Vatican Reminder: Sspx Ordinations Are Illegitimate

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1314962487' post='2299139']
Yes. You have good points and I agree there are differences. However, when all is said and done, the fact remains that the SSPX are our separated brothers just as the protestants. Whether you reject 1 or 1,000 teachings, you are still separated, not in union with the Church..
[/quote]
This isn't the position the Church holds at all. It's really surprising to me how many on this thread are taking a very protestanty black-and-white approach to this. It's very easy to see that the Church acknowledges varying degrees of separation - look at the difference in how she considers the Orthodox and the Protestants, both of whom are groups that at some time have split from our Church. I'm not a fan of the SSPX - I find their disobedience disgraceful, and you certainly won't see me at an SSPX parish or chapel or whatever it is that they have any time soon, but I really don't see the need to go above and beyond in the ostracism of them.

[Papist]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1314970934' post='2299178']
This isn't the position the Church holds at all. It's really surprising to me how many on this thread are taking a very protestanty black-and-white approach to this. It's very easy to see that the Church acknowledges varying degrees of separation - look at the difference in how she considers the Orthodox and the Protestants, both of whom are groups that at some time have split from our Church. I'm not a fan of the SSPX - I find their disobedience disgraceful, and you certainly won't see me at an SSPX parish or chapel or whatever it is that they have any time soon, but I really don't see the need to go above and beyond in the ostracism of them.
[/quote]
I do not understand how you can reply with this from my post. I said there are differences and yet similarities. That is not black and white. Does Catholic Church = SSPX = Catholic Church? NO! For it to be yes, the SSPX must get inside the boat, and stop floating on the dinghy.

[Aloysius]

Skinzo, I said they don't hold it as a belief about tradition. they do indeed freeze things in 1962, which speaks to my point about them not wildly inventing doctrines: because they keep themselves frozen in 1962, they do not wildly invent doctrines but rather keep themselves limited to that which was taught prior to 1962 because they don't have the authority to teach anything else.

it's not like they hold faith in some belief that tradition must be frozen in 1962. their view is that the Church entered dark woods in 1962 and got a little lost, so they returned to the point where the woods were entered. they didn't go back to that point and then set out on their own separate journey, they went to that point and set up camp because they didn't have anyone with the authority to lead them from that point since the Pope was with the rest of the Church in the dark woods. again, I'm not saying this is a correct position, but it is a position, it's not a "doctrinal belief that everything must be frozen in 1962", the point I'm making is that they're not wildly inventing doctrine the way a Protestant or a liberal dissident does.

I wouldn't call them "separated brethren", papist, and nor would the Vatican who has called this an "internal matter" within the Church. dealing with separated brethren is an external matter. they are in union with the Church; for a while the four bishops themselves were out of union with the Church but that excommunication was lifted. so for now they're disobedient members who ARE in union with our Church. they have a bit of a schismatic mentality, but the Church does not consider themselves yet to be in schism.

[Skinzo]

Aloysius,
I understand what you are saying but in effect the SSPX is pushing a novelty, and it is not that of the living Magisterium but one disconnected from the Holy Spirit who nonetheless still guides our pope. Now, whether they put it into so many words is another story, but that does not matter. Doctrine in one sense is what you do and your actions define you, not your words. For example, one may say as the SSPX does, "Oh we believe in the authority of the Pope" but when you deliberately defy that authority day in and day out that pretty much gives the lie to what you are saying. Whether you put it into words or not does not matter.
. I'm reading Fellay's articles and will start a separate thread on him soon which will make a lot of things about this whole controversy much more clear.
I was surprised to find Fellay has always been very explicit on what his plans are and it's all in his own words. Fellay is really a very manipulative person and at times rather cynical.
In fairness to the Protestants and even the liberal dissidents I would have to say they don't "wildly invent doctrines", There is a thought process going on there but they take some wrong turns. I think you are wrong to say the SSPX members are in union with the Church, that is not correct at all. Those who are in union have canonical existence and canonical mission. The SSPX does not have either one.
You are also incorrect to say that the Church has said they are not in schism. Some in Rome have said that, but not the Church. If you are referring to the remarks of the employees of the Ecclesia Dei commission those have been contradictory at times as I've shown in an old thread here somewhere. I don't want to argue the point now, but I think you can still hold that they are in schism. At this point they are not excommunicated.

With all due respect and every good wish,

S.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1314975139' post='2299201']
I do not understand how you can reply with this from my post.
[/quote]
In lieu of an explanation, I'll merely quote what you said, and you can take it from there.
[quote]However, when all is said and done, the fact remains that the SSPX are our [b]separated brothers [u]just as the[/u] protestants[/b].[/quote]
No charge for the emphasis.

Edited September 2, 2011 by USAirwaysIHS

[Papist]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1315000693' post='2299326']
In lieu of an explanation, I'll merely quote what you said, and you can take it from there.

No charge for the emphasis.
[/quote]
Please define protestant?

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1315003861' post='2299352']
Please define protestant?
[/quote]
The [b]Protestant Reformation[/b], also known as the [b]Protestant Revolt[/b] or [b]the Reformation[/b], was the European [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian"]Christian[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_movement"]reform movement[/url] that established[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism"]Protestantism[/url] as a constituent branch of contemporary [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity"]Christianity[/url]. It was led by [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther"]Martin Luther[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin"]John Calvin[/url] and other early Protestants. The efforts of the self-described "reformers" who objected to ("protested") the doctrines, rituals and ecclesiastical structure of the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church"]Catholic Church[/url], led to the creation of new national[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism"]Protestant[/url] churches. The Catholics responded with a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Reformation"]Counter-Reformation[/url], led by the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Jesus"]Jesuit order[/url], which reclaimed large parts of Europe, such as [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland"]Poland[/url]. In general,[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Europe"]northern Europe[/url], with the exception of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland"]Ireland[/url] and pockets of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain"]Britain[/url], turned Protestant, and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Europe"]southern Europe[/url] remained Catholic, while fierce battles that turned into warfare took place in [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Europe"]central Europe[/url]. The largest of the new denominations were the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglicans"]Anglicans[/url] (based in [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England"]England[/url]), the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutherans"]Lutherans[/url] (based in [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany"]Germany[/url] and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavia"]Scandinavia[/url]), and the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_churches"]Reformed churches[/url] (based in Germany, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland"]Switzerland[/url], the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands"]Netherlands[/url] and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland"]Scotland[/url]). There were many smaller bodies as well. The most common dating begins in 1517 when Luther published [i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ninety-Five_Theses"]The Ninety-Five Theses[/url][/i], and concludes in 1648 with the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Westphalia"]Treaty of Westphalia[/url] that ended years of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion"]European religious wars[/url].[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation#cite_note-0"][1[/url][/sup]

[Papist]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1315004411' post='2299354']
The [b]Protestant Reformation[/b], also known as the [b]Protestant Revolt[/b] or [b]the Reformation[/b], was the European [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian"]Christian[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_movement"]reform movement[/url] that established[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism"]Protestantism[/url] as a constituent branch of contemporary [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity"]Christianity[/url]. It was led by [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther"]Martin Luther[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin"]John Calvin[/url] and other early Protestants. The efforts of the self-described "reformers" who objected to ("protested") the doctrines, rituals and ecclesiastical structure of the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church"]Catholic Church[/url], led to the creation of new national[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism"]Protestant[/url] churches. The Catholics responded with a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Reformation"]Counter-Reformation[/url], led by the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Jesus"]Jesuit order[/url], which reclaimed large parts of Europe, such as [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland"]Poland[/url]. In general,[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Europe"]northern Europe[/url], with the exception of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland"]Ireland[/url] and pockets of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain"]Britain[/url], turned Protestant, and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Europe"]southern Europe[/url] remained Catholic, while fierce battles that turned into warfare took place in [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Europe"]central Europe[/url]. The largest of the new denominations were the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglicans"]Anglicans[/url] (based in [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England"]England[/url]), the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutherans"]Lutherans[/url] (based in [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany"]Germany[/url] and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavia"]Scandinavia[/url]), and the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_churches"]Reformed churches[/url] (based in Germany, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland"]Switzerland[/url], the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands"]Netherlands[/url] and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland"]Scotland[/url]). There were many smaller bodies as well. The most common dating begins in 1517 when Luther published [i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ninety-Five_Theses"]The Ninety-Five Theses[/url][/i], and concludes in 1648 with the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Westphalia"]Treaty of Westphalia[/url] that ended years of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion"]European religious wars[/url].[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation#cite_note-0"][1[/url][/sup]
[/quote]
Let me re-phrase that. Please define protestant?

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1315009108' post='2299384']
Let me re-phrase that. Please define protestant?
[/quote]
[url="http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+a+protestant"]http://lmgtfy.com/?q...is+a+protestant[/url]

Answer 2:
"However vague and indefinite the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04478a.htm"]creed[/url] of individual Protestants may be, it always rests on a few standard rules, or principles, bearing on the Sources of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm"]faith[/url], the means of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm"]justification[/url], and the constitution of the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm"]Church[/url]. An acknowledged Protestant authority, Philip Schaff (in "The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge", s.v. Reformation), sums up the principles of Protestantism in the following words:[indent]
The Protestant goes directly to the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/bible"]Word of God[/url] for instruction, and to the throne of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm"]grace[/url] in his [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12275b.htm"]devotions[/url]; whilst the pious[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm"]Roman Catholic[/url] consults the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm"]teaching[/url] of his [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm"]church[/url], and prefers to offer his [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12345b.htm"]prayers[/url] through the medium of the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm"]Virgin Mary[/url]and the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm"]saints[/url].
From this general principle of Evangelical freedom, and direct individual relationship of the believer to [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm"]Christ[/url], proceed the three fundamental doctrines of Protestantism — the absolute supremacy of (1) the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/bible"]Word[/url], and of (2) the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm"]grace[/url] of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm"]Christ[/url], and (3) the general [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12409a.htm"]priesthood[/url] of believers. . . ."
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm"]http://www.newadvent...then/12495a.htm[/url]

Edited September 3, 2011 by USAirwaysIHS

[Papist]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1315010913' post='2299398']
[url="http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+a+protestant"]http://lmgtfy.com/?q...is+a+protestant[/url]

Answer 2:
"However vague and indefinite the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04478a.htm"]creed[/url] of individual Protestants may be, it always rests on a few standard rules, or principles, bearing on the Sources of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm"]faith[/url], the means of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm"]justification[/url], and the constitution of the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm"]Church[/url]. An acknowledged Protestant authority, Philip Schaff (in "The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge", s.v. Reformation), sums up the principles of Protestantism in the following words:[indent]
The Protestant goes directly to the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/bible"]Word of God[/url] for instruction, and to the throne of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm"]grace[/url] in his [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12275b.htm"]devotions[/url]; whilst the pious[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm"]Roman Catholic[/url] consults the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm"]teaching[/url] of his [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm"]church[/url], and prefers to offer his [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12345b.htm"]prayers[/url] through the medium of the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm"]Virgin Mary[/url]and the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm"]saints[/url].
From this general principle of Evangelical freedom, and direct individual relationship of the believer to [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm"]Christ[/url], proceed the three fundamental doctrines of Protestantism — the absolute supremacy of (1) the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/bible"]Word[/url], and of (2) the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm"]grace[/url] of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm"]Christ[/url], and (3) the general [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12409a.htm"]priesthood[/url] of believers. . . ."
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm"]http://www.newadvent...then/12495a.htm[/url]
[/quote]
This is your definition?

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1315013265' post='2299416']
This is your definition?
[/quote]
Nope, but it's the Catholic Encyclopedia's definition, and that's at least 20 times better than anything I - or dare I say, even you - could muster.

[Aloysius]

Skinzo,

IMO, you have shown yourself to be biased in reading Fellay's statement, so it' sno surprise to me that you have judged him "cynical" and "manipulative". I'm sure you've extended him no benefits of any doubt, and latched onto any point you could to tear him down by your measure. I'll participate a little in your thread if I think you're being too harsh on him, but I have no intention of putting up too much of an apologia pro +Fellay, seeing as I don't even agree with him. I'll do what I can if I think you're being too unfair to the good man, however. he wants the situation regularized, and has said that Rome must be the one to do it, but he won't compromise his principals in order to do it. he won't water down what he believes, he'll be intellectually honest, and he hopes that the Vatican will eventually agree with the Society's view of Vatican II. so be it, let the strife go on, for the result of that conflict will be a huge benefit to the Church... a benefit we would lose if the Society was simply willing to let go easily and water down all its principals for the sake of making nice.

I need not base my position that this is an internal matter on any obscure statements from Ecclesia Dei officials. The words of the Holy Father are sufficient to show that Pope Benedict XVI himself believes this to be an internal matter:

[size=3]"[font=Times New Roman]I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an [b]interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church[/b]. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: “Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!” ([i]2 Cor[/i] 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows."[/font][/size] -Benedict XVI

the additional statements of Cardinal Hoyos, Cardinal Castrillion, Msgr Perl, and Cardinal Cassidy reconfirm all this. but the official answer of the relevant office of the Holy See that is charged with dealing with the SSPX is that there is no schism, yet, and they hope there will not be one. the Ecclesia Dei's position, as outlined officially here, is the Church's position on the matter:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/07/guest-contribution-qa-with-the-pont-comm-ecclesia-dei-about-sspx-schism-and-sacraments/

that's not just a private position of an individual cardinal, the Holy See has charged the PCED (now under the CDF) with dealing with the SSPX question, this is the official PCED position. coupled with Benedict's reference to an interior reconciliation within the Church, there is no doubt in my mind that the Vatican's official position remains that the SSPX are still within the Church.

[Skinzo]

Aloysius,
Why don't you read what I say about Fellay first, before jumping to conclusions? I will be interested to hear what you think whatever it might be. And I will try to be fair with Fellay. Just for the record I don't see him as 100% manipulative or cynical, but there are things he says and does which make me wonder, but those may be open to differing interpretations. And I apologize if anything in my earlier posts upset you, as it was not really my intent and I will try to avoid antagonizing you in the future of course. Oddly enough, it was a follower of the SSPX that pointed my attention to some things Fellay wrote and that made me realize I did not understand him fully on some points.
I'll agree Fellay wants things regularized but I think he wants it on the terms of the SSPX which I don't think is possible, nor do I think it's going to happen. The "principals" of the SSPX (well, it's actually "principles") will have to bend if there is to be an accommodation. Because some of those principles seem to include a rejection of Vatican II. Now, it's entirely possible that the Pope may offer the SSPX something similar to the 1988 agreement which Lefebvre signed and then rejected. As I recall, it only asked the SSPX to assume an "attitude of study" to the documents of Vatican II. To me, that's a deal I would jump at if I was SSPX but of course I am not. Accepting such a formula would allow the SSPX more time to reflect and hopefully come to a gradual acceptance of what the Church is saying.
If I might just ask you to clarify something you have said here and I quote:
" he hopes that the Vatican will eventually agree with the Society's view of Vatican II. so be it, let the strife go on, for the result of that conflict will be a huge benefit to the Church... a benefit we would lose if the Society was simply willing to let go easily and water down all its principals for the sake of making nice." How will it benefit the Church if conflict with the SSPX continues? Do you think the Church will be harmed if the SSPX were to say for example, accept the documents of Vatican II either in their obvious meaning or in the official interpretation of the Holy See?
Is it your view that Vatican II needs to be overturned along the lines the SSPX seems to desire?
I agree it is certainly an internal matter of the Church and I know Pope Benedict wants to exhaust all means possible to bring the SSPX into full communion.
In the link you provide it says: "
“Statements made by Cardinal Castrillón need to be understood in [b]a technical, canonical sense[/b]. Stating that the Society of St. Pius X “is not in formal schism” is to say that [b]there has been no official declaration[/b] on the part of the Holy See that the Society of St. Pius X is in schism. Up to now, the Church has sought [b]to show the maximum charity[/b], courtesy and consideration to all those involved with the hope that such a declaration will not eventually be necessary."
I have no problem with that, there is no official declaration one way or the other.

S.

[Aloysius]

we're cool, sorry I didn't mean to be so antagonistic with you. charecterizing Fellay as "cynical" and "manipulative" as your prelude to your upcoming Fellay thread did seem a bit telling, to me, as to how you were going to present him. I see him as sincere but misguided, principled and maybe a bit stubborn on that front, but intellectually honest.

there is no declaration and the Vatican deals with it as an internal matter; so we should treat it like an internal matter... laymen who attend their chapels are Catholics just like any of us; their priests and bishops are also Catholics, though they're being disobedient... they're in the Church like any of us, and we should not treat them as if they are outside of the Church, because it's an internal matter.

I think it benefits the Church to have that discussion, and it's useful to have a side which tries to strictly adhere to the pre-Vatican II mindset, because any authentic interpretation of the Council cannot contradict the magisterium prior to the Council. I think it would do no good for the Church if the SSPX signed a superficial agreement that did not substantially resolve the complex issues surrounding Vatican II. I think that if and when there is an answer, "acceptance" of Vatican II will not look exactly like some people might expect it to. anyway, I think that the 1988 agreement offered to Lefebvre in addition to a canonical situation similar to an ordinariate, coupled with the Summorum Pontificum freedom of the Traditional Mass, might be acceptable to the Society, maybe with a few doctrinal points clarified.

[quote]
[size="2"][font=Verdana][b]Q: [/b]Archbishop Lefebvre signed all 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council. After the Council, he was very critical of the documents and even sent a [i]dubia[/i] to the Holy See requesting clarification on religious liberty. However, Archbishop Lefebvre never rejected all the documents of the Second Vatican Council in totality.[/font][/size]
[font=Verdana][b][size="2"]A:[/size][/b][size="2"] And we don’t do so either. It is not a matter of rejecting or accepting. [/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size="2"]The questions are, “Are these documents good? Are these documents nurturing the Faith? Are they good for the survival of the Church or not?” [/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size="2"]And the more we go on, the more we see the ambiguities in the Council—which at a certain time seemed to be reconcilable to be correctly interpreted with Tradition, not including the very obvious errors—the further we go on, and the more we see that this is an impossible job.[/quote][/size][/font]-Fellay

Vatican II's ambiguities need to be clarified, IMO. to deny that there are ambiguities that have been the justification for many heretical actions would be to have one's head in the sand. but no, I do not take the Society's view; I think they have backed themselves into a bit of an obstinant stubborn corner in their refusal to accept a hermeneutic of continuity position by calling that a "2+2=5" position... though there are often things that the 2+2=5 analogy seem to work for in much modern works of theology, I think they need to revise their position to say "since Vatican II does not have to equal 5, and can be interpretted to equal 4, then we should work to make sure the 5 interpretation is eradicated in the Church in favor of the 4"... we'll see if they can get there, or somewhere close to there, I suppose.

[Skinzo]

Aloysius,
Thanks for your response and your cordiality, it is most appreciated. And I can see your thinking and mine runs along the same lines pretty much especially with regard to Vatican II. As I recall Paul VI stated flatly that the documents of the Council were ambiguous at times and I too would like to see things clarified. I noticed recently that we actually had a Vatican commission charged with this very task. It was called the "Pontifical Commission for the Interpretation of the Decrees of the II Vatican Council" and was originally chaired by Cardinal Felici. And then it was suppressed sometime in the early 1980's. I am just wondering what documents it issued as I see nothing online about it.
I'm not sure I can agree however that it is the ambiguities that are the problem per se. They are indeed a problem, yes but in my own reading of "liberal" theologians it has often seemed to me that they are more intellectually dishonest than anything else when it comes to Vatican II. The ones I have read don't in fact make specific references to Vatican II to support what they are saying. It's my experience that they are simply trying to distort the meaning of the Council decrees entirely. They will say for example that the document on religious liberty (DH) grants Catholics the right to dissent from Church teaching and of course the document does no such thing. Of course, there are other examples of this too.
I am at a loss to see specific examples of how certain ambiguities actually led to certain errors. I have never been able to respect the so called "progressives" because they use Vatican II to justify all sorts of things but never in fact point to an actual text of Vatican II as support for what they are saying, I think rather obviously because they cannot.
Another thought that occurs to me lately is that it is true to call Vatican II a "revolutionary" council but only because ti was pastoral. Other Councils were called to address doctrinal controversies and did so with appropriate definitions and anathemas but Vatican II was different as its emphasis seemed to be on trying to present Church teaching in a way that is persuasive and attractive. And I think this is the problem for many traditionalists, they had never looked at things that way before, indeed one could argue the entire Catholic world had never been faced with that approach. And it does seem to me that the more pastoral approach brought with it a less vigilant stance on the part of the hierarchy towards theological errors.

S.

Edited September 3, 2011 by Skinzo