Just who exactly is more opposed to the actual teaching of Vatican II as found in the texts of the Council?
Sandro Magister today offered comments and published an article by John R T Lamont (For the Lefebvrists, It's the Last Call to the Sheepfold.) Lamont uses a response to the Holy See by Fr Jean-Michel Gleize FSSPX to summarise the difficulties that the SSPX has with a few texts from Vatican II. He then lists a number of conciliar texts on the scriptures, the Church, the Eucharist and marriage and points out that in fact the SSPX accept all of these and that far more of the teaching of Vatican II than many theologians in Europe, North America, and Australasia. He then says:
The vast majority of theologians in Catholic institutions in Europe, North America, and Australasia would reject most or all of these teachings. These theologians are followed by the majority of religious orders and a substantial part of the bishops in these areas. It would be difficult, for example, to find a Jesuit teaching theology in any Jesuit institution who would accept a single one of them. The texts above are only a selection from the teachings of Vatican II that are rejected by these groups; they could be extended to many times the number.I think that Lamont exaggerates. Nowadays there are plenty of Catholic theologians around (including ones who write articles with lots of footnotes in expensive journals) who accept the basics of Catholic teaching and happily subscribe to all of the listed texts of Vatican II. Nevertheless, he is right that there are plenty who don't, and it would still be hard to say which group is in the majority.
Such teachings however form part of the 95% of Vatican II that the FSSPX accepts. Unlike the 5% of that council rejected by the FSSPX, however, the teachings given above are central to Catholic faith and morals, and include some of the fundamental teachings of Christ himself.
During the Year of Faith, I am sure that there will be many talks that will illustrate just how clearly the texts of Vatican II are on many basic issues of the faith, including, for example, the infallibility of the Pope - a text not even included in Lamont's list. I think it will become ever more difficult for popular modernists to claim the support of Vatican II for their outlandish opposition to the magisterium. The Catholic blogosphere has been one influence prompting students to look at the texts themselves.
The go-to blog for news of the Vatican-SSPX negotiations has always been Rorate Caeli. Today they have an article from La Croix, the semi-official news service of the French episcopate. Although one could not describe it as enthusiastic, the article is balanced in a way that would have been scarcely conceivable only a few years ago.
There is a real possibility that we could have news of an agreement quite soon. There is also the real possibility that it could drag on for months. I would quibble with Sandro Magister's "last call to the sheepfold" headline. For one thing, in the Catholic Church there is no last call to the sheepfold this side of death. If this attempt fails, there are sure to be further initiatives from Rome in the future.
And as Lamont's article shows, the SSPX already have more credibility as members of the sheepfold than many dissident theologians and bishops. Before anyone jumps in, let me say that I am most definitely not suggesting that you can pick and choose which teachings of Vatican II you accept. What we are allowed to do is to say that the controversial passages of Vatican II must be understood and interpreted in continuity with the traditional teaching of the Church. Many who bandy around the name of Vatican II as a slogan have no scruples at all about rejecting outright many doctrines that it clearly taught, especially concerning the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff.
9 comments:
Good points, Father.
Quite so, Father! But it must be pointed out that while your characterisation of the faithful theologians, etc. is quite true, Lamont's holds water for those who have been the most influential and powerful within the Church up to this point (certainly here in Los Angeles and many other powerful and influential sees - as opposition to Summorum Pontificum, Anglicanorum Coetibus, and the other elements of the Benedictine Reform show). Of course, the Pope has already characterised (in his December 2005 message to the curia) the 5% of the Council at issue as "changeable" in themselves. What is important to bear in mind is the age difference between the theologians Lamont denounces and those you cite; the situation he describes will change for the better as tine goes on. But as that happens, will the SSPX be able to avoid a sort of neo-Donatism? That is the million-dollar question that only events can answer.
Tactically I don't get the SSPX at the moment. Oscar Wilde surely got it right when he said: "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about". If the SSPX wish to 'hurt' Vatican II they simply need to ignore it.
They should concentrate their energies on acquiring for themselves financial independence so they can ignore the Novus Ordo Church also when fully reconciled. They should then make it a priority to buy a church in my diocese.
Fr.,
You rightly raise the question of widespread heresy within the Church today.
Vatican 11 was a properly established Council of the Church. As such its teachings contained Truth.
It is now understood, beyond doubt, that liberal/Relativist periti gained access to preparatory committees, out of all proportion to their numbers in the Church, and that they used innuendo, and ambiguity, which expressed both established truth as well as dissent, as a tactic to enable them to subsequently claim teachings contrary to the established teaching of the Church.
The heterodox confusion and heresy within the laity today, not to mention with many priests and bishops, is but a reflection of the success of their tactics. If anything, it is getting worse.
Anyone who doubts the existence of such Relativist Reformers in the Church need only read the article by Fr Aidan Nichols (July 2009) in which he identifies four forms of the Modernist heresy alive and well in the Church today.
The solution lies in the idea, promoted by Bishop Athanasius Schneider in Dec 2009, for a Syllabus of Errors, which could be issued by the Pope to correct heretical interpretations of Vatican II which have since been claimed by the Relativist Reformers, or alternatively, a further Vatican Council called expressively to correct these errors.
Perhaps but lets not deny that this entire slide into 'modernism' started vis a vis Vatican 2 with those who thought up the teachings in the council implementing them and perverting them.
I have been following this closely and am completely fascinated what will happen next. I have prayed very much and will continue to.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
LIGHT OF THE WORLD ERROR SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO REAL DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE VATICAN AND THE SSPX
Once we realize that we cannot telephone or fax someone saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience the problem is resolved.We have to look at Vatican Council II in a different way.
Why cannot all Catholic religious communities Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits, Society of St.Pius X etc affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also implicit baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience, the seeds of the Word etc?
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has just to take the first step to resolve the Society of St.Pius X problem by announcing that :
‘the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience, the seeds of the Word etc are known only to God.’
This is obvious! It is a non controversial statement.Other misundestandings will end.
Example, in the following analysis written by John R. T. Lamont expressly for www.chiesa there are four points of seemingly disunity. (1) In reality there is no disunity.
1.
John R. T. Lamont "The doctrine on religious liberty, as it is expressed in no. 2 of the Declaration 'Dignitatis humanae,' contradicts the teachings of Gregory XVI in 'Mirari vos' and of Pius IX in 'Quanta cura' as well as those of Pope Leo XIII in 'Immortale Dei' and those of Pope Pius XI in 'Quas primas.'
Lionel:
N.13 Mirari Vos states :'Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained…'
Vatican Council II does not opppose the encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI (1832) on this point of religious indifferentism. Since Ad Gentes 7 states all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation (to avoid Hell).This is the same teaching as the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There are no known exceptions to this teaching since we do not know any case on earth of a non Catholic saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience(LG 16). We accept the possibility of a non Catholic being saved in invicible ignorance but just like the Church Fathers, popes, Councils and saints we do not claim that there are defacto known cases. Vatican Council II also does not make this claim.So the Vatican Council II text does not promote religious indifferentism.
CONTINUED
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/light-of-world-error-shows-that-there.html
At the end of the day the SSPX left our Church..
Jacobi said "It is now understood, beyond doubt, that liberal/Relativist periti gained access to preparatory committees, out of all proportion to their numbers in the Church, and that they used innuendo, and ambiguity, which expressed both established truth as well as dissent, as a tactic to enable them to subsequently claim teachings contrary to the established teaching of the Church.
So where do you think the Holy Spirit was when these events were going on? Do you think He abandoned His duty to guide the Pope and bishops responsible for running His Church and implementing His holy will?
Post a Comment