+
JMJ
With all the mis-information about the SSPX rejecting the Second Vatican Council, I thought it would be useful to publish an article that focuses on the real issues that the SSPX has identified.
Update: Why Did the SSPX Consecrate Bishops? (Neither Schismatic, Nor Disobedient link)
In the linked document the SSPX outlined the key motivation and core issues with Vatican II and the post-conciliar magisterium (see above link for full document):
- 4. The Society Acted Precisely Because of the State of Necessity in Which the Faith Finds Itself
- In the present situation of the Church, if the Society of Saint Pius X had not carried out the consecrations of July 1st, it would have found itself facing an inevitable alternative: either to disappear gradually, or to accept, at least in fact, the new liturgy as well as the false doctrines of Vatican II and the post-council.
- Without the consecrations of July 1st, the Fraternity would have found itself, in a few years, without bishops, due to the natural death of those who currently hold this office.
- Without bishops, there would be no more priestly ordinations; without ordinations, no more priests; and, in the long run, no more traditional Mass, no more traditional sacraments, no more comprehensive teaching of Catholic doctrine.
- The only alternative would have been to request bishops from Rome, to have priests ordained by diocesan bishops, or to send the faithful to parish priests. However, each of these solutions would have implied accepting, at least practically, the false doctrines of the Council and the post-conciliar period.
- We are already seeing this today, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, in the annex attached to the decree of excommunication published on July 2, requires all those who wish to return "in communion with Rome" to sign a declaration affirming that they accept Vatican II according to the interpretation given by the current Magisterium and that they undertake never to criticize the teachings of the Pope.
- Consequently, without episcopal consecrations, the Fraternity would have been forced to accept doctrines such as religious freedom, ecumenism, collegiality, the illicitness of the death penalty, the possibility for divorced and remarried people to receive communion, or the blessing of homosexual couples; or, at the very least, to agree not to criticize them publicly.
- It is thus understood that the Pope's order, considered in the concrete circumstances in which it was given, commands an act which becomes objectively evil and culpable, since it is never permitted to accept or to renounce denouncing what is contrary to the Faith.
- In this regard, it is important to remember that the doctrinal positions of the Society are not mere opinions, nor are they personal preferences, particular sensitivities, or tastes; they constitute Catholic doctrine, definitively taught by the constant Magisterium of the Church. One need only read the acts of all the popes and the writings of all theologians prior to the Council to be convinced of this.
- It is therefore impossible to renounce them, since they belong to the very deposit of faith. When the Pope demands the contrary, it is clear that his order is, in Torquemada's words, contrary "to divine law, to the faith, or to the salvation of souls." Consequently, not only can we disobey him, but we must.
- Finally, let us address one last objection: "You are no one to assert that certain teachings of the Council and post-Council are contrary to traditional doctrine. This judgment belongs solely to the supreme authority, that is, to the Pope."
- But if that were the case, what would be the meaning of the words of Torquemada and all the other theologians claiming that every Christian has the right to disobey the Pope when he objectively commands something wrong?
P^3
Further Reading
What Is the Position of the SSPX on Vatican II?
The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) was founded in 1970 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre for the promotion of the Catholic priesthood. Part of the good formation of Catholic priests is in teaching them the authentic dogmas of the Catholic Church. These dogmas are contained in Tradition, with a capital "T," namely, the deposit of the Catholic Faith which was given to the Apostles by Our Lord and has been handed down from generation to generation.
Unfortunately, some, though by no means all, of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council contradict the constant teaching of the Church. The priests of the Society oppose these novel teachings, not because of a personal resentment towards the Council, but because they are contrary to the Church's teaching throughout the centuries.
Other orders which celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass, such as the Fraternity of St. Peter, do not believe that there are errors in the very documents of Vatican II. Rather, they hold that all of the teachings of Vatican I can be reconciled with the constant teaching of the Church, by way of a "hermeneutic of continuity." Yet, the fact remains that the actual texts of Vatican II contradict the perennial teaching of the Church on the questions of religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality.
Religious Liberty
On December 8, 1864, Pope Pius IX issued the document Quanta Cura, and accompanied the document with a Syllabus containing 80 errors which he solemnly condemned. Pius IX made it clear that he was exercising the charism of infallibility which Our Lord granted to popes when they speak as pope on matters of faith and morals and which bind the consciences of Catholics.
Two of the errors that he identified are the following:
- Liberty of conscience and of worship is the proper right of every man.
- Liberty of conscience and of worship ... should be proclaimed and asserted by law in every correctly established society.
Almost exactly 101 years later, the Second Vatican Council promulgated its last document, Dignitatis Humanae, on religious liberty, on December 7, 1965. A liberal theologian and promoter of Vatican II, Fr. Yves Congar, openly admitted, "It cannot be denied that a text like Vatican II's Declaration on Religious Liberty' says, at least as far as the words go, something quite different from the Syllabus of 1864, in fact just about the opposite of sentences 15, 77 and 79 of the Syllabus.
Here are two statements from the document:
- The council declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person.
- This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.
The Syllabus of Errors condemns the error that religious freedom, or liberty of worship, is a right of man, and should be enshrined in law. The liberty of conscience and of worship that the Syllabus denounces is the idea that each man effectively has a natural right to choose his own God/god and make his own religion, even when his god and/or religion are false. By contrast, Dignitatis Humanae proclaims as truth that every human being has a right to religious freedom and that that right should be enshrined in civil law.
Which of these two teachings represents the real Catholic Faith, the solemn and infallible statements of Pope Pius IX, or the declaration of a Council that did not want to define dogma?
Ecumenism
On January 6, 1928, Pope Pius XI issued an encyclical entitled Mortalium Animos. In this document, he expressed the consistent teaching of the Magisterium that it would be wrong for a pope or individual Catholics to participate in the Protestant ecumenical move-ment. Because that movement puts all religions on the same level and sets aside the triple unity of faith, government, and worship possessed by the Catholic Church, to join in the movement would imply that:
- the Catholic Church is not the true Church founded by Christ;
- the truths of the Gospel were only for the time of Our Lord;
- the Holy Spirit has left the Church; and
- we are searching for the truth and have not yet found it.
The Pope stated: "It is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics. There is but one way in which the unity of Christians may be fostered, and that is by furthering the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it." He further declared: "Whosoever is not united with the body (the Catholic Church] is no member thereof, neither is he in communion with Christ its Head."
Just a few decades later, in 1964, the Second Vatican Council promulgated a decree on ecumenism entitled Unitatis Redintegratio. This document opined that the ecumenical movement is "fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit and that "during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren." Instead of stating that those who are not in communion with the Catholic Church are not in communion with Christ, it affirmed that "men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect."
Which of these two diametrically opposed teachings truly represents the revelation given by Jesus Christ through the Catholic Church?
Collegiality
Pope Pius XII issued three encyclicals during his pontificate clarifying the nature of the episcopate. Specifically, he taught that, through his consecration, a bishop receives sacramental power (the power of sanctifying), but not jurisdictional power (the power of governing). The supreme power of jurisdiction is given to the pope by Christ upon his election and he alone can communicate that power to bishops.
For instance, in Ad Sinarum Gentes of 1954, the Pope stated, "The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the successor of Peter, to whom not only the faithful but also all bishops are bound to be constantly subject and to adhere both by the reverence of obedience and by the bond of unity."
These clarifications were necessary because of the parallel hierarchy that was being created in China under the regime of Mao Zedong. Pope Pius XII wanted to indicate that the bishops being consecrated for the so called Patriotic Church had no actual power to govern in spiritual affairs.
At the Second Vatican Council, a certain bloc of Council Fathers wanted to democratize the Church, changing its monarchical nature into something more collegial. The common teaching of theologians up to that time was that the College of Bishops does not constitute a supreme governing authority parallel to the supreme governing authority of the pope. It was held that they are not a permanently established body but rather constitute a College only when a pope convokes them.
Lumen Gentium of Vatican II taught differently in its Nota Praevia or Preliminary Note, saying, "Though it is always in existence, the College is not as a result permanently engaged in strictly collegial activity" (emphasis added). The justification for this teaching is found in paragraph 21 of the document, which teaches that bishops receive jurisdictional power as well as sacramental power when they are made bish-ops: "Episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and of governing, which, however, of its very nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion wich the head and the members of the college."
Is the College of Bishops a supreme authority of the Church and do bishops receive the power of governing upon their consecration? Vatican II says "yes," while the traditional teaching of the Church says "no."
How Can a Council Be Wrong?
In the preface to his dubia on religious liberty, Archbishop Lefebvre stated: "Neither God nor truth changes. What the Church has defined or solemnly condemned for centuries cannot change." If certain teachings of the Second Vatican Council contradict previous infallibly defined statements of the Magisterium, it is clear that those teachings must be false.
How is it possible for an ecumenical council to fall into error? By the fact that Vatican II was the first council to be declared a " pastoral" rather than a "doctrinal" council, as Pope Paul VI himself stated: "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statement of dogmas that would be endowed with the note of infallibility."! Cardinal Ratzinger, before he became Pope Benedict XVI, said the same thing: "The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council." (2)
Vatican I-"The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth." Pastor Aeternus, ch. 4
Since the Second Vatican Council had no intention to bind Catholics on questions of faith and morals, it was not protected from error by the Holy Spirit, as past dogmatic councils have been. This has created the need for faithful Catholics to refuse and oppose its innovations. Since truth leads souls towards God while error leads away from Him, the priests of the SSX seek to uphold the authentic teaching of the Church and pray for the day when that authentic Church hierarchy.
1 "After the Council: New Tasks" The Pope Speaks, vol. 11 (Win- ter, 1966), p.154.
2 Address to the Chilean Episcopal Conference, Santiago, Chile, July 13, 1988.
The Answer: Tradition
"We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth.
We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.
No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can force us to abandon or diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church's Magisterium for nineteen centuries." - Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Declaration of 1974
Deus caritas est!
ReplyDelete