SSPX, the ordinary Magisterium, obsequium religiosum, and legitimate dissent

Some time ago I criticized the attitude of the SSPX toward the Magisterium. I wish now to renew that criticism and--while I'm not privy to the discussions that have been taking place--to suggest what might be the impasse on the part of the Holy Father.

Today the SSPX General Chapter released a statement concerning the reconciliation. A couple key lines:

The Society continues to uphold the declarations and the teachings of the constant Magisterium of the Church in regard to all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors . . .

. . . while waiting for the day when an open and serious debate will be possible which may allow the return to Tradition of the ecclesiastical authorities.

This strikes me as seriously concerning. First it clearly implies (here as elsewhere) that the institutional Church has abandoned Tradition (note the capital 'T'). If literally taken this amounts to charging the "ecclesiastical authorities"--presumably including the Pope himself--with apostasy.

But let's pass to something more concrete. The accusation that the "novelties of the Second Vatican Council remain tainted with errors."

Let's take as given that the Second Vatican council never invoked infallibility and defined some point of faith. This would mean that the statements of Vat. II are very authoritative Magisterial statements--albeit reformable, except insofar as they reiterate what was previously defined. So let us look at what then Joes. Card. Ratsinger (acting as prefect of the CDF) had to say about such statements, particularly let us consider the CDF commentary on the Professio fidei and Donum veritatis.


Having taken as given that Vat. II does not promulgate any binding definitions, we can ignore the treatment that irreformable teachings receive in these two documents, and focus on the assent that is owed to statements of the ordinary magisterium. These require religious submission of intellect and will, the famous obsequium religiosum. The Commentary on the Professio fidei, no. 10, reads: "Such teachings are, however, an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect."



Likewise we read in DV no. 23:

When the Magisterium, not intending to act "definitively", teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect. This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.
The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule.

The reason for this religious submission--even on matters not per se irreformable--is found in Donum veritatis no. 17, which reads in part:

Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and in a particular way, to the Roman Pontiff as Pastor of the whole Church, when exercising their ordinary Magisterium, even should this not issue in an infallible definition or in a "definitive" pronouncement but in the proposal of some teaching which leads to a better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals and to moral directives derived from such teaching.

 Cf. Lumen gentium no. 25, although the idea--if not the expression--was present earlier. I cite Pius XII, Humani generis no. 20:

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to [free] discussion among theologians.

(I insert the word 'free' because it changes the meaning and appears in the Latin.)

The point of this passage is this: When the ordinary Magisterium makes its mind known on some issue, without making a definitive act, discussion of the point can continue, but that discussion is not entirely free. Rather the discussion must take place within certain confines and limits.

The commentary on the Professio fidei (no. 11) makes clear that such statements and the submission owed them admit of degrees:

. . .one can point in general to teachings set forth by the authentic ordinary Magisterium in a non-definitive way, which require degrees of adherence differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.

Hence an off-the-cuff comment from a single bishop needn't be treated with quite the same deference as an entire section in a Papal encyclical. I would suggest that the formally promulgated teaching of a general council of the Church constitutes the highest level of this reformable magisterial teaching.

Donum veritatis lays out norms of dissent from such teaching, the limits that were implied in Humani generis:

Passing over no. 29, in no. 30 we read that he should approach the Magisterium with his difficulties, with a genuine hope for resolution,

If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian's part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties.

That is, in his dissent the theologian must desire a genuine resolution. I submit that such a profound desire is not a line-in-the-sand, my-way-or-the-highway attitude. This reading is vindicated when we encounter (still no. 30) the bombshell:

In cases like these [in which he has been unable to resolve his difficulty with some teaching], the theologian should avoid turning to the "mass media", but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders service to the truth.

One should not take his trouble to the media; he should not try to direct public pressure on the Magisterium. What is this public statement from the General Chapter of the SSPX if not just such an attempt to take one's problems to the public and exert pressure on the Magisterium?


Finally, faced with a proposition to which he simply cannot give consent, he is admonished that (DV, no. 31) ". . . the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question." We must never completely shut the door on the teaching's being vindicated. We must always allow the possibility that some resolution might possible which we simply have not yet considered; thus we must resist rejecting absolutely the teaching. Does the absolute statement of the SSPX concerning the errors of Vat. II demonstrate an openness to a "deeper examination of the question?"

In short: You don't need to give absolute assent to non-definitive teachings of the Magisterium. Such teachings are after all reformable, and we are not asked to blindly and unconditionally assent to what is in principle able to be corrected. But we are required to maintain both an internal and external submissiveness to the teaching of the Church.

Interiorly this means we are always to be docile, open to being taught. We are to remain open to a vindication of the troublesome teaching, especially to the possibility that we have misunderstood it. Briefly put, we are not to pass an absolute judgement on such teachings thereby closing the door to a reconciliation of the teaching to what we hold to be certain.

Exteriorly this means that we are not to propose our dissenting opinion to others as absolute and established fact, but we must qualify our dissenting opinion as our opinion, an opinion which is always open to correction. Neither are we to try to exert public pressure on the Magisterium.

I suggest that the recent statement of the SSPX violates both of these norms. They have unqualifiedly labeled a general council of the Church as teaching errors, and have made this dissent public, precisely with the objective of exerting pressure on the Church.

To anyone from the SSPX connected to these talks, I can only ask that you reevaluate the role of the members of the Church to the Magisterium. The Church does not ask you to unreservedly assent to these teachings. But she does ask that you remain respectful of her divinely granted and divinely guarded teaching office. You may ultimately dissent. But you must do so within the "logic of faith," a logic founded on Christ's promise to safeguard his Church.