This is a special thread, the first of its kind -- it's a debate thread for 2 members only. Everyone else is considered part of the studio audience.

Even though the software will let you, no one is allowed to participate in this thread except for 2 specific members:

SeanJohnson
Caminus

Any comments from the "peanut gallery" will be summarily deleted -- regardless of who is getting the support.

Reply to Mr. Snyder/Caminus:

I certainly make no pretensions to being the most eloquent, persuasive, or knowledgeable amongst those you refer to as schismatics.

That said, like yourself, I too have an interest in gaining an understanding of why my adversaries do not see things as we see them.

Here, then, is what I propose as a starting point:

1) I will permit you to choose the specific issues for debate.

2) The issues should be framed in neutral, legalistic language (e.g., "The first issue is to consider whether...");

3) Once we have agreement on the framing of the questions, we can proceed to offering supporting rationales/critiques;

4) In no case shall you or I be able to offer 2 successive responses; the entire debate should proceed point/counterpoint.

5) Finally, Matthew/Mater will reserve the right to interject moderation of the debate, and render a decision should we become bogged down on any particular point.

6) What do you think?

Sincerely,

Sean Johnson (aka "Seraphim")

Upon what grounds is one justified in leaving their chapel when in actual fact everything is the same as it was before?  If these reasons justify separation from other Catholics, do you assert that it is a moral imperative?  If not, why?  Or is it rather a matter of preference?  We'll get to other issues in a moment.

That should be a good start.  Or shall we affirm/deny a single proposition?  

Upon what grounds is one justified in leaving their chapel when in actual fact everything is the same as it was before?  If these reasons justify separation from other Catholics, do you assert that it is a moral imperative?  If not, why?  Or is it rather a matter of preference?  We'll get to other issues in a moment.

That should be a good start.  Or shall we affirm/deny a single proposition?  

Caminus-

Let us resolve the issue in your initial question before progressing to the next (per the ground rules spelled out above).

You ask, "Upon what grounds is one justified in leaving their chapel when in actual fact everything is the same as it was before?"

1) While knowing nothing about the local conditions at your local SSPX chapel, I can already object to the assertion that "nothing has changed";

2) One of the reasons the SSPX always forbade us from attending indult Masses was because, even if everything said and done there was positively Catholic, the indult was given on the condition that there be no criticism of Vatican II;

3) And since the doctrines of Vatican II were harmful and dangerous to the Faith, we were not permitted to attend these Masses because we were not allowed to deliberately place our Faith in danger;

4) Now fast-forward to the present: We have just read a scandalous doctrinal declaration in which Bishop Fellay assented to the proposition that the doctrines of Vatican II are contained (albeit implicitly) within tradition, and that anything that cant be interpreted as compatible with tradition, must nevertheless be interpreted forcibly in such a manner;

5) This is nothing other than accepting the heretical doctrines of Dignitatis Humanae, and BXVI's "Hermeneutic of Continuity."

6) Now, if your local SSPX priest has denounced this madness from the pulpit, thereby not omitting to warn the faithful against this danger to their Faith, then I can agree with your presumption that nothing has changed in your parish;

7) But if your priest is still your priest, then I am probably correct in that he is failing in his duty to warn the faithful against this very grave danger to their Faith;

8) In which case, we are faced with an apparent hypocrisy and/or contradiction:

9) If I can't attend an indult because the priest will fail to warn me of dangers to my faith (i.e., by omitting to denounce the errors of Vatican II the hierarchy wants me to accept), how can I attend the SSPX chapel when the priest fails to warn me about Bishop Fellay's endorsement of the doctrines of Vatican II via the "hermeneutic of continuity" accepted in his declaration?

10) In fairness, this reason for avoiding the indult (i.e., the priest omitting his duty to warn against doctrinal dangers to the faith) may never have been the primary or self-sufficient reason for avoiding the indult;

11) And therefore, it may or may not stand alone as a reason for one to abstain/withdraw from attendance at an SSPX chapel;

12) But at the same time, one would have difficulty in asserting contrarily that one must continue to attend a chapel in which a priest is failing to warn the faithful against grave dangers to their Faith.

13) On this basis, then, I would opine (along with Bishop Williamson) that one retains liberty in the matter of attending or abstaining;

14) As I cannot fathom an argument which would compel attendance at a Mass which objectively presents a danger to the Faith.

15) Were such not the case, how could we have resisted attendance at the new Mass, but for the danger it presents to the Faith?

Aside from the somewhat questionable presentation of the reason given by the SSPX for avoiding an “indult” Mass, I’ll take it as your premise nevertheless.  Consequently, the first part of your argument is that because a priestly organization offers no public criticism of Vatican II this fact alone presents a positive and proximate danger to one’s faith.  Number 4 serves as your minor premise, that is, since the SSPX can now be considered more or less analogous to the Fraternity of St. Peter, one ought to avoid association.  Finally, since you assert that one retains full liberty to choose or in other words there is no moral imperative to “resist” in the form of leaving one’s chapel, the faithful ought to be left to their unmolested consciences.  Does that sum it up accurately?    

Hello Caminus-

1) No;

2) My premise is that nobody can be obliged to attend a Mass which presents a danger to their Faith;

3) But some men judge that the recent communiques, letters, sermons, declarations, etc. coming from the SSPX and/or Bishop Fellay present a danger to their Faith (or the Faith of those whom God has given him responsibility for);

4) Therefore, these men cannot be compelled to attend Masses by the SSPX;

5) If we are to assess the quality of these perceived dangers to the Faith, there are certainly many objective statements one could cite to justify their apprehensions (e.g., Vatican II is contained implicitly in tradition; DH only proposed a very limited religious liberty; 95% of Vatican II is OK; we have discovered that much of what we objected to in the Council is not really from the Council, but from the common understanding of it; etc).

6) A compounding factor enhancing the danger to the Faith is that the local priest (if he wants to stay an SSPX priest) has been prohibited from denouncing -or even correcting- these dangers to the Faith.

7) I think most reasonable men under these circuмstances will take into consideration the threshold at which point they can no longer subject their families to these errors before becoming culpable for doing so;

8) And this threshold will vary from family to family, with the ignorant masses being the most protected by their own ignorance, but the more intelligent and informed having difficult choices to make.

9) For my own part, my children are not at the age of reason, and most of this goes right past them, while at the same time, my wife is quite doctrinally astute.  So in that sense, and for that reason, I have not judged that the danger in our case represents a "red light."

10) But how can you say that another man who finds his wife or teenage children being influenced and converted to ideas like "If Archbishop Lefebvre would have seen how they celebrate the new Mass, he would not have done what he did," or, "95% of Vatican II is OK," etc. is not justified (compelled, even) to remove his family from the threat?

Caminus said:

"So you concede that the SSPX isn’t analogous to the FSSP or by extension any other recognized traditional organization.  Implicit in this concession is the admission that the constitution, mission, quality and nature of the SSPX has not changed and in fact, it remains as it has been since its conception.  That being said, you must admit that the faith, sacraments and traditional catholic doctrine are retained, taught and defended by the SSPX.  Therefore, attending an SSPX mass presents absolutely no danger to the faith, not even remotely."

Comment:

1) If since its conception the SSPX has maintained that 95% of Vatican 2 is OK; that Vatican II is implicit in tradition (which would include DH); that ABL would not have resisted had he seen the same reverent Novus Ordo Mass Bishop Fellay did; that many things we thought came from V2 didn't really come from V2, but only from the common understanding of it; that the SSPX has never insisted on resolving the doctrinal issues before discussing a practical accord; that DH was not so bad because it only admitted a very limited religious liberty; etc; then yes, I will concede that the SSPX remains as it always has.

2) But one would need to be a convinced solipsist in order to maintain such an opinion in light of the available materials contrasting the diverging views of the SSPX on such topics;

3) Or, one would need to debate in bad faith to deliberately pretend such instances of contradiction to the traditional positions of the SSPX had not been violated in these instances;

4) Therefore, I do not admit to the point on which you insist, namely, that the SSPX has not changed its doctrinal positions;

5) And precisely because it has, it presents a proximate danger to the faith of those aware of the contradictions (since they must choose between the old and new SSPX, in much the same way SSPXers have had to choose between the new and old popes on these issues).


Caminus said:

"How precisely does this come about except through an extraordinary stretch of the imagination?  Prior to Vatican II certainly bishops existed in the Church who disdained Catholic doctrine to some degree, yet we see no exodus of “concerned Catholics.”  This is supposing that these “statements” amount to doctrinal perversions.  So why did we not see a material separation among Catholics prior to 1962?  It is because the faith, liturgy and doctrine were objectively and publically unaffected by the opinions of said bishops.  It was only after their errors became a matter of publicity and affected the faith in an adverse manner were Catholics obliged to separate from their company.  It was because our religion became perverted in some manner that presented a proximate danger."

Comment:

1) Leaving aside for the moment that you are violating the ground rules of point/counterpoint, and settling specific points before progressing to another, I respond thusly:

2) This paragraph hangs you, because to the degree there was any doctrinal perversion prior to Vatican II amongst covert modernist bishops, the lack of reaction to it by the faithful only proves the fatal consequences their acquiescence to these errors had on their faith;

3) And therefore the observation you make rather proves my point than yours;

4) I might add that an even more aggravating circuмstance surrounding the doctrinal change in orientation in the SSPX is that, in the pre-Vatican II observation you make, the corruption was championed covertly by modernist bishops, not the Vatican or Popes;

5) But in the case of the SSPX, it is being championed by Menzingen and Bishop Fellay himself, which makes the danger even more grave, since in pre-V2 times, the faithful could just leave and go to another church, but in our times, we have no other option but to fight off the poison or become home-aloners.

6) So, as you concede in the 2nd to last sentence of the paragraph quoted, that publicity of the doctrinal perversions justified Catholics in separating from the company of the modernists because of the danger to their faith, so too will astute SSPXers be justified (or compelled) to separate from their SSPX parish, depending on the particular case by case factors of the individual/family.  


Caminus said:

"Your notion that these men are justified in separation because of a hypothetical danger is absurd according to Catholic theology.  These men act on the mere possibility that someday the Catholic religion now preserved in their chapel will become perverted.  This is a perverse manner of acting according to Catholic moral theology which states that an act obliges only when the law is certain.  But you apparently claim that one need not possess certitude in order to bind the conscience, for neither you nor these priests detractors are certain, by the very definition of the terms, this has actually occurred, much less will occur sometime in the future.  Indeed, one can dispense from the law obliging the attendance at a traditional Catholic mass based upon nothing but conjecture."


Comment:

1) Leaving aside that your grasp of moral theology is completely lacking and erroneous on two specific points (i.e., that hypothetical dangers to the faith cannot compel action, and also that one may only act when the law is certain, whereas St. Alphonsus is famous for saying "in doubt, liberty"), which you can brush up on by reviewing the SSPX article contained in this forum's library sub-forum titled "On the Doctrine of Necessity";

2) I have aptly demonstrated that the doctrinal dangers to faith present within the examples previously quoted are practical and concrete, come from the Superior General himself, and may not be contradicted by the local priest;

3) I ask Matthew for moderation and decision on this point, since it will be a waste of time to continue beleaguering the point endlessly, and I can see you are not prepared to acknowledge the threat;

4) Finally, you set up a straw man argument, with yourself, which you attribute to me: You declare in this paragraph that such men act only on a future possibility, and in a state of doubtful conscience, then attribute to me a false acknowledgement of this fictitious state, and then attempt to apply moral theology to declare yourself victorious;

5) But where did you ever get the idea these men had doubtful consciences?  It is quite certain, given the heterodox declaration of Bishop Fellay that faith is threatened, and that the local priest may not come to the aid of the faithful to remove the threat.  An educated and informed man had no doubt about what his rights and duties are in such a case!

6) That being so, your entire erroneous reference to moral theology is irrelevant.

7) That being the case, I ask Matthew for a rendering on this point also.


Caminus said:

"What you observe here are not statements that present a danger to the faith, but rather misstatements (which I don’t concede) pertaining to fact.  It is no more a danger to the faith to say that 87% of Vatican II is acceptable than it is to say 99% of it is acceptable.  Why?  Because the man who says such a thing accepts the principle and is merely describing its statistical quantity.  That is to say, the point is that the errors and omissions in Vatican II are comparatively few with respect to the otherwise unobjectionable contents.  Bishop Fellay is viewing the Council materially, not formally.  Besides, this statement was mentioned over 10 years ago, but we heard nothing from the valiant priests after the fact.  Viewing the Council under another formality, e.g. its spirit, its intention, its effects would produce statements such as “the entirety of Vatican II must be abandoned”.  These statements are not mutually exclusive because they are referring to the same thing under different formalities."

Response:

1) I suspect you are one who has never read the docuмents of the Council from cover to cover;

2) You are a prime example of the damage the faithful of the SSPX are able to suffer from hearing Bishop Fellay promote the idea that 95% of V2 is OK;

3) The danger here is not a quibble about what the actual percentage of rottenness or acceptability of the V2 docuмents is, but the fact that the SSPX faithful are being taught by the Superior General to let their guard down; to not get so worked up about the subject; and worst of all, to gain an understanding such as you have adopted that there are only a couple bad things here and there, whereas the reality is that you can hardly turn a page without encountering an objectionable proposition in those putrid docuмents!

4) It matters not that this never-repudiated or corrected statement was made over 10 years ago (rather, it reveals how long in coming has been the recent liberalism), when one takes into account more recent statements such as those quoted by me on the subject of Vatican II which, in conjunction with this statement, ought to put all men in the pews on high alert, because they show a more comprehensive acceptance of the Conciliar religion than in yesteryear.

5) Yes, the Council ought to be abandoned.


Caminus said:

"Finally, you compound your mistaken notion as to what presents a danger to the faith by asserting that priests are forbidden to condemn these statements.  This is special pleading at its worse.  These statements, even supposing the bad light in which you interpret them, are not doctrinal assertions, as mentioned.  Yet you seriously claim that priests in a religious order are bound to publicly denounce them and the Superior General himself.  You claim a moral obligation.  Yet, on the other hand, you concede that men are free to disagree, which I hold to be true as well.  One can possess doubts, questions and reservations.  This is perfectly normal.  One can even doubt the legitimacy of papal claims.  This is normal.  On the other hand, the line of morality and discretion is crossed when people seem to think that their doubts should be the doubts of all and that we are morally obliged to convince others, even to the point of becoming contentious, rude, schismatic, unscrupulous about truth and interpreting the actions and sayings of others in the worse possible light, fomenting an irrational and sinful suspicion, as per the doctrine of St. Thomas."

Response:

1) There is a pinned thread called the "Collection of Resistance Writings" filled with the names of priests who tried to warn their faithful of thee threat to their faith coming from the new doctrines Menzingen embraced chasing after a deal;

2) Almost all of them were either expelled for trying to inoculate their faithful, or having been told they needed to cease doing so, preferred God to Menzingen, and left of their own accord.

3) Couple this fact with the observation that nowhere today can a priest be found within the SSPX of good standing preaching against the doctrinal errors mentioned above, and it becomes impossible to argue they are not prevented from doing so (unless they wish to be cast out of the SSPX in short order);

4) Your claim that priests have no duty to denounce the errors or the ones erring leaves me perplexed; they have a duty both in charity to come to the aid of those in a state of necessity, and in justice to God to prevent perversion of His doctrine to the detriment of souls and His own glory!

5) On that score, I would again refer you to the library's SSPX publication on the 1988 Consecrations: A Theological Study (renamed in the forum "On the Doctrine of Necessity."

6) Finally, men are not free to disagree on what constitutes an objective danger to their faith (e.g., heresy is heresy, whether I perceive it or not), but only on the degree of danger to them and their dependents given their specific and particular circuмstances;

7) The rest of this paragraph re-enters the area of "doubts" which has already been addressed in a preceding response.


Request to Matthew:

1) This debate is not proceeding point/counterpoint, as stipulated;

2) I find myself having to respond to multiple points, rather than hammering out a specific issue before proceeding;

3) It makes for very lengthy responses when there are 20 points to respond to;

4) And this may cause followers to lose interest from fatigue.

5) Could you please interject with rendering some judgments thus far, that thee subject matter can gain focus, and the responses become shorter?

If since its conception the SSPX has maintained that 95% of Vatican 2 is OK; that Vatican II is implicit in tradition (which would include DH); that ABL would not have resisted had he seen the same reverent Novus Ordo Mass Bishop Fellay did; that many things we thought came from V2 didn't really come from V2, but only from the common understanding of it; that the SSPX has never insisted on resolving the doctrinal issues before discussing a practical accord; that DH was not so bad because it only admitted a very limited religious liberty; etc; then yes, I will concede that the SSPX remains as it always has.

First, you completely ignored my explanation regarding the percentage comment.  Materially speaking, the controverted statements are relatively few.  It’s a fact that no one disputes.  I’m not sure what you mean by “Vatican II is implicit in tradition” that is a vague statement that needs clarification, but obviously some of the doctrines contained in Vatican II are not found in tradition, otherwise he would be saying that the entire Council is 100% acceptable.  Do you understand?  Secondly, the quote attributed to Bishop Fellay by a Novus Ordo Cardinal is false.  Bishop Fellay explained what was said on the occasion.  Why do you take the word of a Novus Ordo Cardinal over Bishop Fellay?  Why do you continue to rely on such false reports?  It is because you have an agenda to maintain!  Thirdly, it is a truism that some things are based upon an interpretation of Vatican II and not the actual text itself.  This is uncontroversial.  Are you not familiar with ABL’s dictum: We accept whatever is true in the docuмents, interpret what we can in light of tradition, and that which we cannot interpret in light of tradition must be rejected.  You are no follower of ABL apparently.  Fourthly, as a matter of fact, the SSPX did accept canonical regularization in 1988 but it was due to accidental circuмstances that it never came about.  The General Chapter of 2006 simply asserted pre-conditions must be met in order to ascertain good will.  It never defined what was expected from Rome viz. a doctrinal resolution.  What ever you think that may be is certainly your opinion, but to claim that it is proof that “something has changed” is chimerical.  Fifthly, you have a penchant for putting words in the mouths of others; no one claimed that DH was “not so bad” because of the kind of religious liberty it exposited.  If you claim the SSPX has substantially changed based upon these scant statements, it’s a wonder how it could have maintained any permanent character at all.  Finally, these statements are non-doctrinal in nature.  They concern practical and factual matters about which one may freely discuss.  Non-doctrinal statements do not fundamentally change either the Church or the SSPX.  

2) But one would need to be a convinced solipsist in order to maintain such an opinion in light of the available materials contrasting the diverging views of the SSPX on such topics;

A solipsist?  There is much freedom to discuss such matters without altering the principles and purposes of the SSPX.  The fact that you are attempting to dogmatize your own opinions is your problem and no one else’s.  

3) Or, one would need to debate in bad faith to deliberately pretend such instances of contradiction to the traditional positions of the SSPX had not been violated in these instances;

Now you are accusing your opponents of bad faith?  What happened to your injunctions charity?

5) And precisely because it has, it presents a proximate danger to the faith of those aware of the contradictions (since they must choose between the old and new SSPX, in much the same way SSPXers have had to choose between the new and old popes on these issues).

I think you are confusing taking scandal with danger to the faith.  Rather than being a solipsist, it seems you are infected with an incurable subjectivism.  

There is much more to address.  Shall I continue or would you like to refocus?  I would like to focus on your grasp of the principles of moral theology.  I think that would be helpful.

Matthew-

This debate is out of control:

1) Caminus is raising multiple issues in each post, a tactic prohibited by the ground rules.

2) He is now making consecutive posts, likewise prohibited.

3) Because I knew he would not be able to defeat me on the merits of his arguments, but would have to resort to these tactics, I set such ground rules to try and limit his Protestant shotgun approach (which raises everything and settles nothing).

4) I can rest my case now, and have you start a poll to put the debate to a vote (you formulate the questions on the poll);

5) Continuing in this fashion any further is a never ending circle;

6) I have made my arguments; Caminus has made his.

7) How do you all see it?

PS: Please lock thread and delete Caminus' last/consecutive illegal post.