54 Answers from Bishop Fellay: the interview
#11
Gerard, the SSPX is not engaged in discussion regarding the private actions of a given Pope.  The discussion have to do with the official texts of Vatican II or Magisterial acts, properly speaking, and not the Pope acting as a private person.  So, the problem remains: Can the Supreme Magisterium, as such, defect from the Faith and Sacred Tradition by teaching heresy, etc.?  Question 7 refers to the "contradiction" represented by the teaching of Vatican II in relation to the true Faith and Tradition.  Is this in fact possible according the criteria of the Faith itself?
Reply
#12
(02-18-2011, 04:57 PM)kgurries Wrote: Gerard, the SSPX is not engaged in discussion regarding the private actions of a given Pope.  The discussion have to do with the official texts of Vatican II or Magisterial acts, properly speaking, and not the Pope acting as a private person.  So, the problem remains: Can the Supreme Magisterium, as such, defect from the Faith and Sacred Tradition by teaching heresy, etc.? 

The official texts of Vatican II can have a lot of things in them, among them policies and political statements that are given priority over obscurely written doctrinal points.  Vatican II style ecumenism is not a "doctrine" but somehow the recent Popes pretend to bind the Church to it as "an irreversible course."  That may be their private opinion and their policy as the Supreme governing agent in the Church.  But they can't be bound by it, or bind a successor to it.  A future Pope can bluntly say, "Pope John Paul II may have thought the Church was fostering ecumenical dialogue in an  irreversible manner but I'm in charge and I say all ecumenical offices are going to close and we are stopping "dialogue" with leaders of other false religions." 

Authentic Magisterial acts can be overturned because they are solely human acts not necessarily guided by the Holy Ghost.  (eg. John 22nd's preaching about the dead and the beatific vision being wrong,  or errors in a Catechism that has the approval of a Pope.)
Reply
#13
(02-18-2011, 05:12 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(02-18-2011, 04:57 PM)kgurries Wrote: Gerard, the SSPX is not engaged in discussion regarding the private actions of a given Pope.  The discussion have to do with the official texts of Vatican II or Magisterial acts, properly speaking, and not the Pope acting as a private person.  So, the problem remains: Can the Supreme Magisterium, as such, defect from the Faith and Sacred Tradition by teaching heresy, etc.? 

The official texts of Vatican II can have a lot of things in them, among them policies and political statements that are given priority over obscurely written doctrinal points.  Vatican II style ecumenism is not a "doctrine" but somehow the recent Popes pretend to bind the Church to it as "an irreversible course."   That may be their private opinion and their policy as the Supreme governing agent in the Church.  But they can't be bound by it, or bind a successor to it.  A future Pope can bluntly say, "Pope John Paul II may have thought the Church was fostering ecumenical dialogue in an  irreversible manner but I'm in charge and I say all ecumenical offices are going to close and we are stopping "dialogue" with leaders of other false religions." 

Authentic Magisterial acts can be overturned because they are solely human acts not necessarily guided by the Holy Ghost.   (eg. John 22nd's preaching about the dead and the beatific vision being wrong,  or errors in a Catechism that has the approval of a Pope.)

Ok, so let me see if I understand you correctly:

1) Vatican II did NOT teach heresy or contradict the immutables of Faith or Sacred Tradition.  Whatever doctrine it contains is compatible with Faith and Tradition.
2) Vatican II also dealt with non-doctrinal matters -- various contingent pastoral/prudential questions that are necessarily reformable.
3) In some cases these are closely connected.  For example, the teaching on ecumenism may contain elements of doctrine (properly speaking) that are comingled with contingent (policy) aspects.
4) However misguided (2) -- these do not add up to heresy because they are contingent decisions or policies and not dealing directly with the immutables of Faith or morals, per se.

Would you agree or disagree with the above?       
Reply
#14
Gerard, let me give an example both aspect of ecumenism (immutable and contingent).  Pope Benedict gave an address where he explained that the Petrine office has a perpetual ministry towards unity.  This is the immutable aspect.  But there are many practical prudential apects that deal with "how" to best attain that in any given circumstance.  These are the contingent aspects that are reformable.  I wrote about it here:  http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2010/01/goa...enism.html   
Reply
#15
Excited excited excited!
Reply
#16
I like how he mentions to make reparations now for the upcoming Assisi abomination. :pray:
Reply
#17
(02-18-2011, 05:27 PM)kgurries Wrote: Ok, so let me see if I understand you correctly:
1) Vatican II did NOT teach heresy or contradict the immutables of Faith or Sacred Tradition.  Whatever doctrine it contains is compatible with Faith and Tradition.
2) Vatican II also dealt with non-doctrinal matters -- various contingent pastoral/prudential questions that are necessarily reformable.
3) In some cases these are closely connected.  For example, the teaching on ecumenism may contain elements of doctrine (properly speaking) that are comingled with contingent (policy) aspects.
4) However misguided (2) -- these do not add up to heresy because they are contingent decisions or policies and not dealing directly with the immutables of Faith or morals, per se.

Would you agree or disagree with the above?       

I think as far as I'm capable of knowing, I agree with that. 

Quote: Gerard, let me give an example both aspect of ecumenism (immutable and contingent).  Pope Benedict gave an address where he explained that the Petrine office has a perpetual ministry towards unity.  This is the immutable aspect.  But there are many practical prudential apects that deal with "how" to best attain that in any given circumstance.  These are the contingent aspects that are reformable.  I wrote about it here:  http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2010/01/goa...enism.html   


The difficulty that I find with the modern understanding is that it has conflated the idea of maitaining unity with the idea of "reuniting" apostates and schismatics and heretics.  And what is further obscured is the essential of unity being a unity of belief,sacraments and submission to the Holy See. 

Cardinal Bea's ideas of "speaking the truth with love" would be, by today's standards as a result of "ecumenism" be considered intolerably divisive and  he would be lauded by traditionalists for direct approach.
Reply
#18
(02-18-2011, 08:36 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(02-18-2011, 05:27 PM)kgurries Wrote: Ok, so let me see if I understand you correctly:
1) Vatican II did NOT teach heresy or contradict the immutables of Faith or Sacred Tradition.  Whatever doctrine it contains is compatible with Faith and Tradition.
2) Vatican II also dealt with non-doctrinal matters -- various contingent pastoral/prudential questions that are necessarily reformable.
3) In some cases these are closely connected.  For example, the teaching on ecumenism may contain elements of doctrine (properly speaking) that are comingled with contingent (policy) aspects.
4) However misguided (2) -- these do not add up to heresy because they are contingent decisions or policies and not dealing directly with the immutables of Faith or morals, per se.

Would you agree or disagree with the above?       

I think as far as I'm capable of knowing, I agree with that. 

Me too.
Reply
#19
Did Vatican II define any doctrine? It was a pastoral council.
Reply
#20
(02-18-2011, 08:36 PM)Gerard Wrote:
Quote: Gerard, let me give an example both aspect of ecumenism (immutable and contingent).  Pope Benedict gave an address where he explained that the Petrine office has a perpetual ministry towards unity.  This is the immutable aspect.  But there are many practical prudential apects that deal with "how" to best attain that in any given circumstance.  These are the contingent aspects that are reformable.  I wrote about it here:  http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2010/01/goa...enism.html   


The difficulty that I find with the modern understanding is that it has conflated the idea of maitaining unity with the idea of "reuniting" apostates and schismatics and heretics.  And what is further obscured is the essential of unity being a unity of belief,sacraments and submission to the Holy See. 

Cardinal Bea's ideas of "speaking the truth with love" would be, by today's standards as a result of "ecumenism" be considered intolerably divisive and  he would be lauded by traditionalists for direct approach.

Ok, fair enough -- it's a confusing topic.  What does perfect communion with the Church entail?  Can there be such a thing as partial communion?  I look into those questions here:  http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2011/02/ful...union.html

Let me know if you agree or disagree with any of that.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)