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
Saw this at Angelqueen forum:

http://www.lavie.fr/religion/vatican/le-...538_17.php
Google translation from the original French:

Pope Benedict XVI at the failure of negotiations with the fundamentalist
Jean Mercier
28/01/2012

After a final review of the record fundamentalist by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Benedict XVI is to decide now if the dissidents Lefebvrists can be reintegrated into the Catholic Church. The pope, who has worked hard for a reconciliation, faces the fundamentalist rejection of the legacy of Vatican II.

Never the solitude of the head of the Catholic Church has been greater. Pope must decide the issue of reconciliation between the Catholic Church and dissidents Lefebvrists. The Pope must rule after the balance achieved by the Plenary Assembly of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), met from January 24 to 27, who worked on this issue among other topics.

At this asemblée, the prelates of the CDF members scrutinized the answers that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has given the Preamble doctrine that had been submitted in September 2011. First, the initial response of Bishop Fellay, head of the SSPX, sent to the Vatican in December 2011 and which led to a request for clarification. Then, the second response sent by Bishop Fellay in mid-January 2012. However, sources relayed by the agency I. MEDIA, the second response did not satisfy members of the CDF. Indeed, the FFSPX involves much of the legacy of Vatican II. Officially, according to Monsignor Guido Pozzo, secretary of the Commission Ecclesia Dei, joined by La Vie , the evaluation phase of the response Lefebvrist is completed. The outcome rests in the hands of Benedict XVI. But it is unlikely that the Pope is pronounced differently from the bishops of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
(02-01-2012, 07:08 PM)richness of tradition Wrote: [ -> ]Saw this at Angelqueen forum:

http://www.lavie.fr/religion/vatican/le-...538_17.php
Google translation from the original French:

Pope Benedict XVI at the failure of negotiations with the fundamentalist
Jean Mercier
28/01/2012

After a final review of the record fundamentalist by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Benedict XVI is to decide now if the dissidents Lefebvrists can be reintegrated into the Catholic Church. The pope, who has worked hard for a reconciliation, faces the fundamentalist rejection of the legacy of Vatican II.

Never the solitude of the head of the Catholic Church has been greater. Pope must decide the issue of reconciliation between the Catholic Church and dissidents Lefebvrists. The Pope must rule after the balance achieved by the Plenary Assembly of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), met from January 24 to 27, who worked on this issue among other topics.

At this asemblée, the prelates of the CDF members scrutinized the answers that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has given the Preamble doctrine that had been submitted in September 2011. First, the initial response of Bishop Fellay, head of the SSPX, sent to the Vatican in December 2011 and which led to a request for clarification. Then, the second response sent by Bishop Fellay in mid-January 2012. However, sources relayed by the agency I. MEDIA, the second response did not satisfy members of the CDF. Indeed, the FFSPX involves much of the legacy of Vatican II. Officially, according to Monsignor Guido Pozzo, secretary of the Commission Ecclesia Dei, joined by La Vie , the evaluation phase of the response Lefebvrist is completed. The outcome rests in the hands of Benedict XVI. But it is unlikely that the Pope is pronounced differently from the bishops of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

This is hardly surprising considering who was sitting on the committee, sadly it appears the time has still not come for Rome to renounce her errors.
SSPX answers Roman expert (Link is to a PDF File - I pasted it in it's entirety below)

1-31-2012
A Crucial Question
Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize
L’Osservatore Romano of December 2, 2011, published a study by Msgr. Fernando Ocariz,
one of the four experts who represented the Holy See during the recent doctrinal
discussions with the Society of St. Pius X (from October 2009 to April 2011). The central
question of the magisterial value of the Second Vatican Council is addressed
straightforwardly, yet nevertheless insufficiently.
1. Incontestable Principles
In the first part of his study, the Spanish prelate recapitulates the fundamental notions
recalled by Pius XII in Humani Generis: the fact that an act of the Church’s Teaching
Authority [magisterium] is not guaranteed by the charism of infallibililty proper to solemn
definitions does not mean that it can be considered “fallible” in the sense that it conveys
“provisional teaching” or even “authorized opinions.” In general, that is, when it does not
give solemn and infallible definitions, the Church’s Teaching Authority is always assisted by
God, and this assistance is necessary to assure the indefectible transmission of the deposit
of faith. In this sense, the merely ordinary teaching authority also benefits from a certain
charism of truth.1 The infallibility of the Church’s Teaching Authority [magisterium] must be
understood analogously, that is, as admitting of varying degrees.2
Likewise, then, the assent due to truths proposed by the Teaching Authority [magisterium]
may also be understood as admitting of varying degrees. Infallible solemn definitions
ordinarily set formally or virtually revealed truths, which require an assent of divine faith.
Other non-defined teachings require religious inner assent, which implies, over and above
the assent to the truth properly so-called, a certain element of obedience toward the
magisterial authority. Finally, acts of the magisterium may contain elements that, being
extraneous to a particular teaching, do not command as such any assent.
2. An Inadequate Framing of the Problem
These general reminders would not present any difficulty had Msgr. Ocariz not applied them
to the teachings of Vatican II. For according to him, even if the last General Council had no
intention of defining any dogma, the charism of truth and the Church’s magisterial authority
were certainly present there, such that to refuse them to the episcopal corps assembled
cum Petro et sub Petro in order to teach the universal Church would be to deny a part of the
Church’s very essence. In this way, the conciliar statements that reiterate truths already
proposed by a definitive act of the Church’s previous Teaching Authority [magisterium]
obviously require an assent of theological faith. The other doctrinal teachings of the Council
require religious inner assent.
No doubt we could congratulate ourselves that we are finally seeing a theologian of the Holy
See introduce all these nuances and thus deny quite formally, albeit implicitly, all the
unilateral presentations which until now have presented the Second Vatican Council in a
maximalist perspective, as an absolutely untouchable dogma that is “even more important
than that of Nicaea.”3 However, as seductive as it may be in the nuances and distinctions
2
Society of Saint Pius X United States of America District www.sspx.org
that it offers, such an analysis radically conveys a postulate that is far from being selfevident.
Msgr. Ocariz’s study thus avoids responding to the crucial question, which is still
pending between the Society of St. Pius X and the Holy See. More precisely, the answer to
this question seems to go without saying in the view of the Opus Dei prelate, so much so
that everything happens as though it had never been necessary to address it. Or as
though the debate never had to take place.
Yet this debate is more imperative than ever. It is in fact far from self-evident that the last
Council could impose its authority, in all matters and for all purposes, in the eyes of
Catholics as the exercise of a genuine Magisterium, demanding their assent at the different
levels indicated. Indeed, if we recall the traditional definition of the Magisterium, or
Teaching Authority (§3-5), we really are obliged to observe that the proceedings of Vatican
II hardly comply with it (§6-7). Still less so, given that this wholesale novelty of the twentyfirst
Ecumenical Council at bottom can only really be accounted for in terms of absolutely
unheard-of presuppositions (§8-12).
3. The Purpose of the Magisterium
The unity of the Church and the unity of faith are inseparable, and the role of the Church’s
magisterium [Teaching Authority] precisely is to safeguard them. The gift [charism] of truth
is needed by the Teaching Authority for accomplishing this end, that is to say, as the means
required so that the common good of the Church may be preserved, namely, unity in the
profession of one and the same faith. This is the reason given in the Constitution Pastor
Aeternus of Vatican I: “So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred
upon Peter and his successors in this chair… that with the occasion of schism removed the
whole Church might be saved as one.”4 St. Thomas explains in like manner why the pope
must receive divine assistance when he teaches dogma; he must be helped precisely in as
much as he acts as the head of the Church for the safeguard of the unity of the Church:
The reason of this is that there should be but one faith of the whole Church,
according to I Corinthians 1:10: “That you all speak the same thing, and that
there be no schisms among you”: and this could not be secured unless any
question of faith that may arise be decided by him who presides over the
whole Church, so that the whole Church may hold firmly to his decision.5
It is, then, the final cause of the activity of the Teaching Authority that explains the
indefectibility of its faith. The Teaching Authority is assisted by God to the extent that it
must assure the unity of faith in the Church. This assistance, therefore, is not absolute but
limited: it is concomitant with the transmission of Revelation and nothing else. Christ told
the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would assist them in order that they might teach all that He
had taught them, no more and no less.6
Far from constituting doctrine, the Teaching Authority is defined as such in objective
dependence on divine Revelation, whose integral transmission it must assure.7 During the
debates preceding the adoption of the Constitution Lumen Gentium, the chief
representatives of the Coetus Internationalis Patrum had proposed a significant
amendment.8 This change in the wording meant that, if the definitions of the Roman Pontiff
are irreformable of themselves and not because of the consent of the Church, the assistance
of the Holy Spirit would also not permit that they should ever contradict the common faith
of the Church or depart from it. The reason for the amendment was to indicate that the
pope does not have the power to define arbitrarily all kinds of truth. During the First Vatican
Council, the reporter charged with explaining in the name of the Holy See the exact
meaning of the text of Pastor Aeternus emphasized this point.9 As has been justly
3
Society of Saint Pius X United States of America District www.sspx.org
remarked,10 if from an incorrect outlook one should lose sight of the right ordering which
makes the Teaching Authority [magisterium] dependent on objective Tradition, the Deus
revelans runs the risk of dropping into the background to the advantage of the custos et
magistra. The way to avoid this risk is to keep in mind the essential definition of the
Teaching Authority [magisterium]: a power ordered to its object. And since the unity of a
power flows from that of its object, the unity of the Teaching Authority [magisterium] is that
of revealed truth.11
4. The Unity of Truth and of Revelation
As Cardinal Franzelin has shown,12 the unity of revealed truth and of Tradition is first and
foremost the unity of the signification of different dogmas in the ordered expression of
the same truth. The dogmas are distinct from one another, but they compose a unity
because they are ordered to one another insofar as they all signify, in a mutually
complementary and interdependent fashion, various aspects of one and the same revealed
truth. This makes sense because the truth revealed by God presupposes the principle of all
truth, which is the principle of non-contradiction, the principle of “non-division” at the level
of meaning, the principle of the unity of truth. The unity of dogmatic truth is conveyed by
the unity of the meaning of the words that express the truth.
This is why, in the Constitution Dei Filius, the First Vatican Council asserted that “that
understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother
Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the
specious name of a deeper understanding….”13 The Antimodernist Oath of St. Pius X also
affirms: “I accept sincerely the doctrine of faith transmitted from the apostles through the
orthodox fathers, always in the same sense and interpretation, even to us; and so I reject
the heretical invention of the evolution of dogmas, passing from one meaning to another,
different from that which the Church first had.”14
5. The Unity of the Teaching Authority [Magisterium]
The object of faith is the ontological truth, that is to say the very reality of the mystery as it
is attained by the believer by means of concepts and verbal expressions.15 The object of
revelation is the logical truth, that is to say the conceptual formulation of the mystery the
expression of which (or the exterior verbal sign, written or oral) is the dogma. The teaching
of the magisterium or of tradition is the communication of this revelation by means of
exterior language (written or oral) that expresses the conceptual formulation of the
mystery. Revelation and Tradition have as their object to provide the faithful the concepts
and verbal expressions by means of which the act of faith will terminate in the reality of the
mystery. The deposit of faith is the ensemble of these verbal and conceptual expressions.
This deposit, confided to the safekeeping of the Teaching Authority [magisterium], is
immutable in its signification. The Teaching Authority cannot therefore contradict revelation
by proposing truths the meaning of which is not willed by God. Nor can it contradict itself by
proposing truths the meaning of which would be contrary to that of truths it has itself
already set forth. This remains true even if the conceptual or verbal expression of the
revealed truth may gain in precision and even if the Teaching Authority can exercise its
power to propose more explicit dogmatic formulas. It is this activity of the Teaching
Authority that allows us to speak of “a homogeneous development of dogma.” These
dogmatic formulations, moreover, finally become definitive when they express revealed
truth in a sufficiently explicit manner. This fact was affirmed by Pius XII in opposition to the
false postulates of the new theology.16 The mission that has as its object to expound the
4
Society of Saint Pius X United States of America District www.sspx.org
deposit of faith obeys the same rules as the mission that has as its object to preserve it
since it is but a consequence of it.
This is why the Teaching Authority, defined in dependence on its object, is constant or
traditional. This consistency exactly corresponds to the very unity of the Teaching Authority,
which is derived from its object. The unity of the Teaching Authority is therefore that of a
teaching that always presents the same divinely revealed truth, giving it an unchanging
meaning even if its expression can become more precise by means of a more explicit verbal
and conceptual formulation.
6. The Fact of Vatican II: A New Pastoral Teaching
Pope John XXIII’s opening speech (October 11, 1962), his allocution to the Sacred College
of Cardinals of December 1962, and Benedict XVI’s Christmas speech of December 22,
2005, clearly indicate the intention of the Council and the exact signification of “pastoral
magisterium.” Vatican II wished to express the faith of the Church according to the research
methodology and literary formulations of modern thought, and to redefine the relationship
of the faith of the Church with certain essential elements of this thought.
Obviously, the Magisterium of the Church is always pastoral in intention in the sense that at
every age of history its pastors prudentially expound the truth to guide souls to eternal
salvation. But at the same time, by its nature Church teaching always remains strictly
doctrinal and disciplinary in its object. John XXIII’s declarations clearly affirm that, unlike
previous General Councils, the unique and specific viewpoint by which Vatican II intended to
scrutinize doctrinal, disciplinary, and pastoral matters was not doctrinal, but pastoral in a
fundamentally new sense of the term. This would explain, by the way, the perplexity of a
great number of Council Fathers over a kind of document hitherto unknown. When the
Teaching Authority [magisterium] of the Church proposes the object of faith by having
recourse to language drawn from the philosophy natural to human reason,17 philosophy’s
contribution is the conceptual and verbal tool kit placed in the service of a more perfect
expression of revealed truth. The Second Vatican Council intended to study and expound
doctrine, not only “according to the literary formulations” but also “following the research
methods of modern thought.” If this intention expressed by John XXIII is taken seriously, it
may rightly be said that the intention of the Council was to have recourse to modern
thought not only as a tool, but even more so as a veritable formal object, principle, and
method for the study and exposition of doctrine. In this context, the word “pastoral”
assumes its full import. The explicit intention of Vatican II was to receive from the world the
new set of problems of the modern era.
We may take as supplementary proof of this what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in his book
Principles of Catholic Theology, originally published in 1982.18 The epilogue of the book is
entitled “On the Status of Church and Theology Today,” with subsections including “Church
and World: An Inquiry into the Reception of Vatican Council II.” There the Prefect of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated:
Of all the texts of Vatican Council II, the “Pastoral Constitution on the Church
in the Modern World” (Gaudium et spes) was undoubtedly the most difficult
and… also the most successful. In its form and in the direction of its
pronouncements, it is most closely related to [sic; the French translation has
the opposite: “it diverges significantly from” (il s’écarte dans un large mesure
de la ligne de l’histoire…)] the history of former councils and, more than any
of the other texts, allows us to see the physiognomy of the last council. Since
Vatican Council II, it has come, therefore, to be increasingly regarded as the
5
Society of Saint Pius X United States of America District www.sspx.org
true legacy in which, after three years of fermentation, the real intention of
the Council seems to have been incorporated. The lack of clarity that persists
even today about the real meaning of Vatican Council II is closely associated
with such diagnoses and, consequently, with this document…. (P. 378)
…We must ask ourselves again what exactly was the new and special
character of the “Pastoral Constitution.”… A first characteristic seems to me to
reside in the concept of “world”…. By “world” the Council means the
counterpart of the Church. The purpose of the text is to bring the two into a
relationship of cooperation, the goal of which is the reconstruction of the
“world”. The Church cooperates with the world in order to build up the
world—it is thus that we might characterize the vision that informs the
text….By “world”, it would seem, the document understands the whole
scientific and technical reality of the present and all those who are responsible
for it or who are at home in its mentality. (Pp. 379-80)
Little wonder, then, that Cardinal Ratzinger then writes that “the text [Gaudium et spes]
serves as a counter-syllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an
attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789” (p. 382); and
also, “Vatican II was right in its desire for a revision of the relations between the Church
and the world. There are in fact values, which, even though they originated outside the
Church, can find their place—provided they are clarified and corrected—in her
perspective.”19 Based as it is on the method of inquiry characteristic of modern thought, the
Council necessarily propounds teachings that make it dependent on the modern world.
Undoubtedly the modern world may be led to pose in a new way the eternal questions to
which the Church will bring answers that still flow from the same principles and the same
method. But Vatican II did not examine the new questions raised by modernity in the light
of faith, and it even, to the contrary, explicitly refused to examine a good number of
questions whose importance was recognized by all Catholics, for instance the question of
Communism. The specificity which makes of Vatican II an absolutely unique case is the
intention to expound the faith in the light of and after the manner of modern thought. Now,
no council can receive its methods of inquiry or of thought or of culture from the modern
world as it was “inaugurated in 1789.”20 The principles and the method of the ecclesiastical
magisterium have been sufficiently indicated by Vatican I: “The doctrine of faith which God
revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be
perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be
faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted.”21
Consequently, it is false to assert, as does Msgr. Ocariz, a consistency of method by virtue
of which the documents of Vatican II would legitimately shed light on those of the
magisterium before 1962. On the one hand, in fact, the goal of Vatican II was not to take
up and clarify these teachings; and on the other, Vatican II intended to express the faith
following the principles and methods of a new school of thought that is opposed to faith,22
not only in any particular one of its contents, but in its very foundation, which is that of
criteriological doubt. Such a manner of thinking is not only incompatible with Catholicism; it
is directly opposed to the natural metaphysics of the mind, calling in question its capability
to know the true. Modern philosophy has in fact inverted the relationship of subject to
object, and likewise the relation of man to God. By adopting the investigative methods of
modernity, the Council [la pensée conciliaire] assumed this inversion as the Declaration on
Religious Freedom, for example, makes manifest: the principle and foundation of this
declaration is nothing else than the primacy of ontological dignity over moral dignity, that is
to say, the primacy of the subject over the object. A similar inversion, with the subjectivist
6
Society of Saint Pius X United States of America District www.sspx.org
supposition it implies, is absolutely contrary to the most realistic principle of objectivity
presupposed by revelation, tradition, and the magisterium. Modern thought, with its manner
of inquiry, cannot serve as the basis of interpretation of a teaching [magisterium] whose
objective presuppositions are antithetical.
7. The Fact of Vatican II: New Teachings Contrary to Tradition
On at least four points, the teachings of the Second Vatican Council are obviously in logical
contradiction to the pronouncements of the previous traditional Magisterium, so that it is
impossible to interpret them in keeping with the other teachings already contained in the
earlier documents of the Church’s Magisterium. Vatican II has thus broken the unity of the
Magisterium, to the same extent to which it has broken the unity of its object.
These four points are as follows. The doctrine on religious liberty, as it is expressed in No.
2 of the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae, contradicts the teachings of Gregory XVI in Mirari
Vos and of Pius IX in Quanta Cura as well as those of Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei and
those of Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas.23 The doctrine on the Church, as it is expressed in
No. 8 of the Constitution Lumen Gentium, contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius XII in
Mystici Corporis and Humani Generis.24 The doctrine on ecumenism, as it is expressed in
No. 8 of Lumen Gentium and No. 3 of the Decree Unitatis Redintegratio, contradicts the
teachings of Pope Pius IX in propositions 16 and 17 of the Syllabus, those of Leo XIII in
Satis Cognitum, and those of Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos.25 The doctrine on
collegiality as it is expressed in No. 22 of the Constitution Lumen Gentium, including No. 3
of the Nota Praevia [Explanatory Note], contradicts the teachings of the First Vatican
Council on the uniqueness of the subject of supreme power in the Church in the Constitution
Pastor Aeternus.
Moreover, the liturgical reform of 1969 resulted in the concoction of a new Ordo Missae that
“represents, both as a whole and in its details a striking departure from the Catholic
theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.”26 The
restoration of the rite of Mass accomplished by St. Pius V resulted in a more explicit
expression of the aspects of the Catholic Faith denied by the Protestant heresy. The
liturgical reform carried out by Paul VI resulted in the concealment of the same aspects at
the very moment of a powerful resurgence of the heresies that had necessitated the
clarification of these aspects of the sacred mysteries. The Missal of Paul VI was not issued
for the purpose of clarifying that of St. Pius V. Rather, it departed from it in the sense that it
obscured and rendered ambiguous what the Missal of St. Pius V had clarified and made
explicit. To the objection that Paul VI’s liturgical reform intended to make explicit other
aspects till then left in obscurity, we answer that a new formulation cannot undermine the
clarification previously made; but this is what the new 1969 Missal did, by concealing
aspects of the Catholic Faith particularly denied by Protestant heresies.
With the above-named four points as well as in the subsequent liturgical reform, Vatican II
set before the eyes of perplexed Catholics clearly unacceptable contradictions. Taken as a
whole, the grand reform of Vatican II comes across as a strange amalgam, a subtle mix of
partial truths and previously condemned errors.27 Infected as it is by the principles of
liberalism and of modernism, its teaching presents grave deficiencies. Assuredly, these
deficiencies prevent Vatican II from appearing as a council like the others, representing the
authorized expression of objective Tradition. These deficiencies also keep us from saying
that the last Council fits into the unity of the Church’s unchanging magisterium.
8. A New Set of Problems
7
Society of Saint Pius X United States of America District www.sspx.org
In keeping with the December 2005 address of Pope Benedict XVI to the Roman Curia,
Msgr. Ocariz posits the principle of a “unitary interpretation,” according to which the
documents of Vatican II and the preceding magisterial documents ought to be reciprocally
enlightening. The interpretation of the novelties taught by the Second Vatican Council must
therefore reject, as Benedict XVI says, “the hermeneutic of discontinuity” in relation to
Tradition, whereas it must affirm “the hermeneutic of reform, of renewal in continuity.” This
is new vocabulary which clearly expresses a new set of problems. The latter inspires the
whole observation by Msgr. Ocariz: “One essential characteristic of the Magisterium,” he
writes, “is its continuity and its homogeneity over time.”
If we speak about “continuity” or “rupture,” this should be understood, in the traditional
sense, to mean a continuity or rupture that is objective, in other words, related to the
object of the Church’s preaching. This is tantamount to speaking about the set of revealed
truths, as the Magisterium of the Church preserves and presents them, giving them the
same significance, without the possibility of a contradiction between present teaching and
past teaching. Rupture would consist of attacking the immutable character of objective
Tradition and would then be a synonym for logical contradiction between two statements,
the respective meanings of which cannot both be true at the same time.
But it is necessary to admit the plain truth and to recognize that the word “continuity” does
not have this traditional sense at all in the current discourse of ecclesiastics. They speak
precisely about continuity with regard to a subject that evolves over the course of
time. It is not a question of the continuity of an object, of the dogma or the doctrine that
the Church’s Magisterium proposes today, giving it the same meaning as before. It is a
question of the continuity of the unique subject “Church.” Moreover, Benedict XVI speaks
not exactly about continuity, but about “renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church
which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet
always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.” Conversely,
he adds immediately afterward, “The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split
between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church.” That means that the
rupture must be situated on that same level: it is a rupture between two subjects,
meaning that the Church, the one subject [consisting] of the People of God, would no longer
be the same before and after the Council.
9. A New Conception of the Unity of the Magisterium
Pope Benedict XVI’s recent speech [of December 22, 2005] implies a new conception of the
unity of the magisterium. The continuity in question is unity in time, that is to say the unity
maintained through the change measured by time, which is, firstly, the unity of the subject,
not of the object. The subject is the Church, the one People of God, that is to say, the
assembly of the baptized. The subject is the reference point which accounts for the unity of
Tradition.
The Instruction Donum Veritatis of May 24, 1990, upon which Msgr. Ocariz grounds his
argumentation, develops in detail this point of view. Under the heading “The Truth: God’s
Gift to His People,” the first chapter of the instruction develops the idea contained in No. 12
of Lumen Gentium, according to which the preservation and explanation of the revealed
deposit would be the affair of the People of God as a whole prior to any hierarchical
distinctions. The baptized would have as their share in this work a prophetic office, more
fundamental than the teaching office [the magisterial function] belonging to the Apostles
and their successors.28 Cardinal Ratzinger stresses this idea, which in his view is decisive, in
his presentation of the Instruction Donum Veritatis:
8
Society of Saint Pius X United States of America District www.sspx.org
Looking at the articulation [i.e., structure, outline] of the document, one is
almost struck by the fact that we have not introduced it by speaking first
about the Magisterium but rather about the topic of truth as a gift from God
to his people. The truth of faith is not given to isolated individuals [e.g., pope
or bishop]; rather through it God wanted to give life to a history and to a
people. The truth is located in the communitarian subject: the People
of God, the Church.29
Likewise, John Paul II said in No. 27 of the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Pastores
Gregis:
In the Church, the school of the living God, Bishops and the faithful are all
fellow disciples, and all need to be taught by the Spirit. Many indeed are the
places from which the Spirit imparts his inner teaching: first of all, in the
heart of every person, and then in the life of the various particular Churches,
where the various needs of individuals and the various ecclesial communities
emerge and make themselves heard, not only in languages that are known
but also in those that are new and different.30
What is lacking here is the absolutely necessary distinction between the recipients and the
depositary-intermediary. The entire People of God (and even more than the People of God,
all men without exception) are the recipients, those to whom is destined the truth of
salvation. But only some isolated individuals are chosen from among the rest of men to be
the titulars of a hierarchical office and the depositaries of this truth, because it is to them
alone that it has been confided as a deposit with the charge to preserve it, and they alone
are the intermediaries established by God to communicate the saving truth in His name. The
Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae of June 24, 1973,31 upon which Msgr. Ocariz also grounds
his argumentation, indeed says that the authority of the Teaching Office [magisterium] is
requisite in order to guarantee the social unity of the expression of the faith.32 Unlike what
happens in Protestantism or the Modernism of Alfred Loisy, condemned by St. Pius X, the
Teaching Authority is considered here a divine institution, and it alone is assisted by God in
order to lead the People by indicating the authorized interpretation of the Word of God. But
the document does not say that the authoritative teaching office [magisterial function] is
required as a depositary and intermediary, the privileged witness having received from God,
as individuals, the truth of His revelation with the mandate to preserve and transmit it. The
1990 Instruction Donum Veritatis clarifies this point of doctrine in Mysterium Ecclesiae,
teaching that the truth of faith is a gift of God to all His People, that it is not given to
isolated individuals (pope or bishops), but that it resides in the communitarian subject, the
People of God.33
In the Commentary published on June 27, 1994, written to clarify the meaning of the
Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis published the preceding May 22, Cardinal Ratzinger
clearly expressed this new conception of the Teaching Authority [magisterium]:
Scripture cannot become the foundation of a life unless it is confided to a
living subject—the very one from which it sprang. Scripture has its origin in
the People of God guided by the Holy Spirit, and this People, this subject, has
never ceased to exist. The Vatican Council II expressed all this in the
following way: “[I]t is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws
her certainty about everything which has been revealed” (Dei Verbum, §9)….
According to the vision of Vatican II, Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium
[Teaching Authority] should not be considered as three separate realities, but
in this vital complex the full meaning of Scripture, read in light of Tradition
9
Society of Saint Pius X United States of America District www.sspx.org
and lived in the faith of the Church, is revealed. The task of the Teaching
Authority [magisterium] is to confirm this interpretation of Scripture made
possible by the hearing of Tradition in faith.34
In this document, the term “Tradition” is distinguished from the magisterium and designates
the concrete life of the People of God, that is, the vital context from which the magisterium
must draw as from a wellspring.
The catechesis dispensed by Benedict XVI in 2006 also confirms this idea. The Church
originates from an experience which the Apostles lived with Christ.35 Prolonged in space and
time, this experience led to a communion, which had to avail itself of the service of the
apostolic ministry in order to preserve its spatial-temporal cohesion.36 The hierarchical unity
in time and in space is a second unity that flows from a more radical unity, that of common
experience. It is thus that the living tradition, which is the common experience continued in
time, precedes and gives rise to the apostolic tradition, which is the ministry continued in
time as a service of communion. The two traditions will always remain synchronized, and
the continuity of common experience will never be found without the continuity of the
ministry, for in Benedict XVI’s view, the Church is not a purely charismatic community. But
there is nevertheless in the definition he gives of the Church a logical anteriority of the
common experience in relation to the ministry. This anteriority is exactly that which is
introduced by the Instruction Donum Veritatis: the People of God, depositary of the truth in
this sense precedes the hierarchical Teaching Authority [magisterium]. Tradition is, then,
understood in a new sense as the continuity of an active presence, that of Jesus who lives in
His People. It is accomplished by the Holy Spirit and expressed37 thanks to the service of
the apostolic ministry: “This permanent actualization of the active presence of the Lord
Jesus in his People, brought about by the Holy Spirit and expressed in the Church through
the apostolic ministry and fraternal communion is what, in a theological sense, is meant by
the term ‘Tradition.’”38 It is “the communion of the faithful around their legitimate Pastors
down through history, a communion that the Holy Spirit nurtures, assuring the connection
between the experience of the apostolic faith, lived in the original community of the
disciples, and the actual experience of Christ in his Church.”39
In this new outlook, it is no longer said that the role of the magisterium is to preserve and
transmit in the name of God the deposit of truths revealed by Christ to the Apostles. It is
said that its role consists in guaranteeing the cohesion of the communitarian experience of
the origins in such a way that the communion of the present day continues the communion
of yesterday. The magisterium is then at the service of the subject-Church, its role being to
set forth in authorized formulations the preconceptual intuitions of the sensus fidei.
The reality of the sensus fidei cannot be denied. It amounts to a unanimous and infallible
consensus of belief. But it is a question precisely of the consensus of the learning Church.
This flows from the infallibility of the teaching Church, which is its proper cause. The Church
being one and holy in its faith, the belief of the faithful is indefectibly and solidly docile in
time and in space to the teaching of the magisterial hierarchy. Undoubtedly one may speak
broadly of a certain subject of Tradition in the passive sense and which corresponds to all
the faithful taken as a whole, but this subject is such as a simple witness of the teaching of
the magisterium, and the consensus of the Church in its beliefs possesses at most the value
of a sign that makes known the infallibility of the teaching that has proposed for belief the
truth unanimously believed. In this sense, the profession of indefectible faith of the learning
Church represents a theological place, for it is the learning Church alone that manifests
many truths proposed infallibly by the oral preaching of the ordinary and universal
magisterium. But this sort of criterion remains the simple sign of the infallibility of the
teaching, and not its cause. To make of it a cause is to commit the error of understanding
10
Society of Saint Pius X United States of America District www.sspx.org
its particular domain as the power of magisterium, which was condemned by Vatican
Council I: [the error of holding] “that the same primacy was not immediately and directly
bestowed upon the blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through this Church
upon him as the minister of the Church herself.”40 This would also imply that a proposition
of the Teaching Authority would not be infallible except insofar as it would be accepted
(even antecedently) by the People, which would formally contradict the statement made by
the same Vatican Council I: “…and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself,
but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.”41
10. A New Conception of the Unity of Truth
In the traditional outlook, in which the point of reference is the object, the unity of the
magisterium is that of revealed truth since the magisterium is defined as the organ of
objective Tradition. On that account, the act of the magisterium is not defined essentially as
a present act by opposition to a past act. For if the teaching authority is exercised, it is not
insofar as it is present or current, but insofar as it always expresses the same signification
of the same truth with increasing precision. This expression of truth, with the accompanying
explanation in eodem sensu, is of itself timeless. In this sense, the living magisterium
cannot be reduced to the present magisterium as distinguished from the past magisterium
which would be a non-living or posthumous magisterium. If the present magisterium is
living, the past magisterium also was. Time has no direct and immediate incidence on the
object or on the act of the magisterium that expresses it. To support his critique of the
teachings of Vatican II, Archbishop Lefebvre always invoked very precisely, not “the past
magisterium” but “the magisterium of all time” [de toujours]—in other words, the consistent
magisterium. Time concerns only the subject that exercises the power of the magisterium,
and it is in this sense that we can distinguish between a remote rule (the past magisterium)
and a recent rule (the present magisterium) of faith.
In the new outlook implied by the December 22, 2005 discourse and elucidated in the
documents we have cited, the point of reference is no longer the object. The unity of the
magisterium is that of “the one subject-Church which… increases in time and develops, yet
always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.” The
magisterium is defined as the organ of a common experience lived in time by the People of
God. Continuity then is posited in the subject-Church, which remains the same
independently of the object. It is not the subject that adapts to the object; rather, the
object is said to be continuous because its subject remains the same. The renewal in
continuity of which Benedict XVI speaks consists in establishing “the connection between
the experience of the apostolic faith, lived in the original community of the disciples, and
the actual experience of Christ in his Church.”42 In point of fact, this renewal does not
consist in expounding the same doctrine in a more explicit manner. It consists in changing
doctrine, with the principles it implies, under the pretext that these principles (which they
say are only “durable”) must find their application in a contingent matter. It is in this sense
that Vatican II intended to establish “a new relation between the faith of the Church and
certain essential elements of modern thought,” in order that the doctrine of the faith might
be “presented in a way that responds to the demands of our epoch” and “following the
methods of inquiry and literary formulations of modern thought.” Since it is the same
subject-Church that adopts a different position vis-à-vis the world brought forth by
modernity, the renewal would represent continuity and not a rupture.
As the Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae logically teaches,43 if the Magisterium proposes to
the People of God doctrinal formulations as so many different forms apt to translate an
experience lived through the vicissitudes of time, “it does not follow that every one of these
formulas has always been or will always be so to the same extent.” Such relativism is
11
Society of Saint Pius X United States of America District www.sspx.org
contrary to the teachings given by Pius XII in Humani Generis, but it chimes with the new
idea of the magisterium expounded in Donum Veritatis. Moreover, the future Benedict XVI
himself has justified this relativist conception:
[The document] states—perhaps for the first time with such clarity—that
there are magisterial decisions which cannot be and are not intended to be
the final word on the matter as such, but are a substantial anchorage in the
problem and are first and foremost an expression of pastoral prudence, a sort
of provisional disposition…. In this regard, one can refer to the statements of
the Popes during the last century on religious freedom as well as the antimodernistic
decisions at the beginning of this [20th] century, especially the
decisions of the Biblical Commission of that time. As a warning cry against
hasty and superficial adaptations, they remain fully justified…. But the details
of the determinations of their contents were later superseded, once they had
carried out their pastoral duty at a particular moment.44
This relativism occurs in the Christmas Speech of December 22, 2005, which reasons as if
every decision, from the very fact of its belonging to history, can only concern contingent
matters and express a truth only relative to circumstances:
In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more
practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters—for
example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the
Bible—should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they
refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself.
This relativism in the pope’s thinking did not begin yesterday. While still working as a
theologian, Joseph Ratzinger explained himself quite clearly on this point: “Not only must
one say,” he wrote in 1972, “that the history of dogma, in the domain of Catholic theology,
is fundamentally possible, but also that any dogma that is not elaborated in the context of
the history of dogmas is inconceivable.”45 This is why “the formation of the concept of
Tradition in post-Tridentine Catholicism constitutes the greatest obstacle to an historical
understanding of the Christian reality” (ibid., p. 65). In effect, the post-Tridentine concept
of Tradition presupposes that revelation closed at the death of the last of the Apostles and
that since then its meaning has remained substantially immutable. Now, “the axiom of the
end of revelation with the death of the last Apostle,” explained Joseph Ratzinger,
was and is, within Catholic theology, one of the principle obstacles to a
positive and historical understanding of Christianity: the axiom thus
formulated does not belong to the original fundamental ideas of the Christian
conscience…. By affirming that revelation was closed with the death of the
last Apostle, revelation is objectively conceived as a body of doctrines
communicated by God to mankind. This communication came to an end one
day, and the boundaries of this body of revealed doctrine were thus fixed at
the same time. Everything that came afterward would be either a
consequence or a corruption of this doctrine…. [Now,] not only does this
conception stand in the way of a full understanding of the historical
development of Christianity, but at the same time it stands in contradiction
with the Biblical record. (Ibid., p. 64)
All of this is perfectly coherent if one maintains that Tradition is “the communion of the
faithful around their legitimate Pastors down through history, a communion that the Holy
Spirit nurtures, assuring the connection between the experience of the apostolic faith, lived
12
Society of Saint Pius X United States of America District www.sspx.org
in the original community of the disciples, and the actual experience of Christ in his
Church”46; or else: “Tradition, therefore, is the history of the Spirit who acts in the Church's
history through the mediation of the Apostles and their successors, in faithful continuity with
the experience of the, origins”47; or if one postulates that “Tradition is not the transmission
of things or words, a collection of dead things. Tradition is the living river that links us to
the origins, the living river in which the origins are ever present, the great river that leads
us to the gates of eternity”48; or if one decides that “[the Apostolic Tradition]… is not a
collection of things or words, like a box of dead things. Tradition is the river of new life that
flows from the origins, from Christ down to us, and makes us participate in God's history
with humanity.”49
But if the waters of this great river which bathes the faith of the Church never stay the
same, we shall have a hard time indeed following Msgr. Ocariz in the search for a “unitarian
interpretation” that satisfies the demands of the principle of non-contradiction.
11. The Knot of the Dilemma
In the logic of Vatican II and of the 2005 Christmas speech, the object as such is relative to
the subject. In the logic of Vatican I, and of all the traditional teaching of the Church, the
subject as such is relative to the object. These two logics are irreconcilable.
The Magisterium, in whatever era it may be, must remain the organ of the deposit of faith.
It becomes perverted to the extent in which it alters that deposit. It is false to say that
divinely revealed principles that have been made explicit by the previous Magisterium are
not necessarily binding, on the pretence that the subject-Church experiences them
differently through the contingency of history, or that the People of God finds itself being led
to establish a new relation between its faith and the modern world. Some principles that are
applied in contingent matters (for instance those that form the basis of the whole social
doctrine of the Church) are not contingent. No doubt, the substantial immutability of
revealed truth is not absolute, because the conceptual and verbal expression of that truth
can acquire greater precision. But this progress does not involve any calling into
question of the meaning of the truth, which only becomes more explicit in its
formulation. The principles are still necessary principles, whatever the different concrete
forms they may assume when they are applied. This distinction between principles and
concrete forms proves to be artificial with regard to the social doctrine of the Church; when
Benedict XVI resorts to it in his 2005 Christmas address in order to legitimize the
Declaration Dignitatis Humanae, he does so in vain.
To return to Vatican II: the fundamental question is to determine the first principle that
must serve as the ultimate rule for the activity of the Magisterium. Is it the objective data
of divine revelation as it is expressed in its definitive substance through the teaching
authority of Christ and the Apostles, to which the ecclesiastical Magisterium is only the
successor? Is it the communitarian experience of the People of God, the trustee (and
not just the recipient) of the gift of the Truth as the bearer of the meaning of the faith? In
the first case, the ecclesiastical Magisterium is the organ of Tradition, and it depends on the
divine-apostolic teaching authority as its objective rule; the question then is whether the
objective teachings of the Second Vatican Council are those of a constant Magisterium and
an immutable Tradition. In the second case, the ecclesiastical Magisterium is the
amalgamating spokesman of the communal awareness of the People of God, charged with
establishing the spatial-temporal cohesion of the expression of the sensus fidei; Vatican II is
then for the subject-Church the means of expressing in conceptual language its sensus fidei,
experienced and updated with respect to the contingencies of the modern era.
13
Society of Saint Pius X United States of America District www.sspx.org
12. Hermeneutic and Reinterpretation
In Msgr. Ocariz’s view, the teachings of Vatican II are novelties “in the sense that they
make explicit some new aspects which were not yet formulated by the Magisterium but
which, on the doctrinal level, do not contradict the preceding magisterial documents.” An
accurate exegesis of the documents of the Council would therefore apparently presuppose
the principle of non-contradiction. But appearances are deceiving, since non-contradiction
no longer has the same meaning at all as it did until now.
The Magisterium of the Church has always understood this principle to mean an absence of
logical contradiction between two objective statements. Logical contradiction is an
opposition that is found between two propositions, one of which affirms and the other
denies the same thing predicated of the same subject. The principle of non-contradiction
demands that if this opposition occurs, the two propositions cannot be true at the same
time. This principle is a law of the intellect and only expresses the unity of its object. Since
faith defines itself as intellectual adherence to the truth proposed by God, it verifies this
principle. The objective unity of the faith also corresponds to an absence of contradiction in
its dogmatic statements.
The hermeneutic of Benedict XVI now understands this principle in a sense that is no
longer objective but subjective, no longer intellectualistic but voluntaristic. “The absence
of contradiction” is a synonym for continuity at the level of the subject. Contradiction is a
synonym for rupture, at the same level. The principle of continuity does not demand first
and foremost the unity of the truth. It demands first and foremost the unity of the
subject that develops and grows over the course of time. It is the unity of the People of
God as it lives in the present moment, in the world of this time, to quote the suggestive title
of the Pastoral Constitution [on the Church in the Modern World], Gaudium et Spes. This
unity is expressed solely through the authorized word of the present Magisterium, precisely
insofar as it is present. Msgr. Ocariz underscores this:
An authentic interpretation of the conciliar documents can be made only by
the Church’s Magisterium itself. That is why the theological work of
interpreting passages in the conciliar documents that raise questions or seem
to present difficulties must above all take into account the meaning in which
the successive interventions of the Magisterium have understood these
passages.
Let us make no mistake about it: this Magisterium which must serve as a rule of
interpretation is the new Magisterium of this time, the one that resulted from Vatican II. It
is not the Magisterium of all time. As it has been rightly remarked, Vatican II must be
understood in the light of Vatican II, reinterpreting in its own logic of subjective, living
continuity all the teachings of the constant Magisterium.
Until now the Magisterium of the Church has never compromised itself by begging the
question in this way. It has always wanted to be faithful to its mission of preserving the
deposit [of faith]. Its principal justification has always been to refer to the testimonies of the
objective Tradition which is unanimous and constant. Its expression has always been that
of the unity of the truth.
13. The Magisterium and Vatican II
The same word “magisterium” is used both to designate the person who exercises the
power of the magisterium [the teaching office or authority], (the pope or the bishops), and
14
Society of Saint Pius X United States of America District www.sspx.org
the act of the magisterium (an infallible definition or a simply authentic teaching). The
person is the subject of a power or of a function which is by definition ordered to its object.
For example, every man is endowed with a reasoning mind [speculative intelligence]
ordered by nature to grasp first principles.50 This function either absolutely is or is not. On
the other hand, the exercise of the magisterium is the employment of a function: even if
most of the time this usage is correct, it always remains possible that the titular of a
function may exercise the act defectively, which amounts to failing to accomplish the act,
since a defective act is defined as a privation. For example, intellectual error or falsehood is
defined as the privation of the relationship that should exist between the mind and reality.
We admit without challenge that Vatican II represented the magisterium of the Church in
the sense in which the power of the bishops who were gathered during this council cum
Petro et sub Petro was and still is the power to teach the universal Church. But we object
that the intention of this Council was to meet the demands of a self-styled pastoral
magisterium, the new intention of which is clearly foreign to the ends of the divinely
instituted magisterium. It contradicted on at least the four points named above objective
fundamental ideas of the constant magisterium clearly defined. It thus appears that this
magisterium was marked by a grave deficiency in its very act. The Angelic Doctor said:
“When anyone endowed with an art produces bad workmanship, this is not the work of that
art; in fact it is contrary to the art.”51 Similarly, due allowance being made, when a council
produces bad teaching, it is not the work of the magisterium; in fact, it is contrary to the
magisterium, that is to say, against Tradition.
That is why nobody could be content today with the so-called “spaces for theological
freedom” at the very heart of the contradiction introduced by Vatican II. The profound
desire of any Catholic who is faithful to his baptismal promises is to adhere with complete
filial submission to the teachings of the perennial Teaching Authority [magisterium]. The
same piety demands also, with increasing urgency, a remedy for the serious deficiencies
that have paralyzed the exercise of this Teaching Authority [magisterium] since the last
Council. To this end the Society of St. Pius X still desires, now more than ever, an authentic
reform, meaning that it is up to the Church to remain true to herself, to remain what
she is in the unity of her faith, and thus to preserve her original form, in fidelity to the
mission that she received from Christ. Intus reformari.52
1 Msgr. Ocariz is referring to the Vatican II Constitution Dei Verbum (§8), but St. Pius X makes the same point in
the Antimodernist Oath (the Motu Proprio Sacrorum Antistitum of September 1, 1910, DS 3549).
2 On this point, see Charles Journet, L’Église du Verbe Incarné, 2nd ed. (1955), I, 426-35. In addition to an
absolute assistance, which is the root of infallibility strictly speaking, proper to solemn definitions, there is also a
prudential assistance, which is the root of infallibility broadly speaking, proper to the everyday ordinary preaching
of the magisterium.
3 Letter of Paul VI to Archbishop Lefebvre of June 29, 1975, published in Itinéraires: La condamnation sauvage de
Mgr Lefebvre, special issue, December 1976, p. 67.
4 DS 3071.
5 Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 1, Art. 10.
6 Mt. 28:20; Jn. 14:26; Jn. 16:13. Cf. Cardinal John-Baptist Franzelin, La Tradition, Thesis 5, 60-66 (Courrier de
Rome, 2008, pp. 67-70; and Thesis 22, 456-79, pp. 325-36.
7 Fideliter custodienda et infallibiliter declaranda (DS 3020), or Sancte custodiendum et fideliter exponendum (DS
3070).
8 Cf. Acta Synodalia, t. 2, pars I, p. 652. It would have been necessary to add to the text speaking of infallibility
the phrase in boldface: “Definitiones Romani Pontificis quae propter Spiritus sancti assistentiam nunquam extra
vel contra fidem communem Ecclesiae proferuntur ex sese tamen et non ex consensu Ecclesiae irreformabiles
esse.”
9 “In effect, the pope is infallible if and only if, fulfilling his function as doctor of all Christians and representing the
whole Church, he judges and defines what all must believe or reject. Under the circumstances he would no more be
able to separate himself from the Church than would the foundation detach itself from the edifice it must support….
15
Society of Saint Pius X United States of America District www.sspx.org
This is evident if we consider the end for which God has granted the pope infallibility, which is to keep truth in the
Church” (Msgr. Gasser, Mansi, t. 52, col. 1213C).
10 Cf. the book by Jean-François Chiron, L’Infaillibilité et son objet: L’autorité du magistère de l’Église s’étend-elle
aux vérités non-révélées? (Cerf, 1999), p. 501-503.
11 From the very fact that it must expound revealed truth which is its primary object, the magisterium also
expounds other truths in a logically necessary connection with the first end of the Church, which is to preserve and
to explain the revealed deposit. The connection is so close that the negation of these truths and these facts would
proximately imperil revelation. This domain corresponds to the secondary object of the magisterium and it covers
the truths virtually revealed. Among these are, for example, all the Church’s doctrine concerning the natural law,
doctrinal judgments about writings, the canonization of saints (in which the twofold fact of their glorification and
their heroic virtue is asserted), the approbation of religious orders (in which their rule of life is affirmed to be apt to
lead to perfection).
12 Franzelin, La Tradition, Thesis 6, 67-76, pp. 71-76.
13 DS 3020.
14 “The Oath Against the Errors of Modernism,” DS 3541.
15 Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 1, Art. 2, corpus and ad 2.
16 “Hence to neglect, or to reject, or to devalue so many and such great resources which have been conceived,
expressed and perfected so often by the age-old work of men endowed with no common talent and holiness,
working under the vigilant supervision of the holy magisterium and with the light and leadership of the Holy Ghost
in order to state the truths of the faith ever more accurately, to do this so that these things may be replaced by
conjectural notions and by some formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy, tenets which, like the flowers of
the field, are in existence today and die tomorrow; this is supreme imprudence and something that would make
dogma itself a reed shaken by the wind” (Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, §17).
17 Pius XII, Humani Generis, §29: “For this philosophy, acknowledged and accepted by the Church, safeguards the
genuine validity of human knowledge, the unshakable metaphysical principles of sufficient reason, causality, and
finality, and finally the mind's ability to attain certain and unchangeable truth.”
18 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology, tr. Sister
Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. [German, 1982] (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987).
19 The Ratzinger Report (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1985), p. 36.
20 Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 382.
21 Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Ch. 4, DS 3020.
22 The Teaching Authority [magisterium] before Vatican II condemned the intention to incorporate modern
philosophy into theology, insofar as this philosophy is imbued with rationalism, skepticism, or relativism. See, for
example, Pius IX’s Brief Eximiam Tuam to the Archbishop of Cologne dated June 15, 1857 (DS 2829) condemning
the philosophy of Gunther.
23 The earlier magisterium (Pius IX) condemns the proposition asserting that “that is the best condition of civil
society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties,
offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require" (Quanta Cura, §3). Dignitatis
Humanae declares that “the human person has a right to religious freedom,” and that “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 in matters religious no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs. Nor is
anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether
alone or in association with others, within due limits” (§2).
24 Pius XII affirms the real identity between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church; Lumen Gentium 8 affirms
the non-separation of two distinct realities which are the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church.
25 The earlier magisterium declares that outside the Catholic Church there is nothing in the schismatic and heretical
sects per se that avails for salvation, and that Divine Providence does not make use of these sects as means of
salvation; Vatican II asserts the exact opposite.
26 Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, Letter of the Cardinals to His Holiness Pope Paul VI, September 25, 1969, The
Ottaviani Intervention: Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass, tr. Fr. Anthony Cekada (TAN Books &
Publishers), p. 27.
27 “Without rejecting this Council wholesale, I think that it is the greatest disaster of this century and of all the past
centuries since the founding of the Church.”—Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, They Have Uncrowned Him (Angelus
Press, 1988), p. xv. It is not a m
Certainly, what is there to discuss with people who find Luther a "great witness of the faith"?
(02-01-2012, 08:05 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Certainly, what is there to discuss with people who find Luther a "great witness of the faith"?

:( :pray:
I have, over the past year, attempted to read the documents of Vatican Council II in a "hermenuetic of Continuity", following the emphasis and teachings of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. I have tried to keep a fair attitude and listen to what the documents are saying and find a connection with earlier teaching. I have read Popes Pius V, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XII, Council of Trent, Vatican Council I. What my feeble mind has deduced is that what happened at Vatican Council II, and after the Council, was a complete break with the Traditions and Doctrine that existed prior to 1962. No amount of legalese, mind bending language can rectify the ruptures created by the Vatican Council II documents with what has been taught prior to 1962. Who did this, which group of modernists, masons, or protestants orchestrated this i do not know. But what i do know is what i see in the Church over the last 50 years.
The Gospel of St. Matthew; Ch. 7
"[16] By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?[17] Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. [18] A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. [19] Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. [20] Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them."

scripture quote from http://www.drbo.org/index.htm
Meh, the SSPX holds all the cards.  When the time comes, they'll just consecrate four more bishops and life will go on, whether Rome approves or not. 
That had to be the worst translation of french to english I have ever had to struggle through.
(02-01-2012, 09:37 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]Meh, the SSPX holds all the cards.  When the time comes, they'll just consecrate four more bishops and life will go on, whether Rome approves or not. 

Lets hope so. The faith has to be passed on somehow.

In his deliberations I hope Pope Benedict remembers the words of the Martyr St Edmund Campion: "In condemning us you condemn all of your own ancestors, all of the holy Bishops and kings of the past."
(02-01-2012, 10:20 PM)voxxpopulisuxx Wrote: [ -> ]That had to be the worst translation of french to english I have ever had to struggle through.

LoL.....

This was hardly surprising though.  I would've been floored if they had actually come to an agreement that quickly.  Just keep praying those rosaries everyone!
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