FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Pope writes: Vat.2 must be accepted
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

From Rorate Caeli:

A transcript of a conference given by the French bishop of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), Bp. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, in the priory of Saint L.M.G. de Montfort (Maine-et-Loire, France), on September 16, 2012, was made public by French forum Un évêque s'est levé. The main excerpts, according to the available transcript, dealing with the Rome-SSPX negotiations are the following:

"[T]he agreement considered in 2011-2012 lasted for six months, it has not been blessed by the Blessed Virgin. (We had prayed rosary after rosary, and we keep doing that, that is very good.) But the Blessed Virgin was clearly not behind this idea. She did not walk this path, because on June 30 (it's a secret that I reveal to you, but it will be made public), on June 30, 2012, the Pope wrote with his own hand a letter to our Superior General, Bp. [Bernard] Fellay, signed personally: 'I confirm to you in fact [that], in order [for you] to be truly reintegrated into the Church  [Tissier: let us move beyond this expression], it is necessary to truly accept the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar Magisterium."


It is, as a matter of principle, a stopping point, because we could not accept it anyway; we would not sign it anyway. One can enter into details, because the Council is so vast one can find good things in it, but this is not the essence of the Council."
...
"Evidently, we could not sign it. Because we are required to sign it, the agreements do not move forward. I would say that [if] on this point there is no agreement, there will be no agreement.

"This is all I can tell you, I do not think Rome will let us go. The Modernist Rome [sic] will come close to us [once again], it is inevitable. They are determined, they are persistent, they want to lead us to the Council, therefore pray. Personally, I would never sign things like that, that is clear."
"...it is necessary to truly accept the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar Magisterium."

What does this mean?
(09-27-2012, 04:30 PM)Old Salt Wrote: [ -> ]"...it is necessary to truly accept the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar Magisterium."

What does this mean?

I have an idea, but would hate to take it out of context.  Mr. Winky

ETA: Oh, what the heck, I'll go ahead and say it.  It means, contrary to popular belief and wishful thinking, BXVI is not a friend to Tradition.  It means that the purpose of bringing the SSPX "into the fold" is to envelop them in modernism, scatter their ranks and water down what's left of the Traditional faith on earth.  It means that the pope really doesn't see Tradition as some think he sees it, and that he's really not biding time or planning some great strategy to smash the modernists when they least expect it.  We're looking at a model of Anglicanism here, where within the structure of the Church's members you've got High, Middle and Low Church.  The Low Church being the Catholics that are CINO or attend obviously non-Catholic ceremonies like clown masses, the Middle Church being the vast majority of Catholics who attend the NO and then the High Church, made up of fuddy duddy trads.  All three groups believe different things essentially, but all are allowed to hold the Catholic name by the big guy in charge, BXVI.  These are dark times indeed.
This is good news.
(09-27-2012, 04:30 PM)Old Salt Wrote: [ -> ]"...it is necessary to truly accept the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar Magisterium."

What does this mean?

I had the same thought in mind. One can accept many things of it and about it and stretch the council to amazing ends so this just seems as ambiguous as anything else written on it.  

How about I truly accept that the council actually happened (though I wish it didn't) and that there is indeed a a teaching Magisterium even after its closing (though most of it is contradictory). I mean if that is what they want? Then I guess I could accept that.
"I confirm to you in fact [that], in order [for you] to be truly reintegrated into the Church  [Tissier: let us move beyond this expression], it is necessary to truly accept the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar Magisterium."

That is reasonable actually. One can accept the Council and the post-conciliar Magisterium (whatever that means?) without having to accept what is contrary to already established teachings and traditions prior to the Council since whatever would contradict such does not enjoy the charism of infallibility, being a mere extension of the authenic Magisterium, nor faithful or prudent assent, since it does contradict established teachings. As long as they make it clear in any agreement that they will read the documents as an act of the authenic Magisterium with the lens of the constant Magisterium, they will be free to dissent, lawfully, from things like DH, LG 16, etc... cardinal Brandmuller even made that evidently clear with his statement that the things the SSPX have issues with are "non-binding doctrinal content."
(09-27-2012, 06:05 PM)TS Aquinas Wrote: [ -> ]"I confirm to you in fact [that], in order [for you] to be truly reintegrated into the Church  [Tissier: let us move beyond this expression], it is necessary to truly accept the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar Magisterium."

That is reasonable actually. One can accept the Council and the post-conciliar Magisterium (whatever that means?) without having to accept what is contrary to already established teachings and traditions prior to the Council since whatever would contradict such does not enjoy the charism of infallibility, being a mere extension of the authenic Magisterium, nor faithful or prudent assent, since it does contradict established teachings. As long as they make it clear in any agreement that they will read the documents as an act of the authenic Magisterium with the lens of the constant Magisterium, they will be free to dissent, lawfully, from things like DH, LG 16, etc... cardinal Brandmuller even made that evidently clear with his statement that the things the SSPX have issues with are "non-binding doctrinal content."

Again much like the council it self this statement is as ambiguous as it can get. However the problem is that the Bishops of the SSPX will not have it, they will want it in writing that Rome does not need their acceptance of the council. It has become as B16 called it a superdogma of sorts.
(09-27-2012, 04:30 PM)Old Salt Wrote: [ -> ]"...it is necessary to truly accept the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar Magisterium."

What does this mean?

Exactly. Saying someone "rejects Vatican II" or "doesn't accept Vatican II" makes no sense to me (unless one is referring to a sedevacantist). Saying one must "accept Vatican II" means precisely nothing. What is so hard about writing a list of traditionalists' concerns (like I have on the FETradition page) and showing how the documents of Vatican II, if "read int he light of Tradition," can be reconciled with it all (assuming they can be), is beyond me. It's time for people to be very specific as to what they mean by "Vatican II."

I'd like to see a project of someone going through the documents one by one in light of Tradition. I do know that some things that some trads have problems with are not truly problematic.  For ex., the "subsists" thing: http://www.franciscan-archive.org/apolog...bsist.html or the "elder brother" thing that I talk about on the site somewhere but which Culture Wars deals with more in depth: http://www.culturewars.com/2012/ElderBro.htm.

I think it's clear to all trads that "the spirit of Vatican II" was the worst thing to happen to the Church in centuries -- or maybe ever. But whether the problems lie in the Council's documents themselves or in that "spirit" that followed -- I don't know. But I think a lot of other people who also don't know scream a lot about it one way or another. You've got modernists screaming how "the Church doesn't teach that anymore since Vatican II" on the one hand, and trads going on about "subsistit in" and "elder brothers" on the other. There's a serious problem of talking out of turn, hyperbole, exaggeration, and wanting one thing to pin all the blame on one thing so we can have an easy answer and hate on something really hard going around. Nothing will get solved by that (and much harm comes from that). It's way past time to get serious about those documents and stop talking about "Vatican II" at all, IMO.
"It is necessary to truly accept the Second Vatican Counil and the post-conciliar Magesterium" is ambiguous?

Ha, on the contrary, it's glaringly clear (odd enough).  To think it's ambiguous is just another careful part of the mental construction that has Benedict XVI as the savior to Tradition we've all been waiting for.  If BXVI took aside a liberal cleric and told him that in order to be Catholic, he must truly accept the Council of Trent, would that still be ambiguous?

It's clear enough.  BXVI won't let you into the club unless you hold the new theology.  
(09-27-2012, 06:05 PM)TS Aquinas Wrote: [ -> ]"I confirm to you in fact [that], in order [for you] to be truly reintegrated into the Church  [Tissier: let us move beyond this expression], it is necessary to truly accept the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar Magisterium."

That is reasonable actually. One can accept the Council and the post-conciliar Magisterium (whatever that means?) without having to accept what is contrary to already established teachings and traditions prior to the Council since whatever would contradict such does not enjoy the charism of infallibility, being a mere extension of the authenic Magisterium, nor faithful or prudent assent, since it does contradict established teachings. As long as they make it clear in any agreement that they will read the documents as an act of the authenic Magisterium with the lens of the constant Magisterium, they will be free to dissent, lawfully, from things like DH, LG 16, etc... cardinal Brandmuller even made that evidently clear with his statement that the things the SSPX have issues with are "non-binding doctrinal content."

So long as Rome does not condemn the contrary teachings of the merely authentic Magisterium, then these teachings will continue to be accepted and approved of in practice.  Faithful Catholics have been wondering for the last 47 years what exactly we're supposed to assent to (from the novel teachings of Vatican II) -- or how the novelty is in continuity with Tradition -- but there has never been a definitive answer.  And around and around we go...

ETA: The 1983 CIC, the CDF and the CCC have all done very little to clarify the ambiguities present in the Vatican II documents, and have instead resigned themselves to repeat these very same ambiguities.  In part, this is all due to the Church's abandonment of Scholastic theology and terminology, a mere 12 years after the promulgation of Pope Pius XII's Humani Generis.

Vox,
I'll concede that "subsistit in" can be understood in an orthodox manner, but saying that the Eastern schismatic sect possesses "true particular Churches" comes extremely close to, if not in fact, destroying the constitution of Christ's true,  "undivided and separated from any other" Church.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11