Thu 24th Apr 2014 | Last updated: Thu 24th Apr 2014 at 09:51am

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Rome summons SSPX leader for doctrinal talks

By on Friday, 26 August 2011

Bishop Fellay ordains a priest during a ceremony in Écône, Switzerland (CNS photo/Denis Balibouse, Reuters)

Bishop Fellay ordains a priest during a ceremony in Écône, Switzerland (CNS photo/Denis Balibouse, Reuters)

The head of a group of traditionalist Catholics will meet Vatican officials on September 14 to continue a series of doctrinal discussions.

The Vatican confirmed that Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX), will travel to Rome in mid-September to meet Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The superior of the Society in Germany, Fr Franz Schmidberger, said on the group’s website that the meeting would discuss the results of doctrinal dialogues from the past two years.

The priest, who is not expected to attend the September meeting, said the discussions would focus on the Society’s “point of view of canon law”, adding that the atmosphere of previous talks had been “very good”.

The talks were launched in late 2009 in an effort by Pope Benedict XVI to repair a 21-year rift 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 has said that the Society has been using the talks as a means to show the Holy See the contradictions between the Church’s traditional teachings and its practices since Vatican II.

The dialogue with the Vatican was not a search for compromise but “a question of faith”, Bishop Fellay said in February.

Fr Davide Pagliarani, superior of the Society in Italy, said: “The canonical situation in which the Society presently finds itself is [the] result of its resistance to the errors that infest the Church.

“Consequently, the possibility of the Society arriving at a regular canonical situation does not depend on us but on the hierarchy’s acceptance of the contribution that tradition can make to the restoration of the Church,” he said in an interview published in English on the Society’s website.

Pope Benedict XVI placed the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei under the authority of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in July 2009. He said that the commission would be responsible for talks aimed at restoring “full communion” with members of the SSPX, founded by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

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

  • Anonymous

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

    Tradition is what has kept the Church on the course Christ set it upon almost 2,000 years ago. It has Divinely-guided origins and it is not open to change at the whim of contemporary men.

    Liturgical reform, and by “liturgy” I mean the centrepoint (the Traditional Latin Mass), has been tried already, when it was foisted upon the faithful in the form of the Novus Ordo Mass without them being told that it had been stripped of its santifying grace and was specifically designed to be inoffensive to Protestants.  The results can be seen in the falling attendances at Mass and the general lowering of moral standards throughout. Tinkering with further modifications is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  Only a universal return to the Traditional Latin Mass will restore man’s relationship with the God Who created him and his eternal soul.

    Interpretation of the Second Vatican Council should not present any difficulties at all. Catholics do not put their own interpretation on the meaning of sacred scripture because what scripture intends to tell them is defined in the teachings of the Catholic Church, which existed long before the bible came into the public domain. Similarly, the only interpretation needed for Vatican II is: “Do its deliberations agree with Tradition?”  If not, they should be recognised as erroneous and set aside.  A prime candidate for putting under the spotlight is the concept of Collegiality” (or Gallicanism” as it was known at an earlier time), whereby the bishops see the Pope as simply “the bishop of Rome” and no more than first amongst equals.  This idea has tied the Pope’s hands in recent years as the faithful have seen.

    Church Unity goes without saying: “That they may all be one”.

    Ecumenism is what missionary vocations is all about.  True ecumenism means for all men to hear, and to accept, Christ’s teachings so that they all become members of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  The ecumenism that Vatican II wishes to see fostered “churches together in Anytown” is false ecumenism engendering a pick and mix mentality at the end of which it will be difficult to find any two men whose views exactly coincide!

    The relationship between Christian and non-Christian religions will only be resolved by the Catholic Church sending out properly formed missionaries to teach all Nations in accordance with Christ’s instructions.

    Religious freedom could be a dangerous topic.  There is only one version of the Truth.  Following it leads to eternal joy and the beatific vision.  Allowing souls to follow the whims of any Tom, Dick or Harry as to the only safe route to Heaven leaves the shepherd open to charges of negligence for not taking better care of his flock – and who would want to face that charge?

    Bishop Fellay knows what the Apostles set out to do, and he is doing his best to see that their course is adhered to.  Cardinal Levada must know, deep down, what the Truth is. There can be no compromises.

    We must all pray earnestly that Truth will prevail and that the errors of Vatican II will be exposed, acknowledged and expunged as soon as possible.

    May the Holy Spirit be clearly on hand during these talks.

  • Louis Tofari

    Bishop Fellay confirmed the talks and made some comments about it which were first published on http://www.sspx.org.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t actually understand why Vatican II has to be accepted uncritically in its entirety given that it purported to be a pastoral, and not a dogmatic, council. If elements on ecumenism, Islam, religious freedom and so on are not accepted in full, why is this a problem as long as the SSPX accepts all of the fundamentals of the faith, ie dogma, and recognises the authority of the Pope? Not a few of us in communion with the Church have some issues with Vatican II (cf. the teaching on Islam, which I find hard to swallow).

  • Dunstan Harding

    Just excommunicate these heretics.  Enough of these negotiations. The SSPX has made a fool of Benedict XVI.

  • Concerned Catholic

    Dunstan, with all due respect, your post shows that you have absolutely no knowledge of the SSPX.  Before you slander valid Bishops and Priests of the Catholic Church, please do your homework.  Provide the evidence for your unfounded, inaccurate statements.

  • Guest

    Get off the fence SSPX. Pick a side… enough with the Schizophrenic personality.

  • Kennyinliverpool

    SSPX are mostly gay – who dresses like that? Any man who wears silk dresses in the name of God is a bit weird… doesn’t ordaining gay men now go against Church teaching or something?
    That would put a spanner in the works of their ridiculous obsession with the sacred past.
    - It sounds a bit weird but the Pope is where Catholicism is… I know they change their mind throughout history, just making a mockery out of the entire thing… but reason isn’t the issue here… my favourite popes are the 9 really evil ones… no one ever mentions those ones… I imagine people who comment on this site haven’t studied Church history in any great depth… apart from that last 100 years….mmmm
    - But seriously SSPX priests I imagine are mostly gay, which is fine – just stop wearing silk … and being weirdly traditionalist

  • Basil Loft@ss

    You obviously have never visited a modernist seminary. In the wake of the scandals, the bishops have awarded themselves draconian measures so that they can throw out gay seminarians along with anybody else who is caught ‘acting out’. In other words, they continue to accept gays into the seminary – this is policy – but at the same time chuck them out when necessary on a “one strike and you are out basis”. Before the scandals, these powers never existed and gay behaviour was tolerated and actively encouraged (in some cases) in many seminaries by the homosexuals appointed to run them. Some of the most liberal seminaries were the worst offenders. In the SSPX these issues simply do not arise. They are, you might say, “stuck in the past” when any homosexual behaviour is simply not tolerated full stop.

  • Joan

    I totally agree, nytor.  There are plenty of people in parishes who having nothing to do with the SSPX and who do not accept Vatican II teaching on things like ecumenical dialogue etc.  Does that mean they’re all schismatics or in an irregular situation?

  • Joan

    There are plenty of people in parishes who having nothing to do with the SSPX and who do not accept Vatican II teaching on things like ecumenical dialogue etc. Does that mean they’re all heretics who are making a fool of the Pope?     

  • Joan

    There’s real hatred in your post and it says a lot that your hatred for the SSPX shows itself in this way. You cannot find a thing to criticise them for and so you  resort to accusing them of being gay. All of them, too. Your post is very sad indeed.  I’ll pray for you, Kennyinliverpool.

  • Kennyinliverpool

    I am NOT hate filled just amused by the traditionalist movement

  • Kennyinliverpool

    I am amused because most of the traditionalist Catholics I’ve ever met are repressed gay men. 

  • Inquisator

    You’d better pray for me too Joan; as far as I am concerned, the old high Mass seemed more about dressing and undressing the bishop to music.  Biretta on, biretta off, gloves on, gloves off, ring on, ring off! Camp theatre at its best. Sadly a million miles away from the first Mass of Holy Thursday.  About time the Church started preaching the Gospel and stopped preaching itself.

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    Well, this report is a breath of the proverbial fresh air.  A Catholic Herald article that speaks of “talks having been launched by Pope Benedict to repair a rift with the Society” and is absent the word “schism” is a landmark, by any standards.  Well done Carol Glatz for writing such a fair and honest report without nasty sideswipes at the Society.  If you ever need a reference for a job – any job, from washing the dishes at MacDonald’s to editor-in-chief at the London Times, I’m your gal.  Oh and if they don’t HAVE dishes at MacDonald’s, worry not – I’ll still write you a glowing reference!

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    I attended the novus ordo for many years before giving up the ghost and returning to the Traditional Mass and I NEVER accepted the errors of Vatican II.  To this day, I am in touch with Catholics who still attend the novus ordo yet abhor the Vatican II mess. They’d be less than pleased to find themselves labelled “heretics” and facing excommunication.  Crackers.

  • Basil Loft@ss

    Your ignorance of the traditional Mass is matched only by your ignorance of Judaism. The Passover meal was a very elaborate affair where there was elegant music, elaborate costumes and the best food prepared. It was sumptious to say the least. Preparation went on for weeks. It was very ostentatious and Our Lord would have participated in many prior to Maundy Thursday.

  • Basil Loft@ss

    What about the sex abusers in the post-conciliar Church? Most of the abusers I have met loved the guitar to accompany their abuse.

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    You seem to be saying that all the SSPX priests are homosexual.  Can you provide a shred of evidence for your contention, beyond your silly, nonsensical reference to “silk dresses” –  clearly you’ve not  been to a Traditional Latin Mass for a long time, if ever.   And  you’ve obviously never met an SSPX priest.  So, I suggest you limit yourself to blogging about something you are informed about. Try the life and  times ofthe Beatles – given your username you’re bound to know something about them. Whatever, the SSPX is never going to be your specialist subject – so hide your bigotry and move on.  

    As for your daft remark about your “favourite popes being the 9 really evil ones” – who on earth are you to judge anyone to be “evil”?  Obviously, you think you are being smart, shocking us all to death.  Dream on. 

    Some people can “talk a good talk” as they say even if they  can’t “walk a good walk” as they also say.  You patently CAN’T  talk  a good talk – so stop talking rubbish.  You know it  makes sense…. if you know what  I mean.

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    Yip, you got that right – you  certainly need praying for if that is your attitude to the Mass that nourished the saints  for centuries and that the martyrs gave their life’s blood to defend. 

    To talk, as you do, about  the Traditional Mass, as “dressing and undressing” is to reveal a deep hatred of Catholic Tradition – that is, a deep hatred of authentic Catholicism.  You’re 500 years late in becoming a Protestant, but  Protestant is what you are.  Make no mistake about it.  Oh, and not a very nice Protestant at that.  I know Protestants who would be far too polite to insult Holy Mass the way you have done.

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    “Traditionalist movement” is a bit of a distraction.  Catholicism is built on two pillars – Tradition and Scripture.

    It is not possible to BE a Catholic and ignore or reject Tradition.  I would say I’m amused at the clowns who think they  are Catholics yet don’t even know that basic truth of the Faith – but, having read all your posts, I’m feeling sorry  for you, Kenny, Sugar Plum, so  I won’t.

    A word of advice, though: sue your Catholic school and every priest who has ever had responsibility for your  soul.   Sue the socks off them for negligence and – since the consequences will be eternal for you – sue them for every penny they’ve got, and  then some.  

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    How would you like to offer some concrete evidence for that statement about “traditionalist Catholics”?
    That  would mean that  every true Catholic in the  world is a  practising homosexual.  Really?  Is that what you think? 

    Well, I know a lot of Catholic men  whom you  would describe as “traditionalists” and just about every one of them is married with (noisy) large families. And I’ve got the headache after Sunday Mass to prove it.

    “Gay” seems to be your operative word, Kenny.  Is there something you want to tell us?

    OUT with it !

  • Nat_ons

    Have you consecrated priests for yourself, your fellow disputants and your co-adherents( to whatever it is that you have positively to share)? It is a negative spirit at work (in the Vatican machinery and among loyal/ disloyal opponents to certain expressions of the non-dogmatic Council) that brought about this rebellion, its condemnation and the ensuing schism .. as it so often does! There are some, not least in the SSPX, who set their own reading of Sacred Tradition above communion with Rome, as there are those – at Rome and elsewhere – who still cling to the imaginary dogmatisation of their Age of Aquarius spirit of Vat II; neither are willing to set Christ’s justice in his one body with Spirit above a self-convinced rectitude.

    The Holy Ghost will rescue men from themselves, if they are ready to entrust themselves to him .. both those who understand the positive light he shone at the Second Vatican Council on previous negatively expressed doctrine in truth, and for those who – rightly – reject all and any glossing over of these truths, negative or positive in expression, with heterodox niceties .. simply to engage more positively with the world, its dominating spirit, and thus its ruling prince (who prowls still, ready to devour).

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    I don’t believe you. 

  • Parasum

    “”Traditionalist movement” is a bit of a distraction. Catholicism is built on two pillars – Tradition and Scripture.”

    ## It’s been called traditionial*ist* – rather than traditional – for at least two reasons:

    1) Many of the critics of the SSPX see the Church and themselves as being traditional, though in a way which incorporates V2 (and much – not all – of what came after it) within the Tradition of the Church; this way is considered to be moderate, and the SSPX to be at one extreme (therefore, to be less Catholic than those who are unquestionably in communion with Rome, such as the Fraternity of Saint Peter)

    2) The SSPX seems to many Catholics to be “stuck in the past”, as though the Tradition of the Church had ended in the 1960s. Hence the “-ism”. It appears to have confused immobilism with fidelity; and to be less Catholic, for not adopting the teaching of the later Popes; not just because the teaching of the
    Popes is authentic, but also because the SSPX seems to be giving old answers to new problems, when the answers need to be developed in order for the Church today to be (1) in continuity woth the past (2) not imprisoned by it (3) faithful to it (4) able to preach and teach in a way that answers modern questions in they way they are asked.

    One of the most obvious weaknesses in the traditionalist movement is that the various bodies (1) seem unable to co-operate, & (2) give different accounts of who (if anyone) is Pope. If all these bodies used the same theological and canonical principles in the same specific contexts, these different accounts would not exist. The arguments are impressive – but often contradict each other. Veneration for Tradition does not  get one very far, if that Tradition, and its trustees, cannot be identified.

    Maybe certain features of pre-Vatican 2 Catholicism attract gay men – which would help to explain why gay men are found in it. That is not an argument against it.

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    You know, Parasum,this very nasty attempt to label the SSPX / Catholic Tradition as attracting “gay” men (you’re not the only culprit on this blog to do so)  is very revealing indeed. It means, logically, that every Catholic man until Vatican II came along, was  homosexual.  The fact is, that I’ve only heard of ONE priest approaching two “gay” laymen known to be living in a  homosexual partnership (“converts” from Church of England) to tell them that they could no longer be publicly assisting at Mass until they turned away from their publicly scandalous lifestyle – and that priest was an SSPX priest, subsequently  tormented by these two nutcases.  So, keep your nasty innuendo to yourself.  I’ve long been of the opinion  that people who want to speak about “gay” men  all the time, usually  are “gay”  themselves.

    The rest of your post is equally untenable. The idea that the Church got it wrong until 1962 when the Holy Spirit jumped  aboard, is plainly ludicrous.  Many of the infallible teachings of the Church WERE “ended” to all appearances, at Vatican II, when previous prohibitions on ecumenism, for example, were blatantly  contradicted.  Of course, none of these errors of Vatican II have ever been made binding on the Faithful: Christ will not break  His promise to be with His Church until the end of time, and  the gift of infallibility was given to the Church for precisely such dangerous occasions.  That doesn’t prevent a great deal of confusion being sown and souls being lost – for which those responsible will pay, when the Day of Reckoning arrives. 

    But why are so many Catholics so ignorant of the truths of the Faith and the diabolical nature of the current crisis in the Church?  Well, the architect of the new Mass told us that his intention was to make the Mass appealing to Protestants by removing anything objectionable from the Liturgy. THE  most objectionable thing about the Mass, as Luther & Co made clear, is the very concept of the Mass as re-enacting the Sacrifice of Calvary.  Gathered round the table of the Lord, modern Catholics have skipped and danced and sung their protestantised hearts out in gratitude for this newer, if very much fewer, new  (and getting newer by the day) New Mass. No doubt about it, the protestantised faithful are testimony to Bugnini’s success. A Protestantised Mass could only result in a Protestantised laity. And all in the name of obedience!  As Archbishop Lefebvre said: “it was Satan’s masterstroke to get Catholics to disobey  the whole of Tradition in the name of obedience.”  Absolutely.

    Even a  cursory  glance at the Archbishop’s “Letter to Confused Catholics” tells anyone with a truly Catholic sense that the SSPX  has been, undoubtedly, given to us by God, precisely to see us through this period of turmoil in the Church. They don’t need to “co-operate” with  any other “body” – which “body” are you thinking of?  All the alleged “traditionalists” outside of the SSPX are  compromising with the new Church order.  All of them. Goodness, one of the top guns in Una Voce here in Scotland attends a novus ordo Mass to  fulfill his Sunday  obligation!  Crackers!  No, you won’t find the SSPX compromising with these Johny-come-lately groups (none of which would exist but  for the SSPX) nor  will you find the SSPX  giving an inch on the truths of the Faith  which popes, bishops, priests, religious and laity, managed to  communicate  to the (always) disbelieving and secular societies down the centuries, without resorting to syncretistic practices and all the other scandals masquerading as “renewal”.

    It’s patent nonsense to make the excuse that the Church had to change to satisfy the modern world. Never has the Church been held in such blatant contempt by the world, as it is today.   

    Anyway, I finish as I began, by  urging you not to resort to nasty innuendo about homosexuality, which is revealing of a deep hatred of the old rite Mass and authentic Traditional Catholicism. As Bishop Olmstead (Texas, USA) once said: “to be indifferent to  the old rite Mass is one thing; to hate it comes straight from Hell.”

    Reflect.

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

     You’re hate-filled. Take my  word for it.

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

     Would you clarify please. Are you saying that Catholics owe allegiance to a merely (Pope Benedict’s word) pastoral council even when it departs from Catholic Tradition?  Is perceived “obedience” to a pastoral Council (no obedience is required, in fact) more important than fidelity to the Faith?

  • Frthomasobrien

    “Summons”????  I think that puts an unfair burden on the Holy Father, who seems to be seeking reconciliation on all sorts of different levels and fronts, and is very unfair to the SSPX.  The article is fair, but shame, shame, shame on your headline writer.

    Father Thomas F.A. O’Brien

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    With respect, I don’t see it as unfair at all.  And it is noticeable that when Rome calls/summons him, Bishop Fellay responds positively and promptly.

  • Basil Loft@ss

    Why should so many have difficulty in admitting that the Second Vatican Council was a disaster? The same disaster befell the USA over a similar timescale almost year for year. Now a genuine movement (within the American political context) is attempting to turn things around and they have (by their own standards) a credible presidential candidate in Ron Paul. Paul is basically running on a ticket for the GOP nomination that the last 40 years have been a disaster for the USA as they attempt to fund a massive executive and perpetual war. He has seen the destruction this has wrought his country and the disasters the USA has created around the World. My own view is that the movement is too late to save the USA and the World. (For what it is worth, I suspect the USA is now so corrupted by the banks that they would rather press for all out war against their creditors then face up to their own corruption and if one listens to a recent Alan Greenspan interview that is where the moneyed classes intend to ‘lead’ their nation).
     
    The Catholic Church is as spiritually corrupt as the USA is politically and economically debased. The parallel is uncanny. Yet where is the renewal? I see no evidence. The new translations of the English Mass for example constitute yet another “bail out” this disastrous council and no different in absurdity and morality to the bank bail outs enjoyed by Wall St. and the City of London.  The Catholic Church is in crisis so where is our Tea Party movement? Where is our Ron Paul? Why the visceral hatred of the SSPX? This hatred is based on one reason and one reason alone. The SSPX and Lefebvre have been proved right on every count.

  • Sweetjae

    While I
    agree with your love and devotion to the Sacred Tradition of the Church and TM, still
    you are not the Authority of the Church, you my friend have NO INTERPRETIVE
    AUTHORITY given by Christ  to make and interpret the Laws of the Church,
    Scripture and Sacred Tradition. You have NONE whatsoever.

     

    The Pope is humbly reaching out and all I hear
    from the SSPX is a rather arrogant. Notice their comments:

     

    Bishop Fellay has said, ” the society has
    been using the talks as a means to show the Vatican the contradictions between
    the church’s traditional teachings and its practices since Vatican
    II.”

    The dialogue with the Vatican was not a
    search for compromise but “a question of faith,” Bishop Fellay said in
    February.

    Father Davide Pagliarani,
    superior of the SSPX society in Italy, said “the canonical situation in which the
    society presently finds itself is (the) result of its resistance to the errors
    that infest the church.”

     

    These
    people think they are the Magisterium of the Church (Pope and bishops in
    communion with him). SSPX still continue to defy the very same Magisterial
    Authority of the Church which ratified both Councils of Trent and Vatican 2.
    They won’t fully submit their assent and wills to the Catechism of the Catholic
    Church and Vatican 2.They were only
    accepted back to the fold by the pope out of clemency and for the sake of the
    unity of the Body of Christ, which the SSPX didn’t reciprocate. Yes, they are
    catholics but in an irregular state. I read they continue to do works prohibited
    by the Church for them to administer.

    Our
    loving and compassionate Pope Benedict XVI can only do so much, God will judge
    those who defy His ordained Authority on the Last Day.

  • Anonymous

    Sweetjae

    I claim nothing for myself regarding interpretive authority.  All that I have done is to re-iterate Traditional teaching.  Please do not attribute to me actions of which I am not guilty.

    What is arrogant about the words you quote from Bishop Fellay and Father Davide Pagliarani?  What these defenders of the Faith have stated is the truth in accordance with the traditions of the Church from its beginning.

    Kindly point out to me what is arrogant in what they have said.  And please remember in making your answer that all Catholics have a duty to correct error no matter what the status of the perpetrator.

    You then accuse the SSPX of defying the Magisterial Authority of the Church, and you lump Vatican 2 in with the Council of Trent as though they were alike. The Council of Trent was a doctrinal council, full of teaching, and its outcomes were defined as infallible doctrine to be held as the truth by all Catholics. On the other hand, Vatican 2 was a pastoral council, which produced many declarations at odds with Tradition, but not a single one of those declarations has been defined as infallible and consequently it can all be disregarded by the Faithful because none of it is binding upon them.

    That is a matter of fact.

    I am well aware that there are many in high places in the Vatican who are now trying to re-present Vatican 2 as doctrinal, despite it always having been known hitherto as pastoral in nature.  They may convince themselves, but the Holy Ghost cannot be fooled.

    The Faithful cannot assent to Vatican 2 because it contains doctrinal errors and it is these that the SSPX is seeking to have accurately portrayed to the Vatican via the Bishop Fellay/Cardinal Levada talks on September 14th of this year.

    Pope Benedict XVI did not lift the excommunications against the SSPX for the altruistic reasons you state.  He did it because those excommunications were canonically invalid from the outset.

    Be careful when making statements about the validity of the sacraments administered by the SSPX.  You have been seriously misled and I would ask you to visit this link where you will be able to see what the real position is (as opposed to what the media and the modernist propaganda machine would like you to believe): http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2010-1031-mccall-fellay.htm .

    Your closing paragraph is closer to the truth than you imagine. God will indeed judge those who have defied His ordained Authority on the Last Day, and amongst those involved will be the koran kissers, the Assisi promulgators, the perpetrators of false ecumenism, the supporters of the Novus Ordo replacement of the Traditional Latin Mass and uncle Tom Cobley and all.

    Go visit that link and stop knocking the SSPX!

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    Superb, leprechaun!  Every word a jewel!

     

  • Uipt

    No one has said that the Holy Spirit came on board only at vat 2 but tell me if it was only pastoral does it mean the Holy Spirit only guides doctrinal councils, is tht wht the bible said. I dont think so. If tht was so then the bible would be lying abtthw gates of hell prevailing. Wasnt the late bishop lefevbre at the council. I dont see any basis for going against the pope. Vat 2 is not the issue, it is the interpretation of it that is the issue. Who is the vicar of Christ, benedict xvi or the head sspx.
    Lets just pray for fruitful talks and that God’s will be done.

  • Bill Devine

    Kennyinliverpool
    It takes one to know one. You seem to be obsessed with homosexuls.
    Why don’t you come out of the closset?
    Your comments make any decent man sick to the stomach.

  • Basil Loft@ss

    You have absolutely no emperical evidence to offer that the SSPX is full of homosexuals. The photo on top of this story is Fellay ordaining a priest. Why shouldn’t his vestments be celebratory? We haven’t had an ordination in my diocese for nearly 10 years.

  • Emma

     What I don’t understand is that surely the SSPX could be a group in full communion with Rome but keep to the Tridentine rite- there are Eastern Byzantine Catholics, Melkite Catholics, Coptics etc who odon’t say the Novus Ordo as they have their own beautiful rites and traditions  (they are in full communion with Rome).

    Also there are other traditional groups in full communion with Rome such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) and they obey the Church but are free to say the Tridentine rite.

    Also the ordinary form is completely valid- no matter how bad the music is or how much abuse there is and this is what is all the more hurtful to the Lord as so many people receive Jesus in the Holy Eucharist unworthily, and I agree that there has been a lot of liturgical abuse which was never intended at the Second Vatican Council.

    The Priest was never meant to face the congregation as “spectators,” and the altar rails were never meant to be removed, and preaching from the pulpit was never intended to disappear or be watered down as it has been in some parishes. Neither was the vernacular Mass intended at the Second Vatican Council. Music was never intended to be up-beat and overly sentimental. Unfortunately there have been many bad priests and Judas-like betrayers who have let us down. But the Holy Spirit still guides the Church no matter what, for Jesus Himself said that the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. So if you reject the Pope and reject the Magesterium of the catholic Church, then you are making Jesus a liar. The ordinary form should include the following elements: Mass in  Latin, use of incense, Gregorian chant, proper preaching of the Gospel and the Church’s teachings just as they are no compromise, great reverence and devotion to the Holy Eucharist (people receiving on the tongue and kneeling). This was how it was all meant to be.

    There are fruitful things of the Second Vatican Council: cycles of scripture readings (years A,B and C), participation of the laity at the Mass parts to keep everyone engaged, the luminous mysteries of the Rosary, distribution of the Precious Blood in some countries (which is not a bad thing, so long as this is done reverently, though reception under the form of the Host alone is the complete flesh and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ). Besides what is wrong with receiving under both forms if it is permitted? Eastern Byzantine Catholics receive both species on the spoon. The laity are not obliged to receive both forms as both the Host and the Precious blood contain the full body and blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The advantage of having the Chalice available is that someone with a wheat allergy can receive the chalice alone. Personally I like the ordinary form if it is said properly. Both the extraordinary and ordinary forms of the Mass are totally valid in spite of what some people think. However the Mass needs to be reverent and pointing souls to heaven which in many bad examples of the “spirit of Vatican II” (with happy-clappy music, clapping at Mass as well as other liturgical abuses ) does not fulfil and as a result many people leave the Church. Pope Benedict however is doing a wonderful thing in trying to bring the SSPX into communion with Rome, but they need to accept the Second Vatican Council as another valid council of the Church. So we should pray for unity.

    The ordinary form should be no less reverent, no less devoted to Christ than the extraordinary form of the Mass. I heard that in Farnborough Abbey they say the ordinary form in Latin and with reverence.

  • Emma

    I forgot to mention that altar girls were never intended at the Second Vatican Council.

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    Even a Satanic ritual is conducted with reverence. There’s a lot more to it than that, Emma.

    You need to inform yourself of the key Catholic concept of true VERSUS false obedience.

    If you think of it this way: Pope Benedict’s favourite bible scholar is the Protestant Rudolph Bultmann. Bultmann set about de-mythologising the Scriptures – ie. he set out to show that Jesus was not divine, miracles were not miracles etc.  The  Pope names Bultmann as his favourite biblical scholar in his, the  Pope’s, book Jesus of Nazareth (part two) where he begins by telling us that the book’s contents are his personal opinions and we are free to disagree with him. Still, there are Catholics who will not be able to distinguish the writings of a pope as pope and the private, possibly  error-ridden – writings, interviews, speeches of a pope.  Those Catholics are papolatrists, believing that the pope is above and beyond criticism.  Papolatry is a heresy.

    Clearly, there’s something wrong with a pope, ruling (or rather NOT ruling) during the worst crisis in the Church’s history who (a) has either the time or the inclination to write books about Jesus  which are  so likely to contain errors and private speculations that said pope warns us at the outset that we can disagree with him and (b) holds in admiration as his favourite biblical “scholar” a Protestant who does not believe that Jesus was divine. 

    We must all educate ourselves as to the extent and limits of a pope’s authority, Emma.  What you say  about Christ always being with His Church is  true, of course, but you – like many others – miss the spectacularly obvious point that it is through the SSPX that we can point most clearly to this truth in action in our times.

    God bless.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OTCKAYXC6V65WVJUPZFYCCUEUU Lee

    AGREE. Vatican II was nothing more than a slowly masterminded revolution that had been gaining momentum since the times of sillionism and the hideous French Revolution when man started divinizing the state. Monsignor Gheredhini has charted this back and forth and is of very low opinion of what happened at Vatican II and thereafter. Lastly, I’m just glad Vatican II was so novel that it never even defined dogma because if it did, The Bride of Christ as we know it could of been going down the same road as the Anglican Communion cum Episcopal Church in USA.

  • Emma

     I believe in holding on to what the Magesterium of the Catholic Church says. There have been good popes and bad popes but they don’t chase away the Holy Spirit from guiding the Church. Christ gave us popes to lead the Church here on earth to God in the fulness of the Catholic faith. Popes make mistakes but so did St. Peter when he denied Christ 3 times. I believe Christ is truly present in the Eucharist in a Mass said by validly ordained priests or bishops, whether it is the Latin rite Mass, the Greek Catholic liturgy or a badly said novus ordo rite. The point is these priests in spite of liturgical abuses and sins have the authority to consecrate the bread and wine into the body and blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

    Yes I agree that the Pope’s liking for Bultmann as his favourite biblical scholar is entirely his own opinion, but the Pope is not perfect. There were popes who gave great scandal, such as some who fathered children  or were involved in sodomy during the middle ages but the Church did not collapse because the Catholic Church is of God and not of man, unlike the Anglican church. The Church is a hospital for sinners afterall not a hotel for Saints.

    Either one is for Christ or against Him. Christ founded only one Church not several. I choose to listen to Pope Benedict XVI as he is St. Peter’s successor rather than Bishop Fellay. I will pray that the SSPX come into full communion with Rome as it is tragic to be scattered and separated rather than united.
    Besides I personally like Pope Benedict as he is making a real effort to unite Christians-look at how the ordinariate was successfully set up. Besides it’s not the individual pope who is infallible but the teachings of the Catholic Church.

    Have a look at this question and answer regarding SSPX and tradition from http://www.catholic.com:I
    have a friend who is flirting with a radical form of Catholic
    traditionalism. Sometimes he talks about modernist heretics taking over
    the magisterium and betraying Catholic tradition. He has canned
    arguments about things like religious freedom and dialogue,
    universalism, liturgical norms, and so forth. He says he can’t be in
    schism since he’s just clinging to Catholic tradition. What can I say
    to him?      

    A:

    Point
    out that his claim about “clinging to tradition” is precisely what is
    claimed by all schismatics–Orthodox, Donatists, even, in their own
    way, Protestants, who say they believe only what was “handed down” by
    the apostles in Scripture. Everyone says that what he is clinging to (as against Rome) is “tradition.” But when you ask these people how they know
    that their views rather than Rome’s represent the true tradition, they
    all fall back on private judgment: “Look how this Romanist practice or
    decree contradicts this earlier council or text of Scripture! Clearly
    our view–not Rome’s–represents tradition (or biblical teaching).” In
    practice, schismatics do not receive their church’s teaching on their
    church’s authority; they accept their church’s authority because their
    church agrees with their preferred beliefs. They don’t accept the
    message at the word of the messenger; they choose the messenger based
    on the message.Ask your friend who is the arbiter of what does
    or does not constitute tradition: the individual or the magisterium?
    Either the Church is our judge or we are its judge. Either we judge our
    ideas by the teaching of the Church or we judge the teaching of the
    Church by our ideas. And that includes our ideas about tradition.

  • Basil Loft@ss

     
    Emma it’s a stretch to describe the luminous mysteries a ‘fruit of Vatican II’. They have nothing to do with Vatican II nor were they intended to be a permanent ‘change’ to the Rosary. Their insertion breaks the traditional rosary’s mathematical (sic) link to the liturgy of the hours. A link which I would have thought was very “Vatican II” ….
     
    At a practical level the problem that the SSPX faces is persecution from within the Church. There are elements (usually diocesan ’monsignori‘ but also some bishops) who would make their lives a nightmare.
     
    If you go to Manchester’s Holy Name, where the priests have traditionalist sympathies, the ordinary refuses to ordain their students. Under pressure from a powerful priest within the diocese, the bishop was pressurized to block the ordinations. There is a curious symmetry between this behaviour and the sex scandals (if you read the Murphy Report) which identified a Dublin monsignor who refused to countenance Cardinal Connell removing priests from public ministry i.e. from doing the right and just thing. How these morons (and the laity whose money is used to pay compensation) can not see the parallel is beyond me. No less astonishing is to view the sex scandals in isolation. Everything fell apart during this period: liturgy, catechetics, architecture, seminaries, music, vocations, I mean EVERYTHING.  

  • Sweetjae

    leprechaun_himself : “I claim nothing for myself regarding
    interpretive authority.  All that I have done is to re-iterate Traditional
    teaching.  Please do not attribute to me actions of which I am not guilty.”

    REPLY: You
    just did coming from your own mouth. The problem really is what you think  seem to be right of what the Bible and
    Scripture truly says. The bottom line of your position is like of the
    protestants, “Whoever agrees with me in my interpretation of Tradition are
    right and whoever doesn’t agree with me are wrong.”

    Look at what
    you said, “when it was foisted upon the faithful in the form of the Novus Ordo Mass without them being told that it had been
    stripped of its santifying grace and was specifically designed to be
    inoffensive to Protestants.”

     

    leprechaun_himself : “What is arrogant about the words you quote from
    Bishop Fellay and Father Davide Pagliarani?  What these defenders of the
    Faith have stated is the truth in accordance with the traditions of the Church
    from its beginning.”

    REPLY: When
    they obstinately disobey the Pope and the Church on the validity of Vatican 2
    Council . Noticed their words, “errors, “contradictions” etc.
    WHO  are they to decide and pass a
    judgment on a BINDING and ratified Council of Vatican 2? Are they the new
    Magisterium  of the Church? Well the way
    you and all of them are acting I guessed  you are!

     

    leprechaun_himself : “You then accuse the SSPX of defying the
    Magisterial Authority of the Church, and you lump Vatican 2 in with the Council
    of Trent as though they were alike.”

     

    REPLY: Don’t
    you see the light yet? Yes they continue to this day to defy the Magisterial
    Authority of the Catholic Church! By not submitting their assent and will to
    this God given Authority, period. Yes the Councils of Trent and the Council of
    Vatican 2 are one and the same Authority and Magisterium of the Church. Are you
    a catholic Mr. Leprechaun? Really? I’m serious because whenevr I defend my
    Catholic Faith to protestant fundamentalists they always say only the first 4
    Councils of the Early Church are considered orthodox to them and the rest
    including Trent are not…..in other words protestanst use the tactic of
    “PICK AND CHOOSE” according to what they see is right with their
    theology. This is exactly the way you and SSPX are doing. EITHER YOU CHOOSE ALL
    THE COUNCILS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING AS VALID WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT OR NONE AT
    ALL!! There is no room to cherry pick like Martin Luther did.

     

     leprechaun_himself : “The Council of Trent was a doctrinal council,
    full of teaching… Vatican 2 was a pastoral council, which produced many
    declarations at odds with Tradition… none of it is binding upon them ”

     

    REPLY: A
    contradiction by itself! a fabrication, a lie! You just contradicted yourself
    by saying Vatican 2 was just a pastoral council yet the next  line you said, ” he Faithful cannot assent
    to Vatican 2 because it contains **doctrinal errors**”….. While I myself have no authority, of the kind claimed by
    you and implying infallibility, to assert that, ” They may convince themselves, but the Holy
    Ghost cannot be fooled.”

    Vatican II has two Dogmatic
    Constitutions – the same as Vatican I which issued the dogma on papal
    infallibility in defining doctrine. In Vatican II, the Dogmatic Constitution on
    the Church ( Lumen Gentium) #25 teaches that bishops “proclaim infallibly
    the doctrine of Christ … when … in their authoritative teaching on faith
    and morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held
    definitely and absolutely.” “This is still more clearly the case
    when, assembled in an ecumenical council … whose decisions must be adhered to
    with the loyal and obedient assent of faith.” Fr John A. Hardon SJ
    describes this as “collegial infallibility”.

    All
    councils were pastoral, in one way or another. Even if someone in a high place
    says that it is “pastoral” no one has said yet that its doctrinal assertions do
    not command at least religious assent, and that its strictly pastoral
    directives do not command obedience. The output of Trent was predominantly
    strictly pastoral, for example. And even strictly pastoral directives
    frequently contain moral implications. The large body of Catholic moral doctrine
    has never been formulated by the Magisterium in terms of strictly moral
    doctrine, but it was worked out by theologians from pastoral practice. Magisterial
    teaching includes both the Ordinary and Extraordinary teaching of the Church. I
    think most people know that this encompasses  both the Pope teaching authoritively on his
    own, or with the bishops in union with him.

    So, dear “traditionalists” – this is
    most traditional Catholic doctrine. the violation of which is mortal sin
    (unless one is invincibly ignorant, or under duress). But if you are not
    invincibly ignorant…..Judgement!

    What the “traditionalists” are
    doing? They have their own ill-defined notion of tradition, which differs from
    what the Holy Church means by Tradition  and
    reject the interpretation of that Tradition by the living Magisterium. So, they
    are “Neo-Protestants” that differ from the Protestants only in the object of
    their protest. The latter protest against the living Magisterium’s
    interpretation of Scripture, while the “traditionalists” protest against the
    living Magisterium’s interpretation of Tradition. The Protestants maintain that
    all they need is the Scripture, so “Scripture alone”, i.e. “sola
    Scriptura”; the “traditionalists” maintain that (the Scripture apart for which
    they, of course, believe is to be understood as it is interpreted by the
    Church, and not by any individual) all they need (when it comes to the meaning
    of Tradition as such) is Tradition, “alone” in the sense: individual
    interpretation, without living Magisterium; and it is in this sense that I used
    the phrase “Tradition alone”, “sola Traditio”; for them there is no need for
    the Tradition as such, i.e. itself, to be interpreted by the living
    Magisterium.

    leprechaun_himself : Pope Benedict XVI did not lift the
    excommunications against the SSPX for the altruistic reasons you state. 
    He did it because those excommunications were canonically invalid from the
    outset..”

     

    REPLY:
    Another fabrication! just a denial actually 
    of  true and historical FACTS!
    read this its part of history:

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

    Look at
    what you beloved Bishop said against the Church: June 29, 1976, Archbishop Lefebvre derisively stated on
    the occasion of his suspension from the administration of the Sacraments by
    Paul VI:

    “We are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church and for the Conciliar
    Church, to which we have no wish to belong. That Conciliar Church is a
    schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always
    been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new
    worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and
    definitive…

    “The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical.
    This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope,
    Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves
    from the Catholic Church.”  [Reflections
    on Suspension “a divinis” by Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre.

    And take a look at what you
    said here: ” The
    Faithful cannot assent to Vatican 2 because it contains doctrinal errors.”

    REALLY, DOCTRINAL ERRORS, EH? IS
    HE THE NEW MAGISTERIUM TO PASS JUGMENT OF WHO IS RIGHT AND WRONG? I guess for
    you and SSPX!

  • Anonymous

    I note your lengthy response to my post. It contains numerous inaccuracies, and underlines the Lancashire saying that: “There’s none so blind as them that won’t see”.

    I shall go and compose a reply, but it is a such a big task that I may be gone for some time.

    In the meantime, ask yourself who you would choose as your guide to attaining eternal life: Would it be the Apostles and their successors in Tradition, or the Rhine Fathers and their hidden agenda?

  • Anonymous

    I note your lengthy response to my post. It contains numerous inaccuracies, and underlines the Lancashire saying that: “There’s none so blind as them that won’t see”.

    I shall go and compose a reply, but it is a such a big task that I may be gone for some time.

    In the meantime, ask yourself who you would choose as your guide to attaining eternal life: Would it be the Apostles and their successors in Tradition, or the Rhine Fathers and their hidden agenda?

  • Anonymous

    I note your lengthy response to my post. It contains numerous inaccuracies, and underlines the Lancashire saying that: “There’s none so blind as them that won’t see”.

    I shall go and compose a reply, but it is a such a big task that I may be gone for some time.

    In the meantime, ask yourself who you would choose as your guide to attaining eternal life: Would it be the Apostles and their successors in Tradition, or the Rhine Fathers and their hidden agenda?

  • Sweetjae

    Just like I said before, you and sspx can choose whomever you want to choose, be it yourselves or the Tradition you would like to think is right according to the whims of your desires. Who do you mean Rhine Fathers? This is exactly the same words when I debated protestant fundamentalists mocking our pope and the church.

    You asked who would I choose as my guide to attaining eternal life? Simple, if you are a true traditionalist catholic then the Bishop of Rome and Bishops in Communion with him, nobody else because the pendulum of disobedience swings both ways….Protestants to the right and neo-Protestants to left. There is not room to cherry pick.

    I won’t need your reply because I pretty much know your position and you have already made up your mind that you have the Interpretive Authority of Sacred Tradition and whoever agrees with you are right and those who don’t including the Pope and Bishops in Communion with him plus 1.2 Billion Catholics around the world are all wrong.

    I have already been there with a commemorative mug. Say hello to bishop Fellay for me though.

  • Torquemada

    In response
    to this incoherent gibberish, I would like to note a pattern among the
    SSPX-haters (who, it must be said, are usually Tradition-haters). Their
    comments may be categorized as (a) incoherent, (b) devious and deceitful (lying
    by commission or omission), (c) ignorant, or (d) guilty of false obedience
    (e.g. the Pope said it/did it, therefore it must be true/infallible). Obviously,
    Sweetjae stops at “incoherent.”

    Now,
    something rather elementary seems not to have occurred to this incoherent
    person, even leaving aside the additional elementary fact that this Council was
    declared pastoral precisely so that its errors – which have been pointed out by
    many, not just the dreaded right-wing fascists of the SSPX – would not be
    binding on the faithful. That elementary fact is this: the fruits of Vatican II,
    that council for which you claim a God-given magisterial authority, are a
    Church in shambles, a Church in chaos, a Church in apostasy from the highest
    levels on down, a Church with corrupt, schismatic and homosexual clergy, a
    Church in complete disorder and disarray. Now how do you suppose that happened?
    Would you perhaps like to blame it on the SSPX? Or perhaps it’s all leprechaun’s
    fault, with his dastardly personal interpretations of Tradition.

    Your illogic
    is identical to those who claim that the Consecration of Russia is
    already performed. And the fruits of that alleged Consecration would be….the current
    anarchic, utterly corrupt condition of that country? The schism that remains
    between the Russian Orthodox and Roman
    Catholic Churches?
    My my, God does indeed work in strange and wonderful ways.

    I strongly
    suggest that you commence a rigorous program of prayer, fasting and
    mortification in order to cleanse yourself of your incoherent and groundless
    bias against the SSPX, your denial of your own Catholic patrimony, and your
    complete failure to examine the documents of Vatican II, their history, and
    their fruits, with your God-given reason. While you’re at it, study closely the
    Fatima literature, as contained on Father
    Gruner’s website. Oh, I forgot – those of your ilk actually claim that Father
    Gruner is a “suspended priest.”

  • Sweetjae

    Yah you are right, your dear SSPX actually and in reality  are not the REAL Traditionalists because being a Traditionalist and  Orthodox one must submit his will and assent to the Magisterial Authority of the Church expressed EXPLICITLY AND TO THE UTMOST through her Ecumenical Councils, now since you and SSPX still doesn’t recognize this Authority (Vatican2,  CCC )  and where the correct interpretation of Tradition  of what he/she thinks the
    Tradition truly teaches rest on his/her own ability and faculties APART from the
    ordained binding Authority by God himself has given to the Apostles and the
    church.

    It is not me placing my faith in men (Pope and Bishops in communion with him) BUT again in reality it is you and the
    “traditionalist’s” position of placing their faith on each of your  own human ability
    to discern and decide what they think the  Sacred Tradition says.Battle cry of protestants (30,000 churches)  of “Sola Scriptura” the battle cry of Rad Traditionalists (Sedevacantist, SSPX etc) of  “Sola Traditio”. They are of  the  same mold, one believing only in themselves to interpret the Bible, the other to the Tradition apart from the Living Authority.A clear warning from the Scripture:
    Eph 4:14, “tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by
    every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their
    deceitful scheming.”