Peter de Osma and the SSPX

[newschoolman]

On Rome's part, there needs to be recognition that those "merely" prudential errors were indeed grave. For example, John XXIII's opening invocation of the Holy Spirit to ensure that the work of the Council would correspond to "the modern expectations and needs of the various peoples of the world" was a prudential error -- and a damnable one.

I don't know that any Catholic has a right to demand that from a superior. The nature of prudential decisions is that Catholics in good faith can legitimately disagree. But that does not constitute a so-called right to dissent. Could you imagine a subordinate Priest saying the following to Bishop Fellay:

"I will not obey your directives to do X until you admit that you made a grave prudential error concerning Y."

I'm not saying that the SSPX should demand that Rome admit its grave prudential errors during and after the Council. I'm saying that justice and right reason demand it.

Rome bends over backwards to apologize to Protestants, why not to Catholics?

It takes two to reconcile.

Yes, we should not demand it.  Also, I don't think its fair to say that the Pope was silent on mistakes in the wake of the Council.  His Address on the Hermeneutic of Continuity and Summorum Pontificum are a clear indication of that.  He has spoken of mistakes, arbitrary deformations, etc.

[confiteor1]

His Address on the Hermeneutic of Continuity and Summorum Pontificum are a clear indication of that.  He has spoken of mistakes, arbitrary deformations, etc.

He admits to mistakes following the Council, not during it.

To admit mistakes during the Council would be a major breakthrough.

[newschoolman]

His Address on the Hermeneutic of Continuity and Summorum Pontificum are a clear indication of that. He has spoken of mistakes, arbitrary deformations, etc.

He admits to mistakes following the Council, not during it.

To admit mistakes during the Council would be a major breakthrough.

He certainly did as a Cardinal.  He expressed serious reservations about GS.  Not sure as Pope.  But in any case, we are dealing with the prudential order and not Faith or morals, per se.  There is no question of ordering the SSPX to sin.  There is no so-called right to dissent by virtue of prudential dissagreements.

[confiteor1]

His Address on the Hermeneutic of Continuity and Summorum Pontificum are a clear indication of that. He has spoken of mistakes, arbitrary deformations, etc.

He admits to mistakes following the Council, not during it.

To admit mistakes during the Council would be a major breakthrough.

He certainly did as a Cardinal.  He expressed serious reservations about GS.  Not sure as Pope.  But in any case, we are dealing with the prudential order and not Faith or morals, per se.  There is no question of ordering the SSPX to sin.  There is no so-called right to dissent by virtue of prudential dissagreements.

True, the Holy Father's praise of Vatican II is not unqualified, and the SSPX should at least give him credit for that.

Do the SSPX not have the right to dissent from the prudential errors of the Council? Do we not all have the right?  Do we not have the duty?

[phaley]

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

 

§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

 §3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of person

IMHO this means legitimate and respectful dissent at least until definitive rulings are issued by those charged with such responsibility.  And what if the ruling causes even more troublesome questions and the process is repeated?  It seems that the right is not without responsibility but the right is there nonetheless.

[newschoolman]

Do the SSPX not have the right to dissent from the prudential errors of the Council? Do we not all have the right? Do we not have the duty?

No, they can respectfully disagree and voice their concerns in an appropriate manner.  But "dissent" is never allowed.  There is no such thing as a right to dissent.  See the CDF Instruction Donum Veritatis for a great overview on this subject.

[newschoolman]

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of person

IMHO this means legitimate and respectful dissent at least until definitive rulings are issued by those charged with such responsibility.  And what if the ruling causes even more troublesome questions and the process is repeated?  It seems that the right is not without responsibility but the right is there nonetheless.

This does not mean dissent or open disobedience to legitimate authority. 

[newschoolman]

From Donum Veritatis...solid food for thought.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

24. Finally, in order to serve the People of God as well as possible, in particular, by warning them of dangerous opinions which could lead to error, the Magisterium can intervene in questions under discussion which involve, in addition to solid principles, certain contingent and conjectural elements. It often only becomes possible with the passage of time to distinguish between what is necessary and what is contingent.

The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions. Here the theologian will need, first of all, to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed.(24)

When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission. In fact, the theologian, who cannot pursue his discipline well without a certain competence in history, is aware of the filtering which occurs with the passage of time. This is not to be understood in the sense of a relativization of the tenets of the faith. The theologian knows that some judgments of the Magisterium could be justified at the time in which they were made, because while the pronouncements contained true assertions and others which were not sure, both types were inextricably connected. Only time has permitted discernment and, after deeper study, the attainment of true doctrinal progress.

[newschoolman]

 

 
B. The problem of dissent

32. The Magisterium has drawn attention several times to the serious harm done to the community of the Church by attitudes of general opposition to Church teaching which even come to expression in organized groups. In his apostolic exhortation Paterna cum benevolentia, Paul VI offered a diagnosis of this problem which is still apropos.(25) In particular, he addresses here that public opposition to the Magisterium of the Church also called "dissent", which must be distinguished from the situation of personal difficulties treated above. The phenomenon of dissent can have diverse forms. Its remote and proximate causes are multiple...

See the rest on dissent...

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

[phaley]

In no way did I mention open disobedience to legitimate authority, schoolman, so take your rant elsewhere.  I quoted canon law and gave my opinion that it involved legitimate and respectful dissent.  You took it to mean something else entirely.  There is nothing in canon law that prohibits respectful dissent.