The Sspx

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='philothea' post='1762019' date='Jan 26 2009, 12:55 AM']Just looked around at the SSPX website and, man. I don't think I've been so irritated at a group of people in [i]years[/i]. Ugh.

Going to try to ignore these topics for a bit and go look at pictures of kittens instead. [/quote]

Same here-I should probably go look at kittens too...-Katie

[MithLuin]

Kitties are good.


[b]Apotheoun[/b], while I appreciate that we are not part of the official discussion, that does not mean that we can not discuss

1) history

2) news

3) the SSPX

4) the Magisterium

None of us can speak [i]authoritatively[/i] on the process of the SSPX being brought back into communion with the Church...and I don't think any of us claimed to. Saying that there has to be some level of obedience to the pope and the Magisterium is just common sense...that's part of the definition of being in full communion .

[Maximilianus]

...I'll stick with the FSSP until this all clears up.

Edited January 26, 2009 by Maximilianus

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1761977' date='Jan 26 2009, 12:35 AM']The article didn't seem to definitively say that they didn't have to accept Vatican II, just that they didn't have to specifically, publically accept Vatican II if it is implicit in more general agreements. It is not going to be possible for them to come back into full communion with the Church if they reject the council. I would still think it would be wise for them to issue a public acceptance if and when they intend to accept Vatican II in order to clear up confusion. As for Cardinal Ratzinger's quote-I don't see why that has anything to do with the SSPX not having to acknowledge Vatican II. -Katie[/quote]

We must accept dogma, what is not dogma does not necessarily have to be accepted. It is up to the Vatican if they will require the SSPX to publicly accept VII. If the article is true, it would seem the Vatican will not require the SSPX to do that, but merely require the Society to "recognize the Church, and the Magisterium of the Pope, that will suffice as an implicit acknowledgment."

And there is a commonality between the article and the quote for Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, that Vatican II is not dogma. The quote is also similar to what I believe at least is the real issue the SSPX has with VII.

[Nihil Obstat]

Maybe I'm confused, but aren't all councils like Vatican II considered binding for the Church?

[MithLuin]

Yes.

I mean, no, you're not confused, but yes, the Council is binding.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='MithLuin' post='1762061' date='Jan 25 2009, 11:17 PM']Yes.

I mean, no, you're not confused, but yes, the Council is binding.[/quote]
Binding but not dogma? Think I'm missing a link.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1762068' date='Jan 26 2009, 01:24 AM']Binding but not dogma? Think I'm missing a link. [/quote]

If the story is true, honestly it is somewhat confusing to me as well. But if the story is true I would hope that the Vatican in some way explains this.

[KnightofChrist]

But then I've heard it said that Vatican II is not binding on Eastern Catholics, Apotheoun can you speak on this matter?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1762042' date='Jan 26 2009, 12:07 AM']We must accept dogma, what is not dogma does not necessarily have to be accepted.[/quote]

Uhh... not true.

Can. 752 While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ's faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.

[philothea]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1762068' date='Jan 26 2009, 12:24 AM']Binding but not dogma? Think I'm missing a link. [/quote]
A dogma is something like belief in the Trinity. The statements of the Creed, and things like that. Fundamental precepts of the faith. The most recent dogma was the Immaculate Conception, I believe.

Rejection of dogma makes one a heretic. Nobody suggests that SSPX are heretics, I don't think.

[CatherineM]

There are more levels than just dogma and doctrine. There is Dogma which we must take as an act of faith. Next is Definitive Doctrine which we should accept as true. Third is Authoritative Doctrine which we should strive to assimilate while recognizing the remote possibility of church error. Last is Church discipline and Prudential admonitions which we should obey in the spirit of any law of the church even if we question it.

Dogmas are the things like what we recite in the Creed. It also includes things proposed by popes and councils, especially in the early church, in response to a controversy such as the divinity of Christ or the real presence in the Eucharist. They are things core to our salvation, and basically if you don't believe them, you're not a Catholic.

Definitive doctrines are those things not elevated to dogma, but are "necessary for safeguarding and expounding divine revelation." These things are so important that they are elevated to the level of infallible. Included in this category most theologians put the Council of Trent's definition of the canon of the books of the bible.

Authoritative Doctrine is drawn from the wisdom of the church as it draws from scripture and tradition. This is where many concrete moral teachings fall including just war, prohibitions on certain fertility things like in vitro. The church speaks authoritatively on these matters, but isn't yet ready to call them infallible. It is possible, yet highly unlikely, that the church might change its mind about in vitro some time in the future. In the meantime, we are to accept these teachings.

Prudential Admonitions and Church Discipline are things like pastoral letters from your bishop, or the paper the American bishops put out condemning a first nuclear strike. We should give these things serious consideration, but we are allowed to discuss, debate, and prayerfully consider our feelings in the matter. This is the only area that Catholics can disagree in good faith. Priestly celibacy falls in the area of church discipline, so if the church were to change its mind in the future on that topic, no big deal. Female ordination is not within this area, and not open to discussion.

I highly recommend the book, "By What Authority: A Primer on Scripture, Magisterium, and the Sense of the Faithful," by Richard R. Gaillardetz.

[KnightofChrist]

Necessarily being the key word, it is true. While there are nondogmatic teachings that have differt levels of binding. Not all nondogmatic things are binding.

[philothea]

Great explanation, Catherine.

So, which level is Vatican II at, or are the various Constitutions, Decrees, and Declarations different?

(As if you don't have enough homework... )

[CatherineM]

See that's the thing. The Vatican doesn't produce things and say, "this is authoritative doctrine." I don't want to say that they seem to want to keep their options open, but they can make it very confusing. When something is big and definite, like the Immaculate Conception, they aren't shy. For the other 99%, they kind of leave it up to theologians to debate where it should fall. Once it's been around long enough, and has stood the test of time, it kind of creeps up the list, which is a good reason to not pigeon hole it from the beginning. In pastoral theology we called that a deductive praxis, where a practice in place for a long period of time is finally codified.