In my last post, I quoted Archbishop Muller’s sense, which one can reasonably assume is shared by the Holy Fathers – both emeritus and present – for the condition upon which reconciliation with the SSPX hinges:
“They [SSPX] need to accept the complete doctrine of the Catholic Church: the confession of faith, the Creed, and also accept the magisterium of the Pope as it is authentically interpreted.”
Setting aside for the present discussion what constitutes magisterium “authentically interpreted,” he went on to clarify what this means with regard to the Council, which is, after all, the real sticking point:
“Vatican II is an official ecumenical council, and all that was said in the Council is therefore binding for everyone, but at different levels.”
Though many will find no cause for concern in this statement, when considered carefully it’s a ridiculous proposition. Think about it this way:
I, and presumably most of you, enjoy “full communion” in the Catholic Church. In order to persevere in that full communion, are we required to embrace the idea that “all that was said in the Council is binding” at some level or another? Is anyone required to acknowledge as much in order to maintain, or attain to, communion? The answer is no, of course not.
Since when is pledging lockstep submission to a text that many, including Cardinal Kasper, plainly acknowledge as admitting of multiple conflicting interpretations of Catholic doctrine the newly required Oath that one must swear in order to attain to “full communion?”
The very idea is ridiculous, and even a disinterested atheist can see why as a matter of simple logic:
– The doctrine of the Faith was “presumably well known and familiar to all” as the Council began (John XXIII – Opening Address, Oct. 11, 1962)
– The Council did not, and had no mandate whatsoever to, change the doctrine of the Faith (Affirmed by every pope since)
– Concerns about the weight of the conciliar decrees arose even as the Council met, and the Secretary of the Council, Abp. Pericle Felici, answered, saying, “The sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding.” The Council made no such declarations. None.
– Therefore, he who embraces the doctrine of the Faith as it was articulated and understood prior to the Council is necessarily in full communion, or at the very least, as a matter of justice, has the right to be treated as such.
– Maintaining said communion requires one to reject anything that conflicts, either explicitly or implicitly, with the doctrine of the Faith, no matter what the source may be, “even if an angel from heaven.”
– No one, not even a pope or a valid council of the Church, has the authority to bind anyone to any such conflicting propositions.
That’s simple logic. That’s the unassailable Catholic truth.
Simple enough? It should be, and yet, so many sincere Catholics struggle and contort and twist their logic, all but abandoning the gift of reason just to avoid the obvious; namely, the Council is flawed, and what’s more, so too is the magisterium that suposedly sought to clarify it.
Look, I get it… The idea that successive popes, and just about every high ranking member of the Roman Curia since the Council, have been abusing their authority for decades now by proposing to bind upon the faithful (the traditionalist faithful at any rate, unlike the heretics who bathe in the light of full communion while thumbing their nose at the doctrine of the Faith) even the most ambiguous and misleading text of Vatican II as some kind of litmus test for communion, is a bitter pill to swallow for many.
It’s like growing up and coming to terms with the fact that your Mommy and Daddy weren’t perfect. Not easy for some. Why? Because it destroys the unrealistic image of the people they trusted the most. I get it.
The good news is Holy Mother Church is still alive and well; the bad news is that many of her current spokespersons have for some decades now so watered down their presentation of the Faith as to invite deviation from it. It has happened before, and if we survive this crisis, it will happen again.
Tough though it may be, it’s time for responsible grown-up Catholics to pull on their big boy and big girl pants and come to terms with the fact that the shepherds of the Church since Vatican II, including the popes, have done and said any number of things that have done immeasurable harm to the Church, her children and the world, and the text of Vatican Council II has largely served as the manifesto for their irresponsible behavior.
I’ve been asked for a concrete example of the Council’s failure, and this will be the topic of the next post.
Thanks for hitting the nail on the head, Louie. I still am waiting for the day when someone in Church authority will explain to me how we worship the same God with the Muslims, and if this is not what it should say, how I should understand this.
I used to be SSPX and I can assure ++ Müller that nobody in the SSPX has a problem with the Creed and the correct interpretation of the Magisterium in line with Tradition.
I will change a line ,,if we survive this crisis, it will happen again”, because it may sound, that Our Holy Mother can not survive this. I will rather put something like ,,if we survive this crisis, we will see another like this”.
But with better Engilsh.
You also hit the nail on the head Konstantin. In this strange time we worship the same God, as people who denay divinity of Christ, Blessed Trinity, call jews and christian the worst of beings, but traditionalist apperently worship someone else.
Point well taken, Ziemek. There will come a time, however, when things will not necessarily get better and the Pilgrim Church will pass through a final trial and the Second Coming will be at hand. By “survive” I mean endure beyond the present trial. For all we know, this is the final one that harkens the end.
For anybody who isn’t familiar with Vatican II, I was refering to Nostra Aetate and its statement about the relationship towards the non-Christian religions.
The Litmus test for full communion is conformity to the Magisterium (of every age)–including the Popes.
I again refer to Bishop Nickless letter Ecclesia Semper Reformanda @ http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9162, for a proper interpretation of VCII–with full knowledge that his endorsement is on this site’s homepage.
He argues, contrary to this site, that the ‘hermeneutic of continuity” is correct–mainly because he is in conformity with the above litmus test
Good article. Whenever I run across conservative Catholics who seem to think that every jot and tittle of Vatican II, the new Catechism, or prudential decision of the recent magisterium has to be treated as if it’s de fide doctrine no one can even question I can’t help but think of this verse:
Matthew 23:4
4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
It’s as if an irrational burden is being put on men to defend what doesn’t make sense just to be an “orthodox, faithful Catholic in full communion with the Church.”
A few thoughts.
I was recently rereading the opening speech of Pope Paul XXIII at Vatican II, and this passage about the Council’s aim struck me in particular: “The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a Magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.”
Notice how he separates _what_ is being taught (its substance, which he praises Vatican I and Trent for precisely defining in the line before this quote) from the _way_ it is presented. But the way something is presented concerns rhetoric. It is, therefore, as if the Second Vatican Council is formally concerned with rhetoric—the means by which the faith is expressed—and not about the substance itself. (The substance, we must presume, is identical to VI and Trent and lurks somewhere beneath the rhetorical surface of VII…). What, then, might we say about this? Two things come immediately to mind.
1. We are bound to the substance of faith and morals, not the particular rhetoric by which it is aptly or inaptly expressed. I know of no doctrine of the Catholic faith that binds us to a particular type of rhetoric.
2. The rhetoric actually employed by the council is de facto passe today and timebound to the 1960s. If ever it was effective (and I doubt that it was), it is almost certainly not effective today. What was appropriate societal/cultural rhetoric in the 1960s has been wiped out and replaced already several times over. It’s not the bishops’ fault for not anticipating this, but it is the case nevertheless. And the longer we continue the rhetorical charade, the more foolish we look. It’s as if we were trying to “speak to the modern world” by wearing bell-bottom pants.
I think we Catholics can and sadly must admit that the rhetoric at the very heart of VII —not the substance of the faith that lurks beneath it—is a manifest flop. A return to clarity and precision is needed. Without that, we cannot cut through the noise and reach people today.
It sounds weird, but this is my opinion: BM, I agree that the council seems timebound to the 60’s, much like the older sisters now who still insist on wearing street clothes rather than habits. The council may have had good intentions (then again, maybe not all good), but Satan responded in a very clever way. Perhaps he gave the Church just what it was seeking – an openness to the world, which, in a very short period of time, slipped into the depths of hell. All of that 60’s and 70’s BS slipped right into the church and had a council to back it up. The obsession some seem to have with loyalty to Vatican II is a bit hypocritical. They shun those who cling to tradition, yet all the while they cling to their own “new” tradition from the council and those strange times. Now their traditions are passed down as doctrine and those young people and converts coming into the church know nothing else. How incredibly sad.
To BM.
It was John XXIII, not Paul XXIII. Or like John Kerry spoked Pius XXIII.
Yes, Ziemek. I just typed the wrong name—I have a habit of thinking one thing and typing another. Odd, since I was looking right at the name John XXIII on my desk!
Good Shepherd,
You yourself are the gate for the sheep. No one comes to you unless the Father beckons them. We pray, Lord, that the faithful would accept the teaching of your Bride, the Church, in its entirety. Let nothing obscure the pure in heart from seeing you in your glory. Let nothing trouble those who live in a world that you have conquered. You are the way, the truth, and the life.
Through the intercession of St. Pius X,
Amen
The 1st Vatican II Document, Sacrosanctum Concillium, was written in the Style of Today’s Vatican Documents, using Ambiguity with the intent to please Modernists & is the Subject of many Arguements about the Mass. In it was the Draft of what is the NO Mass. There were many loopholes in the Document. Download a PDF, read it. You’ll see why everything is such a Mess.
His Vortexcellency, who broadcasts from a Warehouse in the Detroit Suburb of Ferndale, MI, bases his Charge of Schism with the SSPX, entirely on Vatican Council II.
One wonders if he even bothered to read any of the Vatican Council II Documents, or just takes orders from the Backer in Texas or even Opus Dei.