SSPX and Rome Nov. 2014

Lefebvrians: “Rome doesn’t plan on imposing a capitulation”
In an interview with authoritative French weekly magazine Famille Chrétienne, the Secretary of Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, Guido Pozzo, discussed the state of relations between Rome and the Society of St. Pius X following Mgr. Fellay’s recent meeting with the Prefect of the Doctrine for the Faith. From the interview, it would seem that the Holy See does not intend to put any pressure on Mgr. Lefebvre’s followers but would like an agreement to be reached, although the timeframe for this is uncertain. What we are given to understand here, is that Rome intends to show greater flexibility on any aspect that does not regard doctrine.
 
In 2009 Benedict XVI decided to revoke the  excommunication of Lefebvrian bishops who had been illicitly ordained by Mgr. Lefebvre in 1988. This was a first and essential step toward the resumption of a constructive dialogue. Just a first step, however, because there were still some big doctrinal questions which needed to be addressed. The Ecclesia Dei Commission which has close links with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is the main instrument in this dialogue process.
 
Perhaps the most interesting part of the interview is that which addressed the sticking points in said dialogue. Mgr. Pozzo underlined that “any reservations or positions the Society of St. Pius X may have regarding aspects which are not related to faith but to pastoral questions or the prudential teaching of the Magisterium do not necessarily need to withdrawn or relinquished.” Here Rome seems to be showing an attempt to alter positions expressed in the past: According to Mgr. Pozzo, the fraternity’s reservations are linked to “aspects of pastoral care or the prudential teaching of the Magisterium.” The monsignor’s statement suggests that since these criticisms and reservations are no longer labelled as “doctrinal” the Lefebvrians could legitimately continue to express them.
 
This approach is expressed more clearly in the following part of the interview:  “The Holy See does not wish to impose a capitulation on the SSPX. On the contrary, it invites the fraternity to stand beside it within the same framework of doctrinal principles that is necessary in guaranteeing the same adhesion to the faith and Catholic doctrine on the Magisterium and the Tradition. At the same time, there is room for further reflection on the reservations the fraternity has expressed regarding certain aspects and the wording of the Second Vatican Council docuмents as well as some reforms that followed but which do not refer to subjects which are dogmatically or doctrinally indisputable.”
 
Finally, one other very important clarification was made: “There is no doubt that the teachings of the Second Vatican Council vary a great deal in terms of how authoritative and binding they are depending on the text. So, for example, the Lumen Gentium Constitution on the Church and the Dei Verbum on the Divine Revelation are doctrinal declarations even though no dogmatic definition was given to them”, whereas the declarations on religious freedom, non-Christian religions and the decree on ecuмenism “are authoritative and binding to a different and lesser degree.”
 
It is unclear how long this process is going to take: “I don’t think it is possible to say yet when this process will conclude,” Mgr. Pozzo said. Both sides are committed to taking things step by step. “There will be no unexpected shortcuts; the clearly stated aim is to promote unity through the generosity of the universal Church led by the successor of Peter.”   http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/le...

Finally, one other very important clarification was made: “There is no doubt that the teachings of the Second Vatican Council vary a great deal in terms of how authoritative and binding they are depending on the text. So, for example, the Lumen Gentium Constitution on the Church and the Dei Verbum on the Divine Revelation are doctrinal declarations even though no dogmatic definition was given to them”, whereas the declarations on religious freedom, non-Christian religions and the decree on ecuмenism “are authoritative and binding to a different and lesser degree.”


So, regardless, all are authoritative and binding, no?

Quote from: 2Vermont

Finally, one other very important clarification was made: “There is no doubt that the teachings of the Second Vatican Council vary a great deal in terms of how authoritative and binding they are depending on the text. So, for example, the Lumen Gentium Constitution on the Church and the Dei Verbum on the Divine Revelation are doctrinal declarations even though no dogmatic definition was given to them”, whereas the declarations on religious freedom, non-Christian religions and the decree on ecuмenism “are authoritative and binding to a different and lesser degree.”


So, regardless, all are authoritative and binding, no?

If they are from the Universal Ordinary Magisterium they are indeed authoritative and binding as the UOM is both Infallible and Indefectible.  

The only way the docuмents could have defected from the Catholic Faith would be if Paul VI was indeed an anti-pope.  In which case the "council" docuмents aren't worth the paper they were written on.

Yes.  I was asking because I too often hear from SSPX folks that the docuмents are not infallible and therefore can be ignored and Paul VI etal can still be valid popes.  It appears the Novus Ordo church is indeed informing us that these docuмents are infallible and binding.

Quote from: Ferdinand

Quote from: 2Vermont

Finally, one other very important clarification was made: “There is no doubt that the teachings of the Second Vatican Council vary a great deal in terms of how authoritative and binding they are depending on the text. So, for example, the Lumen Gentium Constitution on the Church and the Dei Verbum on the Divine Revelation are doctrinal declarations even though no dogmatic definition was given to them”, whereas the declarations on religious freedom, non-Christian religions and the decree on ecuмenism “are authoritative and binding to a different and lesser degree.”


So, regardless, all are authoritative and binding, no?

If they are from the Universal Ordinary Magisterium they are indeed authoritative and binding as the UOM is both Infallible and Indefectible.  

The only way the docuмents could have defected from the Catholic Faith would be if Paul VI was indeed an anti-pope.  In which case the "council" docuмents aren't worth the paper they were written on.

Yes.  I was asking because I too often hear from SSPX folks that the docuмents are not infallible and therefore can be ignored and Paul VI etal can still be valid popes.  It appears the Novus Ordo church is indeed informing us that these docuмents are infallible and binding.

The Catholic Church is of course Indefectible and Infallible... two sides of the same coin.

The SSPX has always maintained that the council, the new rights of ordination and consecration, the new mass, the new code of canon law the new catechism, etc. are all defective.  

The conclusion is elementary... they all came from the defective "Conciliar Church" and the "Conciliar Church" is in no way the Catholic Church. Silly analogies like the half-rotten apple... are completely rotten!

“We are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church and for the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong. That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a docuмent, official and definitive.... The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church....”

~Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on Suspension a divinis, June 29, 1976

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: 2Vermont

Yes.  I was asking because I too often hear from SSPX folks that the docuмents are not infallible and therefore can be ignored and Paul VI etal can still be valid popes.  It appears the Novus Ordo church is indeed informing us that these docuмents are infallible and binding.

No, quite the contrary, 2Vermont, the Vatican here is admitting that the teachings are not infallible but are authoritative to a lesser degree.

Even in pre-Vatican II theology authentic non-infallible teachings could be respectfully disputed under certain conditions and through the proper channels.

Sedevacantists are famous for denying, for all practical intents and purposes, the very existence of a binding yet non-infallible Magisterium and for refusing the admit the distinction between intellectual assent and religious submission.

If I believed in the ecclesiology and soteriology to which most Traditional Catholics adhere, I would long ago have returned to some form of submission to the post Vatican II hierarchy.  But given that I consider that ecclesiology and soteriology to be outright heretical, I would have trouble accepting such a deal.

It is heresy to maintain that the Catholic Church is not Indefectible in her UOM.

Are the council, the new rights of ordination and consecration, the new mass, the new code of canon law the new catechism, etc., Defective?

As with most sedevacantists, you don't know what UOM actually is.  UOM has the same notes of infallibility that the solemn Magisterium does.  You simply equate UOM with the non-infallible authentic Magisterium and therefore deny the existence of any non-infallible authentic Magisterium.

You are gravely mistaken on this point, and it's what leads to all the errors of sedevacantism.

As for the Mass, and Rites of Ordination and Consecration, those pertain to the Church's disciplinary infallibility, not to the UOM.

I do agree, however, that it would be a grave error, proximate to heresy, to claim that the Church could promulgate an intrinsically defective Rite of Mass for instance.  But this hast nothing to do with UOM and the non-infallible authentic Magisterium.  Bishop Williamson, for instance, admits this but uses the argument that the New Rite of Mass was not correctly promulgated.  I find the argument weak at best.  Others might argue that the New Rite of Mass is not instrinsically harmful / defective, but only accidentally so due to aberrant implementations of the same.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Ferdinand

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: 2Vermont

Yes.  I was asking because I too often hear from SSPX folks that the docuмents are not infallible and therefore can be ignored and Paul VI etal can still be valid popes.  It appears the Novus Ordo church is indeed informing us that these docuмents are infallible and binding.

No, quite the contrary, 2Vermont, the Vatican here is admitting that the teachings are not infallible but are authoritative to a lesser degree.

Even in pre-Vatican II theology authentic non-infallible teachings could be respectfully disputed under certain conditions and through the proper channels.

Sedevacantists are famous for denying, for all practical intents and purposes, the very existence of a binding yet non-infallible Magisterium and for refusing the admit the distinction between intellectual assent and religious submission.

If I believed in the ecclesiology and soteriology to which most Traditional Catholics adhere, I would long ago have returned to some form of submission to the post Vatican II hierarchy.  But given that I consider that ecclesiology and soteriology to be outright heretical, I would have trouble accepting such a deal.

It is heresy to maintain that the Catholic Church is not Indefectible in her UOM.

Are the council, the new rights of ordination and consecration, the new mass, the new code of canon law the new catechism, etc., Defective?

As with most sedevacantists, you don't know what UOM actually is.  UOM has the same notes of infallibility that the solemn Magisterium does.  You simply equate UOM with the non-infallible authentic Magisterium.

You are gravely mistaken on this point, and it's what leads to all the errors of sedevacantism.

As for the Mass, and Rites of Ordination and Consecration, those pertain to the Church's disciplinary infallibility, not to the UOM.

I do agree, however, that it would be a grave error, proximate to heresy, to claim that the Church could promulgate an intrinsically defective Rite of Mass for instance.  But this hast nothing to do with UOM and the non-infallible authentic Magisterium.  Bishop Williamson, for instance, admits this but uses the argument that the New Rite of Mass was not correctly promulgated.  I find the argument weak at best.  Others might argue that the New Rite of Mass is not instrinsically harmful / defective, but only accidentally so due to aberrant implementations of the same.

We are talking about Indefectibility, not Infallibility!

Simple question Ladislaus... is the Church Indefectible?

Was ABL serious or was it just poetry when he stated:

That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been.
 
- It has its new dogmas,
- its new priesthood,
- its new institutions,
- its new worship,

all already condemned by the Church in many a docuмent, official and definitive....

The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic.

To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church....”

What could have been a fruitful discussion has yet again been derailed by the sedevacantists.

What could have been a fruitful discussion has yet again been derailed by the sedevacantists.

Let's have a fruitful discussion on why Bishop Fellay is having discussions with the head of the Conciliar church which, according to Archbishop Lefebvre, is not the Catholic Church.

Does Bishop Fellay hold to ++Lefebvre's claim that the Conciliar church is a schismatic church?

Is it the official SSPX position that the Conciliar church is not Catholic?