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
(02-03-2012, 08:36 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]You know I never thought about this before but you're right, the Western Schism was downright ugly and lets not forget that as a result we got the heresy of conciliarism which lingered on for close to a century expressing itself in the Councils of Constance and Florence.

The Church has been through some dreadful crises.  This is just the latest, and seems worse because it's "our crisis."  In the Western Schism, half of the Church was teaching error.  In the run up to the Babylonian exile, almost the entire nation of of Isreal was apostate.  The Lord can work with small numbers, single digits even.  The teaching of error, or the sinful refusal to teach truth, if we prefer to characterize the crisis passively, does not equate to defectability.  That is the Donatist position, and St. Augustine addressed it comprehensively. 

I am hoping we can move past the issue of defectability, because the more pregnant issue (im my view) is Msgr Ocariz's premise that "Tradition" consists of the relationship between the magisterium and the people, but that the specific traditions (what you and I might also term "truths") can, and must change over time.  I would like other's opinions:  did I misread Msgr Ocariz?  If not, is not that a rather radical position?  Did anyone else find the SSPX response to the Msgr persuasive?  Does anyone else see the connection between the mutability of small-t tradition and the new scriptural exegesis, which goes under the name "Catholic," that denies the historical truth of much of Holy Writ? 
(02-03-2012, 08:53 PM)Warrenton Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2012, 08:36 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]You know I never thought about this before but you're right, the Western Schism was downright ugly and lets not forget that as a result we got the heresy of conciliarism which lingered on for close to a century expressing itself in the Councils of Constance and Florence.

The Church has been through some dreadful crises.  This is just the latest, and seems worse because it's "our crisis."  In the Western Schism, half of the Church was teaching error.  In the run up to the Babylonian exile, almost the entire nation of of Isreal was apostate.  The Lord can work with small numbers, single digits even.  The teaching of error, or the sinful refusal to teach truth, if we prefer to characterize the crisis passively, does not equate to defectability.  That is the Donatist position, and St. Augustine addressed it comprehensively. 

I am hoping we can move past the issue of defectability, because the more pregnant issue (im my view) is Msgr Ocariz's premise that "Tradition" consists of the relationship between the magisterium and the people, but that the specific traditions (what you and I might also term "truths") can, and must change over time.  I would like other's opinions:  did I misread Msgr Ocariz?  If not, is not that a rather radical position?  Did anyone else find the SSPX response to the Msgr persuasive?  Does anyone else see the connection between the mutability of small-t tradition and the new scriptural exegesis, which goes under the name "Catholic," that denies the historical truth of much of Holy Writ? 
I do not think many trads missed this point. His entire premise is that everything that happened in the Church prior to 1962 must be re-read in the light of the Conciliar documents of V-II, which has pride of place over everything else. Like i posted before, they redefined Tradition, wrote a new Catechism built on the Conciliar documents, and now use that to define everything in a manner that justifies the new theology. It is a circular argument. And that is why H.E. Bishop Fellay and the SSPX cannot acquiesce. If you agree with any one point, you agree to it all. That is the conundrum. I see no easy answer. And in the mean time, S.P. was issued to remove the ammunition of only the SSPX retaining the True Mass. This was a calculated move to pull teeth from the SSPX as the only group to consistently retain the Mass of Pope Pius V. Now the Mass is offered by FSSP, some Diocesan Priests and others. And these groups are not at odds with Rome. So now the Curia can leverage Bishop Fellay. Do not for one minute underestimate the actions of those in the Curia when it comes to diffusing threats to the New theology. This crisis goes beyond grey haired nuns and Priests who are holding tightly to the spirit of Vatican II. This is a war for the Soul of Jesus' Church and must be fought as such.
(02-03-2012, 07:57 PM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2012, 07:17 PM)Warrenton Wrote: [ -> ]The SSPX did not set any precedent.  It just stayed the same.

No it didn't.  It went from existing under ecclesiastical structures and laws to completely ignoring them.

Quote:The precedent was set by the magisterium, when it sought to redefine certain doctrines in a manner that are inconsistent with prior doctrines.

If it did that, then the Church has defected, and whole question is irrelevant, because Catholicism is not and never was the religion instituted by Christ.
"No it didn't.  It went from existing under ecclesiastical structures and laws to completely ignoring them."
Like when Rome suppressed the Society contrary to canon law and stated ABL was excommunicated, again contrary to canon law. All illegal, null and void.

(02-03-2012, 08:30 PM)Warrenton Wrote: [ -> ]Alright, we're getting someplace.  You and I disagree on the effect of teaching error.  In my view, the show is over when the Church ceases to exist.  It is not over when an individual sins publicly, which is a kind of teaching.  It is not over when a priest sins, or teaches error.  It is not over when a bishop teaches error, or even a group of bishops do, or even if a group of bishops persist in error for a number of years.  Why?  Because the Lord keeps His promise.

There continues a large number within the Church resisting the new doctrines, the new forms of the sacraments.  The Lord is keeping His promise.  The Church maintains her teaching of traditions, though many in power seek to deny them or change them.   Under your line of reasoning, the Church would have defected when many bishops went Arian, or when many, if not most, practiced simony, or lived in sin.  This was Luther's argument.  The sinfulness of individuals does not attach to the existence of the Church.

No, that is not my argument.  I agree with what you have written above.  But if the particular Church of Rome defects, it's over.  By which I mean the Catholic Church cannot be what it has always claimed to be - the one, true Church established by God himself.

Quote:Turning to your second answer, that Vatican 2 announced no new doctrines, under your analysis, how do we account for statements that Muslims worship the same God that we do, or that Catholics ought not convert Jews,  or that Protestants are part of the Catholic Church?  How do we account for the novus ordo?

None of those things were part of Vatican II.  Regarding Muslims worshiping the same God, that obviously depends on the meaning of "same" - same historical person or same characteristics - and I'm not sure why this gets brought up so much.
(02-03-2012, 10:13 PM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2012, 08:30 PM)Warrenton Wrote: [ -> ]Alright, we're getting someplace.  You and I disagree on the effect of teaching error.  In my view, the show is over when the Church ceases to exist.  It is not over when an individual sins publicly, which is a kind of teaching.  It is not over when a priest sins, or teaches error.  It is not over when a bishop teaches error, or even a group of bishops do, or even if a group of bishops persist in error for a number of years.  Why?  Because the Lord keeps His promise.

There continues a large number within the Church resisting the new doctrines, the new forms of the sacraments.  The Lord is keeping His promise.  The Church maintains her teaching of traditions, though many in power seek to deny them or change them.   Under your line of reasoning, the Church would have defected when many bishops went Arian, or when many, if not most, practiced simony, or lived in sin.  This was Luther's argument.  The sinfulness of individuals does not attach to the existence of the Church.

No, that is not my argument.  I agree with what you have written above.  But if the particular Church of Rome defects, it's over.  By which I mean the Catholic Church cannot be what it has always claimed to be - the one, true Church established by God himself.

And your definition of defection would be?
(02-03-2012, 09:58 PM)JMartyr Wrote: [ -> ]Like when Rome suppressed the Society contrary to canon law and stated ABL was excommunicated, again contrary to canon law. All illegal, null and void.

Haven't we covered this territory a dozen times already?  It doesn't make any sense to base an argument on the giver and ultimate interpreter of Canon Law being in some way in violation of it.  If someone thinks Canon Law was not properly followed, he can appeal that decision.  Which is exactly what happened.  And even though there may have been legal missteps in this case, it was quickly made irrelevant by the fact that the pope made the suppression of the society his own act.

Personal interpretations of Canon Law will get us even less far than personal interpretations of magisterial teachings.  When the guy you are bringing your case against makes and interprets the laws, you are going to lose every single time.  It's simply not an angle worth pursuing.

And I don't want it to sound like I'm jumping on the SSPX here.  I don't want them to shut up or go away.  I want the exact opposite of that, but I want them to do it by the laws that we have that keep the Church working.  And I think it's pretty clear from what he says that that is what Bishop Fellay wants too.  Maybe it's impossible.  Maybe there's too much that's too personal between the guys running the show now.  Maybe it will only be solved by the next generation of leaders who don't have a personal stake in it.  But I will continue to hope and pray that it can be.

There are a lot of problems here, but there's also a lot of potential good that could come from all this.  And if God frustrates evil by bringing good out of it, then maybe we just need to be a little patient until it all comes rushing forth.
(02-03-2012, 10:47 PM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2012, 09:58 PM)JMartyr Wrote: [ -> ]Like when Rome suppressed the Society contrary to canon law and stated ABL was excommunicated, again contrary to canon law. All illegal, null and void.

Haven't we covered this territory a dozen times already?  It doesn't make any sense to base an argument on the giver and ultimate interpreter of Canon Law being in some way in violation of it.  If someone thinks Canon Law was not properly followed, he can appeal that decision.  Which is exactly what happened.  And even though there may have been legal missteps in this case, it was quickly made irrelevant by the fact that the pope made the suppression of the society his own act.

Personal interpretations of Canon Law will get us even less far than personal interpretations of magisterial teachings.  When the guy you are bringing your case against makes and interprets the laws, you are going to lose every single time.  It's simply not an angle worth pursuing.

And I don't want it to sound like I'm jumping on the SSPX here.  I don't want them to shut up or go away.  I want the exact opposite of that, but I want them to do it by the laws that we have that keep the Church working.  And I think it's pretty clear from what he says that that is what Bishop Fellay wants too.  Maybe it's impossible.  Maybe there's too much that's too personal between the guys running the show now.  Maybe it will only be solved by the next generation of leaders who don't have a personal stake in it.  But I will continue to hope and pray that it can be.

There are a lot of problems here, but there's also a lot of potential good that could come from all this.  And if God frustrates evil by bringing good out of it, then maybe we just need to be a little patient until it all comes rushing forth.

You mean the rather important fundamental law of the church such as 'The first law is the salvation of souls' ? The law the SSPX are following and which annuls all other law including the popes if he contravenes it?
(02-03-2012, 10:47 PM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]And I don't want it to sound like I'm jumping on the SSPX here.  I don't want them to shut up or go away.  I want the exact opposite of that, but I want them to do it by the laws that we have that keep the Church working.  And I think it's pretty clear from what he says that that is what Bishop Fellay wants too.  Maybe it's impossible. 

The laws are good. It's the people who interpret the law to their own advantage/agenda that is the problem.
There hasn't been a single excommunication declared upon the SSPX, that has been valid. NOT ONE.
The law is not the problem. We need real Catholics interpreting the laws within the Church and not fame seekers nor career clergymen.

(02-03-2012, 10:47 PM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]And I don't want it to sound like I'm jumping on the SSPX here.  I don't want them to shut up or go away.  I want the exact opposite of that, but I want them to do it by the laws that we have that keep the Church working.  And I think it's pretty clear from what he says that that is what Bishop Fellay wants too.  Maybe it's impossible.  Maybe there's too much that's too personal between the guys running the show now.  Maybe it will only be solved by the next generation of leaders who don't have a personal stake in it.  But I will continue to hope and pray that it can be.

There are a lot of problems here, but there's also a lot of potential good that could come from all this.  And if God frustrates evil by bringing good out of it, then maybe we just need to be a little patient until it all comes rushing forth.

I really appreciate your approach to this, Chris.
(02-03-2012, 10:47 PM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]It doesn't make any sense to base an argument on the giver and ultimate interpreter of Canon Law being in some way in violation of it.  If someone thinks Canon Law was not properly followed, he can appeal that decision.  Which is exactly what happened.  And even though there may have been legal missteps in this case, it was quickly made irrelevant by the fact that the pope made the suppression of the society his own act.

This is a little different than the theoligical issue, but obviously related.  Let me ask, when the old mass was suppressed, what should the priests have done?  Continued to say it?  What should the people have done?  Refused to go to the New Mass, or sit there in total silence?  Refuse to support the Church?  There was no opt out permitted.  So what was the Society to do? 

As far as the highest authority making mistakes, this happens in history.  King Saul consulted the witch of Endor.  King David killed his loyal servant in order to steal his wife.  St. Peter tried to impose superceded ritual on the gentile Christians.  The Old Testament shows that the Lord keeps the covenant regardless.  In secular life, we know that high authority breaks the law:  the Supreme Court did not have the legal right to strike down laws forbidding abortion, but it did so anyway in contravention of the Constitution and the will of the majority of citizens. 

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