Murray Rundus

Struggling to see where Dietrich thinks there is a "massive error" here. I understand that Salza+Siscoe (where this argument is from) are of the understanding that this shows that the SSPX have gone into heresy, as a type of evidence that the SSPX as a limb has fallen off the tree of the Church, now exposed to error via private judgement. I’ve seen this used as a sort of “You see! This is why there is no way His Holiness could accept the SSPX back into the fold.” but I don’t think that this is very strong even if argued forcefully. The topic in question is quite heady and is not able to be synthesized in an X post, or proof-texted. There’s effectively two things being discussed here. Firstly, the origin of jurisdiction and then whether or not the Pope is a single subject of supreme authority exercising this via two modes, or is a part of a bifurcated authority that exists in the Pope as one subject and the college of bishops (with the Pope) as another. Implicit in this is the question of jurisdiction which either says the Pope is the source of jurisdiction, or that this is obtained by virtue of being a bishop. There are then further debates about whether or not this jurisdiction is merely a potential one or an actual one. One really has three approaches that you can take here. One can choose to take the one subject position, which you will find backing from the old Code of Canon Law, Cajetan (whom I have not read on this) the praxis of the medieval and post-tridentine Church and a certain reading of Pastor Aeturnus. You can then do what the SSPX does, and just say there seems to be a contradiction between Lumen Gentium and prior teaching if indeed Lumen Gentium is denying this (and this itself is an issue, there is clear ambiguity here!) They have the strength of pointing to the praxis of the post-conciliar era, and it cannot be denied that certain statements and actions of the post-concilliar Popes seems to suggest that the Church is at least in praxis adopting an even more extreme version of collegiality than what Lumen Gentium suggests. Or you can do what the Council itself seemed to do with the Nota praevia, compromise on the two positions and create a synthesis argument which somewhat obfuscates the question and the post-concilliar praxis but essentially leaves the question open. Alternatively you can just say that there is no problem in the pre-concilliar texts with what Lumen Gentium says, assert the two-fold subject theory and say the SSPX is denying a teaching of the Church and use manualists such as Van Noort, Billot, Journet, etc. As with that second approach, I think the question on the one or two subject issue actually is quite open, and for good reason, there are theological difficulties here. This isn’t some kind of game, it requires a lot of effort on the part of theologians. The Nota praevia would not have covered this issue or tried to “fix” the text if there wasn’t an issue here. One of the frustrating things that I have encountered when looking at this debate, whether reading Fr. Gleize (where most of the SSPX’s argumentation here originates from, and where I suspect Article 77 is from!) or in anti-SSPX polemics (which also comes from 1 or 2 sources) is that this is not simple, it’s very complicated. Pretending as if one’s salvation hinges on a correct understanding of the one or two-fold subject of authority is simply absurd! I would apply this to both camps. There seems to be an overreach in what is dogmatic here. It is not evidently clear whether this or that opinion even has the magisterial weight to be classified as a dogma. Certainly Lumen Gentium did not make it one. The difficulty with saying that these doctrinal issues will be essential to any kind of canonical regularity for the SSPX is that these are centuries-old issues. But it also forces a double standard. Now if one wants to say that the Church needs to be hyper-rigorist about one or twofold subjects to the point of condemning the SSPX, go ahead, but the Church does not even act this strictly to those in Germany or other parts of Northwestern Europe where the Apostles Creed is actively being denied. In fact, on this very issue, Rahner took a very unusual opinion about this precise matter and the Church had no problem promoting him in the post-conciliar age. These points cannot be dismissed as a whataboutism, because it’s at the heart of what the complaint of the Society is and is at the heart of the current trajectory of the Church. This is why, I will insist, that the practical stance from the SSPX focusing on how these ideas are impacting the faithful here and now, and how heterodox teaching and praxis is plaguing most parishes simply is going to be more forceful than saying that all of the work of the SSPX is made illegitimate because of a difference of opinion regarding collegiality.

The Atomic Bomb Nearly Annihilated Catholicism in Japan

I think there is a balance that needs to be struck here. We should distinguish between speculative and practical knowledge. On the one hand, in the average parish there is a serious speculative knowledge gap with OCIA instructors, priests and instructors compared to catechumens who learned about religion online. More often than we think, and I've seen it, the priests and lay instructors will be heretics or simply not know much. What is one supposed to do when the OCIA instructor is teaching heresy? Or when a controversial post-conciliar topic comes up that does strike at the catechumen/candidate's conscience? Should not the catechumen say "Something is not right here? I did not sign up for this?" If Catholicism is a religion of faith and reason, and the formators don't even know what the faith is, the catechumen should at least keep his/her reason! The issue here is larger than we might think, as it shows that the catechumen might actually have to 'Church-shop' even within the Catholic Church to find solid formation. It's one of the reasons I find that the SSPX has a strong argument. You might not find their arguments perfect, but at least you can trust them to give you the bare minimum. But there is another truth here as well. The catechumen ought to be extremely cautious because there are truths about being a Catholic that is more than speculative knowledge, it requires you to acquire the sensus fidei. Those who have been in the Church for a while will know this. There is a mode of living, and a way of acting and carrying yourself, impacting your entire view of the world, that you can only really gather by spending time with and in Catholic families, attending parish events and having people say, "we don't do that here." The interesting part of this is that I really do think that certain parts of speculative knowledge can only be understood and applied correctly once one actually has the sensus fidei. What we often consider to be weird convert behavior is just this over-abundance of autodidactic speculative knowledge with a complete lack of the practical sensus fidei or experience on how to be a Catholic or a Christian in general. My own answer that I give people is that they ought to separate from the internet in the first 2-3 years of their conversion, and find an assortment of intelligent but open friends, priests and mentors in real life and in healthy, orthodox environments and argue these points out. This is a great reason to go to a Catholic liberal arts college for at least a year. Aside from that, try to spend time with Catholic families, volunteer at the school or other parish events and surround yourself with people who know very little speculatively, but who obviously carry themselves in a way that seems normal, balanced, yet in a strange way bright compared to the rest of the world.

There’s a strange trend in Catholic pop-apologetics stemming from 90s oversimplifications and the “two lungs” quote, that treats Catholicism and Orthodoxy as equally true, sees everyone else as invincibly ignorant and reserves evangelization for Protestants alone.