Vatican II opened the Church to the World
#11
(10-14-2012, 05:41 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: I think it is interesting that trads talk quite a bit about the evils of "subjectivism" while still being pretty subjectivist in many ways. For instance, traditionally we would say that someone is not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and therefore he is in a state of schism. Or, as St. Thomas puts it:
Quote:schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy.

This is an objective standard: one is either in communion with the Pope or one is not. If I am a trad, on the other hand, this is not good enough. Instead, I have to determine if a specific individual agrees with me on a random set of issues. If it is demonstrated to my satisfaction that he does, then all is well. If I decide that he does not, however, then I have to say that he does not agree with me, which means that he does not agree with Eternal Rome, and so he is in a state of schism. This is already much more subjective than the traditional definition.

What about the notion of imperfect communion, and Pope Benedict's statements that inheritors of heresy and schism aren't in the same situation as their forebears?  It doesn't seem so white and black anymore.
Reply
#12
Quote:[T]his Council represents, both in the opinion of the Roman authorities as in our own, a
new church which they call themselves the "Conciliar Church".
We believe that we can affirm, taking into consideration the internal and external
critique on Vatican II, that is, in analysing the texts and in studying its circumstances and
its consequences, that the Council, turning its back on Tradition and breaking with the
Church of the past, is a schismatic council. The tree is known by its fruits. Since the
Council, all the larger newspapers throughout the world, American and European,
recognise that it is destroying the Catholic Church to such a degree that even the
unbelievers and the secular governments are worried.
...
Accepting this new principle [of indifferentism], all the doctrine of the Church must
change, as well as its cult, its priesthood, its institutions, because everything in the
Church until the Council had demonstrated that she alone possessed the Way, the Truth
and the Life in Our Lord Jesus Christ, Whom she kept in person in the Holy Eucharist,
and Who is present thanks to the continuation of His sacrifice. Thus a total overturning
of Tradition and of the teaching of the Church has occurred since the Council and
through the Council.

All those who cooperate in the application of this overturning accept and adhere to this
new "Conciliar Church", as His Excellency Mgr. Benelli called it in the letter that he sent
me in the name of the Holy Father last June 25, and they enter into the schism.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, August 2, 1976
Reply
#13
(10-14-2012, 05:41 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: I think it is interesting that trads talk quite a bit about the evils of "subjectivism" while still being pretty subjectivist in many ways. For instance, traditionally we would say that someone is not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and therefore he is in a state of schism. Or, as St. Thomas puts it:
Quote:schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy.

This is an objective standard: one is either in communion with the Pope or one is not. If I am a trad, on the other hand, this is not good enough. Instead, I have to determine if a specific individual agrees with me on a random set of issues. If it is demonstrated to my satisfaction that he does, then all is well. If I decide that he does not, however, then I have to say that he does not agree with me, which means that he does not agree with Eternal Rome, and so he is in a state of schism. This is already much more subjective than the traditional definition.

You're the only one bringing up "Eternal Rome."
Reply
#14
"The bishops at Vatican II felt that more than a century of centralization needed to be tempered. But in their euphoria, they failed to reckon sufficiently with the resistance of entrenched bureaucracies — jealous of their authority and fearful of disorder — to change. A more participatory mode of church life took hold for 15 years or so after the council, but from on high it began to be more and more restricted, to the point that central control is now tighter than ever."

This is why the Traditional Latin Mass is found in virtually every parish.  Because control is now tighter than ever, when JPII in 1984 asked for a wide and generous use of the 1962 missal, all the bishops of the world hopped to it.  And when he said it again in 1988, the bishops provided even more TLMs.  They said, "You want even more TLMs?"  

And when Summorum Pontificum came out, Pope Benedict was just beating a dead horse.  Every parish in the world had been forced into having TLMs.  They must have 3 or 4 of them at every parish, there are probably more TLMs than Novus Ordos being said in parishes because of that tight control from "on high."    

I think central control was so tight, it seemed that bishops were going to have to make provisions for the Novus Ordo so it doesn't get crowded out by Rome's tight grip on things.  
Reply
#15
(10-14-2012, 05:45 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(10-14-2012, 05:41 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: I think it is interesting that trads talk quite a bit about the evils of "subjectivism" while still being pretty subjectivist in many ways. For instance, traditionally we would say that someone is not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and therefore he is in a state of schism. Or, as St. Thomas puts it:
Quote:schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy.

This is an objective standard: one is either in communion with the Pope or one is not. If I am a trad, on the other hand, this is not good enough. Instead, I have to determine if a specific individual agrees with me on a random set of issues. If it is demonstrated to my satisfaction that he does, then all is well. If I decide that he does not, however, then I have to say that he does not agree with me, which means that he does not agree with Eternal Rome, and so he is in a state of schism. This is already much more subjective than the traditional definition.

What about the notion of imperfect communion, and Pope Benedict's statements that inheritors of heresy and schism aren't in the same situation as their forebears?  It doesn't seem so white and black anymore.

The notion of imperfect communion seems to suggest only that there is some connection between all baptized Christians and the Body of Christ. Understood in this sense, the relationship is still founded upon the objective fact of one's baptism, and it can presumably exist alongside heresy and schism, which can still be defined in the traditional way.

When the Holy Father says that current Protestants cannot be said to be in exactly the same situation as the original Protestants, I think he is simply making a distinction between personal sin and objective, canonical status. Someone who was born into a schismatic sect, while still being in an objective state of schism, is not guilt of the sin of schism in the same way as the founder of the sect.

Even if one does not accept these two ideas, though, the more subjective definition of schism is still problematic. If certain trads are wrong on this issue, they continue to be wrong even if the post-VII Church is wrong on related issues.

(10-14-2012, 07:50 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote:
(10-14-2012, 05:41 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: I think it is interesting that trads talk quite a bit about the evils of "subjectivism" while still being pretty subjectivist in many ways. For instance, traditionally we would say that someone is not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and therefore he is in a state of schism. Or, as St. Thomas puts it:
Quote:schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy.

This is an objective standard: one is either in communion with the Pope or one is not. If I am a trad, on the other hand, this is not good enough. Instead, I have to determine if a specific individual agrees with me on a random set of issues. If it is demonstrated to my satisfaction that he does, then all is well. If I decide that he does not, however, then I have to say that he does not agree with me, which means that he does not agree with Eternal Rome, and so he is in a state of schism. This is already much more subjective than the traditional definition.

You're the only one bringing up "Eternal Rome."

Even without the use of that particular phrase, it seems that we have moved from a more social-objective view of schism and the Church to an ideological-subjective view.
Reply
#16
Maybe.

Look at how many on this message board say the SSPX is schismatic.
Reply
#17
I have it on good authority that the smell of this article has reached the high heavens.
Reply
#18
Steak?

:bonfire:
Reply
#19
(10-14-2012, 01:43 PM)maso Wrote: ... And the world rushed in the Church.

That's exactly what I thought, upon reading the title of this thread.

The world rushed in--and the smoke of Satan to boot.
Reply
#20
(10-14-2012, 10:33 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: Maybe.

Look at how many on this message board say the SSPX is schismatic.

As far as I can tell, only one or two active posters believe that. I don't know why people promote the idea that this forum is being overrun by "neocaths" when all evidence says otherwise. I know many movements build group identity by telling their members that they are surrounded by hostile forces on all sides. Perhaps that is part of it.

Anyway, I agree that people who call the SSPX schismatic are wrong, but my point was more about the problems inherent in using what exactly a person believes is entailed by the Social Kingship of Christ to determine whether or not one is in communion with him.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)