Wed 17th Sep 2014 | Last updated: Tue 16th Sep 2014 at 19:31pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Vatican talks are almost over, says head of SSPX

By on Tuesday, 22 February 2011

Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the SSPX, ordains a priest in Econe, Switzerland (Photo: CNS/Denis Balibouse, Reuters)

Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the SSPX, ordains a priest in Econe, Switzerland (Photo: CNS/Denis Balibouse, Reuters)

The superior general of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) has said that reconciliation talks with the Vatican will soon be coming to an end, with little change in the views of either side.

Bishop Bernard Fellay said in an interview published yesterday on the society’s American website that extra problems had been created by plans for the beatification of Pope John Paul II and for an interreligious prayer meeting in Assisi, Italy. These were in addition to disagreements over the changes brought about by the Second Vatican Council.

The talks were launched in late 2009 in an effort by Pope Benedict XVI to repair a 21-year break with the society. The Pope said that full communion for the group’s members would depend on “true recognition of the magisterium and the authority of the pope and of the Second Vatican Council”.

But Bishop Fellay said his society went into the talks with a different purpose: to show the contradictions between the Church’s traditional teachings and its practices since Vatican II. That is “the only goal that we are pursuing”, he said, and the dialogue with the Vatican is not a search for compromise but “a question of faith”.

“Is Vatican II really a stumbling block? For us, no doubt whatsoever, yes!” he said. “Until now Vatican II was always considered as a taboo, which makes the cure of this sickness, which is the crisis in the Church, almost impossible.”

Bishop Fellay said the society has presented its doctrinal arguments in writing to the Vatican, followed up by theological discussion. “It is really a matter of making the Catholic faith understood in Rome,” he said.

Asked whether the Vatican participants in the talks have changed their thinking in light of the talks, Bishop Fellay answered: “I don’t think that you can say that.”

He added that recent events at the Vatican have, in fact, dispelled any “illusions” of progress.

“I am thinking about the announcement of the beatification of John Paul II or the announcement of a new Assisi event along the lines of the interreligious gatherings in 1986 and 2002,” he said.

Bishop Fellay said the scheduled beatification of Pope John Paul II on May 1 poses “a serious problem, the problem of a pontificate that caused things to proceed by leaps and bounds in the wrong direction, along ‘progressive’ lines, toward everything that they call ‘the spirit of Vatican II’.”

He said it was a “mystery” to him how Pope Benedict could convene another interreligious gathering next October in Assisi. The society was highly critical of the first such encounter 25 years ago.

“To ask people to perform religious acts during that gathering is absurd, because there is a radical lack of understanding among the various religions,” Bishop Fellay said.

He said Pope Benedict seems to understand that it is “impossible” for followers of diverse religions to pray together, but he added: “I find that he splits hairs. He tries to justify Assisi.” Bishop Fellay said the pope may be acting under pressure, or because he is alarmed at recent anti-Christian violence.

Asked what Catholics should do regarding the Pope’s announcement of the Assisi meeting, he said: “Pray that the good Lord intervenes in one way or another so that it doesn’t take place, and in any case start making reparation now!”

Bishop Fellay praised Pope Benedict for his 2007 document that eased restrictions on use of the 1962 Roman Missal, the so-called Tridentine rite, which governed the liturgy before 1970. But Bishop Fellay said that so far the move has had practically no effect on the Church’s liturgical life because of “massive opposition by the bishops”.

Pope Benedict cleared the way for reconciliation talks with the SSPX in early 2009 when he lifted the excommunications of four bishops ordained against papal orders in 1988. The Vatican said the dialogue was designed to restore “full communion” with members of the society, which was founded by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

The Vatican said the talks were to focus on the concept of tradition, liturgical reform, interpretation of the Second Vatican Council II in continuity with Catholic doctrinal tradition, Church unity, ecumenism, the relationship between Christianity and non-Christian religions, and religious freedom.

  • Anonymous

    Profidebookstore,

    Where is the calumny of which you speak? If you are speaking about Pope John-Paul II kissing the Quran, there are photographs, including a Catholic Herald Blog link to one of them, showing him doing it.

    If you are talking about the Divinity of Jesus Christ being denied in the Quoran, I would not be able to quote chapter and verse where it is said, but I have always understood Islam to maintain that He was merely a prophet.

    Nobody with access to the water of eternal life ever runs out of steam when it comes to defending Christianity.

  • Profidebookstore

    “Would you kindly provide one example of the SSPX disagreeing with an utterance by the Pope where – wait for it! – that utterance fully conforms with Tradition, with the ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium.”
    ANSWER: All doctrinal assertions in Vatican II decrees, with no exception. If you have a complaint against any, identify it and I will demolish you; as I did on Ecumenism if you recall.

    But could we cool down, please. I have never told you that your attacks on doctrine of V II are “uncharitable”, or that you are “boring”. In any case, if you find it boring do not read it. To be dismissive is not in itself an offence: it depends on whether one wants to stop an useless debate or deliberately reject a constructive one. I am alway trying to assess the state of affairs as I see it and act accordingly. But at all cost I am trying to have a recourse to labels as an excuse for dismissing a debate.

    To “doing its level best to defend Tradition” is not ipso facto the best: the Old Catholics did it too. It must be true to secure “eternal life”, unless one is in ignorance and if the latter is invincible. If vincible – and may certainly be if one attacks V II without even reading its documents – it leads to eternal damnation. What is actually the case – God only knows. I only state the principles, and do not judge individuals.

  • Profidebookstore

    Sorry: it should be “not to have recourse”

  • Profidebookstore

    Father Wiltgen has provided an excellent account of events, but refrained from comments on actual texts of V II. The fact that there was an attempt to hi-jack the Council (he actually doesn’t use the word nor suggests anyting like it), doesn’t justify the claim that they were in any way decisive. In fact they motivited even more those who wanted to keep the Council in continuity with Tradition to provide better documents. This is all, after all, the work of the Holy Ghost, binding the Catholics in conscience.

  • Anonymous

    Lep

    I’ve given up on that guy, he’s a wilful heretic who unashamedly promotes the Koran. I hope for his soul’ sake that he’s dolly dimple!

  • LeFloch

    Sorry friend, but just as the Holy Father is not impeccable, nor is Bishop Fellay. You seem to have overlooked the phrase ‘humanly speaking’ in my posting. It could be that the talks will be a source of great graces, but I am glad there was no ‘agreement’ which could have compromised the Society despite the good intentions of those involved. Bishop Williamson was not giving an official SSPX position when he talked about a ‘dialogue of the deaf’. He was just assessing the situation with his usual Catholic sense.

  • Profidebookstore

    “Why have I written all this? Well, it is because I know that the liberals will be on here now telling everyone what a bad man Archbishop Lefebvre was.”

    Yes, the liberals, will be telling so, but those who work toward full restoration of the Tridentine Mass, while in disagreement with His Grace in other matters – if they accept the Vatican II and are in full communion with the Holy Father and the Bishops who are in communion with him – are true traditionalists, not the “traditionalists” of the SSPX kind.

    The Archbishop’s fault was not in his effort to preserve the TLM at all costs, but in associating it with an erroneous notion of tradition, practical if not theoretical rejection of Vatican II, which was both unreasonable and unnecessary. Not because I say so, but because it is implicit in the position taken by the three recent popes, and by an overwhelming majority of Bishops; and because it shouldn’t be difficult to prove to the “traditionalists” that they are fundamentally in error, if only they were reasonable, willing to admit their errors, and make their own the traditional moral standards regarding interpretation of Tradition, and obligation to religious assent arising therefrom.

    I remember the Archbishop’s first visit to London and his interview on TV. When asked how will he ensure the continuity of the SSPX, he expressed his hope that God would somehow provide for it, but that he would never do what he has actually done later. I am also sure that what he has done he did in despair, but regrettably he had no courage to reconsider his doctrinal position. As a result, he left the Society in hands of theologically unqualified individuals who have misunderstood the teaching of the Church, and eventually arrived at position he would have never approved of.

    I am also sure that he was afraid of being let down by the officials who infiltrated the Roman offices; but had he sided with the two Popes and the two heads of the CDF who both were appreciative, he could have been, more than anybody else could, helpful in removing the troublemakers, particularly of the threat the TLM and his seminarians and priests was to their false ideas.

  • Anonymous

    I accept that “humanly speaking” all manner of unfortunate things can happen, but like Bishop Fellay I always place my hope in divine providence. I would rather trust the judgment of Bishop Fellay in these matters than that of Bishop Williamson, who seems to have an entirely different agenda to everyone else. It’s a pity His Excellency didn’t use his “usual Catholic sense” to avoid historical controversies that have absolutely nothing whatever to do with his remit as a shepherd of Christ’s flock, which is entirely supernatural.

    Besides this, it was not Bishop Williamson’s place to express very public negative opinions about the Rome/SSPX talks at a time when those talks were still ongoing. His “dialogue of the deaf” comments could have been as damaging as his dialogue on the death camps!

  • Profidebookstore

    Re, calumny, are all those statements by which the Holy Father is accused without evidence. for example that he has approved of the topless woman’s reading the Epistle. He was probably brought in a fait accompli situation, and had to choose between making an instant issue of it, which would then have been in the mind of all there, during the rest of the Mass, even of those, probably the majority, who might not have seen it at all, OR ignoring it with the hope that it would be forgotten. It is always the matter of an on-the-spot prudent judgement, and it is reasonable to assume that in that moment he thought that a non-action was the most reasonable action.

    Re, Quran. I know that the Divinity of Christ is denied in the Quran, but it doesn’t mean that the Pope denied it by kissing Quran. I do not know – do you – what was in his mind when he did it. I can only presume that he wanted to show his appreciation of all what is true and good in that book, and in the faith of Moslems. Surely, they would not have taken it to mean that he endorsed all they believe or all that is in that book. Nor do I, and – I am sure – you don’t either. The question is, whether it was appropriate – I think he went a bit over the top, not because of the Moslems, nor because of me, but because of those Catholics who do not see that all what God has created is good, and that there is much that is true in the Quran itself, which deserves our support; in the same way as parents support their children in spite of their misbehaviour. Jesus was the Prophet, wasn’t he? Thus far, the Quran is right. They also believe that He was miraculously born by Mary, that He did many miracles – all that is true.

    Regarding the Martyjo, he has already raised the points we discussed in an earlier post and was silenced, and is now beginning to be less and less capable of adding anything new. In that sense he has “run out of steam”, and all he is left with is a repetition of the same thing again and again.

  • Anonymous

    Profidebookstore:

    Do you think that every moment of the Pope’s itinerary is not scrutinised in advance to avoid embarrassing possibilities?

    Is it not rather naive on your part to make statements such as: “Surely, they would not have taken it to mean that he endorsed all they believe or all that is in that book. Nor do I, and – I am sure – you don’t either”?

    What were you thinking?

    You will no doubt have heard Our Lord’s guidance to His apostles if they found themselves in circumstances where they were not well received? He told them to shake the dust of that place from the soles of their sandals and to walk away.

    Perhaps those villagers, in common with yourself, felt that they had “silenced” those who were there to enlighten them about the Good News.

    I suspect that MartyJo feels he has done all he can to correct you and that he is taking Our Lord’s advice. You have not “silenced” him at all any more than did the unheeding villagers “silence” the apostles.

    It will all come out in the wash.

  • Profidebookstore

    Are you attributing to the Holy Father evil inention, or stupidity, or loss of faith ? One of the first moral principles is that one has to give to one’s neighbour the benefit of doubt. You don’t seem to give it to the Pope. Why? Do you love him as yourself, or not ?

    As for your interpretation of the Scripture, don’t you know that the private interpretation of it is the Protestant principle? And your application of the NT text to the current situation is an act of private interpretation.

    As for Martyjo it is between him and me, I have only explained you why I have used the phrase “run out of steem”.

    You can do with your life what you want, but I have to tell you that to learn the Catholic Faith the fiirst source are documents of the Magisterium from the very early ones until now. And to rely on other sources without familiarizing oneself with the documents of the Magisterim is the best way to eternal damnation. It isn’t easy job – I can assure you. If you wish to do it yourself, you have to count with, say,
    five years’ hard work. I venture a guess – my apology if I am mistaken – you haven’t read through any thus far. I know it from the way how you respond to my comments.

    I have tried to respond to you complaints – take it or leave. I am not particularly interested in polemics.

  • Profidebookstore

    You are perfectly right Jeanine: of course that they have excommunicated themselves. The purpose of penalties is not punishment, nor is its lifting an assurance to the violators that they are right. It is an act of mercy, when the Church realizes that the penalty has failed to bring about fruits. It is like stopping punishments to uruly children if one realizes that the punishment no longer has a good purpose. These quasy bishops are now given chance to improve their lifes, and the Church is always ready to help them. But if they don’t want we all have to pray God to have mercy on them, as we pray for us.

  • Profidebookstore

    Excellent, Warren.

  • JM

    Profidebookstore is in denial. To even pretend, for a moment, that Tradition — capitalized, put in quotes, or any other way — is remotely on the side of Vatican II is a losing game. You remind me of Mormons saying the Church has recanted polygamy, or it has not, or … HEY, A COUNCIL CANNOT ER!!!! Vatican II was a departure, a wrong-headed child of the 60s that resembled a theological Worlds Fair or United Nations. Paul VI spent his last days doing damage control, and we were bequethed Rahner and Kung as Doctors of the Church. Meanwhile, JPII did his charismatic best to rally the troops while a rather wounded and infiltrated priesthood stumbled. The hemorraghing Church is a rather formidable argument. God may yet use V2: after all it is said He draws straight with crooked lines. But those are some crooked lines. Fellay is simply calling a spade a spade, which is why Rome cannot give Him a straight answer.

  • Profidebookstore

    I am interested in having a full quote of the Pope, rather than what you “read over on Zenith that Benedict said”.
    It seems to me that the Pope would have been in a disturbed fraim of mind, if he said that the Purgargatory was State of Mind and not a reality, because the state of mind is itself a reality. Am I right in suggesting that you think that the Purgatory is a material reality ? That it is a physical fire ?

    As for the Limbo, it is a theological assumption that the Church has never confirmed in an official document, but if she did, could you tell us which?

    As for the beatifications, really one should learn the details involved before passing any judgment.

  • LeFloch

    I’m sure you don’t really believe bishops should be restricted to supernatural matters. Where would that leave Catholic Social Teaching? Should our ancient enemies be given a free hand in politics and historical controversies? Such a position is not in accordance with the traditional standpoint of the Church.

  • Anonymous

    Profidebookstore,

    For your information, I was prepared for reception into the Roman Catholic Church by a Benedictine Novice Master whilst Pope Pius XII was at the helm. I found Fr. John Dominic (R.I.P.) to be a most knowledgeable instructor as you might expect. I need not list the books he guided me to read, and I do not recall him advising me, as you just have, that the best way to eternal damnation was to have not read the documents of the Magisterium, having read instead some of the great literature of the Church, including inter alia the Catechism and Holy Scripture.

    However, in a humble effort to imitate Christ (thank you St. Thomas à Kempis), I shall turn the other cheek to your indignant suppositions and your inaccurate guesses.

    Thank you for giving me the option to take or leave your proferred advice. I will leave it, grateful in the knowledge that I would be wasting any further time spent on you.

    Peace be with you.

  • Anonymous

    Catholic Social Teaching, as expressed in the Papal Encylcicals, always proceeds from a supernatural motive and tends to a supernatural end. It lays out in detail how civil society should be ordered, but it does not anywhere promote agitation and/or revolution in cases where the Church’s teaching is ignored or suppressed.

    Too many so-called Traditional Catholics today misunderstand the Church’s teaching on Social Action. As a consequence, they believe it fair to attempt to win back the State to Christ by employing the same means that Communism and Masonry employed to secularise it, namely Revolution. That’s not the Catholic way of doing things. It suggests that revolutionary types may have infiltrated the Church.

    As regards Bishop Williamson, Our Lord said: “Be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves.” That particular admonition rules out making public statements that are bound to injure those many Jews who lost their families to an evil dictator. Bishop Williamson’s statement can in no way be attributed to Catholic Social Action. Pius XII is the example to follow in the case of the Jews.

  • Torkay

    I have to wonder why anyone bothers to try to discuss anything rationally with this “Profidebookstore.” He is a black hole into which all thought disappears, never to emerge in any recognizable form. In fact, this quote of his is quite suitable for its author:

    “…there are some who are completely impervious to education because they know everything.”

    Profidebookstore, you have fallen into a prideful spiritual dementia. I hope God in His mercy knocks you off your donkey.

  • Monsignor Bernard Fellay

    This round of discussions is only over because they where prearranged to end in March, two years ago.

  • LeFloch

    Have you ever met His Lordship, heard him speak or read any of his considered articles? I assume not, as you seem to have a view of him based on reports in the media. What do you mean by ‘Revolution’ in any case? The legitimate overthrow of Judeo/Masonic/Bolshevik regimes is surely ‘Counter Revolution’ and has been praised by the Church. For example Mussolini and Franco were both lauded by the Vatican for their anti-communist endeavours. I suggest you run your suggestion of Pius XII as a role model past the Anti Defamation League………. he’s about as popular with the Jews as Bishop Williamson!

  • Anonymous

    I have met and held discussions with His Lordship on many occasions, and I have spoken with him on the phone. I agree that he writes very well when he sticks to Catholic spirituality and devotion to Our Lady. The problem is that he doesn’t stick to that, he drifts off into all manner of conspiracy stuff some of it completely off the wall. He is extreme to say the least, unlike Archbishop Lefebvre and the other Bishops of the SSPX. I won’t go into some of the things he has said and done on this blog. Suffice it to say he’s far from stable.

    Concerning Mussolini and Franco, these were heads of Catholic States who took the neccessary action to repel Communist uprisings in their respective countries. They deserved praise for that, although, as we know, Mussolini later turned criminal. This natural response of heads of State to revolution is not the same thing as the revolutionary lay types I’m talking about. Have you read Derek Holland’s “Political Soldier?” It’s that kind of revolutionary stuff disguised as Traditional Catholic Action that gets me hot under the collar.

    As for the Judeo/Masonic/Bolshevik regimes you mention, these will only be overthrown when men return to Christ the King. Prayer and penance are the answers to changing the world, not to mention the consecration of Russia to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart. This is the true counter-revolution that we must all join. Leave the public announcements and denouncements to the Popes and the heads of State. It’s their duty to alert the faithful to the wicked spirits in high places. When lay people take on that role it is inevitable that innocent people will get caught up in the madness. I say again, Bishop Williamson has no right to be discussing matter of historical controversy.

    Now I agree that Pius XII is generally detested by the ADL, but I go by what the influencial Jews said in his favour immediately after the war. Additionally, there are many honest Jews today who still recognise what Pius XII did for their people, and the speak out about it. So it’s not all Jews who are against Pius, just the Zionist fanatics. I still stick with Pius’ approach to that people than Bishop Williamsons hostility towards them. Tell them that they must accept Our Lord for salvation, yes, but leave bitter conspiracy stuff alone.

  • Profidebookstore

    Thanks for the nice ending the comment.

    The problem with reading books which are not documents is that one is never sure whether the author articulates faithfully the documents he is supposed to articulate faithfully. Because his books are not documents. You never know whether you are lead or mislead. I of course do not mean to say that the man who taught you has deliberately mislead you, but that none of us (except me, of course) is infallible in our appropriation of doctrine. So, all we can do is continuously revise it in the light of documnets themselves. Yes, a good and sound theologian can help us, but we must never forget that he himself faces the problem of right appropriation of doctrine, because he is not infallible. To assure you: I have read the Trent Catechism and have it on my shelf, as well as twice the whole Bible.

    Nobody can tell me that it is better to read a theologian’s interpretation of a document than to read the document itself. Once you are familiar with the latter an expert help is definitely a blessing but it should always be taken with a salt.

    To put it in more specific terms, to adopt what somebody tells you about, say, decree on ecumenism, and to read the decree yourself is not the same. I think it was you who discussed that matter with me earlier. But I read the decree at least ten times, tought about it myself, as well as read two commentaries later.

  • Profidebookstore

    Very charitable. What have I done to you for that?

  • Profidebookstore

    In any discussion the parties must understand the terms used. I don’t for example know what you mean by the (1)Sacred Tradition (2)by the Ordinary Magisterium, (3)by the extraordinary Magisterium. Surely, the explanation must be somewhere, unless it is a DIY product. Could we have the Magisterial source.

    Now, I am not sure what you mean by interpretation either.

    Before I can provide a reasonable answer to the para 3, I have to know your meaning of the para 1. Otherwise, I would have to attach it to my own meaning and we will get nowhere.

    As for my friend below, I am already familiar with his vocabulary: he believes it is the best argument, because he doesn’t know anything better. If he tried he would be cornered as usual. But he is desperate which is understandable……

  • Profidebookstore

    Come on JM you are chewing the same gum as Martyjo.

  • Anonymous

    Don’t be daft. You say: “I know the divinity of Christ is denied in the Qu’ran but that doesn’t mean that the Pope denied it by kissing the Qu’ran…”

    Now, compare your tortured logic with these words of great pontiffs in the days when popes spoke and acted like popes:

    “Neither the true faith nor eternal salvation is to be found outside the Holy Catholic Church.” Bl. Pope Pius IX AND

    “We must mention another fruitful cause of evil by which the Church is afflicted at present, namely: Indifferentism, that vicious manner of thinking which mushrooms on all sides owing to the wiles of malicious men, and which holds that the eternal salvation of the soul can be obtained by the profession of any faith, provided a man’s morals be good and decent … Let them beware who preach that the gates of Heaven are open to every religion! Let them seriously consider the testimony of the Savior that some are against Christ because they they are not with Christ, that they scatter who do not gather with Him, and therefore without doubt they will perish in eternity unless they hold to the Catholic faith and observe it whole and inviolate.” Pope Gregory XVI

    Do you really think that if Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict, shared this utterly Catholic faith with the two popes just quoted, that they would be “dialoguing” with false religions, talking about what we can learn from them and asking them to pray to their false gods for world peace?

    Your claim that “there is much in the Qu’ran that is true and deserves our support” flatly contradicts Catholic doctrine as articulated by the two popes quoted above and, indeed, every pope in history prior to the modern post 1962 popes.

    Go figure. And leave Leprechaun alone – he’s making a lot more sense than the Qu’ran ever did. Or will.

  • Anonymous

    PFBS,

    Are you really unaware of the thousands of words and photos that have been published in various journals and on the internet, documenting all that has been claimed with regard to the modern popes and their flirtation with false religions? Have you not seen the photo, for example, of the Hindu woman “blessing” the forehead of Pope John Paul II? There are no photos of her kneeling to ask for and receive a blessing from him, note. Are you kidding?

    It’s not ABOUT “loving” the pope. Every Catholic loves the person of the Pope because he is the Pope, the successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ.

    But that is quite different from believing that every word a pope says is directly inspired by the Holy Spirit and thereby infallible. The guarantee of infallibility applies to a very narrow sphere of teaching – and it does not cover new teachings at all. No pope is authorised to introduce new teachings. Hence the pope’s condom remarks to a journalist, his decision to organise Assisi III, are not at all even remotely protected by the Holy Spirit, let alone inspired by Him.

    On the contrary, each of these things is evidence of the FALLIBILITY of popes when they speak privately to journalists or take decisions that are contrary to Tradition.

    And I can’t see anything “private” about Leprechaun’s interpretation of Scripture. Pretty standard interpretation – and entirely correct – as far as I can see.

    You’re wrong, I’m afraid, too, about how to learn the Catholic Faith. We should, of course, be able to rely on sound teaching in our schools and parishes, so assuming that, those teachers and priests have the simple task of passing on the Catholic Faith as it has come down to us from the apostles
    That’s what all the generations before us have done.

    I can well understand you not being interested in polemics. But what is most worrying is that you appear not to be interested in the truth. Much more important. Our first duty of obedience is to the truth, to the faith, not to any pope, certainly not if he is undermining the faith as, sadly, the current pope is doing.

  • Profidebookstore

    “Yet it remains an established teaching of Canon Law that more than a mere consecration of bishops without Papal permission is required to create a true schism,”
    Could we have that “canon”?

    In any case, to create a true material schism it is enough to break a communion of worship and government with the Church. And the SSPX have definitely broken that communion, haven’t they?
    They don’t want to celebrate the true Mass celebrated by the Pope, and do not submit themselves to him, That is what the schism is all about, regardless of canonical niceties.

  • Anonymous

    As I’ve said already, PFBS, the litmus test as to whether an author, priest, bishop or pope is speaking and writing true Catholic doctrine, is whether or not that doctrine conforms to the Traditional Faith. Simple.

  • Anonymous

    Well, PFBS, seems that an awful lot of popes disagree with you about the existence of false religions: get a load of this

    “In fact, there is only one true and holy religion, founded and instituted by Christ Our Lord. Mother and Nurse of the virtues, Destroyer of vice, Liberator of souls, Guide to true happiness, she is called Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman.” Bl. Pope Pius IX

    Given the rest of your post, which is shocking in the extreme – you clearly place the “prayers” in the Qu’ran above what you term “the political prayer” for the conversion of Russia – I would appreciate you comment on the quotation above from Pope Pius IX – specifically, I ask you if he was wrong to say there is only one true religion – in other words, that the others are, obviously, by definition, “false religions” ?

  • Anonymous

    I think I’ll make an educated guess and suggest PFBS that you are a Muslim. A closet Muslim perhaps, but a Muslim. Yes? No?

  • Anonymous

    After the condoms fiasco, arranging prayer gatherings with pagans and Protestants, and now the fast-track beatification of one of the worst ever popes in history, I don’t think Pope Benedict needs any help from anyone in the matter you raise.

    By calling the SSPX “anti-semitic kooks” you betray much hatred. Does this hatred stem from your love of the papacy or your hatred of the old rite Mass? I ask because I’m loathe to conclude that you are simply a very nasty person. That would be most uncharitable of me and those who know me well know that I am never even remotely uncharitable. Charity, closely followed by humility, is my best virtue.

  • Anonymous

    Leticia, where does it say that “false obedience is better than sacrifice”?

    Every Catholic who fails to educate themselves on the difference between true and false obedience in this diabolical crisis, every Catholic like you, Leticia, who pays lip service to “decrying the liturgical abuses” (which are, by definition, insults to Almighty God) will have a very tough time at their judgment, trying to explain why their faith was so un-developed that they thought they had to obey a pope even when he was damaging the Faith. Read St (Cardinal) Robert Bellarmine on this, without delay.

  • Anonymous

    Leticia is wrong. Very concisely and probably very sincerely WRONG!

  • Anonymous

    Of course! That is the litmus test we all must apply – not just the SSPX.

    If Pope Benedict said tomorrow that we no longer have to believe that Christ is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament, that the contents of the Tabernacle are merely symbolic, we would (or should) rise up in horror and refuse to accept this novel teaching. Why? Because the teaching on the Real Presence has been handed down to us from apostolic times, taught by every pope in the history of the Church.

    This is all so very elementary – and to think that the SSPX are being credited with some high flown novel means of judging the authenticity of Catholic doctrine. Unbelievable!

  • Anonymous

    Listen, PFBS, if you can’t define the basic terms you list, you should not have entered this discussion.

  • Anonymous

    Pope Benedict has criticised people like you who insist on elevating Vatican II to something it’s not. He has reminded us that Vatican II “deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a MERELY pastoral Council…”

    There is nothing, beyond those statements in Vatican II documents that affirm and reaffirm traditional doctrines, that any Catholic has to accept. That is, all the stuff about ecumenism and inter-faith dialogue, all of that is the personal hobby horse of modern popes. They contradict the traditional Faith and can never and will never be imposed as doctrine.

    This is all so obvious, PFBS, that I think you’re having us on. Either that, or you are being “rewarded” for all the time you’ve devoted to reading the Qu’ran

  • Anonymous

    Can you supply a single fact to support your claim?

  • Anonymous

    Nonsense. Your replies are brief because your head is empty. Or, who knows, maybe it is so full of Islamic teaching that there’s no room left for the teachings of the One True Faith and the facts about the SSPX, You tell me…

  • Anonymous

    Well, if the situation we are in today, with priests and bishops “in good standing” blatantly defying the Pope on all fronts, doesn’t qualify as “in extremis” you tell me what on earth would qualify.

    We have Masses for sodomites, we have priests refusing to implement the new Missal (yes, anotrher “new Mass” in the offing, if, that is, any priests will obey Rome and use it); we have priests in affairs with both men and women, not to mention priest child-abusers: “in extremis” doesn’t even begin to cut it. Thank God for the SSPX, Sincerely.

  • Anonymous

    Wrong again. You’re really good at being wrong.

    Read up on St Athanasius, a bishop who was twice excommunicated by a pope. “They have the buildings” he said: “but we have the Faith.”

    Not only is he now a canonised saint, but he’s a Doctor of the Church as well.

    Reflect.

  • Profidebookstore

    They attack the Pope for the forthcomming prayers in Assisi.

  • Profidebookstore

    Thank you, very kind. But what I have done to you?

  • Profidebookstore

    Could you provide the text of Athanasius’ excommunication?

  • Profidebookstore

    He is not infallible.

  • Profidebookstore

    And who is to judge what is the “Traditional Faith”? Pope or the litmus test owner ?

  • Profidebookstore

    “each of these things is evidence of the FALLIBILITY of popes when they speak privately to journalists or take decisions that are contrary to Tradition.”
    What you mean by Tradition?

  • Profidebookstore

    “Don’t be daft” or use “tortured logic”, but let’s be intelligent and use the right logic. Can your tell us one of the “great pontiffs” who addressed the question of kissing Quran?

    “”Neither the true faith nor eternal salvation is to be found outside the Holy Catholic Church.” Are you suggesting that the Moslems are outside the Church? And that it was Pius IX who said that they were?

    And surely, Gregory XVI”s statement was not an infallible definition. Or you think it was ?

    Re: “dialoguing”, Pius IX and Gregory XVI had no clue what the two recent popes meant by it, did they?

    I see no reference to Quran in the statements of the Pius IX and Gregory XVI, do you ?

    Did you check the writings of all the popes about Quran? Or I better take “every pope in history” as a kind of figure of speach.?

    Can anyone who hasn’t studied Quran, know what is or isn’t in it? I have already quoted the the text which I recommended to Martyjo to use in his prayers; and he refused because he doesn’t believe in God. Do you believe in the Merciful, Compassionate Creator of the world, and the Lord of the Day of Judgement? Yes or No.

  • Profidebookstore

    Really, it shouldn’t be your business, but to put your mind at rest, No, I am not Muslim, but I have read Quran six times, in four editions, two with the total of 6000 foot-notes. So, you won’t teach me what is or isn’t in it. OK?