choy said:
Apotheoun said:
That is the point at issue between the SSPX and the Vatican IIers. The SSPX say that the "interpretations" given since the close of the council are not "interpretations," but are instead corruptions of the original divine deposit. I guess it all boils down to a matter of perspective.
And the problem with lack of true conciliarity, who will decide? It's always the Pope's word against their. Even if they are right, how can they prove that they are?
We are not dealing with something that can be determined by created reason alone, and so faith comes in, and if the person has "faith" that tells him the pope is right on Vatican II he will no doubt remain in communion with the pope, but if he lacks that particular "faith" and holds that the popes have fallen into error on specific theological points he will likely attach himself to the SSPX or some other group.
My point in saying this is not to support the SSPX, which I really have no interest in, but is simply to point out that the SSPX position can be reasonably defended. Or to put it another way, my point is to simply affirm that SSPXers are not irrational or crazy (although some individuals may be, but that is probably true of some of the members of every Church and religion).