John Salza withdraws support for SSPX and returns to full communion with Rome

[Greg]

He probably never left the brotherhood.  Just an infiltrator I reckon.

[Gerard]

No, it has nothing to do with neo-Ultramontanism. It has to do with two simple truths about the Catholic Church:

1) the Magisterium of the Catholic Church cannot teach grave error. R&R asserts that an Ecumenical Council ratified by the Pope taught grave error, which is impossible.
2) the Catholic Church cannot promulgate impious or harmful liturgy. The R&R asserts exactly that, which is impossible.

Given these two truths, one can conclude either:
1) that Vatican II did not teach error and its documents have to be accepted as authoritative, and the Novus Ordo Mass is a legitimate Catholic Mass which can be safely attended (Novus Ordo position).
2) that Vatican II did not come from the Catholic Church (sedevacantism).

Granted, sedevacantism and Novus Ordo have other serious theological problems, but they are more consistent and logical than R&R.

The difficulty is the "two truths" that you assert are not capturing the essential truth of what you are applying the principals to. 

The first issue is a proper understanding of the Magisterium.  It is not a person nor an office, it is a power invoked. 

If the power is not invoked on a teaching, it can be fallible whether it's a Pope or any council.  Paul VI was reported to have stated when asked that the Magisterial level of the Council was merely "authentic" and not touching on any new definitions requiring infallible declarations.  If it's not infallibly binding, it's fallible.  There's no in between.

The "R&R" position on the nature and explicitness of errors in Vatican II are diverse, not unanimous, but what can be reasonably asserted is the type of error that flowed from Vatican II is the policies parading as doctrines, not defined doctrines that were implemented which did nothing to defend the faith against the Modernist errors. 

The views of the Liturgy are also not unanimous, neither is the point clear that the Church can't promulgate a liturgy that constitutes "harmful" or "impious" in an active or passive mode.


Liturgies are not universal in the Church. The Novus Ordo in its "cleanest" form as related in the Ottaviani Intervention doesn't have anything intrinsically harmful or impious.  That has nothing to do with bad translations or the fact that it was not a bullwark against this or that particular error or heresy.  (eg. bidding prayers have come and gone and came back again with the Novus Ordo...Are bidding prayers intrinsically impious? No.  But can particular bidding prayers be impious? Yes.) 



You can have two guys standing out in the open, one is standing around in casual clothes and defenseless against a street gang coming his way.  The other is wearing Iron Man armor.  Just because the one guy doesn't have Iron Man armor doesn't mean he's "harmful."  He's not. He's just not as useful in the fight as the guy with the armor on. 

[Pete Vere]

Just my opinion as someone who has not been too active within the Latin Church or the Latin traditionalist movement since being drawn East about a decade ago, but is the SSPX still considered R&R?

Between the expulsion of Bishop Williamson and the Resistance, and Pope Francis providing the SSPX with limited faculties and special delegation in a number of instances, I would now classify the SSPX (sans Resistance) as "in the process of canonical regularization".

Certainly this was the case under Bishop Fellay's leadership over the past decade. Not as sure about the new General Superior, but for the most part he seems to have maintained Bishop Fellay's trajectory.

EDIT TO ADD:

Before some of the other OG's with whom I go way back bring it up, yes I realize my personal opinion expressed above would lead some to believe I am contradicting my licentiate thesis. For those who are not already aware, I have been on record since at least 2017 as stating that my JCL thesis is now functionally obsolete under the combined papacies of Benedict XVI and Francis.

[Elizabeth.2]

Wasn't Mr. Salza a member here ages ago?

[Arvinger]

If the power is not invoked on a teaching, it can be fallible whether it's a Pope or any council.  Paul VI was reported to have stated when asked that the Magisterial level of the Council was merely "authentic" and not touching on any new definitions requiring infallible declarations.  If it's not infallibly binding, it's fallible.  There's no in between.

Just becaue it is not infallible does not mean it can teach any sort of error or heresy - this is a principal error of R&R, asserting that authority Vatican II can be merely waived away as "fallible". Fallible teachings of the Church are still safe to follow and cannot constitute danger to ones faith and salvation, as Vatican II clearly does. If you deny this, how do you know that pre-Vatican II encyclicals which are quoted against Vatican II (Pope St. Pius X's Pascendi, Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos, etc.) did not teach heresy? They were not infallible, after all. Maybe pre-Vatican II Popes were wrong and Vatican II corrected their errors?


Furthermore, it does not matter what Paul VI was reported to have said, it is important what he actually taught and what the Council teaches.

Paul VI on Vatican II:
"It is precisely because the Second Vatican Council has the task of dealing once more with the doctrine de Ecclesia and of defining it, that it has been called the continuation and complement of the First Vatican Council." (Ecclesiam Suam, 1964).

Vatican II documents invoke Apostolic authority:
"And We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God." (Lumen Gentium)

Paul VI in the brief closing Vatican II:
"We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on."

Hardly something that can be waived away as not binding as R&R tries to picture it. Granted, no dogma was defined, but that does not mean that Vatican II, if it was indeed an Ecumenical Council, could have taught error and be rejected.

The "R&R" position on the nature and explicitness of errors in Vatican II are diverse, not unanimous, but what can be reasonably asserted is the type of error that flowed from Vatican II is the policies parading as doctrines, not defined doctrines that were implemented which did nothing to defend the faith against the Modernist errors. 

What I'm referring to here is the mainstream R&R position represented by the SSPX, Resistance, etc. SSPX most certainly claims that Vatican II teaches explicit and grave error - both officialy and through opinions of individual priests.

The views of the Liturgy are also not unanimous, neither is the point clear that the Church can't promulgate a liturgy that constitutes "harmful" or "impious" in an active or passive mode.

The Council of Trent dealt with the issue authoritatively:

"If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema." (Canon VII, On the Sacrifice of the Mass)

This alone proves that the Mass promulgated b ythe Catholic Church cannot be harmful or impious, as R&R claims. R&R view clearly contradicts the Council of Trent on this issue.

Liturgies are not universal in the Church. The Novus Ordo in its "cleanest" form as related in the Ottaviani Intervention doesn't have anything intrinsically harmful or impious.  That has nothing to do with bad translations or the fact that it was not a bullwark against this or that particular error or heresy.  (eg. bidding prayers have come and gone and came back again with the Novus Ordo...Are bidding prayers intrinsically impious? No.  But can particular bidding prayers be impious? Yes.)

You can have two guys standing out in the open, one is standing around in casual clothes and defenseless against a street gang coming his way.  The other is wearing Iron Man armor.  Just because the one guy doesn't have Iron Man armor doesn't mean he's "harmful."  He's not. He's just not as useful in the fight as the guy with the armor on.

That is not mainstream R&R position though. SSPX claims that the New Mass cannot be attended and constitutes in itself danger to one's faith. As you surely know, the Ottaviani intervention claims the latter as well - cardinal Ottaviani and Bacci judged it to be "departure from Catholic theology of the Mass". Now, either the SSPX, Ottaviani and Bacci were wrong, since the Catholic Church cannot promulgate a non-Catholic Mass, or Novus Ordo did not come from the Catholic Church.

[Gerard]

If the power is not invoked on a teaching, it can be fallible whether it's a Pope or any council.  Paul VI was reported to have stated when asked that the Magisterial level of the Council was merely "authentic" and not touching on any new definitions requiring infallible declarations.  If it's not infallibly binding, it's fallible.  There's no in between.

Just becaue it is not infallible does not mean it can teach any sort of error or heresy - this is a principal error of R&R, asserting that authority Vatican II can be merely waived away as "fallible". Fallible teachings of the Church are still safe to follow and cannot constitute danger to ones faith and salvation, as Vatican II clearly does.

Because it is not infallible means it is possible that an authentic teaching or policy of someone who can invoke magisterial authority can be wrong or heretical. 

What makes you think that resistance is merely a "waiving away" and not a thoughtful and deliberative process?  Sedevacantists simply "waive away" the validity of a Pope depending on what they perceive nuanced or not.  Novus Ordo adherents simply "waive away" contradictions in doctrine thinking they are all dogmatic and infallible. 

If you deny this, how do you know that pre-Vatican II encyclicals which are quoted against Vatican II (Pope St. Pius X's Pascendi, Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos, etc.) did not teach heresy? They were not infallible, after all. Maybe pre-Vatican II Popes were wrong and Vatican II corrected their errors?

John 22nd clearly was teaching heresy and plenty of people noticed it.  It wasn't "waived away" either, it was addressed and debated and solved.  Pre-Vatican II encyclicals are depending on the context and the statements of the Popes of different weight.  Pius XII in Mediator Dei stated that anything pertaining to the liturgy was under the authority of the Pope.  He didn't make exceptions.  He included the introduction of new rites.  Pius XII stated it, Paul VI did it and people don't want to see that that is consistent.  The wisdom of it is another matter. 

Furthermore, it does not matter what Paul VI was reported to have said, it is important what he actually taught and what the Council teaches.

Paul VI on Vatican II:
"It is precisely because the Second Vatican Council has the task of dealing once more with the doctrine de Ecclesia and of defining it, that it has been called the continuation and complement of the First Vatican Council." (Ecclesiam Suam, 1964).

These are ruminations even before the Council was closed.  The Council ultimately made no explicit definitions. 

Vatican II documents invoke Apostolic authority:
"And We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God." (Lumen Gentium)

Okay....there are no explicit doctrinal definitions in it.  It's an opinion piece promulgated by the authority of the Pope.  I accept that.  I also accept that it's a flawed document cobbled together by people with diverse agendas. 

Paul VI in the brief closing Vatican II:
"We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on."

Hardly something that can be waived away as not binding as R&R tries to picture it. Granted, no dogma was defined, but that does not mean that Vatican II, if it was indeed an Ecumenical Council, could have taught error and be rejected. 

As numerous traditional priests R&R, Sede, and trad-leaning NO priests and lay people of all types have pointed out, much of the disaster that came from Vatican II was policies that were "waived away" by the local ordinaries.  Throwing out Latin and chant as an example, was specifically called for by the Council.  It was the liberal clergy that initially resisted and all "tranquility and peace" ended and Paul VI did nothing to stop it.  So, he and his cronies broke the contract with the faithful.  After that, the document no longer has any meaning related to its stated purpose. 

The "R&R" position on the nature and explicitness of errors in Vatican II are diverse, not unanimous, but what can be reasonably asserted is the type of error that flowed from Vatican II is the policies parading as doctrines, not defined doctrines that were implemented which did nothing to defend the faith against the Modernist errors. 

What I'm referring to here is the mainstream R&R position represented by the SSPX, Resistance, etc. SSPX most certainly claims that Vatican II teaches explicit and grave error - both officialy and through opinions of individual priests.

Well....we would have to go through each one.  Many sede positions are sede due to reasonable argument but not all.  Same with R&R.  I've heard some great explanations and explications from R&R people and some goofy and idiotic ones.  One SSPX priest was selling the idea that wearing the baretta at an SSPX chapel is a sign of capitulating to the Novus Ordo. 

Bishop Williamson used to argue that the documents are deliberately ambiguous and you can drag them back onto solid ground if you read them with the background knowledge of what the Church has always taught and not looking at the historical teaching of the Church through the lens of Vatican II and reinterpreting the tradtional doctrine to fit. 

The views of the Liturgy are also not unanimous, neither is the point clear that the Church can't promulgate a liturgy that constitutes "harmful" or "impious" in an active or passive mode.

The Council of Trent dealt with the issue authoritatively:

"If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema." (Canon VII, On the Sacrifice of the Mass)

This alone proves that the Mass promulgated b ythe Catholic Church cannot be harmful or impious, as R&R claims. R&R view clearly contradicts the Council of Trent on this issue.

Nonsense.  First this is Trent dealing with a particular issue dealing with attacks on the Church's rituals during the Prot Revolution. 

Second, the Council cannot guarantee that every liturgy will have celebrants who will use the vestments, ceremonies, outward signs in a pious fashion.  Nor does it guarantee that the Church will always have the same level of effectiveness with the same ceremonies nor does it guarantee that the Church will never promulgate an impoverished liturgy after a rich one. 

Liturgies are not universal in the Church. The Novus Ordo in its "cleanest" form as related in the Ottaviani Intervention doesn't have anything intrinsically harmful or impious.  That has nothing to do with bad translations or the fact that it was not a bullwark against this or that particular error or heresy.  (eg. bidding prayers have come and gone and came back again with the Novus Ordo...Are bidding prayers intrinsically impious? No.  But can particular bidding prayers be impious? Yes.)

You can have two guys standing out in the open, one is standing around in casual clothes and defenseless against a street gang coming his way.  The other is wearing Iron Man armor.  Just because the one guy doesn't have Iron Man armor doesn't mean he's "harmful."  He's not. He's just not as useful in the fight as the guy with the armor on.

That is not mainstream R&R position though. SSPX claims that the New Mass cannot be attended and constitutes in itself danger to one's faith. As you surely know, the Ottaviani intervention claims the latter as well - cardinal Ottaviani and Bacci judged it to be "departure from Catholic theology of the Mass". Now, either the SSPX, Ottaviani and Bacci were wrong, since the Catholic Church cannot promulgate a non-Catholic Mass, or Novus Ordo did not come from the Catholic Church.

What was promoted as SSPX policy was never really what was occurring on the ground.  I spent 7 years attending an SSPX chapel and Novus Ordo priests came in, attended mass and used the library, learned the mass from the priests, heard confessions, etc. When Summorum Pontificum was promulgated they were fully prepared to implement it.   I heard SSPX priests preach with quotes from Paul VI and John XXIII.  I've heard SSPX priests say it is all right to attend the Novus Ordo, if you feel you must to fulfill your Sunday obligation but be careful. 

RE: SSPX, Ottaviani Intervention etc.  You have to separate the hyperbole from the substance.  The Achilles Heel that the LeFebvre /Ottaviani/Bacci segment was that they couldn't have the foresight to see what we see in hindsight.  They were not prepared for the sneaky and legalistic arguments of the Bugnini types to avoid the attacks of archaelogism by pointing to the Eastern Liturgies in many cases to see the elements in the Novus Ordo as drafted.  They did however point out that the "bulwarks" had been removed.  That doesn't make it "non-Catholic" it just means it's a liturgy that is vulnerable to abuse and misunderstanding. 

To mention Bishop Williamson again, he quite correctly pointed out two things:  Had the Novus Ordo better expressed the Catholic faith to the people than the TLM, (not that he thought such a thing possible) there would have been no problem.  The problem is it expresses the Catholic faith far less well than the TLM.   The second point is that when the Novus Ordo is observed, the more it adheres to the TLM, the more stable it becomes, the more it diverges from the TLM with the plethora of options, lousy music, policies of the local ordinary,  the less stable it becomes.   

From my personal experience, when I first attended the TLM almost 20 years ago, I immediately recognized numerous elements from the Novus Ordo as it was offered when I was a kid in the early 70s.  A Novus Ordo from 1973 in a conservative diocese, looks more like the TLM than a contemporary Novus Ordo almost 50 years later in the same diocese.   And I would say,many of the TLMs today are sloppier than some of the earliest Novus Ordo masses I attended in terms of the congregation universally knowing what to do, thanks to the nuns.  Nowadays, you have sloppy clothing here and there, confusion going to Communion, some women covering their heads, others not knowing. TLMs are more culturally variegated now.  You used to have Italian parishes, and Polish parishes and Irish and German etc. and each group did things a certain way. 

Now, you have the Novus Ordo which has mutated beyond recognition from what it started as and you have TLMs that are kind of cobbled together a la Frankenstein from the wreckage of the Church. Neither is what they were designed to be on paper.  But I'll take a less than perfect TLM over the contemporary Novus Ordo nonsense,  but you are in for a competition when it's a conservative 1973 Novus Ordo vs a sloppy contemporary TLM.   

[Prayerful]

Wasn't Mr. Salza a member here ages ago?

Him or some representative around the release of TOFP? I'm honestly unsure. That book has good material, but needs ruthless updating and editing. If +Fellay or his priests oversaw it, TOFP as now, was not their finest achievement.

Bishop Williamson used to argue that the documents are deliberately ambiguous and you can drag them back onto solid ground if you read them with the background knowledge of what the Church has always taught and not looking at the historical teaching of the Church through the lens of Vatican II and reinterpreting the tradtional doctrine to fit.

Yes, that would seem reasonable, except Lumen Gentium on a plain reading says that Moslems and Christians worship the same God. Moslems aggressive deny the Trinity and even the crucifixion, contending like some heretics of old that he was only apparently crucified, and calling Christians cross worshippers. It is very hard to salvage that.

[Flick]

Responding to two comments posted in this topic.  As one who has attended several SSPX chapels in NY and NJ beginning in 1991, plus ten-year attendance at an independent chapel that had Society bishop perform Conformations and bless the new chapel.

New Liturgy: dangerous to the Faith, better not to attend, if unable to attend Mass read your Sunday missal at home, but never told it was a sin.

Sloppy Masses—never happened. 

My estimate would be 20 different priests over this span of years.

(Plenty of sloppy, rushed Masses in the mid-1950s until the bottom dropped out and I left but that is another topic.)

[Greg]

This is the head of the Church Salza has just rejoined.

What a clown.

https://www.gloria.tv/post/qsKE6tHiRjUB46k99Nfti6bZV

[Gerard]

(Plenty of sloppy, rushed Masses in the mid-1950s until the bottom dropped out and I left but that is another topic.)

One of the factors to consider is a priest who was sloppy in the 50s, welcomed the Novus Ordo and proceeded to slop it up.  Conversely a priest who took the mass seriously and was immaculate took on the Novus Ordo with the same attitude.  They were eventually ground out of existence by age and pressure from local ordinaries. 

[Flick]

(Plenty of sloppy, rushed Masses in the mid-1950s until the bottom dropped out and I left but that is another topic.)

One of the factors to consider is a priest who was sloppy in the 50s, welcomed the Novus Ordo and proceeded to slop it up.  Conversely a priest who took the mass seriously and was immaculate took on the Novus Ordo with the same attitude.  They were eventually ground out of existence by age and pressure from local ordinaries.

Absolutely, I've seen it first hand and was so dismayed I walked out.  Fortunately, I found the TLM was alive and well at the Fullerton farm in upstate New York in 1991. I know of one pastor who offered the New Liturgy but would say the Consecration in Latin—he was removed.

[KonservativerKatholik]

R&R is a viable position as long as the hierarchy is still intact (given that the dubious bishop ordinations are indeed valid). If we look at where the church is currently headed, they will not stop until they have elected a lesbian Popess to the throne of Peter. Because that is the ultimate goal of Vatican II: To destroy the church. At that point, the hierarchy will only consist of some trad bishops and maybe Uniates (if they don't decide to break away from Rome and join EO).

Of course, it is possible to read many of the council's documents in the light of tradition. That's what made +Lefebvre sign them. That's why there are so many fake conservatives that always argue that if the council was implemented correctly everything would be fine. The thing is, the documents were never intended to be read in the light of tradition.

[Maximilian]

If we look at where the church is currently headed, they will not stop until they have elected a lesbian Popess to the throne of Peter.

Although your argument might be intended as a reductio ad absurdum, it's actually not absurd at all. Look at the city of Chicago. They currently have a black lesbian mayor.

Just a few decades ago, the people of Chicago could no more imagine a black lesbian taking the place of a man like Mayor Richard Daly, than they could imagine a lesbian as pope. And yet it has already happened. As it happened in the secular world, it will follow in the religious world.

Because that is the ultimate goal of Vatican II: To destroy the church.

Yes. So far the project is on time and under budget.

[KonservativerKatholik]

If we look at where the church is currently headed, they will not stop until they have elected a lesbian Popess to the throne of Peter.

Although your argument might be intended as a reductio ad absurdum, it's actually not absurd at all. Look at the city of Chicago. They currently have a black lesbian mayor.

Just a few decades ago, the people of Chicago could no more imagine a black lesbian taking the place of a man like Mayor Richard Daly, than they could imagine a lesbian as pope. And yet it has already happened. As it happened in the secular world, it will follow in the religious world.

We can already observe it in Anglican and Lutheran "churches". Take a look at this character:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Brunne
The first openly lesbian bishop of a major Lutheran church. At some point in the future, that's what we will also see when "pope" Francis or one of his successors decide to ordain woman priests.

[Elizabeth.2]

If we look at where the church is currently headed, they will not stop until they have elected a lesbian Popess to the throne of Peter.

Although your argument might be intended as a reductio ad absurdum, it's actually not absurd at all. Look at the city of Chicago. They currently have a black lesbian mayor.

Just a few decades ago, the people of Chicago could no more imagine a black lesbian taking the place of a man like Mayor Richard Daly, than they could imagine a lesbian as pope. And yet it has already happened. As it happened in the secular world, it will follow in the religious world.

Because that is the ultimate goal of Vatican II: To destroy the church.

Yes. So far the project is on time and under budget.