOTH doesnt include an hour of Prime. But already, in approving the use of the Old Breviary, the Pope has “overridden” this statement in some sense by allowing the hour of Prime to come back again, ie, in the Old Rite. Are you saying that an “obedient” Catholic will refuse to say the hour of Prime “because Vatican II abolished it” even if they use the old breviary? Or that the Pope is disobeying Vatican II by not striking Prime out of his approval for use of the old breviary? Or that Catholics, before he did this “overriding” regarding Prime’s abolition, were not free to wish for or work for it’s re-institution? That seems silly to me.
Or, for example, even if a bishop must obey IN PRACTICE Vatican II’s decree on religious liberty and ecumenism (ie, he can’t start burning heretics in his dioceses, even if he had the support of the State)…it is ridiculous to propose that he, or lay Catholics, couldnt IN THEORY support a reversal back to the old ways, as long as they didnt, in practice, disobey the current policy until such a reversal was promulgated. But they could certainly think it should be reversed, theoretically, and work for such a reversal, as long as they obeyed the current policy until such a reversal happened.
Catholics may have become bound to DO some things different after Vatican II…but it did not bind us to THINK or BELIEVE anything differently when it comes to pure theory, any more than Pius IX’s syllabus did. In both times, a Catholic was and is free to believe either, as long as they conformed to the current PRACTICE (which is what these prudential issues are really about: the practicalities of the Church’s practical relations with the State and other religious organizations…not about any theory for theory’s sake).
” The council exhorts Catholics, and it directs a plea to all men, most carefully to consider how greatly necessary religious freedom is, especially in the present condition of the human family.”
Of course, if one is arrogant enough that man does not have the right to follow his conscience without the threat of coercion qua being man, this will be anything but convincing.
action hero:
Care to elaborate where a defined dogma has been contradicted by Vatican II?
(Here’s a hint: it doesn’t exist)
Mark,
I have to run out the door so I can’t address your comment in full, but quickly regarding Prime:
Prime has been abolished as an official canonical hour of the Church, but that does not preclude it from being observed as a private or even communal prayer. And since the MP thankfully also availed wider use of the 1962 Breviary it also avails the use of the hour of Prime, even if it is not a canonical hour with any official status in the Church.
In fact, applying the same logic, Michael, how did the new opinion about religious liberty come about in the first place?
If Catholics are bound by the last most authoritative statement on the subject, then from the time of Pius IX and Pius X until Vatican II’s alleged “trumping,” are you saying Catholics would have not been free to advocate for today’s position?
Yet the current position didnt just drop out of thin air at Vatican II, nor was it a unilateral top-down decision emanating from the Pope spontaneously.
We all know that it gained popularity through being advocated by men such as Fr. John Courtney Murray. Was he being disobedient for advocating, in theory, the position contrary to the (at the time) current official prudential opinion (ie, Pius IX’s)? No. He wasnt. Case in point: when commanded to stop writing or speaking publicly on the matter, he obeyed. But he wasnt required to recant, to stop holding that opinion, or to stop promoting it in private correspondence. And indeed, at Vatican II, he was “vindicated” by his position being finally adopted.
Likewise, Catholics today, as long as they dont do anything disobedient in practice, are free to hold and advocate for the older opinion (even publicly, as the Vatican has issued no decree silencing it), and maybe some day we too will be vindicated by a change in the official opinion back to the old.
If even non-dogmatic issues were binding on Catholics in the form of the current party-line, as neocon “magisterial positivists” seem to imagine…then the current party-line could only change if the Pope himself decided to spontaneously and unilaterally, since everyone else would be bound to hold the old opinion. Yet, we know that isnt how it works; the opinions change when there is a vigorous discussion about it happening in the Church at large, something not possible if the sort of mental-gag-order you seem to propose were in effect. But, thankfully, there is actually a lot of intellectual freedom in the Church in that regard.
Mark, one more thing (waiting on my dad :) Regarding to what must be assented: while no new doctrine has been established by Vatican II, certainly traditional doctrine has been reaffirmed. However, an example of unacceptable disobedience to Vatican II is seen with regards to the attitudes of some regarding the liturgy. It is perfectly acceptable to prefer the Extraordinary Form over the Novus Ordo. I myself am on the fence as to which I prefer. What is not acceptable and what constitutes an unacceptable disobedience to the Church and a downright denial of the Holy Spirit is the attitude found among too many that the Novus Ordo is actually invalid.
Another example is with regards to what Vatican II states regarding salvation of non-Catholics. It does not say that they will be saved, but rather that it is possible that God may extend an extraordinary act of mercy towards them. Yet there are Catholics who assert that if one is not Catholic salvation is impossible. This too is an unacceptable rejection of Vatican II.
Clearly the talks between SSPX and Rome are necessary and I have no doubt will be fruitful – how fruitful will depend on the arrogance or humility of SSPX. I am developing some trust in +Fellay with regards to the necessary disposition for these doctrinal talks, but we shall see. I do believe the entire Church will benefit from them. But the attitude of Father Schmidberger, which more or less insinuates that SSPX is right and Rome must conform to their vision, not only is entirely false and will never happen, it is an attitude of arrogance that will diminish the potential for fruitfulness of these talks.
“Prime has been abolished as an official canonical hour of the Church, but that does not preclude it from being observed as a private or even communal prayer. And since the MP thankfully also availed wider use of the 1962 Breviary it also avails the use of the hour of Prime, even if it is not a canonical hour with any official status in the Church.”
Ah, but I dont think that’s true. I believe that when the Old Rite Breviary is used publicly, either vis a vis the permission of Summorum Pontificum or in an Old Rite approved community…then Prime is indeed liturgy and official public prayer in that context.
A priest who chooses to fulfill his Office obligation by saying the Old Breviary according to the permission of Summorum Pontificum IS required to say Prime, being an intrinsic part of that office. In that regard, the Pope has (in a rather small way) already “overridden” or ignored a decree of Vatican II, as it is fully within his power to do.
Prime, when said by a cleric according to the old Breviary vis a vis the motu propria, indeed has canonical standing the Church again, albeit in a limited way.
But even if it didnt, are you really going to accuse me of some sort of disobedience for saying that it does, or that (even if it didnt) that it SHOULD? I hope not, because Catholics are free to hold those opinions. How would things ever change, otherwise, except by a spontaneous unilateral decision of Popes? No, we are allowed to wish for, and even lobby for, change.
“Another example is with regards to what Vatican II states regarding salvation of non-Catholics. It does not say that they will be saved, but rather that it is possible that God may extend an extraordinary act of mercy towards them. Yet there are Catholics who assert that if one is not Catholic salvation is impossible. This too is an unacceptable rejection of Vatican II.”
God does not save those who have rejected his Church, or culpably fail to enter it. This is dogma.
“Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.” – Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem
The dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus can be reconciled with Vatican II, but the council must be strictly read in the context of the Tradition. The statements of the council about salvation “outside the church” can only be read as referring to those who suffer from ignorance beyond their control. To say anything else is heresy.
“Prime has been abolished as an official canonical hour of the Church”
This is a perfect illustration for why there is so much upheaval in recent times.
The office of Prime is ancient, going back to the 4th century. So after *1,600 years*, it is suddenly suppressed.
Think about that for a second, and ponder its import.
Combine this with many other shocking and radical changes at the same time, and it produces a *climate* where people have the impression that everything is subject to continuous change—even the teachings of the Church.
A prescription for disintegration and chaos. Certainly the Council is valid, but in terms of *prudence*, it has borne very bitter fruit thus far.
Almost my entire family fell away in the wake of it. As my father tells me, as a teenager, he looked to the Church as the rock. All of the sudden changes and chaos shook his faith to its foundations, and he began to see the Church as rather a man-made institution whose human rulers can radically alter at will.
He tells me that he lost his faith in the Church, and turned to the only solid, stable thing he could find: the Holy Scriptures. He became a Baptist.
At least he’s something—most of the rest of my family is now lapsed and secular.
The dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus can be reconciled with Vatican II, but the council must be strictly read in the context of the Tradition. The statements of the council about salvation “outside the church” can only be read as referring to those who suffer from ignorance beyond their control. To say anything else is heresy.
Exactly! Once you know of the one true Church you are bound to join it. If you reject it, then you reject Christ and can have no salvation. In the modern era, only those living in remote places or under a rock will not at some point be exposed to the Church.
As Catholics we are BOUND to preach the gospel and try to convert as many non-believers as possible. This is NOT what is taught by many in the VII croud. If you listen to too much of this drivel you will come away thinking that you can get to heaven through any religion. THAT is heresy AND scandal.
*Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus*
“It is perfectly acceptable to prefer the Extraordinary Form over the Novus Ordo…What is not acceptable and what constitutes an unacceptable disobedience to the Church and a downright denial of the Holy Spirit is the attitude found among too many that the Novus Ordo is actually invalid.”
I have to think about that, as it is not as obvious as it may seem at first.
I believe the Novus Ordo is clearly valid.
But the Novus Ordo is not, in fact, universally promulgated, since it is the Rite of only one Particular Church (ie, the Latin). And we know that the rites of individual particular churches can be invalid. For example, in the Middle Ages there were dioceses with a rite of baptism that used beer instead of water. This is clearly invalid, but it doesnt question infallibility or indefectability, because those are traits of the UNIVERSAL church.
The council of Florence believed that the Armenians had a potentially invalid ordination rite and required that they insert a Translation of Instruments. We now know that this isnt required for validity, but it proves that the Church has never taught that an entire Rite could not theoretically be invalid.
Because infallibility and indefectability apply to the Universal Church as a whole, not any one particular church (even if it happens to be Rome; the Pope is infallible AS Pope, not as western patriarch). So, I think theoretically theologians would traditionally admit the Latin Church could have some invalid sacraments as long as valid sacraments continued in the Eastern Catholic churches and their validity was not made the subject of a dogmatic statement. And certainly merely one particular translation (ie, the English) of one particular Rite could be IN THEORY invalid without questioning indefectability. “The Anglophone segment of the Latin Rite particular church” is hardly the same as the Universal Church!! And thus is not a subject of infallibility or indefectibility.
A rather obscure theoretical point to be discussed, seeing as I do believe the Novus Ordo is valid, even in English, and that I doubt Providence would allow such a large particular church to defect in such a grave way.
But it has implications, for example, in things like Paul VI’s toleration, for the Latin Rite, of the use of non-olive “oils” in the sacraments (doesnt even make sense in Latin as oleum is intrinsically linked to olea). Thankfully this permission is little used, because I and many others have grave doubts about it. It probably is invalid. But does this “toleration” (ie, not a mandate, and certainly not a dogmatic statement on the issue) of potentially invalid matter for one particular church (ie, the Latin) call into question infallibility or indefectibility? No, I dont think so. And are Catholics bound to accept it or disobedient for expressing grave doubts or speaking out against it? I hope not!
“Another example is with regards to what Vatican II states regarding salvation of non-Catholics. It does not say that they will be saved, but rather that it is possible that God may extend an extraordinary act of mercy towards them. Yet there are Catholics who assert that if one is not Catholic salvation is impossible. This too is an unacceptable rejection of Vatican II.”
Again, depends what you mean.
Indeed, to believe that it has been positively revealed that God positively WONT save those who are not Catholic…is wrong. In reality, we dont know. We do know that it is the only Revealed means of salvation given to man. But what God does beyond that in the sphere of private individuals, in the internal forum…is His business. But, indeed, He is not bound by the sacraments. We cannot tell Him that He is bound somehow not to save someone. If He wants to, He will, so there is hope.
But Catholics are free to believe that God never, in fact, does extend such mercy. When several Feeneyite groups were reconciled to the Church under Ratzinger’s CDF, they didnt have to reject their opinion regarding the practical consequences of EENS, merely the idea that their opinion was dogma.
They were allowed to continue to hold a “rigorist” opinion as regards salvation outside the Church, they just had to admit that the rigorist opinion is just that: an opinion. They could not claim it was binding or a dogma, and had to admit that Revelation also doesnt exclude the extremely optimistic interpretation. We just dont know.
But they were not required to recant the rigorist opinion regarding whether God ever extends such an extraordinary salvation to non-Catholics. They had to admit it was “possible” inasmuch as God is omnipotent, not bound by the sacraments, can do what He wants, and has never positively said that He wont for sure. But they are allowed to continue believing that God, in practice, doesnt extend such salvation.
The issue here as I see it is this. The SSPX has my sympathy. But the Church and her infallible magisterium expressed through her Oecumenical Councils has and demands my loyalty.
I will say a prayer that the Holy Father creates the best structure to allow the Mass and Sacraments according to the 1962 Missal to become thoroughly entrenched in the fabric of the Church, whatever that maybe. (A personal prelature or Apostolic Administration) Free from suppression (and still not everywhere) is and should not be the only goal here. And I know the Holy Father has stated that many times. It must once again become part of a Catholic’s life and prayer at least as an option in every Church. The world has much to gain from a good Catholic grounding in our faith…As Bishop Rifan said recently in his Pontifical Mass here in NYC, we ARE the religion of Love……..Told you I would never forget that…
Michael Hallman writes that “all the great spiritual writers throughout the history of the Church, from Catherine of Siena to Teresa of Avila to John of the Cross to Therese of Lisieux, have written about obedience as the great safeguard of humility”
I doubt that these saints have forgotten that obedience to human authority is not absolute, as he seems to have done. Remember, St Thomas More disobeyed the lawful king and parliament, St Peter commanded us to “obey God rather than man”, and St Paul “withstood Peter to his face, because he was wrong.”
Obedience to a lawful superior is required, except for two cases – 1) when he commands something outside of his jurisdiction or 2) when he commands something in violation of the command of a higher authority. Only for the commands of God Himself can these conditions never apply.
Every human person has only limited jurisdiction, so 1) might apply, and every human person is fallible, so 2) might apply. For these reason, More was correct in disobeying the civil authority, and St Paul was correct in disobeying the ecclesiastical authority.
The SSPX do not misstate the principle of obedience, or the conditions under which disobedience is acceptable or even required. If you wish to condemn their “disobedience” you need to argue the facts of the case, not the principles involved. They are correct on the principles.
Disobedience is sometimes allowed or even required.
I’m concerned about Fr. Schmidberger’s response to questions about Nostra Aetate. “Dual Covenant Theology” is a currently debated theological issue in Catholic circles, and he’s free to think what he wants of it and debate others on the topic. But it’s fairly clear that the interviewer was particularly interested in hearing about where Fr. stand with respect to Catholic-Jewish relations as understood right now. Fr. would have done well to tackle the question of deicide clearly. Does Fr. accept Nostra Aetate’s rejection of the deicide charge and confirm its command to respect Jews and Judaism? I suspect that Fr. Schmidberger would not agree with me, but I think it is possible to affirm JPII’s respect for our “older brothers” without qualifying the issue solely on questions of salvation and Christology.
If I were Pope Benedict, I would be quite wary of admitting the SSPX back into full communion unless the bishops of the society harmonize their views with Nostra Aetate through unambiguous statements. This could be done alongside the negotiations over all the other sore doctrinal points that plague Vatican-SSPX negotiations. This is an important issue that shouldn’t be swept under the rug in the rush to get the Lefebvrists back on the Barque.
Michael Hallman,
You might consider that Cardinal Ratzinger himself had
some fairly severe criticisms of Article 17 of Gaudium
et spes and fairly early on. Having seen the “Pelagianism”
of this document played out over time, the Holy Father
may have even more reservations about this document.
In any case, the fact that there going to be doctrinal
talks between the Vatican and the SSPX about Vatican II
seems to indicate that there are some matters about which
the Pope thinks negotiations can be done. Unless there is
no “good will” (i.e., unless decisions have already been
made as to the conclusions) about the way the talks will
go, it might even be that the SSPX can take a “minimalist”
view of the Council.
If that’s the case, then that opens the floodgates for
everyone who has reservations about what the Council says.
And, by the way, Michael, the Council documents are
frequently ambiguous in their phrasing, so it’s no
surprise that several conclusions may be drawn from
their statements.
Why is it that the more I read snide remarks about the SSPX, the more I see the need to lend them my support?
It could not be more clear to me that the SSPX are 98% responsible for the resurrection of the traditional Latin Mass and for limiting the reach of Vatican II and its consequences. Why shouldn’t I stand with the SSPX? Why should I lazily benefit from their efforts while sitting among well-connected churchmen who carp?
“I’m concerned about Fr. Schmidberger’s response to questions about Nostra Aetate. “Dual Covenant Theology” is a currently debated theological issue in Catholic circles, and he’s free to think what he wants of it and debate others on the topic.”
No… any notion of “dual covenants” is a heresy. The Church has dogmatically defined that there is no salvation outside of her (specifically mentioning the Jews at the Council of Florence). The covenant is fulfilled in Christ and resides exclusively in the Church. There is absolutely no room for debate on this. The Catholic doctrine is totally unambiguous and perpetually binding.
Michael, I think that Lumen Gentium 15 qualifies as major heresy and blasphemy against the First Commandment… there other lines in different docs which at least imply heresy against defined dogma.
keep in mind that as Catholics we are to reject docs that imply heresy even if it means rejecting the whole council.
Mark, “Quo Primum” nonsense? preceded immediately by the Council of Trent it makes perfect sense.
Justin, only problem is that V2 doesn’t qualify as infallible, either extraordinary or ordinary magisterium,,,that’s the rub.
“‘Dual Covenant Theology’ is a currently debated theological issue in Catholic circles, and he’s free to think what he wants of it and debate others on the topic.”
No. There is no debate. There is one covenant, Jesus Christ. Post-Christ Judaism is not objectively salvific.
“Fr. would have done well to tackle the question of deicide clearly. Does Fr. accept Nostra Aetate’s rejection of the deicide charge”
THIS is one of the huge problems with people interpreting Vatican II, or even the documents themselves.
People speak s if Nostra Aetate “repudiated” the charge of deicide, implied to be the cause of centuries of alleged persecution. But that implies that the Church ever taught that in the first place. Really, consider Aquinas on the issue: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4047.htm#article5
He is very fair and balanced in limiting his blame to merely the high priests. And the teaching of the Church has always, of course, shown our sins to be the real cause of Christ’s death. This idea of an anti-semetic Catholic Church of the middle ages that blamed “the Jews” for Christ’s death, doesnt really play out in the actual statements from the period.
“Repudiating deicide” implies that we ever taught that. We didnt. At the same time, we end up throwing out the baby with the bath water. In the Scriptures, the Jews are the microcosm of all humanity, and as God’s chosen people, the type of the Church. As such, of course in terms of Scriptural symbolism the Jews killed Christ. Because they symbolize all sinners, and all sinners killed Christ. And if we forget that this was deicide, we forget what sin is, we forget the horrors of sin: sin is killing God. In our souls, and in a very literal way on Calvary. Overly-concerned about anti-semetic interpretations, we’ve shied away from the concept of God-killing entirely, and at that point…no wonder we have no Sense of Sin anymore!
“and confirm its command to respect Jews and Judaism?”
More than any other human beings? What exactly does “respect” mean?
“If you can’t see the point of even going to church when the NO is offered then your faith is far weaker than you realize.”
Completely uncalled for! There’s no reason why traditional Catholics should have had, or should have now, the new order shoved down their throats. It was wrong then, and it is especially wrong now. If the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite isn’t being offered in any given locale, then its not the traditional Catholic’s fault. It’s the bishop’s. Keep your judgments about who is in mortal sin to yourself, please.
To say that our faith is somehow weak because we refuse to participate in the new order is the same as saying a Byzantine Catholic has weak faith because she will only participate in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.
Comments like this only serve to highlight the persecution inflicted on traditional Catholics, and the double standards that are even now still being applied.
“On another note, as a personal prelature or “Anglican-use”-type they would only be permitted to serve in a diocese with the permission of the ordinary. I believe the only structure which would give them total freedom from diocesan oversight would be as a sui juris church – and that’s not going to happen. At some point if they want unity, they will have to recognize the authority of local ordinaries. I cannot foresee the SSPX accepting such accountability.”
Comment by Patrick – 26 June 2009 @ 1:34 pm
Patrick,
What you stated at first seemed logical to me, but….
However, I think their might be another possible canonical solution for regularizing the SSPX which would not require diocesan oversight nor designation as a sui juris church – namely, the SSPX could be given status as a personal prelature, albeit with non-geographic boundaries to preclude any need to obtain permission from the local Ordinaries where SSPX chapels are located (or are planned).
This non-geographic personal prelature option would fit perfectly in line with Fr. Schmidberger’s response as “Somewhat” to the interview question “Similar to Opus Dei?” for getting status as a personal prelature.
There is already at least one non-geographic “diocese” which exists in the Catholic Church – the Archdiocese of the Military Services, USA (for American Catholic service personnel).
So, why wouldn’t the Vatican be willing to create a new category of “non-geographic” personal prelature especially for the SSPX?
This would seem to be a canonical regularization solution that would satisfy both the SSPX & the Vatican (but would probably infuriate quite a few Bishops), don’t you think???
Pacis et benedictionis tibi, per Christum Dominum nostrum,
Steve
I didn’t say they were infallible.
I suggest you re-read your comment. You introduced the question of infallibility into the argument–I didn’t.
What I said was they carry greater weight than the statement from a pope. They do.
Comment by Michael Hallman
According to that, if the timing were reversed, Nostra Aetate coming out of Vat I in the mid 19th century and the Syllabus of Errors and Pascendi coming 100 years later, then the latter would still not carry the weight of the former. Do you think that anyone with half a brain would think that?
On another note, as a personal prelature or “Anglican-use”-type they would only be permitted to serve in a diocese with the permission of the ordinary. I believe the only structure which would give them total freedom from diocesan oversight would be as a sui juris church – and that’s not going to happen. At some point if they want unity, they will have to recognize the authority of local ordinaries. I cannot foresee the SSPX accepting such accountability.
Comment by Patrick
I think a Personal Apostolic Administration would give the SSPX freedom from the ordinarius loci.
Mark,
I’ll have to leave open the argument regarding Prime. I think I’m right with regards to the interpretation, but I’m certainly not sure. Regardless, I certainly don’t think your contrary opinion, even if I am right, would be a matter of disobedience, no. That doesn’t mean that legitimate instances of disobedience to the Council don’t exist. I believe they do, as I’ve indicated in a few examples.
James, study your history of the canonical hours a bit better. They’ve been in constant evolution throughout the centuries.
David,
The King is not the Church. We are talking about obedience to the Church here. There is no justification for the disobedience to the Pope and to the Church exhibited historically by SSPX. While the Church in her generosity has refrained from calling that act a true act of schism, it is about as close as one can come with out actually being declared schismatic. And there is no such thing as a justified schism.
Sal,
To say there are going to be negotiations is one thing. Certainly doctrinal issues can be clarified, non-doctrinal issues can be adjusted, but nonetheless there is no justification for abandoning the Church as SSPX did because you cannot be obedient to her in light of an ecumenical council.
action hero:
Regarding LG 15, you’d be wrong to call it heresy. No ecumenical council has ever set forth heresy, and it is sad that you deny the promises of Christ and the Holy Spirit as you do. You are in grave error by calling anything from Vatican II heretical. Humble yourself. [Let’s all calm down.]
David, it’s not uncalled for at all, it’s entirely accurate. You are absolutely breaking the fourth commandment and committing mortal sin if you have a perfect valid NO Mass available to you and refuse to go. If you miss Mass for the reason that the NO is the only one available and no EF, then you must confess and receive absolution before presenting yourself for Holy Communion again. No question about it. [Let’s be careful about making other people’s confessions for them. Right? I agree that it is not a good practice to choose not to fulfill your Mass obligation for the reason described. But, when it comes to other people’s sins… time to back off a little.]
There is a very recent and interesting interview on Canadian Catholic “Salt and Light” TV of Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX, from ten days ago, posted two days ago at:
http://saltandlighttv.org/blog/?p=5071
The transcript of the interview is at this URL, and if you click the link in the first paragraph of text you’ll get to the video.
Bishop Fellay provides therein some personal perspective on the controversies and attitudes which are part of SSPX history. He seems an impressive intellect and engaging speaker.
We may lament these issues, take a holier and superior than thou attitude, or reject SSPX altogether, as especially the anti-traditional novus ordo types do. But anyone who valued Church tradition and lived through the post-Vatican II terror knows by hard experience that *only* the SSPX saved the traditional Mass. Only the SSPX! I am so thankful that the SSPX had the courage to fight *our* fight to keep Roman Catholicism from becoming Anglicanism-Lite and worse. The SSPX deserves great respect, with prompt and proper reconciliation.
(My only connection to the SSPX is as a customer of Angelus Press.)
RBrown,
My comment says exactly what I said it says. And no, the two are not analogous.
A curious question Michael, looking at your profile your local ordinary would appear to be The Most Reverend Donald Trautman who is on the record as being opposed the celebration of Gregorian Rite in his diocese(as my local ordinary is); at the very least can you sympathise with those of us who wish to attend the traditional rite whilst remaining obediant to Rome who live in such Dioceses, and of those of us who live near to an SSPX chapel(as I do) can you appreciate the dilemma we face in that on the one hand if we attend the Gregorian Rite celebrated by the SSPX we are dubbed disobediant whilst our own ordinaries either re-write summorium pontificorum or ignore it thus demonstrating their own disobediance to the Holy Father.
Michael, The Church has not called it a true act of schism not out of her generosity but b/c it simply doesn’t rise to the level of TRUE schism.
my dear Michael, i know you’re not serious when you say that, you oughta be saying that no ecumenical council taught heresy until V2.
thank God He didn’t make it binding on the faithful and ,again, according to V1 on papal infallibility, V2 statements don’t fall under the infallibility of the Ordinary magisterium b/c it is “new
doctrine” as it was alluded to in Pope JPII’s Ecclesia Dei.
To say that our faith is somehow weak because we refuse to participate in the new order is the same as saying a Byzantine Catholic has weak faith because she will only participate in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.
Do you have something to back this up? If not, I’m going to file this with certain Modernist attempts to justify Communion in the Hand as an example of the “Appeal to the East” fallacy. The last time I went to the Divine Liturgy with my mother-in-law, the sermon began with a fire-and-brimstone list of sins common in our day and he let us know in no uncertain terms that missing the Divine Liturgy or Mass (he made it clear that rite did not matter) was what Westerners would call a MORTAL SIN.
Michael, Michael, Michael, I don’t believe it’s a sin to miss an NO Mass especially when God has decreed what the True Mass is at the Council of Trent. [Okay…. you’ll be sitting out for a while.]
action hero:
Obviously then you deny the validity of any other rite but the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, even though for centuries, before and after Trent, numerous other rites have been recognized as valid. You have no idea what you’re talking about, and if you refuse to attend an NO Mass when no EF Mass is available then you are in mortal sin, and quite frankly, you’re a heretic. [Enough of this.]
Jack,
I live within the Archdiocese of Philadelphia under the episcopacy of the wonderful Justin Cardinal Rigali. And not only am I sympathetic, I am myself beginning my Latin studies next year for the very purpose (aside from reading Augustine in his own language) of being able to celebrate the Extraordinary Form when I am ordained myself. I do recognize the beauty of it and I do recognize that the Church has a responsibility to provide this beautiful Mass for those who wish to worship with it. I also recognize the validity of the Novus Ordo and recognize that the Church has a responsibility to celebrate it the way it is supposed to be celebrated, and not the way it is commonly celebrated today, which is not the Novus Ordo at all but a grave distortion of it. Thus I hope to celebrate both as a priest, and to do so with reverence and according to the rubrics and with a proper understanding of liturgical form, including music, art, inclusion of Latin, et cetera.
What I do not tolerate, however, and I think there is no room for tolerance, is those who deny the very validity of Novus Ordo, those who like action hero believe it is permissible to miss Mass because there is only a Novus Ordo available, those who deny Vatican II altogether. Those who do so are not traditional at all, no matter how much they would like to self-identify as such, because Second Vatican Council is part of our Tradition. Those who deny Vatican II altogether and who deny the validity of the Novus Ordo are as guilty of a hermeneutic of rupture as any post-concilliar Catholic who believes that Vatican II established something entirely new. Both are equally guilty of rupture and both attitudes must be equally denounced.
I just thought I’d write this as someone seemed to indicate that Vatican II said there was salvation outside the Catholic Churched. I believe it is much more nuanced than that. From what I understand salvation “outside” the Catholic Church requires a number of conditions to be met 1.) not guilty of a mortal sin or at have least perfect contrition for their sins. They must obey Natural law. Of course the obligation to attend Holy Mass (for instance) does not bind since they are either unable to or unaware of the necessity to fulfill the obligation (inculpable ignorance). 2.) Their lack of membership must be due to lack of ability (hence baptism by desire) or lack of knowledge. It can not be due to a vellity- a vague intention without a definite course of action. 3.) If it is inculpable ignorance- laziness, pride, indifference (towards God) are not present. They must be intent on pursuing virtue to the best of their ability and if they fall into any serious sin they must obtain not just attrition for their sins but perfect contrition (sorry for offending God based upon love of God rather than a fear of hell, punishment, etc). As their lack of membership in the Church God stems from a lack of capability upon their part God who is merciful will not reject them- since they implicitly desire and strive to please Him. However, in such case while not members of the Church they are implicitly within it. For example if there is a fire and the local church building is the only place for refuge everyone who flees to it is saved- even if they are not “Christian” or parishioners. Those who choose the burning of sin perish. Like them who hid in the church and were saved (though not members of the Church)- they are saved through mercy and their implicit desire to serve God. The command to be baptized does not bind those who are not able or inculpably ignorant since God does not punish the innocent who seek to please Him. No good parent punishes a child for disobeying something they never commanded. For that instance neither does a good master do so to his dog. Culpable ignorance is not a sacrament- it does not mediate grace. It is a defect due to rebellion of mankind. If a non Catholic church is to be regarded as means of salvation it is not to be thought that they are valid or licit in and of itself. Baptism (the sacrament which makes one a member of the Church) in a non Catholic church, etc does so because, from what I understand, the Catholic Church dispenses and regulates the sacraments.Once baptized all are subject to the power of the steward of Christ- the bishop of Rome by virtue of their baptism whether they like it or not. Though as an ecclesiastic/ corporately body it is outside True Church their members are still members of the Church and as such are subject to Her authority and the sacraments She dispenses (and regulates). If they willfully rebel against the Bride of Christ then they will be damned unless they repent. For those of non Christian religions it is in as much as those religions teach truth and encourage objective virtue (ie chastity, charity, etc). Of course those religions ultimately are false but God may use the virtues they may encourage to lead to His Truth. At most they are merely paths to the Catholic Church and not inherently good. Any truth they may ascribe to is already possessed by the Catholic Church and in greater abundance/ fullness. Anything that is not already present in the Catholic Church will not lead one to God and is not true (speaking of religious, philosophical, spiritual matters primarily). In that sense the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of Truth. The others are merely shadows with varying degrees of darkness. All roads to Heaven lead through the Catholic Church (so as to speak). There is no other way. Those who are guilty of mortal sin and do not repent will go to hell- inside or outside the Church. No question about that. From what I understand this is the most lenient view a Catholic is permitted to take. Even so someone who is not a member of the Catholic Church faces monumental difficulties of attaining salvation. No one is saved outside the Catholic Church. Someone please correct me if I am wrong in anything. Thank you.
Michael Hallman you mentioned that you intend to become a priest. A priest is to be a shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep. I can see that you are very fervent. That is good. However, learn temper your fervency with charity and humility. Please accept this from one who realizes all too well I am also in need of it and more. I remember reading somewhere that Fr. Colin (founder of the Marists) wrote that when he visited Rome he came across a different understanding of pastoral care- All for the salvation of souls. Of course it is never right to do wrong in order that good may come (never does work in the end) but keep that in mind as you speak to others. We are to strive for our own sanctity and that of others. Without the one you are not fulfilling the other. To fulfill the letter without Love breaks the law and transgresses the letter. God has given us a sword- not a sledgehammer. It is a weapon that requires much training and care. I think this applies to us all. These things are good and necessary but the time will come (Heaven) when they will be fulfilled and superseded (both words intended) in the end Faith, Hope, and Love will remain- the greatest being Love. God bless you in your discernment.
Robert,
Thank you for your comment. I believe your understanding of “no salvation outside the Church” is correct. Vatican II does not, as some have indicated, assert that there is salvation outside the Church. But what exactly is meant by this is an understanding that has developed over the centuries, and Vatican II recognizes that anyone who attains salvation does so only through the Church, since it is through the Church that grace enters into the world.
I appreciate the latter half of your comment. I do not believe I have acted unlovingly in this post or in my comments. Love requires sternness at times, and must be aware of the situation. [On your blog, perhaps.] Some errors are so grave and the arrogance that lies underneath them so great that they require a forceful repudiation. Also there is a difference in an internet forum like this [This is a blog, not a forum.] and in a one-on-one pastoral situation because not only is it the individual who must be corrected, but when an error as great as some of the ones in this post, most especially the disastrous notion that one may responsibly and permissibly miss Mass if only the Novus Ordo is available, we must deal with the reality that Fr. Z has a very broad and wide viewership and many people who do not comment are reading, and are subject to being led into error by a false statement with such grave implications as that one. [Perhaps it would be best to leave issues of moderating my blog to me? – Fr. Z] The one asserting such a falsehood is risking leading people into grave and potentially mortal sin, and in such a case I believe a forceful repudiation is necessary. [And when you have a blog, you can do that.] Perhaps I cannot reach that one’s hardened heart, but hopefully I can help dissuade anyone who might otherwise be persuaded by such a falsity from falling into the grave sin into which he is leading them.
So yes, I agree, love must always accompany truth, for as we know, truth and love are originally identical, and remain in that union in God, and we should strive for that union within ourselves. But love is expressed in many different ways, and we must be able to discern between them.
Thank you for your blessing and if you are so inclined I would most certainly appreciate prayer, as well.
Mike
sorry about mixing your location up, you have so many places beggining with P in the states that it can be hard to keep track of them all :).I agree entirely that a ‘real’ traditionalist must accept the validity of both the Novus Ordo Mass although he may prefer other rites (such as the Gregorian/Byzantium rites) and the authority of the Second Vatican Council.
Jack,
I live in a double P, I suppose – Philadelphia in Pennsylvania :)
I think the beauty of the many rites within the Catholic Church (I believe there are something like 22?) is that the Church recognizes that in matters of liturgical form, while there are some things that must always be constant, there is an organic evolution over time and the many different Catholics have a variety of spiritual needs. Modernists often take this too far and regard such a statement as an endorsement of relativism, which it never can be, but nonetheless I believe we make a mistake when we try to fit everyone into one mold. This was a problem when after Vatican II many in the Church, including members of the hierarchy, acted as if the Gregorian Rite had been abrogated, which the MP makes clear it never was. It is equally the mistake by those who would deny that the NO actually serves the spiritual needs of many.
One thing that I believe many traditionalists fail to recognize is that prior to Vatican II many, many people were getting very little out of the Gregorian Rite. Those who today long for and desire the celebration of the EF are not in large part representative of the average pre-Vatican II Catholic. The reform that brought us the Novus Ordo was necessary, and indeed was the movement of the Holy Spirit. It is in the aftermath that so many mistakes were made, and which are now being addressed. We need some perspective, too. It is only 40 years after the council, which is a relatively short period of time in the grand scheme of things. Also, while the reforms of the council were necessary, they also coincided with a tragic movement in the world towards relativism, and this spirit was found within many of those who were entrusted with enacting the reforms of the council. As such, what they enacted was drastically different from what the council called for. But this Holy Father gets it, and we are finding more and more bishops in the Church who get it, and so it will take more time, but I am confident that one day we truly will be a Church in continuity with Tradition including Vatican II, not in rupture with it.
That to me is the tragedy of many traditionalists (which I am myself), in that they have so much to offer to the Church in terms of a good understanding of many aspects of the liturgy and a great fidelity to much of the Church teaching, and certainly tend to possess the proper disposition towards liturgical worship. But unfortunately the attitude of too many traditionalists, and their own hermeneutic of rupture, severely diminishes their ability to contribute to the necessary dialogue and reform that the Church so desperately needs.
On another note I would like to ask for everyone’s prayers as I am hoping to enter a religious congregation soon. I would like to do it this year but I feel I have the duty to stay where I am and finish some things before I leave. I hope no later than next year.
Its funny Micheal but I did plan to do what you are doing- both rites to reach more souls for the glory of God but it wasn’t God’s will. Either way I find the Tridentine must more conducive to sound spiritual formation (with proper guidence). After all what good is all the activity if it does not lead one to a closer union with God? That is one of the reasons I want to join a congregation that uses solely the Tridentine. Besides there are none that use the Tridentine in their own house and the NO (ad orientum, etc) to minister to Catholics that do not desire it (though I have heard the Franciscans of the Immaculata will be soon). Using the an older English translation of the Divine Office and moving to the new one was difficult. It was like going from eating a sound balanced meal to eating Doritos. I’m not talking about the essence of the Mass but about its current “form.” Even when done as it should be it just is not as effective as ordering a soul to God. I have no questions as to its validity but just feel its language reminds me more of an operators manual for a fork truck than the language a soul that is in love with God uses. Hopefully the next translation will be better. You don’t sound that old. I think its important to remember that many people have been scandalised over the last 50 years. It is important to take into account the liturgical and spiritual cataclysm that the previous generation has gone through. There has been an immense amount of scandal and suffering. Some have been raised in this atmosphere. There have been less priests that are sound and holy than before the 60s. As such much of the laity (including us) have not had a proper formation. We are sort of like children without spiritual fathers groping in the darkness- after the liturgy, society and families have virtually had a bomb explode in their midst. The Church is and always will be triumphant but on this earth She still suffers as Her Spouse did.
The older ways of spiritual formation are sounder but unfortunately there are not as many guides that properly know them. God bless all.
Robert,
I am 31, so you’re right, not very old. Best of luck to you in your discernment.
Dear Mike
1) I’m afraid I have to disagree with you with regards to people not getting much out of the Gregorian Rite, that said the main beef that many traditionalists I know of is that for the past 40 years those who have prefered the Gregorian Rite have been unfairly denied the option to attend those services within the Church (if it was merely a Case of allowing the 22 Rites to be used according to the individual parish then one could change the parish one attends if one wished to attend Gregorian, Byzantane ect Rite). I agree partially with your point about the attitude of many trads, but would point out that due to the ‘sit down and shut up’ attitude towards traditionalists by those who were supposed to enact the reforms many of them (Mnsgr Lefarvbe included) developed an Athanasius contra mundum mentality in which their natural reaction was to adopt a position which was a polar oppisite to the modernists and to suspect the council itself of modernism and given the Pope St Pius X is famous for denouncing Modernism it was natural that they would rally around him.
Robert,
One thing about your comment. I have always been someone who closes my eyes during Mass. It’s how I pray, it’s how I engage the Liturgy. I don’t like to read along, I like to close my eyes and listen and pray. One of the very first things that drew me to the priesthood, that deepened my own love for God, as a young altar boy, was closing my eyes and hearing the priest so reverently pray the beautiful Eucharistic canon. It was hearing it, in my own language, that drew me so deeply and profoundly into the mystery of the Eucharist, and which overwhelmed me with the desire at that age to one day serve behind that altar in the priesthood. I completely respect that for you the language of the Tridentine better serves your love for God, but I disagree entirely that the Novus Ordo celebrated properly is not as sound for spiritual formation. Different people simply respond in different ways. One of the primary purposes of liturgy is to awaken in the soul of man the awareness of transcendent beauty, and it is for this reason that the many post-conciliar innovations need to be done away with, but there is no doubt that when done properly, with truly appropriate music, especially chant, with a mixture of Latin at certain moments which especially highlight the mystery of salvation and of God’s love, with a properly catechized understanding of the role of the laity and of bodily posture, with churches with appropriate architectural and otherwise aesthetic beauty, that the NO rite itself is perfectly sound and perfectly capable of awakening in the human soul that awareness of transcendent beauty and of leading the soul into the language of love which is found in authentic prayer and worship. There are some who will be better led there with the EF, and some with the NO, but I have no doubt that the NO done right is perfectly capable of achieving this, because it did it for me quite well.
Does VatII require clarification as the SSPX states it does? One need only read the posts herein. Presumably all or most are Catholic, many Priests, and all have the best interests of Holy Mother Church at heart. Yet look at the different interpretations and lack of agreement. We all pretty much know, or should knowk Our Holy Father, Benedict. In order to more fully understand the thoughts of Bishop Fellay and the SSPX I would suggest the following videos:
http://www.traditionalcatholicmedia.com/uploadedfiles/2007-05-21BishopFellayupdateonmotuproprio5-16-2007
Parts 1 &2.
Also:2006-09-12. Parts 1-3
Jack, I’m curious, how many people have you spoken with who lived a significant portion of their lives pre-Vatican II about the Mass, and their experience of it? I agree with you regarding the fact that many have been unfairly denied the right to worship via the EF – it was unfair and unjust. But no sufficiently unjust so as to move to near-schism, as SSPX did. No, it’s not just a matter of switching between rites within a parish – a Roman Catholic parish typically must use the Roman rite, in which there are two forms. But as a Roman Catholic you are absolutely free to attend any of the Catholic rites wherever they are offered. That is important to recognize.
Michael I understand your concern for the truth but if things get too out of hand we should let Father Z do it- he polices and controls this blog. There are times when continuing to argue with someone becomes less concerned with charity and truth then with proving a point. The internet is a poor forum for debate- it lacks the personal note and easily inflames the passions (anger, etc)as there usually is little restraint. Sometimes the best thing is to state a point and then pray. Or if you really feel it is a problem mention it to Father. Hardness of heart has rarely been defeated with arguments. There is a psychological element here too. I really don’t think you understand the experiences many of these people have been through that you are debating with. That is not to say don’t be concerned about objective truth but there comes a time when words don’t do any good. It is good and a virtue to know when to stop. If you do turn someone away by using them as an example publically then you are also responsible to God for their turning away to a certain extent. To be honest you will find that there are many battles you can fight. Choose them wisely. While I too disagree with the the decision to stay away from Holy Mass if only the NO is available- yes it objectively is a mortal sin. I also can understand why one would tend to do that. Some of them are celebrated like a circus. Things like that make impressions. The only way I attend some is when I have to is the virtue of obedience and then I try to picture Christ on the cross patiently submitting Himself to be mocked and treated carelessly as that is actually what He is doing since He is present in the Blessed Sacrament. Besides its uncomfortable to have people trying to grab your hands, the mudane or bizarre music or the priest commanding you to stand for Holy Communion. These are all penances I would rather avoid if possible. I can easily see why others are scandalised or have been. That is why scandalizing others is a is a sin. To be honest you will find that there are many battles you can fight. Choose them wisely. I think The Holy Father is trying to peacefully bring a union. If he is successful it will come to a peaceful resolution without our help. This issue will come to a resolutuion if the SSPX is reconciled. Personally I think that is the best course and hope for it. Pray for that. If you are in seminary right now then you need to get to sleep. I am as I have responsibilities tomorrow and have stayed up way too late again. Part of holiness is discipline of one’s self. Our first concern needs to be our sanctification and not let the computer consume us (trust me it can- it is a blessing and a curse). Either way Fr Z will state a balanced point if need be- he is a good and sound priest from what I’ve seen. Pax
Robert,
I do not move into religious community until August. Until then I have other responsibilities which require me to be up this late. I also don’t require a lecture on holiness and sanctification. I’ll let my spiritual director take care of that. I get it, you don’t like the way I’ve handled this post. I do, and will do it again if need be. Charity and niceness are not the same. Sometimes charity requires sternness and force. If Father Z has a problem with my posting then I will respect his wishes, but I am quite content with the way I’ve handled the occasions of grave error found herein.
Mike
1st point – several Parish Priests I’ve had the good fortune to discuss Summorium ponntificorum with (one offers the EF exclusively but his parish is over an hours drive away and I’m a poor 20yr old university student), several elderly people who currently attend SSPX services because the shock of the NO was too great for them, I personally have attended both Gregorian Rite and NO Services(when I’ve managed to secure a lift) and a fellow student (doesn’t count I know) whose home parish (during the hols) offers the EF at least once a week. Everyone I’ve spoken on the matter prefers the Old rite over the new apart from the University Chaplin.
2nd point I didn’t say that it justifed the rash actions of the SSPX but one can easially see how the ‘implimentation’ of V2 created a crisis in the Church the results of which are only too evident today.
3rd Point it really depends on if you are fortunate enough to have a Bishop who is sympathetic to the pastarol needs of the Traditionalist crowd, in my diocese the Bishop only permits a regular celebration of the EF in three parish’s all of which are in the middle of nowhere.
4th point – One thing which has struck me as slightly hypocritical is that the Eastern Rite Churches are allowed to keep thier own Rite (so far as Churches are built specifically for Ukraniane and Greek Melkite Catholics in western europe even if they tend to be locatd in major population centres) whilst the rest of us are faced the choice of ‘submit and shut up’ to the Novus Ordo or be labled as Dinosaurs
I’m afraid I have to log off perminantly as its nearly 8am here the UK and I’m going on a day trip with some SVD priests I know. Thanks for the enjoyable debate and I hope to talk to you more in the future
God Bless
Reading the posts here, you’d never think there was a legitimate reason to resist the pope for anything. Everything the pope does is right because he’s the pope! I guess St. Paul was really being schismatic when he resisted St. Peter to his face. And St. Thomas didn’t know what he was talking about when he made a distinction between true and false obedience.
Are we really supposed to “get something” out of liturgy? Isnt the point GIVING something?
I agree, Heather. That is one of the problems with the accusations launched against Vatican II, because people falsely accuse it as rupture because it might contradict something a previous Pope has said. It appears that too few people understand the nature of papal infallibility.
Mark,
Absolutely we are supposed to get something out of it. God commands worship because of how much He loves us, because worshiping God and worshiping Him properly is for our own good. Liturgy is designed specifically to orient us back towards God. It is necessary that it take proper form for our sake, not for God’s. We are the fallen ones who need to find our way back to God, and liturgy is a powerful and necessary means of achieving that.
Michael,
I must differ with your comment about the Divine Office. Yes, like the Mass it has undergone *gradual* change over the centuries. But I defy you to find a single additional instance of a 1,600-year-old office being suddenly suppressed.
That’s along the lines of… hmm… oh yes, suppressing an ancient rite of Mass for one fabricated by committee—another, even more shocking change. (Note: the word “fabricated” is Cardinal Ratzinger’s).
Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not in with the SSPX. I do not go to their chapels and will not until they are regularized. I also go to the Novus Ordo on a frequent basis.
However, none of this requires me to believe that the post-conciliar revolutionary reforms were *at all* a good thing. In fact, they were quite disastrous. And the *event* of the Council, if not the texts, plainly had terrible results. I would have to be blind not to notice this.
You’re right that the Novus Ordo would be much better if celebrated in a spirit of continuity. But by its very nature of being a made-up liturgy, it invites “creativity” and “experimentation”—which explains why 98% of the time it is not celebrated in a spirit of continuity (to the detriment of many souls). It isn’t *venerable*, meaning that there aren’t any taboos about messing around with it.
Now, I myself am also very close to applying to seminary, and I will most certainly celebrate the Novus Ordo as a priest (God willing), and in a spirit of continuity, but it will be more out of care for people’s souls and out of obedience than out of *any* affection for the Dr. Frankensteins on the Concilium who rashly treated the Holy Mass as their property to manipulate at will.
I have my lost family to think about.
God bless you on your own journey to the priesthood!
“Obedience” the “Catch 22” of Vatican II. Take the instance of the Austrian Bishops’ Conference, they are screaming schism on the part of SSPX. Yet, they are overseeing diocese where clergy and laity are acting in ways which are in complete contradiction to both the Articles of Faith and Discipline of Mother Church. Are not the Austrian bishops overseeing heresy and de facto schism themselves – we are in mad-house! SSPX act in complete line with those Articles of Faith – Msgr. Lefebvre only sought to adhere to the various vows he had solemnly sworn as he moved to his archbishopric. Was it a sin to adhere to those vows, or, was it a sin to seek that he break those vows?
Fr.Z stated that Msgr. Lefebvre had the authority for his seminary withdrawn, therefore he should submit. Come, come! Even in Canon Law there are procedures and those seeking the ‘withdrawl’ must substantiate cogent and provable reasons for their actions. Such objections were raised by a local bishop, initially, for what reason? Msgr. Lefebvre was an embarrassment to hierarchies who had abandoned both their individual vows and collegial faith.
Bishops’ Conferences and Collegiality -v- “Thou art Peter ……. “: Pastor inter Pares is the concoction of the CofE, contained in their Anglo-Catholic Missals [I know not in relation to their ASBs which are not unlike our own NOM Missal]. The Pope is the Supreme Pontiff, we have had strong popes and weak popes, some of the latter were prepared to submit to the neo-protestant hierarchies, but not criticise, let alone, castigate them. As an aside, the latest musing of the CofE, at a service commemorating Henry VIII [BBC R4], included: the CofE arose from the desire to provide a vernacular liturgy to the laity, and, the CofE is the “Catholic Reformed Church”! No mention of other matters.
Vatican II, in modern terms, might be likened to a computer Trojan – when opened spews forth a veritable myriad of viruses to infect the recipient computer/ Mother Church. Msgr. Lefebvre merely sought that we be aware of, and, fight off/counter the viruses [virusi?] escaping from that ‘Trojan’.
The vitriol spewed out against Msgr. Lefebvre and The Society [the latter not without flaw] can have no truly Catholic basis.
Dear Michael,
You are obviously a bright young chap and know a lot. However, you might consider being a little more patient with those who have had to made some extremely difficult decisions in order to keep their Faith alive during the post VII meltdown.
For parents, charged with certain duties of state and recognizing the highest law of the church is the salvation of souls, the equation is very simple – does doing action X or attending event Y increase or decrease the chances of my son or daughter saving their souls?
CAN the NO (technically valid though it is) be a danger to young and impressionable souls? Self evidently it CAN be! Some might say it is LIKELY to be given the way it is routinely celebrated in some countries.
Given this, is it sometimes better to stay at home and say the Rosary, read ones missal and make a spiritual communion than attend a NO mass? Surely it must be.
Many families go to extraordinary lengths to attend the Tridentine rite and avoid the putative dangers of the NO – even to the extent of not attending a NO mass where no other mass is available.
They don’t lack Faith, they are just being prudent with regard to the formation of the children. Given the circumstances and these intentions I don’t think anyone could say they are placing themselves in a state of mortal sin as you suggest. Rather I would suggest they are displaying great Charity!
JMJ
The Council of Trent cleared up lots of erroneous teaching current in the Medieval Church, it was not only continuity but also discontinuity like all other Councils. Tradition is what the Pope and the latest Council says it is. One wonders what the SSPX lot would have thought after the Council of Nicea, would they have extolled the time when the whole world groaned and found itself Arian as the true tradition?
Veritas,
You’re being disingenuous. Yes, Trent codified teaching.
But it didn’t come in and offer an entire new teaching like
Vatican II did.
dear david, your kindness had not gone unnoticed
Michael Hallman – I appreciate your fervor and commitment to the Church. After reading through these posts I think there is an aspect to this situation which you have missed and knowledge of which may help you in the priesthood.
We no longer attend the NO for many reasons but one in particular comes to mind here. My teenage son has literally begged me to only attend the EF because at the NO (and the one available to us is relatively conservative) the dress of the women is immodest and he simply can’t concentrate. You may say this is a weakness in my son but the fact is that a good Catholic boy is trying to do the right thing and I must help him. In raising my kids I try in all areas of our life to safeguard them. If in attending the NO they see immodesty, a casual attitude toward the Eucharist, boys dressed in jeans and sneakers, chatting before Mass, only female altar servers, the church emptying right after communion, etc etc it hinders my abilities as a parent to deepen the Faith in my children. As a lone adult I may choose to face these challenges but I won’t put my kids through it. The abuses are so rampant as to illicit deep feelings of resentment in many. I think you can understand how this is not a good state to be in during Mass. In all my years I have been to maybe two really reverent NO Masses.
I do agree that if we miss Mass because an EF isn’t available we should go to confession. We go twice a month anyway because it is offered at our parish before every Mass.
Please keep all this in mind. You may very well be right in all you say but as a priest you must realize that so many hearts were broken 40 years ago and how many children of those people consequently never really knew Christ as a result. I never knew what worship was until I discovered the EF a few years ago.
God bless you and we will pray for you and all priests as they navigate through these difficult waters.
Michael Hallman,
You need to make clear in this statement whether you are speaking strictly of the particulars of the case of SSPX or whether you are speaking in general, absolute terms – “There is no justification for the disobedience to the Pope”
Is it your position that disobedience to the pope, in theory, can absolutely never be justifiable? How is it, then, that St Paul “withstood Peter to his face, because he was wrong”? Peter was the first Pope, the superior of St Paul!
I suspect that you will not make your belief clear, since:
1) you can’t admit the morality of blind obedience – even to the pope – since it is Catholic doctrine that the pope is not infallible in everything he does or says, as the case of St Paul proves. When he is wrong, the pope should be “withstood” even to his face.
2) on the other hand, you cannot admit to the principle that disobedience – even to the pope – sometimes may be justifiable, since the facts of the case of SSPX would then be open as a legitimate point for discussion. And you don’t want to get into that!
Therefore, you will have to remain ambiguous on the principle.
Meg,
I will certainly keep what you say in mind. As a suggestion, if an NO is your only option, encourage your son to close his eyes throughout as much of the Mass as possible. During my hour or so at Mass my eyes typically remain open for only a few minutes, and even walking to receive Communion my head is bowed down – for several reasons, not the least of which is that at 31, while I have learned a great deal of self-discipline, I am not immune to the distractions and temptations that afflict your son.
There is a beautiful prayer that I add to the end of my Hail Mary’s – throughout the day when I have a few moments of down time I will pray three Hail Mary’s, and at the end of each I will pray, “O Mary, by your Pure and Immaculate Conception, make my body pure and my soul holy.” I’ve found that a tremendous help in my own struggles with purity of thought and with chastity. My own life is one of great sin and I have learned through experience the great love and protection of the Blessed Virgin, especially in this regard.
Again, thank you for your comment, and I will keep it all in mind.
David,
Paul was never disobedient to Peter. There is room for disagreement with the Pope because the Pope is only infallible in matters of faith and morals, and even as such there is proper form to expressing an infallible statement. But Peter never ordered Paul to do something which Paul later disobeyed. What +Lefebvre has done, and what SSPX has historically done since then, is defy a direct order from the Pope, and that is an act of disobedience which is unjustifiable. There is absolutely and unequivocally no justification for the disobedience of SSPX. None whatsoever. They created a near schism from the Catholic Church, and schism and near schism are never under any circumstances justified.
Regarding the Vatican II Council:
As Vatican II commenced in 1962, a little-known secret society, the Ordo Templis Orientis (OTO), conducted a ceremony to celbrate the opeing of the Council. The OTO’s occult icon, the “Stele of Revealing,” was carried across Germany from Hamburg to Zurich, then onward to Stein, where it was borned into the OTO’s chapel, with bells ringing for a Gnostic ritual. What advance knowledge did OTO have of the Council’s designs that caused it to celebrate in such a manner? It was its assurance that the Masonic liberal principle of the French (1789)Revolution would be enshrined in the Council.
Even Leon Josef Cardinal Suenesn of Belgium, a leading light of the Council, noted that the Vatican II Council is the French Revolution in the Church; Yves Congar, O.P. stated that “The Church has peacefully undergone its “October Revolution”.
Secondly, the failure of this Council to formally condemn International Atheistic Communism or at least to echo the sentiments of Piux XI (Divini Redemptoris, 1937)is sufficient to cast a dark shadow upon its entire conciliar proceedings. If this Council were truly Pastoral as it clamed it was, wouldn’t it make sense to demononstrate its pastoral solicitude for the millions who suffered under the tyrany of Communism? This would have been first & foremost, being a “Pastoral” Council.
Now we call it a ‘near schism’ for so many years the FSSPX was called ‘Schismatic’, they were or were not, what was and is the truth? “The smoke of satan has entered the Sanctuary(Holy place). Is not satan a false spirit, and does not satan cause chaos and confusion?
I continue to fail to understand why disobedience is said to lead to schism in the Church. Schism is a breaking away from the authority and recognition of the Holy Father. Disobedience does not necessarily presume this idea.
My children disobey me frequently, as I suppose many children do as they learn and hopefully grow more virtuous. They do not thus tell me I am no longer their mother, or my husband their father, due to their disobedience.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the SSPX and their reasons and arguments, in THEIR eyes their disobedience had a justifiable cause; and they never had any intention of not believing in or of breaking with the Pope. Disboedience, yes. Schismatic, as Henry VIII took his country’s church, no.
\”the new rite of mass IS mancentered. that is why no priest anywhere dares to celebrate it ad orientem, even though the rite itself presupposes this.\”
Haven\’t you ever heard of the Brompton and Birmingham Oratorians? Haven\’t you
heard of Servi Jesu et Mariae?
How about the Pope? He offers Mass ad orientem in his private chapel.
\”What many who comment from America (me included) fail to realize is that the Church is many European countries is dying quickly. In France the SSPX nad its members make up 1/3 of all practicing Catholics. Think about that for a second.
If the decline of the post VII church attendance continues at the same rate it is currently at, the SSPX will make up almost half (50%) of practicing Catholics in France within the next 10 years. This must be frightening to the local Bishops. It is why they are reacting with such hostility to the SSPX.
In another 50 years, if the SSPX is not reconciled, the SSPX will far outnumber the “VII” Catholics in most European countries.\”
This is precisely the kind of statistical mythology that leads many so-called Traditionalists
into the attitude that they can wait and need not reconcile, because the \”Conciliar
Church\” will die out anyway. It also produces a lot of crazy analysis, as well as this attitude
that we who are attached to the EF need only to sit back and relax because \”they are all going to us\”.
Actually, the best statistics as related me by my Traditionalist correspondents in
France is that only 5% (10% at most) of all church-going Catholics go to the TLM (and that stat already includes the SSPX).
In the USA, people going to TLM most likely don\’t number
more than 100,000; many Sunday Masses have only 50-150 attendees, and I know this because
as a contributor to Rorate Caeli I get a steady stream of letters and comments that
mention the number of Mass-goers to this or that TLM. Indeed, I am aware of a few TLM\’s thathave stopped due to the lack of churchgoers. Of course, there are many standing-room-only TLM\’s
as well as a demand for it in many places where no TLM has been set up, but
we all need to be realistic about the actual size of our movement.
France and the USA, keep in mind, have the world\’s strongest Traditional Mass movements.
The Traditional Latin Mass movement is not as big or as widespread as many of us would like to imagine, and it does not serve the cause of the TLM to pretend that the SSPX is set to dominate European Catholicism (for instance) or even that TLM-only orders are the only ones that have
vocations. Unfortunately, this kind of fuzzy and wishful thinking is very widespread in the Catholic blogosphere.
Precisely because we are not that many, we cannot afford to continue
being divided. The Church needs the unified witness and voice of all Catholics
attached to liturgical tradition as embodied in the Usus Antiquior. Furthermore,
we cannot be complacent: the continued spread of the TLM is, at this point, far
from certain, and the movement for traditional doctrine and liturgy continues
to be dawrfed by various movements in the Church that are the very embodiment
of heterodoxy or, at least, of extreme innovations in liturgy and spirituality. (I
am thinking, for example, of the Charismatic movement as well as of “New Movements”
such as the NCW)
Sal appears to me to get very close to the Anglican article which says that “General Councils have erred and do err even in matters pertaining to God”.
Michael Hallman writes:
One thing that I believe many traditionalists fail to recognize is that prior to Vatican II many, many people were getting very little out of the Gregorian Rite. Those who today long for and desire the celebration of the EF are not in large part representative of the average pre-Vatican II Catholic.
That is not exactly consonant with what I have heard from older people who lived before the Council. Of course, this is only anecdotal evidence so perhaps it would be helpful to back it up with some statistics. Under Dennis Cardinal Dougherty, as many as 99% of Catholics in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia made their Easter duty, and 90% attended Mass every Sunday. What are the statistics for Philadelphia today?
Those who extol the Syllabus of Errors should study Vatican I which by defining papal infallibility in a very restricted way to the great relief of Newman cut down to size the pretensions of Pius IX. His political opinions are purely of historical interest. The totalitarian doctrine of error has no rights in the hands of the secularist state has already in England given Catholic Adoption Agencies the choice of close down or conform to the law. A recent legal judgement is seeking to deprive Jews of the right to define who belongs to their religion. The next step logically will be to tell religious bodies what may be taught in their services and what they are allowed to consider sinful.
“Actually, the best statistics as related me by my Traditionalist correspondents in
France is that only 5% (10% at most) of all church-going Catholics go to the TLM (and that stat already includes the SSPX).”
I speak here only of Catholic churchgoers in France.
“One thing that I believe many traditionalists fail to recognize is that prior to Vatican II many, many people were getting very little out of the Gregorian Rite.”
I happen to agree with this, although this does not justify radical liturgical
reform. The fact that almost all the Council Fathers (including Msgr. Lefebvre and Msg. De Castro
Mayer) voted for Sacrosanctum Concilium shows that the hierarchy was aware that
the faithful needed to be brought deeper into the sacred liturgy. Furthermore,
as even many traditionalist clerics today will concede, the manner in which the
liturgy was offered prior to 1962 was often minimalist and perfunctory.
All these do not in any way justify the destruction that came in the aftermath
of the Council, but we need to also keep in mind that not everything was rosy
prior to 1962. There were very real problems even then, and to a great extent
the post-Conciliar collapse was but the fag end of many of the problems that had
become entrenched in the pre-conciliar Church.
Carlos, you are incorrect on your stats. Only slightly over 3% of all French Mass-goers go to the TLM.
dcs: I an one of those “older people who lived before the Council”. Moreover, I — unlike most Catholics — have been a keen student of the liturgy all that time. I was even aware before the Council of the already active liturgical reform movement, though I knew of no Catholics outside my small Catholic faculty discussion group who had any inkling that such things were afoot.
After the Council but before the chaos, many of us were initially enthusiastic about what we were assured was the definitive “liturgical fruit of the Council” — the so-called 1965 Order of Mass that (it seemed to me) preserved the basic nature of the traditional Latin Mass but admitted use of the vernacular. Of course, we now know that something else was afoot even as millions of the 1965 missals were being printed on the assurance that publishers would be able to sell them for a generation, and for many of us the euphoric afterglow of the Council dimmed all too rapidly.
Many either left the Church or lost their faith within it, but I remained and have been a loyal, supportive, and active (parish council, RE teacher, finance and school committees, and the like) member of a succession of local parishes in several areas of the country throughout all this time. Now that the older Mass is “back”, I attend it on Sundays and the newer Mass daily. Both are important to me; in recent years I have devoted approximately equal interest and anticipation to Summorum Pontificum progress and to English translation progress.
All this gives me a perspective that seems lacking in most comments one sees about how things were in the “old days”. Of course, situations varied from one locale to another, and in many parts of Europe apparently were not as rosy as throughout most of the U.S.
A good many U.S. statistical indices are similar to those you cite for Philadelphia. Maybe not quite as high as Philly’s 90% everywhere, but generally over 80% of all living Catholic men, women, and children present at Mass each and every Sunday.
As a Catholic convert in the 1950’s, I was initially quite observant of the Catholics I saw at Mass. As a former Methodist, I recall being impressed that a majority of them used missals to follow the liturgical action, and arguably were participating in some meaning prayerful way. Over the decades, only on rare and special occasions has it seemed to me that a majority of those present at the new form of Mass on Sundays is fully attentive to the action at the altar. There are just too many 30-yard stares at Mass — to which as a lifelong mathematics teacher I’m pretty sensitive — not looking at a missal or anything else, never opening a hymn book however insistent the cantor, not following the readings in the pew missalettes, not seeming to notice anything special at the consecration, etc.
So I conclude that now a smaller proportion of the smaller percentage of Catholics present at Mass are attentive or prayerful participants, as compared with those “old days”. Estimating percentages roughly, I get at least half of all Catholics alive being both present and participative at Mass in the old days, versus perhaps less than a fifth at the newer Mass.
Of course, then as now, there were still a number who weren’t, and a lot of Sunday Masses in the bigger parishes were very quiet low Masses. When we compare the typical Sunday TLM now with then, we see almost universal active and prayerful participation now, with the typical EF congregation both using their missals and chanting the Gloria, Credo, etc. in a full-throated way beyond what one typically heard in the old days.
So in the EF one sees the reform that the Council sought. In most places, we await similar fruits in the OF, though with the new translation and the continuation of the Benedictine reform of the reform, I believe that high hopes for the foreseeable future are not entirely unrealistic.
Michael Hallman writes:
“One thing that I believe many traditionalists fail to recognize is that…”
Perhaps “many traditionalist fail to recognize” because the statement that follows is untrue.
“…prior to Vatican II many, many people were getting very little out of
the Gregorian Rite.”
One thing that is very tiresome, Michael, is when you make up stuff like this statement, which is entirely without any basis in fact. By “many” you are obviously attemtping to imply “most.”
I was born Catholic and raised in the pre-Vatican II Church. The post-Vatican II church is a very much weaker and bizarrely different organization, owing to the disorientation caused by forced radical sweeping universal denial of 1500 years of tradition. The clearest sign of a religion in deep trouble is one that denies its tradition. That is *the* signature of the post-Vatican II church.
There was no logic to the changes that began appearing in late 1965. None of us (who were there) ever predicted the liturgical abomination that resulted from the Bug-nini newchurch-fascist assault. Why do you think that devout and true Roman Catholics left the Church by the hundreds of millions worldwide in the decade following Vatican II? Here’s a hint…it was *NOT* because they found that the post-Vatican II church was now giving them so much more! As for those who stayed, *overwhelmingly* most who I knew were motivated more by apathy rather than by dedication to the novus ordo newchurch.
“Those who today long for and desire the celebration of the EF are not in
large part representative of the average pre-Vatican II Catholic.”
You do *not* have *any* basis for this statement! It is false. I say again, it is tiresome when you just make things up.
Signed: Average pre-Vatican II Catholic (Stop making claims for me!)
My comment says exactly what I said it says.
Yes, and you are the one who introduced the question of infallibility.
And no, the two are not analogous.
Comment by Michael Hallman
Of course, they’re analogous.
I will, however, tell you what is not analogous–that is your fallacious comparison of Peter and the Apostles to the Pope and the bishops. I invite you to read the nota praevia to Lumen Gentium.
I agree, Heather. That is one of the problems with the accusations launched against Vatican II, because people falsely accuse it as rupture because it might contradict something a previous Pope has said. It appears that too few people understand the nature of papal infallibility.
Comment by Michael Hallman
Although I agree that infallibility is probably not the issue here, there are definitely some issues with continuity, some perhaps more serious than others.
1. The move away from the Bellarmine concept of Church as Perfect Society to the more traditional concept of Church as Mystical Body has caused some misunderstanding re non est salus extra ecclesiam. In fact, the objections made against Dominus Iesus by Cardinal Kasper indicated that he himself had not made the move.
As a Thomist I applaud the change, which of course began with Pius XII and Mystici Corporis. Of course, the irony is that the SSPX, known as Traditionalists, seems anchored in the less traditional Bellarmine approach.
The much discussed “subsistit” text of LG 8 seems to try to straddle both Ecclesiological approaches.
2. I’ve noted here before that a comparison of the relevant texts of VatI to VatII on the nature of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium indicates that its authority was expanded by VatII to cover Secondary Objects of Infallibility. Such an expansion obviously favors Tradition. This change was relevant to Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (noted by Card. Ratzinger), the substance of which was a Secondary Object.
3. There are, however, certain serious disconnects at Vat II. For example, the adequacy of Presbyterorum Ordinis as an expression of the priesthood is highly doubtful. The document seems not relevant to the monastic priesthood–or for that matter, the priesthood of religious orders. It has been influenced by Protestantism (Cardinal Ratzinger himself acknowledged this). IMHO, it is an attempt to reduce the Catholic priesthood to the life of parish priest.
4. There are also serious problems in Sacrosanctum Concilium, esp. in Ch IV, on the reform of the Divine Office.
carlos, there are two priests at the cathedral near where i live who were trained to say the old rite mass, but they will not say it there for us. there was a third priest there who was also trained to say it. when i asked him to say the novus ordo mass ad orientem if it was not possible to say the old rite mass, even though he had been trained to say it, he told me that if he came out of the sacristy and turned his back to the people he “would be in the newspaper the next day”. therefore he couldn’t do it. when i was young i used to attend mass at brompton oratory. but brompton oratory is part of the oratory of s. philip neri. i was referring to diocesan priests not being willing to say the mass ad orientem. i have never personally experienced mass ad orientem said by a diocesan priest here in the united states that was of the roman rite. i do not believe that the ordinary of this archdiocese is allowing them to be said that way. otherwise why should my simple request have been denied? you don’t need any training to say the novus ordo facing eastward. you just do it, and by doing it the mass becomes not centered on you.
“Carlos, you are incorrect on your stats. Only slightly over 3% of all French Mass-goers go to the TLM.”
Perhaps.
those who like action hero believe it is permissible to miss Mass because there is only a Novus Ordo available, those who deny Vatican II altogether. Those who do so are not traditional at all, no matter how much they would like to self-identify as such, because Second Vatican Council is part of our Tradition. Those who deny Vatican II altogether and who deny the validity of the Novus Ordo are as guilty of a hermeneutic of rupture as any post-concilliar Catholic who believes that Vatican II established something entirely new. Both are equally guilty of rupture and both attitudes must be equally denounced.
First:
The crusades are also part of our history right along with burning witches, etc. This does not mean we are PROUD of these parts of our history.
Second:
What you consider as a denial of VII is not the same as most traditionalists see it. I don’t think you will find many people who deny that the event took place. What you will find is people who take exception to some of the documents and their fruits. If you cannot see that many parts of the church have been allowed to make mistakes before (remember those crusades, witch burning events, etc.?) then you are fooling yourself if you think that councils cannot make grave errors as well.
There are very few things that are actually infallible in the church. Assenting to everything that comes out of any meeting of men without a long review, etc. is foolhardy.
it is v. insulting to say that people needed a ‘second vatican council’ just to be able to have respect for jewish people and people of other faiths. that is entirely untrue. having respect for others comes naturally to those who know the lord jesus. it is part of the desire to live in peace. it has nothing to do with a secondvaticancouncil. if this council actually did something good then why are half the churches being shut down as we speak ?
Father Z, with all due respect, you were just a little hostile in some of your comments too but I agree, the German interviewer seemed to have an axe to grind.
Fr. Z.,
As someone who has been involved with the Society and went to their seminary in Econe (although I am no longer a part of the Society), I wanted to comment a bit on your thought experiment in the commentary. The situation that you described is well accounted for in the education that they give their seminarians. According to what I was taught there, they fully recognize the valid baptism of most Christian, non-Catholic religions (as does the Church), acknowledging that they are in the state of grace and are on the path of salvation. However, that baptism is a Catholic baptism, thus they would belong in some way to the Catholic Church, until such a time that there would be a deliberate refusal of the Catholic faith with a well-formed conscience. Yet it is difficult or impossible to know when and if this ever occurs for the individual and thus great charity must be exercised. This belongs to the internal forum of the soul and is known only to God.
Yet that baptism remains solidly Catholic and not Protestant per se. It is only through the efficacy of the Catholic sacrament that it has its effect and is not properly a means of salvation outside of the Church. Even if it is confected outside of the Church, that is, by an extraordinary minister who has the intent to do what the Church does (which the Church has determined in the affirmative for many Protestant religions), it still confers the sacramental character. The difference, then, that needs to get cleared up is the material vs. formal means of salvation present in other religions. Based on my education with them, I think the Society would agree that there are material means of salvation present in other religions, but derive their efficacy only from the Catholic Church and not from Protestantism qua Protestantism. Of course, I cannot speak for them.
Their point of contention with Vatican II, according to my understanding, is this lack of distinction between formal versus material elements. Much of that is comes from a change in language that no longer or rarely uses Thomistic/Aristotelian philosophical language as a means of describing theology. Also many comments from various Church leaders in the past would seem to confirm an interpretation that these elements of salvation formally belong to other religions in their own right without deriving their material efficacy from the Church (Card. Kasper, etc.)
I would appreciate any comments that you may have.