“Is the SSPX in schism? YES. Find out why” -I've made a video, grateful for feedback
(06-03-2020, 06:42 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(06-03-2020, 06:25 PM)humilityandpatience Wrote: To me, rejecting VII and the New Mass would to reject it as a valid extension of Tradition/hermeneutic of continuity.

What does this mean in practice? What has the SSPX officially said which "rejects [Vatican II] as a valid extension of Tradition"? What extensions did Vatican II make to the Deposit of the Faith which much be accepted?

Pope Benedict proposed a "hermeneutic of continuity" as opposed to a "hermeneutic of rupture", but a "hermeneutic" is an interpretive device or method. No one has bound any Catholic from accepting this "hermeneutic"

Further, the SSPX, and Archbishop Lefebvre have accepted to interpret Vatican II in the light of previous Magisterium (Cf. The Protocol of Accord, May 1988), but then run into passages as I've mentioned which seem to be directly contradictory to the previous Magisterium, such as on the subject of Religious Liberty. Even Catholic theologians, like Msgr Gherardini, who are not associated with the SSPX have suggested that Religious Liberty is contradictory to previous Catholic doctrines. So, what does "rejection" look like.

Is it acceptable to say that certain parts of the Vatican II documents seem unable to be interpreted in the light of Tradition and seem contradictory to it?

If yes, then why can the SSPX not do this (which is exactly what their position on Vatican II is)?

If no, then why are you not also condemning as "schismatic" all other theologians who are not part of the SSPX and agree with their position?

(06-03-2020, 06:25 PM)humilityandpatience Wrote: A black mass is evil and we should not attend it, because it is diametrically opposed to our Faith.

Do you mean it is ontalogically evil or morally evil?

(06-03-2020, 06:25 PM)humilityandpatience Wrote: A mass during which a priest exercises liturgical abuse according to his fancy, whether TLM or NO, would be indeed inferior to a mass performed following proper rubrics.

Since it is a grave sin for the priest to violate the rubrics, would not this also be "evil" and not just merely "inferior"?

(06-03-2020, 06:25 PM)humilityandpatience Wrote: I am aware that the SSPX teach NO mass is valid. HOwever they also propose it is evil and subsequently advise the faithful it is better to miss mass rather than attend NO mass.

Do you mean that the SSPX proposes the Novus Ordo Missæ is ontologically evil (lacking a due good), or morally evil (a sin)?

(06-03-2020, 06:25 PM)humilityandpatience Wrote: Re your question on the excommunications. In Pope Benedicts letter explaining Summorum Pontificum (issued a couple of months later) he said :"In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church." March 2009

How is the granting of confessional faculties, the faculty to ordain without dismissorial letters, the right to say Mass, and delegation for marriages (or at least a method to obtain said delegation) not also granting a "legitimate ministry"?

If the Pope says, "Fr Smith, you were irregular and without any canonical status or legitimate ministry, but I give you the jurisdiction to hear confessions," would we not then logically understand that Fr Smith was granted a legitimate ministry, even if he was not fully incardinated into a diocese?

If yes, then why will you not accept that with the SSPX?

If no, then what is necessary to qualify as having "legitimate ministry" more than the permission of the Vicar of Christ to perform the sacraments for certain people?

Sorry for the delayed reply Dear Brother MagisterMusicae. 

In practice, rejecting Vatican II would be to reject the constitutions and declarations. Of course, some disagreement on the interpretation of them is to be expected. But a rejection of them is different- in other words, to declare that they depart from Tradition.

Regarding :"Is it acceptable to say that certain parts of the Vatican II documents seem unable to be interpreted in the light of Tradition and seem contradictory to it". My answer to that would be yes. This is where charitable interpretation using the appropriate forums is one thing but to definitively declare it e.g. Dignitatis Humanae contradicts church teaching (per the SSPX position), and consequently reject it (among other VII docs) is another. 

Re "evil" I am not sure what you are getting at with the definition of evil here, apologies. In the passage from the SSPX website the below is taken and I am proposing that this is indication of holding a position contrary to the Church and thus Tradition:
"The correct definition of evil—lack of a due good—clearly shows that the New Mass is evil in and of itself regardless of the circumstances. It is not evil by positive profession of heresy. It is evil by lacking what Catholic dogma should profess: the True Sacrifice, the Real Presence, the ministerial priesthood". 

Re your last point, I think we have superseded this in our ongoing conversation re the temporary indults.

Pax Christi, Brother appreciate the discussion.
Reply
(06-11-2020, 03:25 PM)humilityandpatience Wrote: In practice, rejecting Vatican II would be to reject the constitutions and declarations. Of course, some disagreement on the interpretation of them is to be expected. But a rejection of them is different- in other words, to declare that they depart from Tradition.

Which of the Vatican II documents does the SSPX then reject?

Seeing as Archbishop Lefebvre signed all of them, I find it interesting to suggest that he, or any of his followers rejected them.

And what of Msgr Viganò recent "rejection" of Vatican II, suggesting that it was the beginning of a "false parallel church"? Does that mean he is now also a heretic?

(06-11-2020, 03:21 PM)CF Mathews Wrote: Regarding :"Is it acceptable to say that certain parts of the Vatican II documents seem unable to be interpreted in the light of Tradition and seem contradictory to it". My answer to that would be yes. This is where charitable interpretation using the appropriate forums is one thing but to definitively declare it e.g. Dignitatis Humanae contradicts church teaching (per the SSPX position), and consequently reject it (among other VII docs) is another. 

No one except the Pope can "definitively declare" anything, certainly not the SSPX.

Clearly you misunderstand the SSPX position if you can make this statement. Taking Dignitatis Humanæ as the example, the Society says that it seems to contradict the condemnations issued against the notion of Religious Liberty by Pope Gregory XVI (Mirari vos, August 15, 1832) and Pius IX (Quanta cura and the Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864).

Those teachings infallibly condemn the statement that

Quote:...the best plan for public society and civil progress absolutely requires that human society be established and governed with no regard to religion, as if it did not exist, or at least without making distinction between the true and the false religions ... [so] ... the best condition of society is the one in which there is no acknowledgment by the government of the duty of restraining, by established penalties, offenders of the Catholic religion, except insofar as the public peace demands ... [and therefore] ... liberty of conscience and of worship is the proper right of every man, and should be proclaimed and asserted by law in every correctly established society; that the right to all manner of liberty rests in the citizens, not to be restrained by either ecclesiastical or civil authority; and that by this right they can manifest openly and publicly and declare their own concepts, whatever they be, by voice, by print, or in any other way.

So basically what Dignitatis Humanæ §2 states seems directly contrary to Miriari vos, Quanta Cura, and the Syllabus of errors. It does not seem to be a misreading, since this is repeated in §3, §7, §10 and §12.

This is also supported by the statement of Pope Benedict in 2005 that Vatican II, specifically Gaudium et Spes, was a "counter-syllabus", or intended to contradict the Syllabus of Errors, which was a list of condemned propositions, which most theologican accepted as infallibly condemned.

The SSPX position is, in what seems like a contradiction, to keep the previous doctrine and try to call for a solution from the authority to show how these are compatible. When the Holy See does not address the matter despite Dubia sent by Archbishop Lefebvre to try to solve this, I do not see the problem is making the tone a bit more vehement and pointed.

You're welcome to disagree with that methodology, but I fail to see how it in any way is a schismatic attitude, or in any way has canonical effects.

(06-11-2020, 03:25 PM)humilityandpatience Wrote: Re "evil" I am not sure what you are getting at with the definition of evil here, apologies. In the passage from the SSPX website the below is taken and I am proposing that this is indication of holding a position contrary to the Church and thus Tradition:
"The correct definition of evil—lack of a due good—clearly shows that the New Mass is evil in and of itself regardless of the circumstances. It is not evil by positive profession of heresy. It is evil by lacking what Catholic dogma should profess: the True Sacrifice, the Real Presence, the ministerial priesthood". 

That you don't understand the distinction between moral and ontological evil shows that you're out of your depth here.

The SSPX says that the intentional stripping of the Catholic elements from the Novus Ordo, intentionally removed a good which is meant to be part of Catholic worship. This is why Protestants can (and do) use the Novus Ordo Missal without qualms, denying transubstantiation, a real priesthood and the sacrificial nature of the Mass.

Hence because the New Mass lacks what ought to be there in a Catholic liturgy, it is lacking a due good in itself. This is the definition of intrinsic ontological evil.

In this statement, there is no moral judgement of evil. The SSPX is not saying that all NO attendees are committing sins, nor that all priest who say the NO are sinners for doing so.

They so say that because the NO Mass is lacking key points, it can present a real danger to one's Faith, and that danger, willfully accepted can be a moral evil.

This is why the distinction between ontological and moral evil is important, and seeing as you did not understand that, I can safely declare you have no clue what you're talk about here.

(06-11-2020, 03:25 PM)humilityandpatience Wrote: Re your last point, I think we have superseded this in our ongoing conversation re the temporary indults.

You continue to misunderstand, and I think intentionally. There are no indults.

By definition an indult is temporary, since if it were not temporary, it would not be an indult.
Reply
(06-03-2020, 09:01 PM)Quickbeam Wrote: Considering that this horse has been beaten into the ground over and over and over I'm not sure if there is even a real purpose to this other than thinly veiled Gotchas and that sort of nonsense. In some places in South America the SSPX has even received faculties from the local ordinary, long before the Year of Mercy.

Again, what is the point of this argument? If you perceive that they are in Schism, don't go. It's not as though the SSPX is bagging people and dragging them to Mass, or even trying to mislead people.

Dear Brother/Sister in Christ many thanks for your message. I hear you with that. I was prompted to do my own research because of the recent surge in Catholic Media (with Taylor Marshall et al) reporting on the Society. And after researching, I though it would be worthwhile contributing to the discussion- if I perceive Brother/Sisters are in schism then I hope to be able to charitably discuss. Pax Christi!

(06-03-2020, 09:31 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: An excellent point, QB. The OP seems to have joined FE only to spread his thesis, which has been declared false by Rome for over a quarter of a century. I say this because in the week and a half he's been a member, he's made exactly one post not in this thread. 

Dear Jovan- I joined in order to speak with fellow Traditional Catholics about something I have researched and pray to discuss in charity (may the Lord grant me this grace) and I am very grateful for the discussion.  Pax Christi!
Reply
(06-11-2020, 04:13 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: This is also supported by the statement of Pope Benedict in 2005 that Vatican II, specifically Gaudium et Spes, was a "counter-syllabus", or intended to contradict the Syllabus of Errors, which was a list of condemned propositions, which most theologican accepted as infallibly condemned.

From the Servant of God, John Hardon's 'Modern Catholic Dictionary, publish 1980 (well after the Council) and bearing a post-Conciliar nihil obstat and imprimatur (my emphasis):

SYLLABUS OF PIUS IX. A series of eighty condemned propositions listing the prevalent errors that aimed at the undermining of society, morality, and religion. Every Catholic is expected to give exterior and interior assent to the condemnation of errors expressed in this syllabus.

Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • HailGilbert
Reply
(06-11-2020, 03:25 PM)humilityandpatience Wrote:
(06-03-2020, 06:42 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(06-03-2020, 06:25 PM)humilityandpatience Wrote: To me, rejecting VII and the New Mass would to reject it as a valid extension of Tradition/hermeneutic of continuity.

What does this mean in practice? What has the SSPX officially said which "rejects [Vatican II] as a valid extension of Tradition"? What extensions did Vatican II make to the Deposit of the Faith which much be accepted?

Pope Benedict proposed a "hermeneutic of continuity" as opposed to a "hermeneutic of rupture", but a "hermeneutic" is an interpretive device or method. No one has bound any Catholic from accepting this "hermeneutic"

Further, the SSPX, and Archbishop Lefebvre have accepted to interpret Vatican II in the light of previous Magisterium (Cf. The Protocol of Accord, May 1988), but then run into passages as I've mentioned which seem to be directly contradictory to the previous Magisterium, such as on the subject of Religious Liberty. Even Catholic theologians, like Msgr Gherardini, who are not associated with the SSPX have suggested that Religious Liberty is contradictory to previous Catholic doctrines. So, what does "rejection" look like.

Is it acceptable to say that certain parts of the Vatican II documents seem unable to be interpreted in the light of Tradition and seem contradictory to it?

If yes, then why can the SSPX not do this (which is exactly what their position on Vatican II is)?

If no, then why are you not also condemning as "schismatic" all other theologians who are not part of the SSPX and agree with their position?

(06-03-2020, 06:25 PM)humilityandpatience Wrote: A black mass is evil and we should not attend it, because it is diametrically opposed to our Faith.

Do you mean it is ontalogically evil or morally evil?

(06-03-2020, 06:25 PM)humilityandpatience Wrote: A mass during which a priest exercises liturgical abuse according to his fancy, whether TLM or NO, would be indeed inferior to a mass performed following proper rubrics.

Since it is a grave sin for the priest to violate the rubrics, would not this also be "evil" and not just merely "inferior"?

(06-03-2020, 06:25 PM)humilityandpatience Wrote: I am aware that the SSPX teach NO mass is valid. HOwever they also propose it is evil and subsequently advise the faithful it is better to miss mass rather than attend NO mass.

Do you mean that the SSPX proposes the Novus Ordo Missæ is ontologically evil (lacking a due good), or morally evil (a sin)?

(06-03-2020, 06:25 PM)humilityandpatience Wrote: Re your question on the excommunications. In Pope Benedicts letter explaining Summorum Pontificum (issued a couple of months later) he said :"In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church." March 2009

How is the granting of confessional faculties, the faculty to ordain without dismissorial letters, the right to say Mass, and delegation for marriages (or at least a method to obtain said delegation) not also granting a "legitimate ministry"?

If the Pope says, "Fr Smith, you were irregular and without any canonical status or legitimate ministry, but I give you the jurisdiction to hear confessions," would we not then logically understand that Fr Smith was granted a legitimate ministry, even if he was not fully incardinated into a diocese?

If yes, then why will you not accept that with the SSPX?

If no, then what is necessary to qualify as having "legitimate ministry" more than the permission of the Vicar of Christ to perform the sacraments for certain people?

Sorry for the delayed reply Dear Brother MagisterMusicae. 

In practice, rejecting Vatican II would be to reject the constitutions and declarations. Of course, some disagreement on the interpretation of them is to be expected. But a rejection of them is different- in other words, to declare that they depart from Tradition.

Regarding :"Is it acceptable to say that certain parts of the Vatican II documents seem unable to be interpreted in the light of Tradition and seem contradictory to it". My answer to that would be yes. This is where charitable interpretation using the appropriate forums is one thing but to definitively declare it e.g. Dignitatis Humanae contradicts church teaching (per the SSPX position), and consequently reject it (among other VII docs) is another. 

Re "evil" I am not sure what you are getting at with the definition of evil here, apologies. In the passage from the SSPX website the below is taken and I am proposing that this is indication of holding a position contrary to the Church and thus Tradition:
"The correct definition of evil—lack of a due good—clearly shows that the New Mass is evil in and of itself regardless of the circumstances. It is not evil by positive profession of heresy. It is evil by lacking what Catholic dogma should profess: the True Sacrifice, the Real Presence, the ministerial priesthood". 

Re your last point, I think we have superseded this in our ongoing conversation re the temporary indults.

Pax Christi, Brother appreciate the discussion.
Nothing was said in the Magisterium during Vatican II. The Popes since then hardly ever use their authority.
Reply
(06-11-2020, 04:29 PM)humilityandpatience Wrote:
(06-03-2020, 09:01 PM)Quickbeam Wrote: Considering that this horse has been beaten into the ground over and over and over I'm not sure if there is even a real purpose to this other than thinly veiled Gotchas and that sort of nonsense. In some places in South America the SSPX has even received faculties from the local ordinary, long before the Year of Mercy.

Again, what is the point of this argument? If you perceive that they are in Schism, don't go. It's not as though the SSPX is bagging people and dragging them to Mass, or even trying to mislead people.

Dear Brother/Sister in Christ many thanks for your message. I hear you with that. I was prompted to do my own research because of the recent surge in Catholic Media (with Taylor Marshall et al) reporting on the Society. And after researching, I though it would be worthwhile contributing to the discussion- if I perceive Brother/Sisters are in schism then I hope to be able to charitably discuss. Pax Christi!
I don't mean to be rude but that doesn't seem to be a conversation that will ever bear fruit if initiated by you or I. They are actively talking with the Vatican and only they know the way the conversation is going and frankly even if you are correct and they are in Schism, which I'm not saying is correct, it is irrelevant to us AND we may still receive sacraments from them, as per the Vatican and the Catechism of the Counsel of Trent. But by all means, please beat the dead horse further. 
Pax
[-] The following 3 users Like Quickbeam's post:
  • HailGilbert, jovan66102, MagisterMusicae
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)