The Sspx

[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.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='MithLuin' post='1762035' date='Jan 25 2009, 10:02 PM']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 .[/quote]
I just see no point in getting angry or frustrated in connection with the future status of the SSPX when the final outcome of the negotiations between that priestly fraternity and the Holy See is not in our control.

As I have said before, I am not a fan of the SSPX, and I doubt that they would like the theology that I embrace as an Eastern Catholic, but I am not all that concerned about whether or not they accept Vatican II. That is between the SSPX leaders and the Holy See.

Edited January 26, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1762079' date='Jan 26 2009, 01:37 AM']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.[/quote]

I think that perhaps the article was saying that Vatican II did not [i]define[/i] a dogma that had not already been defined, therefore the SSPX is not disagreeing with dogma, per se. -Katie

[MithLuin]

Exactly. It's not like Vatican II decided to declare Mary to be Mediatrix of all Graces (or something like that).

The disagreement between the Vatican and the SSPX is at the level of doctrine and discipline.

Still very significant and something that needs to be worked out, as both the leaders of SSPX and the Vatican are well aware.

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='MithLuin' post='1763324' date='Jan 27 2009, 09:19 AM']Exactly. It's not like Vatican II decided to declare Mary to be Mediatrix of all Graces (or something like that).

The disagreement between the Vatican and the SSPX is at the level of doctrine and discipline.

Still very significant and something that needs to be worked out, as both the leaders of SSPX and the Vatican are well aware.[/quote]

Yes-I don't think the article was saying "Hey, guess what? Catholics don't have to believe in Vatican II if they don't want to! New multiple choice Catholicism!" but rather clarifying, probably largely for the SSPX's benefit, I'd think, that Vatican II didn't say anything new, it just expounded on things. -Katie