FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: CDF rejects SSPX second response
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
If the Vatican II documents can be reconciled with previous teaching, without contradiction, the Pope needs to explain how this can be done.  Why is this so difficult?
(02-03-2012, 01:32 PM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2012, 01:14 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]The Church itself, the SSPX judges Vatican 2 by the previous magisterium not as some have suggested its own private judgement.

But the SSPX is not the Church itself.  Their interpretation of the previous magisterium is by definition a private judgment.  Only the magisterium authentically interprets the magisterium.

Indeed which of course is why one can refer to several hundred or even thousands of years worth of documents each interpreting the other and each supporting the other, these then contain the true teaching of the Church, not 50 years worth of documents which bear no relation whatsoever to the magisterium of The Church.
(02-03-2012, 01:32 PM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ][quote='TrentCath' pid='968439' dateline='1328289240']But the SSPX is not the Church itself.  Their interpretation of the previous magisterium is by definition a private judgment.  Only the magisterium authentically interprets the magisterium.

This really gets to the heart of what the SSPX response to Msgr. Ocariz said.  The SSPX states that "tradition" is an objective thing.  It can be known, grasped and understood by all men endowed with at least some ability to reason.  Let's apply the SSPX position to something concrete: scripture.  The SSPX says it is the tradition of the Church that Christ was crucified, but that he returned from the dead three days later and walked the earth for 40 days, teaching many.  In other words, if we had been alive then, we could have seen two actual events:  the execution of Christ, and then,  miraculously, the same man back among the living. 

In contrast, Msgr. Ocariz says that the "tradition" of the Church in this regard is that the magesterium has taught certain things regarding the resurrection, and the faithful have accepted it.  The magesterium can change the specifics of the teaching, and but that the teaching remains "the same" because the same teacher is teaching, and the same flock obeys - even though the specific teaching changes, such as Rahner and Kung's comments that the resurrection might not be a historical event. 

When Christ said "taste, and see," he was appealing to men's ability to perceive and recognize objective reality - truth, if you will.  The magesterium does not have the power to change history under the pretext of obedience, and no Catholic is bound to believe that anyone has the power to change the actual traditions of the Church, which are objectively true in saecula saeculorum.

(02-03-2012, 01:34 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: [ -> ]Now where's the line between the obvious teaching of the magisterium and the interpretation of it?  I don't know.

Quite right - the question is what is obvious.  Your women's ordination example was good, and there are many others.  But I don't see how the majority of topics covered by the Vatican II documents held in question fall into this category.  Even if the teachings in these areas are obvious, it is not obvious that the Vatican II documents contradict them (particularly given the vague wording in them).  If it were obvious, the majority of the Catholics at the time would have recognized it and refused to accept it.  But they did not.  Nor did the majority of bishops.  Nor did the majority of theologians.  But we've already had a lengthy thread about that recently.

As Vetus rightly points out, the Catholic faith is knowable by the laity.  That does not mean that every complex theological point is obvious.  Nor does it give the laity (or individual clergy) the right to interpret magisterial teachings.  Nor does it give them the right to declare anyone a heretic (there are established legal procedures for this).  And all of this stuff is important, because it's what holds the Church together.  The Protestants forgot this and where did it leave them?  With countless small groups with widely differing teachings in only a few hundred years.  God gave us a Church with a hierarchy and pope exactly for this reason - because somebody has to be charge, otherwise, it's chaos.  Not because of bad intentions, but because human beings are not perfect, and our reasoning and judgment is not perfect.  We make mistakes, even in good faith.  And that is why infallibility (understood correctly, of course) is essential to this structure - because without that, there is the risk of erroneous human judgment, no matter how well-intentioned, perverting the teachings that were left to us.

The problem I have here is not that the SSPX wants to clarify what certainly are eyebrow raising statements and bring sanity back to troubled times, but that the way they have chosen to go about this sets an extremely bad precedent:  Don't like what you see?  Just strike out on your own and do whatever you want.  They say that they have not separated themselves from the Church, but really this means nothing when they answer to no one and do nothing they are told.  And this includes things that are entirely within the legitimate power of those above them, and not directly connected to their objections, such as consecrating bishops.  Of course their argument is that they needed to consecrate bishops so preserve tradition, but this is an out that lets them do whatever they like toward that end, with themselves as they only judge as to what is necessary.  The Church cannot operate this way.

And the thing here is that the SSPX is full of good priests who want to be Catholic and want to serve the Church, and posses great knowledge and skills toward this end, but by taking this approach may have placed themselves in the very "side chapel" they are hoping to avoid by "rejoining Rome".  Because they aren't going to "convert" Rome.  That's a nonsensical notion.  The only way this will end is with the SSPX completely separating itself from the Church, in truth as well as in practice, or with some pope in the future interpreting the Vatican II documents to their satisfaction or saying they can be ignored because of their ambiguity or because they serve no good purpose - NOT because they contradict previous Catholic teachings.
(02-03-2012, 03:46 PM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]The problem I have here is not that the SSPX wants to clarify what certainly are eyebrow raising statements and bring sanity back to troubled times, but that the way they have chosen to go about this sets an extremely bad precedent:  Don't like what you see?  Just strike out on your own and do whatever you want.

The SSPX didn't separate themselves from the Church. They didn't do anything. It was the Roman authorities that went out of their way to try and supress a legitimate fraternity of priests erected in Switzerland that hung on to the divine tradition of the Church. This antagonism culminated in the "excommunications" of 1988 and the status quo ever since.

A profound injustice has been perpetrated against the Society and traditional Catholics. The antagonism remains to this day.

(02-03-2012, 11:52 AM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2012, 02:15 AM)sarahraphael Wrote: [ -> ]I pray daily for reunification with Rome, but it won't do the Church and the Faithful much good unless Rome first reunifies with tradition and the Church Triumphant.

I never knew you were Eastern Orthodox?  And I'm not being funny.  Half the words spoken in this thread, and not just by yourself Sarah, could literally be copy-and-pasted word for word from an Eastern Orthodox discussion forum or apologetics site.

Smurf, don't insult your own intelligence by making such comparisons. It is obvious to anyone with a working knowledge of the state of the Church and a reasonable amount of critical thinking skills that my position, and that of others in this thread holding similar ideas, is very different than that of the Eastern Orthodox. This is obvious from the paragraph above alone, and much moreso to anyone who's conversed with me.

I know that you have a different take on the Church crisis situation than I do and I think no less of you nor of your faith for it, but please be intellectually honest and thoughtful if you engage in debate on the topic.

I love the Church very deeply, and it is because I love the Church that I do not attend or support the NO. It is because I love the papacy and the great papal saints that have blessed our history that I follow the prelates urging our current Holy Father to the valor and truth of our Catholic past. Our Lord never said that we would never have problems, or even false prophets, within the Church. The Scriptures are clear on that. But just like Tradition can never contradict Scripture, neither can new Church teachings contradict Tradition. God's Church is one of Truth, and Truth cannot contradict itself.

And that's really all I have to say on the matter, aside from urging all to pray! For the freedom and exaltation of Holy Mother Church.
(02-03-2012, 04:15 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]The SSPX didn't separate themselves from the Church. They didn't do anything. It was the Roman authorities that went out of their way to try and supress a legitimate fraternity of priests erected in Switzerland that hung on to the divine tradition of the Church. This antagonism culminated in the "excommunications" of 1988 and the status quo ever since.

A profound injustice has been perpetrated against the Society and traditional Catholics. The antagonism remains to this day.

They did do something.  They ordained priests and consecrated bishops in direct defiance of the pope's commands.  They continued a priestly society that was suppressed without going through the proper channels.  They continue to exercise priestly functions while suspended from exercising priestly functions.  How all this got started is not my point - there is surely plenty of blame to go around.  The point is that the position they have placed themselves in is a problem.  Even if they get everything they want, there is a dangerous precedent set for the future.  Suppose the next priestly society that has a bishop that strikes out on its own on principle is not nearly so traditional, thinking that Rome will eventually come to its senses and that they will just continue consecrating bishops until that happens.  That's not a situation we want to deal with.  There can be disagreements between people of good faith, but every effort needs to be made to not have these fractures, that are, for all practical purposes, actual divisions in the Church.  And again, I'm not saying the blame for the SSPX situation falls entirely with them.  It's just not a good situation, because this is not how we want to resolve these problems.
(02-03-2012, 04:40 PM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2012, 04:15 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]The SSPX didn't separate themselves from the Church. They didn't do anything. It was the Roman authorities that went out of their way to try and supress a legitimate fraternity of priests erected in Switzerland that hung on to the divine tradition of the Church. This antagonism culminated in the "excommunications" of 1988 and the status quo ever since.

A profound injustice has been perpetrated against the Society and traditional Catholics. The antagonism remains to this day.

They did do something.  They ordained priests and consecrated bishops in direct defiance of the pope's commands.  They continued a priestly society that was suppressed without going through the proper channels.  They continue to exercise priestly functions while suspended from exercising priestly functions.  How all this got started is not my point - there is surely plenty of blame to go around.  The point is that the position they have placed themselves in is a problem.  Even if they get everything they want, there is a dangerous precedent set for the future.

The only dangerous precedent here was set by Rome herself who has been going about in the last few decades obscuring and even outright denying Catholic truths in order to make peace with laicism and achieve "union" with non-Catholics. That is what is truly worrisome! Rome has been actively persecuting divine tradition and those who still cling to it. The "crime" of the Society was not the consecration of bishops and the exercise of priestly functions. No, their "crime" to this very day is the perpetuation of a Church that should have been long gone and strictly confined to history books.

The SSPX apostolate must be viewed and understood against this calamitous and extraordinary background without precedent in the Church's past. Religious obedience and ecclesiastical authority don't exist unto themselves but rather to serve a higher purpose: truth and the salvation of souls.
(02-03-2012, 04:33 PM)sarahraphael Wrote: [ -> ]but please be intellectually honest and thoughtful if you engage in debate on the topic.

I'm not being intellectually dishonest or insulting anyone's intelligence.  I'm calling it like I see it.  I won't be so sleazy as to say you're all Protestants.  That's clearly not true.  But I find a disturbing similarity with the positions held by many on this forum and Eastern Orthodoxy.  But even at that such comparisons are unnecessary.  I honestly believe many members here are out-right schismatic, regardless of the flavour you want to attach to their brand of schism with the majority more being border-line schismatic.  Not because they assist at the Extraordinary Form.  Not even because they assist at the Holy Sacrifice offered at SSPX "apostolates" for I am aware there are various reasons for doing so (no licit TLM in reasonable distance).

But rather because of the blatant anti-Roman attitudes that are prevalent.  The belief that Rome is teaching error and promulgating invalid Sacraments.  Impossible.  Crisis?  Crooked priests selling indulgences and Masses.  That's a crisis in a parish or even in the entire Church if it's widespread.  Rome teaching error and giving the Church invalid and evil Sacraments?  That's not a crisis because for a Catholic such a thing is impossible.  It's approaching the Church from a non-Catholic position.  A Catholic knows such a thing isn't going to happen.

Is the Ordinary Form an inferior liturgy compared to the Extraordinary Form?  Yea.  The Divine Office has lost its beauty.  Catechisis sucks.  Parish priests are a disgrace.  There is widespread error amongst the Church faithful.  No one's going to Mass.  The majority of so-called Catholics can't say a rosary to save themselves.  Every sin under the sun seems to be given free reign.

Everything's fucked up.  We get it.  But Peter is our rock.  There's a reason for that.  We're safe when we anchor ourselves to Peter (Rome).  That's the be all and end all for a Catholic.
(02-03-2012, 04:55 PM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]We're safe when we anchor ourselves to Peter (Rome).

And that's exactly what traditional Catholicism does. It anchors itself to infallible Peter, not the doubting one.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25