Declaration on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the episcopal consecratio
(07-02-2013, 10:02 AM)Philosoraptor Wrote: This cherry-picking is exactly what characterizes the SSPX, since their denial that Vatican II is in accord with Tradition is a result of their incomplete understanding of Tradition itself.
I wonder how the Old Catholics argued that papal infallibility is not Catholic?
Reply
I just read a little booklet from Fr Franz Schmidberger, former superior general of the SSPX, entitled
Timebombs of the Second Vatican Council. He never says there is formal heresy explicitly stated in the documents. He writes that the three sins of the council are:
1.) The Council didn't really define any Catholic truth or reject any error.
2.) It adopted ambiguous and contradictory statements.
3.) It established some doctrines that were very close to heresy.

Then lays out examples of each.

Just trying to point out that I haven't seen where the SSPX say formal heresy is explicitly taught or bound on the faithful by V2.

To deny that there are problems with the council, problems that cannot be overcome by a supposed easy hermenutic of continuity reading of the documents (which forces everyone to play theologin), is to deny reality.

DD
Reply
Meaning what, exactly? that the Council taught, error, that it contradicts earlier teachings? If it does so, must this alleged 'error' not be heresy? Traditional teaching is (as far as I understand it) part of the deposit of faith; unchangeable revelation from the Trinity. So if Vatican II altered the deposit of faith, it seems to follow that it teaches heresy. The SSPX does not want to say this (which is wise), but I don't see how anything else can be their position, which is put up front on their website, albeit in rather more delicate, ambiguous language; less ambiguously so in the 25th anniversary declaration from Fellay.
Reply
(07-02-2013, 10:02 AM)Philosoraptor Wrote: : This cherry-picking is exactly what characterizes the SSPX, since their denial that Vatican II is in accord with Tradition is a result of their incomplete understanding of Tradition itself.

If blind obedience is a cherry, then they (SSPX) have picked one cherry. The VII crowd chopped the whole damned tree down.

BXVI said

"The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life."
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedi...ca_en.html

The underlined part... that would be you and a few others here.

Everything we need to know really, is in that letter BXVI wrote. He notes the SSPX is wrong about a thing or two and some in the VII Hierarchy are as well.

What get's me riled up is the sadness of him having to write this.....

" Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things – arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint."

With all of the chest pounding and screams of "schism"  and "disobedience" the VII crowd cries on these forums, it's a sad day indeed when the Pope has to write a letter to explain himself to a contingent of bishops that are no more in full communion with him than the SSPX. And don't forget the ones who undermine the SP of BXVI.

Are these bishops disobedient, schismatic, dissident, disrespectful of the pope ? Damned right they are.
Reply
Pope Benedict XVI Wrote:But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.
Thanks for posting that, Whitey. Those two sentences express everything the Pope tried to teach on the Council: that it embraces the whole of traditional Catholic dogma, and that its doctrines were, are, and ever shall be identical to the decrees promulgated earlier, no matter the mode of their presentation.

The Modernist bishops and the SSPX both agree that Vatican II was a rupture of previous teachings; but whereas the latter deplore this, the former rejoice. In one sense, they're equally wrong, but in another, the SSPX is far closer to being orthodox, for the SSPX aren't material heretics (well, at least not yet - the Church is trying harder for reconciliation before letting the hammer fall), whereas some of the Modernist bishops probably are.
Reply
(07-02-2013, 04:33 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:
Pope Benedict XVI Wrote:But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.
Thanks for posting that, Whitey. Those two sentences express everything the Pope tried to teach on the Council: that it embraces the whole of traditional Catholic dogma, and that its doctrines were, are, and ever shall be identical to the decrees promulgated earlier, no matter the mode of their presentation.

The Modernist bishops and the SSPX both agree that Vatican II was a rupture of previous teachings; but whereas the latter deplore this, the former rejoice. In one sense, they're equally wrong, but in another, the SSPX is far closer to being orthodox, for the SSPX aren't material heretics (well, at least not yet - the Church is trying harder for reconciliation before letting the hammer fall), whereas some of the Modernist bishops probably are.

Well, then at least you see the reason the Society takes it's stand. Your post there is fair.

The Society doesn't reject everything about VII though. I'll try to find the quote of +Fellay. iirc, he said 90% of the VII documents was fine, but the other 10% is the problem.
Reply
(07-02-2013, 12:41 AM)Geremia Wrote:
(07-01-2013, 11:57 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote: Nonsense. The reason the Holy Father didn't reinstate them carte blanche is because they accuse the Magisterium of teaching formal heresy qua Vatican II - which is ridiculous.
Was the Magisterium exercised by those bishops present at the Synod of Pistoia that Pope Pius VI condemned in Auctorem Fidei? There is such a thing as a failed council; they have occurred before, and it doesn't prove the Magisterium can teach heresy.


Geremia, what is your point here?  You talk about the Synod of Pistoia and then failed councils.  Could you elaborate a bit more, please?  Thanks.
Reply
(07-02-2013, 06:27 PM)lumine Wrote: You talk about the Synod of Pistoia and then failed councils.
The Synod of Pistoia was a failed council, and Pope Pius VI condemned it in a bull addressed to the whole Church, Auctorem Fidei (cf. also its introduction). Read Laurent Demets, FSSP's article "The Liturgical Stake," which gives some context and includes this section:
Quote:The Synod of Pistoia (Italy 1786)

Scipion de Ricci, Bishop of Pistoia, wanted to introduce to Italy the ideas of his friends from France. With the approbation of the Grand Duke of Tuscany, he convoked a “Diocesan Council” as he called it. Here are some of the reforms they tried to impose:
- They wanted to rid the churches of much of their precious and exquisite decorations.
- Reforming religious orders. They shouldn’t have churches open to the congregations. Their Divine Office would be diminished and they would be permitted to have only one or two Masses a day in their churches. The other priests would have to concelebrate.
- Suppressing processions in honor of Our Lady or the Saints.
- Removing pictures of the Sacred heart and any other pictures that express a “false dogma”
- Only one altar in every churches, which should be without relics or flowers
- Use of the vernacular language in a loud voice
- There would be exposition of the Most Holy Sacrament only once a year for the feast of Corpus Christi. A blessing with the ciborium could be given every Sunday.
- They advised against the Station of the Cross

Fortunately, this Synod was condemned by Pope Pius VI with his famous Bull Auctorem Fidei in 1794.
Some of this is exactly what Vatican II did…
Reply
(07-02-2013, 06:58 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(07-02-2013, 06:27 PM)lumine Wrote: You talk about the Synod of Pistoia and then failed councils.
The Synod of Pistoia was a failed council, and Pope Pius VI condemned it in a bull addressed to the whole Church, Auctorem Fidei (cf. also its introduction). Read Laurent Demets, FSSP's article "The Liturgical Stake," which gives some context and includes this section:
Quote:The Synod of Pistoia (Italy 1786)

Scipion de Ricci, Bishop of Pistoia, wanted to introduce to Italy the ideas of his friends from France. With the approbation of the Grand Duke of Tuscany, he convoked a “Diocesan Council” as he called it. Here are some of the reforms they tried to impose:
- They wanted to rid the churches of much of their precious and exquisite decorations.
- Reforming religious orders. They shouldn’t have churches open to the congregations. Their Divine Office would be diminished and they would be permitted to have only one or two Masses a day in their churches. The other priests would have to concelebrate.
- Suppressing processions in honor of Our Lady or the Saints.
- Removing pictures of the Sacred heart and any other pictures that express a “false dogma”
- Only one altar in every churches, which should be without relics or flowers
- Use of the vernacular language in a loud voice
- There would be exposition of the Most Holy Sacrament only once a year for the feast of Corpus Christi. A blessing with the ciborium could be given every Sunday.
- They advised against the Station of the Cross

Fortunately, this Synod was condemned by Pope Pius VI with his famous Bull Auctorem Fidei in 1794.
Some of this is exactly what Vatican II did…

You said some of this is exactly what Vatican II did but you provided no specifics and no citations.  The Synod of Pistoia was a regional synod.  Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council.  They are two very different things.
Reply
(07-02-2013, 02:35 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote: Meaning what, exactly? that the Council taught, error, that it contradicts earlier teachings? If it does so, must this alleged 'error' not be heresy? Traditional teaching is (as far as I understand it) part of the deposit of faith; unchangeable revelation from the Trinity. So if Vatican II altered the deposit of faith, it seems to follow that it teaches heresy. The SSPX does not want to say this (which is wise), but I don't see how anything else can be their position, which is put up front on their website, albeit in rather more delicate, ambiguous language; less ambiguously so in the 25th anniversary declaration from Fellay.

To just use one example, the plain reading of DH seems to say man has a natural God given right to break the First Commandment. That's an obvious contradiction with Church teaching pre-V2. However, as some here might say, if you stand on your head, squint your eyes real tight and do enough mental gymnastics, it can be understood in such a way to not directly contradict. If one says that, fine and dandy. However, ya still have two big problems:

1:) The wording in DH is still so dangerous and problematic that to use that wording would promote the error, even if not intended.
2.) These in power in the Church ARE preaching and acting as if the error/contradiction has become the dogma. Take your pick of these reflections for our meditation proposed by the USCCB: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/r...ctions.cfm - and see if any of them are in continuity with previous teachings. Rather, are they the very ideas condemned, for example, by Pope Pius IX's Syllabus (numbers 15, 77, 78 and 80 in particular: http://www.fisheaters.com/syllabus.html ). Therefore, to hold to the authentic traditional teaching of Holy Mother Church is to be at odds with the very authorities in the Church. The situation is terrible for the faithful, who do have the God given right to the Truths of the faith...every last one of them. And our priests have the God given right, and duty, to preach that faith and to condemn errors that corrupt that faith.

If anyone dare say there is no state of emergency in the Church, all ya have to do is go the the USCCB website and browse.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)