New Interview with Bishop Bernard Fellay

[YoungTradCath]

Originally Posted by SanctusPeccator

Granted, but this is an example of a modification (rather than an error) in the lesser category of ecclesiastical discipline. It does not pertain to the higher category of faith and morals.

I hate to be the thorn in your foot, but this implication cannot be used to qualify Vatican II, because Vatican II made no dogmatic or doctrinal pronouncements on faith and/or morals. On the other hand, I'm not attempting to prove Vatican II wrong or something, I'm just saying this doesn't work to support it.

And I'm not sure that that statement is concerned with "ecclesiastical discipline." The matter used for confecting a sacrament is immediately and inseparably concerned with the faith (as in dogma). But since that particular statement was not itself declared in a dogmatic way, it is fallible. And it was of course declared wrong and superceded. So it's wrong, yes, but the realm of what is required to confect a sacrament deals intimately with dogma.

[Tarpeian Rock]

Originally Posted by YoungTradCath

I hate to be the thorn in your foot, but this implication cannot be used to qualify Vatican II, because Vatican II made no dogmatic or doctrinal pronouncements on faith and/or morals. On the other hand, I'm not attempting to prove Vatican II wrong or something, I'm just saying this doesn't work to support it.

And I'm not sure that that statement is concerned with "ecclesiastical discipline." The matter used for confecting a sacrament is immediately and inseparably concerned with the faith (as in dogma). But since that particular statement was not itself declared in a dogmatic way, it is fallible. And it was of course declared wrong and superceded. So it's wrong, yes, but the realm of what is required to confect a sacrament deals intimately with dogma.

So Lumen Gentium, the "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church," one of the chief documents of Vatican II, isn't really "dogmatic" after all I guess. How silly of the Council Fathers to have mis-named it so. Guess they had their fingers crossed behind their backs when they passed it.

[wasserfall]

Originally Posted by Tarpeian Rock

So Lumen Gentium, the "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church," one of the chief documents of Vatican II, isn't really "dogmatic" after all I guess. How silly of the Council Fathers to have mis-named it so. Guess they had their fingers crossed behind their backs when they passed it.

1) Calling a text a "dogmatic constitution" doesn't mean that every word in it is part of a dogmatic definition.

2) Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger) stated clearly that Vatican II defined no NEW dogma. That is, while there are dogmatic statements in Vatican II, they are reiteration of previously defined dogmas, not new definitions.

3) Anyone getting worked up over the authority of Vatican II should just chill. If the Pope regularizes the SSPX without requiring any statement of assent to Vatican II, then you will have your answer.

[JReducation]

There seems to be an obsession by lay people about infallibility and fallibility. I say lay people, because when you get a room of religious, priests, bishops, and deacons, be they Traditionalists or mainstream, and we're discussing Vatican II or any papal writing, these words never come up. They're not very important to us.

What is important to us is what does the paper in front of us say? Does it mean what it says or is there more to it? Is it written concretely or was it meant to be nuanced? What it written for all time, or is the term "for all time" mean "until the next pope changes it"? What was in the mind of the writer? What issues was he addressing? Are those the same as today's? If so, how so? Can we take the content of the paper and apply it differently today or must it be applied literally?

We know that popes don't go around contradicting each other, even if they can. It's not PC. If there is an apparent conflict one of two things his happening. a) The later pope has overwritten the previous pope, which any pope can do, or b) There is no contradiction. Both popes are right and it is we who are reading them wrong. We have to figure out how we're misreading them. It may even be something that the later pope knows that we don't know. What is it the we missed?

We also know that a council need not define anything dogmatic or moral to have authority. Pastoral care is the primary mission of the Church. Therefore, any pastoral directive is authoritative and must be followed. There are always two questions. a) How do we implement the pastoral directive? and b) How do we asses its effectiveness? Every pastoral directive has to be assessed. Some are going to work and some are not. That's not rocket science. No council that issues a pastoral directive expects every directive to work magic. It's like everything else in life. "We think this works. We hope it works. Let's try it."

When we get into a room, the furthest thing from our minds is infallibility. There are very few things that have been infallibly declared. Usually, those are not the points that are under scrutiny. The statements made by councils and popes are always authoritative and they do not require that we give an assent of faith. But they do require that we comply. I believe that we dance around infallibility and fallibility to avoid the real word, "authority."

I also believe that we laid aside the words infallible and fallible, in discussing Vatican II and inserted authoritative, then you can get past that issue of whether or not it's important and get on to those questions that I posted in my first and second paragraph, which will yield much more information and will put everyone on the thread at the same level as the committees and scholars who are looking at the Council and other statements by the Church.

I always tell my theology students that if they want to discuss Church pronouncements like true Churchmen, they must ask the same questions that Churchmen ask and use the same language that they use. Otherwise, one sounds like an amateur. An amateur will get amateur conclusions. That's not very helpful. We want to arrive at solid conclusions; therefore, we have to ask the questions that the scholars are asking.

There is something else here that I tell my students in theology. If one does not ask the same questions as the scholar, then one cannot debate the scholar. A real debate is based on two people asking the same question and arriving at different conclusions.

If two people ask different questions, they are obviously going to arrive at different conclusions and there is nothing to debate. They're not on the same page.

This is important to remember for this dialogues on CAF as well as the dialogues of theology students in graduate school.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

[SanctusPeccator]

Originally Posted by YoungTradCath

I hate to be the thorn in your foot, but this implication cannot be used to qualify Vatican II, because Vatican II made no dogmatic or doctrinal pronouncements on faith and/or morals. On the other hand, I'm not attempting to prove Vatican II wrong or something, I'm just saying this doesn't work to support it.

Curious as to where any claim was made Vatican II pronounced any strictly dogmatic defintions? (Doctrinal definitions would be a distinct category). Best to allow our current pontiff to speak for himself on the magisterial authority of Vatican II:

“It is impossible ('for a Catholic') to take a position for Vatican II but against Trent or Vatican I. Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has been clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly the two previous Councils. And that also applies to the so-called 'progressivism', at least in its extreme forms. It is likewise impossible to decide in favour of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two Councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so called 'traditionalism', also in its extreme forms. Every partisan choice destroys the whole which can exist only as an indivisible unity” (Vittorio Messori's The Ratzinger Report: An Exclusive View on the State of the Church, pp. 28-29).

Originally Posted by YoungTradCath

And I'm not sure that that statement is concerned with "ecclesiastical discipline." The matter used for confecting a sacrament is immediately and inseparably concerned with the faith (as in dogma). But since that particular statement was not itself declared in a dogmatic way, it is fallible. And it was of course declared wrong and superceded. So it's wrong, yes, but the realm of what is required to confect a sacrament deals intimately with dogma.

The conferral of the Sacrament of Holy Orders possesses both an intrinsic signification and an extrinsic element (via a verbal formula) to convey that signfication. Regarding the matter and form for the conferral of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, the Decretum pro Armenis never pronounces the handing over of the instruments was the sole essential rite (much less disprove the continued existence for the rite of imposition of hands):

“The handing over (traditio) of the instruments is not necessary for the validity of the consecration of Deacons, Priests, and Bishops. (Sent. fidei proxima.)

“Starting from the assumption that all grades of Order were sacramental, the majority of the Scholastic Theologians wrongly regarded the traditio as the matter of the Sacrament of Order. In this traditio instrumentorum there is symbolised the service of the individual grades of Order. This opinion was also taken over from St. Thomas in the Decretum pro Armenis and by the Union Council of Florence (1439). D 701; cuius (sc. ordinis) materia est id, per cuius traditionem confertur ordo. However, the Decretum is not an infallible doctrinal decision. The Greeks were not required, on the occasion of the union accomplished at the Council, to change their rite of Order, or to incorporate into it the handing over of the instruments”

(Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 455).

[wasserfall]

You seem to be confused. You are trying to argue but what you post only confirms what you are arguing against. Let's look at the quotation from Ott:

“Starting from the assumption that all grades of Order were sacramental, the majority of the Scholastic Theologians wrongly regarded the traditio as the matter of the Sacrament of Order.

Ok, here your quote says EXACTLY what I already said: to regard the traditio as the matter of the sacrament is wrong.

This opinion was also taken over from St. Thomas in the Decretum pro Armenis and by the Union Council of Florence (1439). D 701; cuius (sc. ordinis) materia est id, per cuius traditionem confertur ordo.

So, just as I said, the Council of Florence taught the matter of the sacrament of holy orders WRONGLY (as above).

The council was not talking about discipline. It spoke of the MATTER of the sacrament, which is a matter of faith.

However, the Decretum is not an infallible doctrinal decision.

Once again, this is exactly what I said.
The Council of Florence taught it, but it is NOT infallible.

Ok, so much for that. You ought to go back and read the post by Brother JR. He correctly explains that we shouldn't really be worrying so much about infallibility, but rather authority. As I said in my first reply to you, the fact that a statement from an ecumenical council isn't infallible (that is, not infallibly declared), doesn't mean that the statement isn't made with authority.

You seem to be missing the point. When I say that some teaching from Vatican II isn't infallible, you seem to be thinking that I am claiming that the teaching lacks authority. But that isn't what I am saying at all. I fully accept that the teachings of Vatican II have authority and therefore must be received with submission. This speaks to the quote you gave from the Ratzinger Report.

BUT, (and you knew it was coming), when authoritative teaching does not reach the level of dogma in its authority, then there can indeed be circumstances in which it is legitimate to question whether or not the council might have made a mistake. The kinds of circumstances that would permit that would be, for example, if the teaching of the council seems to contradict other authoritative teaching.

Obviously if the council contradicts something something an anonymous poster says in an internet forum, or even if it contradicts Father Friendly's ill-prepared sermon from last week, then we can safely ignore the opinions of lesser authority. But if the council seems to contradict a formal condemnation of error by a Pope, speaking as universal teacher of the Church, then we have to take the time to investigate the situation more thoroughly.

In this case, we will end up having to decide between the alternatives, which are: 1) The seeming contradiction is not a true contradiction, and the teachings of Pope and council can be reconciled. 2) The Pope (not explicitly making an infallible statement) made an error 3) The council (not explicitly making an infallible statement) made an error.

Now just recently, Cardinal Brandmüller said that the SSPX skepticism of Nostra Aetate and Dignitatis Humanae shouldn't cause any problems for their regularization because, (as the Cardinal explicitly declared), these documents are non binding.

[wasserfall]

Something else I thought of SP... You seem to have a lot of energy to argue this point so maybe you're emotionally invested in the idea that Vatican II in unassailable.

So what are you going to do when the SSPX is regularized without any kind of formal acceptance of Vatican II?

I can tell you right now that there are many priests in good standing who consider the documents of Vatican II to be, in small part, erroneous, in that earlier authoritative teaching seems to be contradicted, but they don't shout their opinion from the rooftops.

What are are you going to say if the Pope decides to regularize a society of over 500 priests who aren't afraid to say it out loud?

[Alfonsus]

I think what we must focus on is the term "authoritative" either it is infallible or not.
For sure Vatican II is authoritative because it is true ecumenical council, thus it is binding to all faithful.
Binding means, at least it requires the assent of the faithful. If it is a directive, they obey until revision or different interpretation by the same competent authorities direct otherwise.

What Bishop Fellay said, "not accept everything" must come with qualification.
Does that means the Magisterium gives ok to dialogue the authoritative interpretation of the statement?
Does that means the Magisterium extends that same dialog for every faithful?
In the end, it is the Magisterium that define the boundary. If one day I find that I don't agree with the boundary, "it is not good enough!" then I must remember, the authoritative, final, and supreme interpreter is the Magisterium.
I can't maintain my Catholic faith integrity if I say, "I confess the Magisterium is the authoritative, final and supreme interpreter of Tradition, except for this one thing."

Again, we can't go just saying, "I don't accept this part, it is non-infallible, therefore I can disregard it whenever I want."
If my parish priest start wearing chasuble under his alb, he can say: "I don't accept we need to use chasuble over the alb, the rubric is never infallible, therefore I can wear my chasuble anyway I like."

That is, pure silliness, although it is consistent with "right to disregard anything non-infallible (that is every single thing outside the realm of faith and moral formulations that have been declared such)."

But actually in this regard, the liberals and traditionalist share the same slogan: "it is not infallible therefore it is non-binding."

[SanctusPeccator]

Originally Posted by wasserfall

Ok, here your quote says EXACTLY what I already said: to regard the traditio as the matter of the sacrament is wrong. So, just as I said, the Council of Florence taught the matter of the sacrament of holy orders WRONGLY (as above).

Not wrongly. The Decretum pro Armenis never asserted the handing over of the instruments was the sole essential rite. Had it done so, then it would be in error.

Originally Posted by wasserfall

The council was not talking about discipline. It spoke of the MATTER of the sacrament, which is a matter of faith. The Council of Florence taught it, but it is NOT infallible.

Never disputed the matter and form for the intrinsic signification of the Sacrament of Holy Orders falls within the purview of faith and morals. How the extrinsic element (via a verbal formula) conveys that intrinsic significations falls within the lesser category of ecclesiastical discipline and can be subject to future modification. After all, would one believe the words for conferring the Sacrament of Holy Orders are now identical to those spoken a millennium ago?

Originally Posted by wasserfall

Ok, so much for that. You ought to go back and read the post by Brother JR. He correctly explains that we shouldn't really be worrying so much about infallibility, but rather authority. As I said in my first reply to you, the fact that a statement from an ecumenical council isn't infallible (that is, not infallibly declared), doesn't mean that the statement isn't made with authority.

You seem to be missing the point. When I say that some teaching from Vatican II isn't infallible, you seem to be thinking that I am claiming that the teaching lacks authority. But that isn't what I am saying at all. I fully accept that the teachings of Vatican II have authority and therefore must be received with submission. This speaks to the quote you gave from the Ratzinger Report.

An inaccurate inference since it was never asserted you believed Vatican II lacked magisterial authority.

Originally Posted by wasserfall

BUT, (and you knew it was coming), when authoritative teaching does not reach the level of dogma in its authority, then there can indeed be circumstances in which it is legitimate to question whether or not the council might have made a mistake. The kinds of circumstances that would permit that would be, for example, if the teaching of the council seems to contradict other authoritative teaching.

It's those bolded conditional qualifiers that actually demarcate a remote hypothetical from a proven reality.

Originally Posted by wasserfall

But if the council seems to contradict a formal condemnation of error by a Pope, speaking as universal teacher of the Church, then we have to take the time to investigate the situation more thoroughly.

In this case, we will end up having to decide between the alternatives, which are: 1) The seeming contradiction is not a true contradiction, and the teachings of Pope and council can be reconciled. 2) The Pope (not explicitly making an infallible statement) made an error 3) The council (not explicitly making an infallible statement) made an error.

Still begs the question as to how many proven irrefutable examples from the third option conclusively happened?

Originally Posted by wasserfall

Now just recently, Cardinal Brandmüller said that the SSPX skepticism of Nostra Aetate and Dignitatis Humanae shouldn't cause any problems for their regularization because, (as the Cardinal explicitly declared), these documents are non binding.

First, His Eminence Walter Cardinal Brandmüller is not a participating member on the joint committee authorized with resolving the irregular canonical situation of the S.S.P.X. Second, he is only speaking in his personal capacity as a private theologian, not in an official capacity for the Holy See. Third, he does not address the more pressing question surrounding (what the S.S.P.X. perceives as) the magisterial status of either Lumen Gentium or Dei Verbum.

[TrueLight]

Originally Posted by wasserfall

Something else I thought of SP... You seem to have a lot of energy to argue this point so maybe you're emotionally invested in the idea that Vatican II in unassailable.

So what are you going to do when the SSPX is regularized without any kind of formal acceptance of Vatican II?

I can tell you right now that there are many priests in good standing who consider the documents of Vatican II to be, in small part, erroneous, in that earlier authoritative teaching seems to be contradicted, but they don't shout their opinion from the rooftops.

What are are you going to say if the Pope decides to regularize a society of over 500 priests who aren't afraid to say it out loud?

Good question.

And I think this makes a lot of people upset and confused. But all we can do is wait and see what the final outcome is. Anything can change from now until they are regularized.

I could see someone knocking on the Pope's door every day until reconciliation and saying, "But Papa... the SSPX? Those disobedient priests?"

[SanctusPeccator]

Originally Posted by wasserfall

Something else I thought of SP... You seem to have a lot of energy to argue this point so maybe you're emotionally invested in the idea that Vatican II in unassailable.

Seems to be another inaccurate inference on your part?

Originally Posted by wasserfall

So what are you going to do when the SSPX is regularized without any kind of formal acceptance of Vatican II?

Were the F.S.S.P., the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney, the Institute of the Good Shepherd, and the Sons of the Most Holy Redeeemer all regularized with this prerequisite?

Originally Posted by wasserfall

I can tell you right now that there are many priests in good standing who consider the documents of Vatican II to be, in small part, erroneous, in that earlier authoritative teaching seems to be contradicted, but they don't shout their opinion from the rooftops.

Except only the Magisterium is capable of providing the authentic interpretation of the pronouncements from an ecumenical council.

Originally Posted by wasserfall

What are are you going to say if the Pope decides to regularize a society of over 500 priests who aren't afraid to say it out loud?

Speculation is not actualization.

[RogerDeCourcy]

Some poster on this forum asked: "Well, what are we supposed to obey in the Vatican II documents?" I don't think he got a clear answer. Here is what I think:

• Ecumenism
• Religious liberty
• Collegiality
• Leeway in how we worship

... are the sticking points for liberals and traditionalists. As far as trads are concerned ...

Ecumenism = indifferentism;
Religious liberty = I can believe what I like in conscience;
Collegiality = Bishops can ignore the Pope. They can go their own way;
Sacrosanctum consilium = dancing up the gifts at Mass.

Whereas, one could ignore all the above and still be a good Catholic.

Now Vatican II as a thing in itself seems to require obedience, according to its defenders. Obedience to it as as thing, separate from the documents. You are disloyal if you question IT, as a thing. It's like a phantasm. Because if you look closely, it's like a spirit morphing into whatever the viewer wants to see: rigour or leeway, according to your desire.

Something decisive has to be done, because two generations of Catholics now think that Vatican II = a la carte Catholicism. This is terribly dangerous.

I think it will eventually be seen as the breaking of the dam on modernism, from which subsequent generations will have to clean up the resulting mess, having learned an important lesson.

[TrueLight]

Guys,

There was an amazing, well-articulated, intelligent conversation that occurred in the comments section on the very topic of Vatican II, what has to be accepted etc. I believe there are two priests involved in this discussion also. The comments really touch on what we are discussing here. I highly recommend it.

This is on Father Z's blog (2011): Was the Holy Spirit's Guidance on Vatican II Infallible?

[Thomas Casey]

Off Topic

CLOSED