Sat 25th Oct 2014 | Last updated: Fri 24th Oct 2014 at 18:39pm

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.

  • EditorCT


    Melchior Cano, a theologian of the (dogmatic) Council of Trent said this:

    “Peter has no need of our lies of flattery.  Those who blindly  and indiscriminately defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See – they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations.”

    With respect, somebody needs to tell you that you have fallen into the heresy of Papolatry – allow moi.

  • Anonymous


    Earlier in my life, I was a college lecturer.  My students gave me plenty of examples of what muddled thinking is, and I claim to know it when I see it. I successfully helped most of them to sort themeselves out, and I extend that same offer to you, who have obviously done a lot of reading and discussing, and have amassed many snippets of information.

    I ask you to consider that some of the fixed ideas you have as part of your foundations, and on which you build your arguments may, just possibly, be suspect in their legitimacy.
    For example, you seem to put great trust in the thought that everything the Pope says and does is inspired by the Holy Ghost, becomes part of what you call a “living magisterium” and is binding upon the faithful. Your trust seems to extend to the outpourings of the Second Vatican Council too.

    This is not the case, and there is no scriptural or traditional basis for such a belief. 

    For example, Vatican II would have us believe that the bishops have equal authority to that of the Pope.  It declares that the Pope as the Bishop of Rome, is only “the first amongst equals”.  This is known as Collegiality and has much in common with the former heresy known as Gallicanism.  It does not reflect Christ’s intention when He appointed Peter as His Vicar on earth and shepherd of His flock.

    As a second example, consider the declaration that the Catholic Church subsists within Christ’s Church as a whole.  What this is saying is that all Christian sects are equal, and that the adherents will get to Heaven by following the pastors of those sects.  This belief flies in the face of the Infallible Doctrine: “Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus” with which you are no doubt familiar.  All that this declaration achieves is to lull the ill-formed faithful into a false sense of security and lead them towards Satan’s highway to hell.

    These two examples, along with many more, are being broadcast to the faithful under the mantle “Living Magisterium” with the implication being that they are binding and must be accepted.  This is blatant Modernist propaganda, otherwise known as “Make it up as you go along”.  Correctly formed Catholics can see through these misrepresentations because such ideas simply do not gel with what has been the case for almost the entire life of the Church since its foundation. It is most uncharitable of you to declare that such Catholics are basing their views on their “whims and desires”.  No, Sweetjae, they are basing their views on rock solid Tradition, which has been underwritten by the Holy Ghost as infallible, and which is not open to discussion, amendment or individual interpretation.

    I do not want to hog this thread, so allow me to ask you whether you can honestly dispute the validity of the truths I have put before you, and to suggest that you open your mind to the possibility that you have been misled in the past.

    In conclusion, you ask me “Who are the Rhine Fathers?”.  They are a group of Liberal-minded priests who led Pope John XXIII to call the unwanted Second Vatican Council and who then proceeded to hi-jack it by power politics.  As you are well-read, may I recommend that you read “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber” by Fr. Ralph M. Wiltgen who was present throughout all the sessions of Vatican II and who gives an amazing account of how it was derailed.

    When you have read it, ask yourself again my earlier question about to whom you would trust the eternal destiny of your immortal soul: “Would it be the Apostles and their successors in Tradition, or the Rhine Fathers and their hidden agenda?”

    Do let us know, and may God assist you in your studies.

  • Sweetjae

    Whatever  you say and the SSPX about the correct interpretation of Sacred Tradition is nothing to me and the entire Catholic Faithful..Your interpretation of Tradition just amounts to a mere fallible human opinion, nothing more.

    Like what we have said, without any Apostolic Authority your interpretation like that of that of protestants in their “Bible Alone” principle and yours is “Tradition Alone” means nothing to us.

  • EditorCT

    So, you think that “Apostolic Authority” means  that every word uttered by a Pope is infallible?  Is that what you think?  Is it ever permitted to disobey a pope – or did Cardinal (Saint) Robert Bellarmine get it wrong when he outlined the extent and LIMITS of papal authority?

    What did you think of Dr Marra’s article on papolatry?  Dr Marra isn’t any connection to the SSPX (neither is anyone else – some Catholic attend their Masses, that’s allowed, but it’s not a membership  organization.)

  • Sweetjae

    Whatever  you and the SSPX say about what you seem the right  interpretation of Sacred Tradition is nothing to me and the entire Catholic Faithful..Your interpretation of Tradition just amounts to a mere fallible human opinion, that’s it, even how eloquent and articulate you put, it  means nothing , not BINDING, no certainty of Truth!

    Like what we have said before, without any Apostolic Authority your interpretation is very much like of  protestants in their “Bible Alone” principle and yours is “Tradition Alone” means nothing to us.

    I will close by these words of Cardinal Henry Manning in addressing
    Protestantism (applied to you to), ‘ . . . ” You have no foundation but human judgment, and
    therefore you are ” tossed to and fro and carried about ” by words of men. To me
    this is simply impossible, because I believe on the basis of a Divine Teacher. ”  

  • Torquemada

    Best of luck defending the indefensible. It is a pity that you cannot employ your zeal, scattered though it may be, in the service of Tradition. You are among those characterized as “invincibly ignorant” by the pervert theosophist Charles Leadbeater – ironically, he was referring to Christians. I wonder what you will do when the Third Secret of Fatima is finally published, and it is revealed that Our Lady condemned, years in advance, Vatican II as the “evil council,” and issued dire warnings against altering the liturgy?

    Well, here’s a suggestion: you can send all us protestant traditionalists a contrition-gram. I’d like a box of chocolates with mine.

  • Sweetjae

    We don’t care about Melchoir Cano or Superman or Huns Kung etc. they are just catholic theologians and not the Magisterial Authority. Even the great Doctor Thomas Aquinas made a mistake and was corrected by the Church. The problem with you, SSPX , Sedevacantists is that you failed to distinguished clearly between the man on Peter’s Chair and the Authority of Peter’s Chair. The man currently sitting the Chair is Josef Ratzinger , this guy is a sinner, he can make mistakes like everybody else and we don’t adore him (silly protestants) now compare that to the Chair of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him that comprise the One Magisterial Authority of the Catholic Church in the HIGHEST FORM that CAN NOT ERR…in other words it is INFALLIBLE!

    The very same Authority that ratified ALL the Ecumenical Councils (Dogmatic and Pastoral) from day one in the Council of Jerusalem 2,000 ago years to Councils of Nicea, Chalcedon, Ephesus   to the present day Vatican 2 is one and the same that is **BINDING** to all christians.

    However, you, SSPX and  Sedevacantists  with our protestant brothers would like to pick and choose according to what they seem right as orthodox Councils of their choice. Your interpretation of Tradition and Scripture is just a mere fallible human opinion including SSPX beliefs.

    So, in other words the only difference between you and the protestants is just the OBJECT of protest but both have the same origin and mold. One is “Bible Alone” and the other is “Tradition Alone”  apart from the Living Authority of the Church.

    So be very careful, my friend like what happened to Bishop Marcial…cast-out from the Ark! (Church).

  • Anonymous


    So what I say is nothing to you and the entire Catholic faithful?  Is that not a rather telling statement?  It certainly tells me a great deal about you.  How many of the entire Catholic faithful have you actually consulted?

    I repeat, my interpretation of Tradition is the interpretation given to me by Holy Mother Church.  It is available to anyone who seeks it and who has been given the gift of Faith to be able to receive it.  It is underwritten by the Holy Ghost and is infallible since the Holy Ghost will not allow anthing untrue to be declared as binding.  I am at a loss as to how you can persist, as you are doing, in describing my beliefs as “mere fallible human opinion”.  Contrary to what you say, about my beliefs not being binding, and not having any certainty of truth, I and most caring Catholics regard them as definitely binding and as being the truth with absolutely no uncertainty.

    In your second paragraph above, you claim that my interpretation (and with that goes the Church’s interpretation as they are one and the same thing) of what the Church teaches lacks Apostolic authority and that it means nothing to you.  Fair enough – but why have a Sacred Magisterium if you are going to deny its veracity?  Now it is you who is doing the cherry-picking.

    I did like your earlier citation of Eph 4.14 though: “That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive”.  This excellently sums up the present state of the Conciliar Church under the steersmanship of the Rhine Fathers and their ilk.  Only after the Pope has consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary shall we have any peace on this storm-tossed barque of St. Peter.

    I commend the remainder of Chapter IV to you – it contains some very sound advice which St. Paul might have written specially for you.

  • Sweetjae

    I won’t go into details and argue with you in every point, the beef of the the argument is like what I always say, MAGISTERIAL AUTHORITY doesn’t reside in you nor SSPX.

    Just one example of your interpretive error when you said, “It declares that the Pope as the Bishop of Rome, is only “the first amongst equals”.

    But the Church interpretive Authority said:

    “In a key passage about collegiality, Vatican II teaches: “The order of bishops
    is the successor to the college of the apostles in their role as teachers and
    pastors, and in it the apostolic college is perpetuated. Together with their
    head, the Supreme Pontiff, and never apart from him, they have supreme and full
    authority over the Universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without
    the agreement of the Roman Pontiff”.

    The words ” “the first amongst equals” was originally coined by the Eastern Orthodox churches in order to justify their schism from the One Catholic Church.

  • Anonymous

    Best not to go into detail SweetJae.  Quite right.  That is where Liberalism falls down.  It cannot abide its statements being examined too closely lest their ambiguity be revealed.

    Incidentally, where have I ever claimed that Magisterial Authority lies with myself or the SSPX? It does not. It resides with Tradition.

    Vatican II doesn’t “teach” anything.  It was a talking shop and not a single one of its declarations has been given the seal of infallibility.  Of course Vatican II talks about the bishops having supreme and full authority over the Universal Church.  That is what they would like the case to be, and like all propagandists, they think that if they shout it often enough and long enough and loud enough, it will eventually be accepted as the truth.  Unfortunately for them, that is not the way Christ saw it when he appointed Peter alone, and his successors in the office of Pope, as the Supreme Authority over the Universal Church.

    Face the facts Sweetjae.  Start thinking for yourself.  Ask yourself whether those who support Tradition might just be right, and those who wish to drag down the Church which Christ founded, might be wrong.

    Now hurry along and read the rest of Eph.4, and then read “The Rhine flows into the Tiber” and report back with your findings.

  • EditorCT

    Actually, leprechaun, Vatican II makes very  clear indeed, that the Pope is  the Supreme Pontiff and does not need the assent or approval of anyone else, bishops included, to legislate in the Church (LG  25). That’s why the Pope managed to lift the SSPX excommunications, publish Summorum Pontificum and now the new  Missal. Can you  imagine any of these things occurring if the Pope required the agreement of the bishops? Rhetorical question, for very  obvious reasons!

    There’s no end to the ambiguities and confusion caused by the conflicting passages  in the documents of Vatican II  – I once heard  a priest mentioning LG 23,24 and,26, neatly omitting 25. That’s a key passage of Vatican II that the “liberals” have managed to ignore because this is one of those Vatican II teachings that IS binding, purely and simply because it is a reiteration of what the Church has always taught.

    Well done for recommending the  Rhine Flows into the Tiber. For someone  like Sweetjae, struggling to understand the nature of the Church  and the  papal authority, it is  a must-read. There are others, but the Rhine is a very good place to start. Sweetjae – take the hint. You can order it from Carmel  Books if you ring them on 01635 255340 or email

  • Anonymous

    Naming all those Councils of the Church you must surely know of the posthumous condemnation and excommunication of Pope Honorious I, a sentence ratified by a number of other Popes and Councils of the Church. Now, my question to you is this: How does this fit with your claim that the Popes since Vatican II cannot possibly be in error and cannot possibly have broken with Sacred Tradition despite all evidence to the contrary?

    I fear you confuse authentic Magisterial authority with the error of impeccability, just as you confuse infallible Dogmatic Councils of the past with the clearly declared non-infallible Pastoral Vatican II. Cardinal Ratzinger knew the difference when he said that Vatican II represented “a counter Syllabus.” In other words, it contradicted infallible doctrine. Vatican II has also been hailed as “counter Trent,” not hard to see why given the destruction of the age-old Mass (which was codified “in perpetuity” at Trent) in favour of a meal-type service that has more in common with Protestantism than Catholicism.

    As for Collegiality, Vatican II makes clear the distinction between Pope and bishops. However, as the illicit abuse of Communion in the hand proves, the Pope doesn’t even get the honour of “one amongst equals” with many of the Church’s bishops. Collegiality for them was just another name for an old heresy called ‘Gallicanism.’

    As Professor Georg May, a senior Canonist and priest in good standing for 40 years, put it: “it’s not the SSPX which refuses communion with the bishops, but rather the bishops who refuse communion with the SSPX. You only have to look at the trouble the Pope has had with the bishops since he rehabilitated the old Mass and talked of reconcilliation with the SSPX to see that a good many of the Church’s bishops are of a true schismatic mentality.

  • Sweetjae

    where have I ever claimed that Magisterial Authority lies with myself or the
    SSPX? It does not. It resides with Tradition.”


    For you
    info I’m not a liberal catholic Secondly, when you claim that you are right and
    judged the Ecumenical of Vatican 2. You and SSPX by your stubborness and pride
    has failed to see your true colors, you think of yourselves as the holders of
    the true Tradition of the Catholic Church, you always insist that you are right
    in its interpretation and Rome is wrong…is that enough for your cute
     assertion. “where did I ever claimed that Magisterial Authority” stuff…WELL


    Morever, the
    Magisterial Authority doesn’t reside with Tradition, you are wrong again!
     Rather, Scripture and Tradition make up a single deposit of Faith  which only
    is entrusted to the Living Magisterial (Teaching ) Authority of the church
    . Magisterial Authority resides with the Supreme Pontiff and Bishops in
    communion with him. Hmmm, no wonder why your position doesn’t hold any water.
    Google it if you want.


    face the FACTS whatever your name is because you are the one siding with proud
    men who think they are higher, wiser and more Authoritative than the Pope and
    Bishops of the church.

  • Anonymous


    If I quoted a paragraph from the Motorway section of the Highway Code to you, say Rule 263: “You must not reverse, cross the central reservation or drive against the traffic flow”, would you accuse me of personally making that rule?  I hope you will agree that I wold simply have been quoting from an established and respected source.

    Why then, when I quote from Tradition something like: “the Pope alone is the Supreme Governor of the Universal Church” do you accuse me of claiming to be the possessor of the Sacred Magisterium?  Neither I nor the SSPX have ever made such a claim – but we are duty bound to correct error when we see it by the simple process of comparing it with what has gone before and been declared infallible.

    Either a motorist drove the wrong way up a motorway or he did not.  There is no ambiguity, no scope for personal interpretation, no reason to accuse the Crown Prosecution Service of being the guardian of the Highway Code.  The CPS, in conjunction with the Police and the Magistracy, are the upholders of the Highway code, but none of them claim to own it.

    You seem to be making an idol of this “Living Tradition” as you call it.  What will they be grafting on to Living Tradition next in the name of progress?  Will it be that women priests or married clergy have suddenly become acceptable?  How do the bishops decide what they are going to include in this Living Magisterium, and how would you know if they attempted to include something which conflicted with what had gone before?  What if they tried to officially outlaw the Traditional Latin Mass?  Would that be all right with you, on the basis that it was what the bishops wanted to do? The TLM is protected for all time by the Council of Trent, so which side would you take?  From what you have expounded many times in this thread, you would go along with the bishops and support the outlawing of the TLM, just because they are the bishops therefore what they say must be right.  If you did that, you would be excommunicating yourself under the rules of the Council of Trent – or perhaps you would like to contradict me on that as well?

    You do seem to have a gift for shooting yourself in the foot with the closing paragraphs of your posts, do you not?  Read your closing paragraph above, and then think of Bishop Athanasius.  How is it that he was unexcommunicated, was made Pope and was subsequently made a Saint after he had defied the Arian Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia and the majority of the established Church to the extent that he was nicknamed “Athanasius against the world”?  Popes and bishops’ conferences and Pastoral Vatican Councils can make mistakes – and so can Sweetjae.  How much evidence do you need before you will accept the truth?

    The Church of today is in the midst of a diabolical disorientation, as predicted by Our Lady at Fatima in 1917, and you are adding to it with your blind obedience when, in fact, you should be standing up for Tradition and defending the Faith.

    Go to it.

  • AgingPapist

    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
    Fr. Paglliarani sounds as Luther and Calvin did in the 16th century.  He and the SSPX are surely heretics, but they cannot be expunged by this pope because the real “invader” of the Church is the Devil himself. The Evil One, is alive and wel andl living in the Vatican.  To borrow Pope Paul VI’s term, “Satan’s smoke”, like incense, is wafting through the halls of Benedict’s dicasteries.

  • AgingPapist

    There is no true “magisterium”  and there has been no exercise of infallibility since the Great Division of 1054. So, it is useless to assume impeccability or “authentic magisterial authority” could even exist in the
    Church of Rome since the break=up of Christianity.

    The SSPX should be condemned and their members anathematized. To join the Polish National Catholic Church, the Old Catholics (Utrecht Union) and the “Old” Roman Catholic Church.  Benedict is best to just spin these clowns into outer space like some satellite where they can join the growing list of heretical independent Catholic groups.

  • EditorCT


    Would you identify – by naming them – any heresy or heresies of which the SSPX are guilty?


  • EditorCT

    Emma, you wrote: “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…”

    But the  problem isn’t just about the  Mass, important though  that  is, of course.

    There’s  a lot more to it than that. And it’s not about the SSPX being in full communion with Rome, either, but about Rome  returning to full communion with Catholic Tradition.

    It’ll happen,but what chaos in the meantime.

  • AgingPapist

      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.
    This is laughable and not only completely untrue, it is absurd.  Collegiality and synodicality are time-tested from which the See of Rome taught and guided along with the eastern churches. They did so from Day One. Rome cannot be separated from the college of bishops and to think of Peter teaching and guiding apart from them is contrary to scripture, holy tradition, from history itself.  It is Rome’s 1000 year old act of heresy pure and simple.

  • AgingPapist

    How very generous of this pope to be so patient and considerate in dealing with these heretics, but he treats Anglicans, Orthodox, and Lutherans as second- class citizens with endless excuses for not pursuing more diligently reunion with these churches, and, at the very least working toward achieving pulpit and altar fellowship with these churches.

    Yet with the SSPX Benedict bends over backwards to those who will not accept the Church’s teachings on ecumenism, are blatantly anti-Semitic, and curry favor with neo Nazi and neo Vichy political elements in Europe, as do the Opus Dei. All in the hopes of restoring a new Fascist Order in Europe.

    The time has long past for the bishops of England and Wales, and most definitely the American Church, to part company with Benedict’s misrule and declare the creation of autonomous, self-governing churches. Hopefully, to seek fellowship and corporate reunion with the historic eastern patriarchies.

  • AgingPapist

    Leprechaun you are a hopeless heretic, but I will pray for you just the same.

  • AgingPapist

    This is not the case, and there is no scriptural or traditional basis for such a belief.
    You’re right. There is no scriptural or traditional basis for papal infallibility whatsoever.  The Holy Orthodox Church maintains, and correctly so,  not one of the first 7 ecumenical councils ever acknowledged infallibility exercised by the papacy ALONE, but, instead expressed as a collegial expression from  a united patriarchy (including Rome), but acting only through holy ecumenical synods. The gift of the Holy Spirit is to the entire Church,not a single person.

  • AgingPapist

    Peter alone, and his successors in the office of Pope, as the Supreme Authority over the Universal Church.
    Nowhere does Jesus appoint Peter “Supreme Authority” or Universal Pastor. These are Romish fictions arising with no basis in the patristic writings–the noblest writings of that “Sacred Tradition” before the 11th century.

  • Anonymous

    Wrong, Ageing Papist.  I am not hopeless, as you say.  On the contrary I am full of hope.  Nor am I a heretic, since to the best of my knowledge, all my beliefs are based on the Teachings of the Catholic Church. Heresy is defined as beliefs at variance with what is perceived to be the Truth, as I understand it.

    The fact that you may have your doubts about the veracity of those teachings is a matter for you to sort out for yourself.  If you are right, a lot of martyrs went to their deaths for unsound reasons.  If you are wrong, I shall proceed trustingly in my beliefs.

    However, I do thank you in all sincerity for your prayers, for which I am both needful and grateful.

    Forgive me if I don’t attempt to respond to the three other posts you have made to my humble efforts, but I would sooner steer by what the Church teaches as infallible doctrine than by the opinions of ever so learned, but fallible, human theologians.

  • Anonymous

    Poor unhappy soul! What made you so blind and bitter?

  • Sweetjae

    Yes I will send you some good chocolates from swiss like I did to my protestant fundamentalist friends. And I wish you luck to your indefensible, incoherent, obstinate, proud and ignorant  position.

    Now you are telling us that what you think about Fatima revelation is the true interpretation? That we should consult your expertise and Authority of theses private revelations?

    Can you give me your contact numbers so i could recommend you to my Jehovah and Mormon friends about their prophets’s revelation too?


  • Sweetjae

    Typical response of protestant apologists I usually encounter when defending the Catholic faith. Is this the best defense of SSPX against the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome? Did you even read my posts to your fellow leprechaun about the big difference between  man sitting on Peter’s Chair and the Authority of Peter’s Chair? About infallibility and Impeccability?

    Well like what you  and die-hard protestants have said , we catholics are quilty  of popolatry , we worship the pope and believe every word that comes out of his mouth is a gospel! Happy???

  • Sweetjae

    Leprechaun said,
    “Incidentally, where have I ever claimed that Magisterial Authority lies with
    myself or the SSPX? It does not. It resides with Tradition.”


    For you
    info I’m not a liberal catholic.  Secondly, when you claimed that you are right
    and judged the Ecumenical of Vatican 2. You and SSPX by your stubborness and
    pride has failed to see your true colors, you think of yourselves as the holders
    of the true Tradition of the Catholic Church, you always insist that you are
    right in its interpretation and Rome is wrong…is that enough for your cute
     assertion. “where did I ever claimed that Magisterial Authority” stuff…WELL


    Morever, the
    Magisterial Authority doesn’t reside with Tradition, you are wrong again!
     Rather, Scripture and Tradition make up a single deposit of Faith  which only
    is entrusted to the Living Magisterial (Teaching ) Authority of the church
    . Magisterial Authority resides with the Supreme Pontiff and Bishops in
    communion with him. Hmmm, no wonder why your position doesn’t hold any water.
    Google it if you want.


    face the FACTS whatever your name is because you are the one siding with proud
    men who think they are higher, wiser and more Authoritative than the Pope and
    Bishops of the church.

  • EditorCT


    Not all Catholics are papolatrists.  Pope Benedict, for example, is not a papolatrist.  In his  books, e.g. parts 1 & 11 of  Jesus of Nazareth, he warns that these writings of his about Jesus may contain errors and  that we are free to disagree with him.

    I’m  thus entitled to disagree with him on a number of points relating to these books, not least the fact that he should waste precious time writing a book on Jesus  in which he  reveals that his  favourite Bible Scholar is the Protestant Rudolph Bultmann who didn’t believe  that Jesus was divine and thus set out to prove that his miracles were no such thing.  Given that the Church is lurching from crisis to chaos, I’d urge the  Pope  to spend his time  more  fruitfully, doing what a pope  is supposed to  do, disciplining dissenters and promoting Catholic Faith not Jewish, Muslim and every other old Faith.

    Am I a heretic, Sweetjae?  Is Pope Benedict wrong about his  writings -  must we all agree with  every word, since they  come from a pope?

  • EditorCT


    Never mind the trouble the Pope has had trying to rehabilitate the old Mass, look at  the bother he’s having trying to bring in the (even newer) New Mass.  Apparently, the liberals are all so “attached” to the 40 year old novus ordo that they’re struggling to accept the latest fashion in  Masses.

    Truly, you couldn’t  make it up.

  • EditorCT

    Well, if putting Catholicism on the same footing as other Christian groups and even false religions isn’t a doctrinal  error, I’d like to know what is? (answer in a  sentence or two, please, I can’t be bothered reading all your convoluted baloney – with respect, of course…)

  • EditorCT

     Apart from those teachings being repeated at Vatican II (paragraph 25 of Lumen Gentium springs to mind) would you name any other teaching that was made binding on the Faithful.  There is always a command given, a form of words issuing a command to believe a particular doctrine, so quote anything, for example, in the documents of Vatican II that make Ecumenism binding on the Faithful.  I’m waiting.

  • Anonymous

    EditorCT, it is precisely the hostility you mention that indicates a true hatred of Liturgical Tradition on the part of a number of prelates and clerics. Otherwise, why would they object to the Pope making the Mass more sacred by means of a closer translation from the original Latin. And these rebels have the nerve to declare that it is the SSPX which is in schism with the Pope and the Church! As you say, you couldn’t make this stuff up.

  • Parasum

    “The SSPX should be condemned and their members anathematized.”

    For what:
    professing the entire Catholic Faith in the sense intended by the Church?
    Having valid sacraments ?
    Offering the Sacraments in due order ?
    being in union with with the Pope ?
    Transmitting the Catholic Faith ?
    Avoiding the errors and blasphemies of Liberalism ?
    Spreading the Faith in missionary work ?
    Avoiding indifferentism & syncretism ?
    Not being excommunicated ?

    They pass all those tests. They are more thoroughly & authentically Catholic in fact as well as in name than most Catholics, including many priests and bishops. If they are to be condemned – what for ? And what is to be done to all those priests and bishops who are heretics or schismatics or unbelievers or syncretists ?

    The SSPX and the faithful attached to them have to be guilty of wrongdoing, and very grave wrongdoing at that, in order to be “condemned and their members anathematized”.  Until they oblige by doing so, there is not the slightest equity in doing either to them.

    If there is no Magisterium, than the Teaching Office of Christ has been silenced.

  • Parasum

    ## You wrote:

    “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.”

    ## I did not label the SSPX in any such way. As for: “It means, logically, that
    every Catholic man until Vatican II came along, was  homosexual” – there is no way to infer that from what I said; it simply does not follow. Nor was it so much as hinted.

    “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.”

    ## I didn’t. And why would I want to attack something I agree with ?  If you can agree with posters who agree with your POV about the SSPX, why the attacks on this poster for saying no more than they do ?

    “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.”

    ## The CMRI & SSPV come to mind – would it really *not* be a good thing, if all Traditionalists, including the SSPX, got together as one ? It is not good, or healthy, that people who think of themselves as Catholic Traditionalists should disagree as they do; it’s not good for the Church, of which the SSPX is a part. The CMRI & SSPV are not exactly “compromising with the new Church order” – not all Traditionalists are on the same wavelength as the Society of Saint Peter. Just because bodies compromise, it does not follow that they cannot work togethger at all on anything. The Philippine bishops, or some of them, have been able  to co-operate with SSPX priests, and this is surely a very good thing. ISTM that there should if at all possible be more such co-operation, not none:

    Quotation: “We thank His Excellency Archbishop Paciano Aniceto and Fr. Thomas Onoda, SSPX.”

    Quotation: “We thank His Eminence Ricardo Cardinal Vidal and Fr. Albert Ghela, SSPX.”

    If people call themselves Catholics, should they not co-operate ? If they share  in the One Spirit of Christ, what is more natural than that they should ? How can the Body of Christ function otherwise ? I can’t agree with ideas that the SSPX is somehow the standard for the rest of the Church – *if* that is your POV – because I know of no reason to think that the Spirit of Christ works through the SSPX and through no other group. The Sacred Tradition of the Church is more important than any of the Traditionalist societies; they are means to an end, not ends in themselves. It in turn is a means to the end of preserving the Church in the Faith; which as its final end the enjoyment of eternal life. Maybe we disagree after all. The SSPX is not the Church – it cannot be, because the doctrinal problems such a position would imply are, ISTM, insurmountable. The SSPX is in a very dangerous position – *precisely because* it is doing so much that it should do. All that would be poisoned at the root, if it were to mistake God’s grace to it as a reason for pride in what He has enabled it to do. Co-operation with others is a guard against such an evil.

  • Parasum

    “You have absolutely no emperical evidence to offer that the SSPX is full of homosexuals.”

    ## Maybe that’s why I never made any such suggestion. Are you exaggerating something I said to EditorCT, or, going by what she said I had said (even though I hadn’t) ?

    “The photo on top of this story is Fellay ordaining a priest.” I thought it was him – but thanks anyway :)

    shouldn’t his vestments be celebratory? We haven’t had an ordination in
    my diocese for nearly 10 years.”

    ## No reason I know of. I said nothing about anyone’s vestments. I think you *may* be confusing what I said, either with what EditorCT thought I said, or with what the poster – EDitorCT – said to whom I was responding.  She wrote; I wrote; she wrote in answer to me; you wrote in answer to me; I’ve answered her again; now I’ve answered you. Those are very nice vestments BTW, since you mention them. He looks like a bishop – so many mitres these days are hideous. I hope very much your diocese gets back to ordaining priests, and that there will plenty of vocations, and that they will be recognised & heeded. 

  • Parasum

    So what happens, when Popes go wrong ? If they are not subject to something bigger than they are – Tradition, say -  what are Catholics to do if a Pope does things that all his predecessors would have rejected as sinful and wrong ? The Popes are not over Tradition – they are its stewards, and servants, not its creators. They did not found the Church: Christ did. They are not the authors of the Faith: God is. If you are right, it seems we are impaled on the horns of a dilemma :) So how do we get out of it ?

  • Sweetjae

    Your reply is basically, “what if the bishops do this or do that that contradict what has gone before”, NO, I DON’T WORRY AT ALL! Besides the fact in every generation of the Church there will be sinners inside thus the Church is a hospital for sinners. The Big difference between us is that we fully TRUST in the great promise of God to His Apostles since he spoke from  the very day , “you will be guided into ALL Truth until the end of world” and the “gates of Hell shall not prevail”.

    God will not allow His Church to teach error or else the promise is forfeited. PERIOD! The liberal, sex and secular movement started way before Vatican2 from the western culture so stop blaming the Church and Vatican 2 for the sins and lust of western world and i would argue to the fact that if not God had sent  wonderful Popes like John Paul II and Benedict XV1 most probably the Church would be in much deeper hole. It’s because of their zeal and Faith that the Church is growing eponentially in most parts of the world except in liberal and secularized Europe.

    Leprechaun may I also request for you to stop acting like an Authority to interpret a private revelation like Fatima. It’s not your job.PERIOD! You are just being paranoid and conspiracy theorist, relax, breath and go to the sacraments to have the Peace of Christ.

  • EditorCT

    We all hold to what the Magisterium teaches.  That’s not what we’re talking about here. None of the errors of Vatican II are taught by the “Magisterium” that is the Church’s teaching authority.  Nothing.  The issue is about how those errors have spread and are now accepted by ignorant Catholics who think everything that emanates from “the Vatican” is de fide (“of the Faith.” and therefore binding.)  Not so.

    No, clinging to “Tradition” is NOT what the Protestants etc. – the true schismatics – believed.  Not at all. The rejected  Tradition. That’s why they dispute that the Church believed that Christ appointed Peter as Pope, for example, and that’s why they reject the literal Eucharistic teaching in John 6. 

    You create a false dichotomy when you say  “either the Church is our judge or we are its judge etc.”  Nonsense.  God gave us intelligence and He expects us to make distinctions. That is what adults do, that unformed children cannot do,.  You already know that if a pope tells us to  sin, we disobey him.  Yet you cannot see the rest – that if a pope teaches in his private writings, speeches, etc. anything contrary to the Faith that we must not accept it.  Pope John XXII taught all of through his ponificate that there was no judgment until the General Judgment.  Tradition teaches that we are judged, individually and privately before God immediately after death.  That pope misled many souls by the private teaching and I have no doubt that the ignorant papolatrists of his day say “Well, if the pope teaches it, it must be right.”  Wrong.
    In the end – on his deathbed – Pope John XXII recanted of this heresy.  But look at the damage he did by holding, arrogantly, to  that false teaching, thinking he knew better than Tradition.

    That’s the position of modern popes who think they know better than every other pope in history who explained carefully, even lovingly, to Protestants and schismatics generally, why the Church could not enter in to  fruitless dialogue with them but urged them to return to the one, true Faith to be sure of saving their souls.  See page 10 of Catholic Truth for direct quotes from previous popes on this by  visiting the newsletter page, select August 2011 newsletter at

    No need to worry about “our ideas on Tradition” – just educate yourself on what the Church has  always believed and stick with that. That’s where the SSPX is invaluable. That’s what they do and those of us who attend their Masses can rest easy knowing that we are not be fed liberal modernism. 

  • EditorCT

     Would you explain, then, what you meant by this  statement:

    “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.”

    As for all your commentary about the SSPX working with other groups – if other groups are making the same arguments as the SSPX, then that’s all that matters.  Some kind of superficial “banding together” is neither here nor there.  I don’t see the leaders of any other alleged Traditional groups being summoned to Rome for talks do you?  I trust the SSPX to see this fight for the Faith through to its conclusion. Then we can celebrate with the other, less well known, less “successful” perhaps, groups. Don’t waste time chasing shadows. Support  the SSPX and stop wasting time damning them with faint praise.

    I’m very interested, now, to hear your “gay” explanation.  It puzzles me when allegedly orthodox Catholics use this word without inverted commas and when they use it in a discussion which is not about that vice.
    So, spill, please. 

  • EditorCT

    It’s about the guarantee of divine help, Uipt.  The Holy Spirit may or may not be guiding a pope at any given time but the guarantee of Christ only applies in certain restricted circumstances. Otherwise popes would be nothing more than puppets.

    Nor should Catholics be talking about “what the Bible says” since Tradition came before Scripture (it was the Church that selected the books of the Bible for us) and there were no bibles in common use for 15 centuries after Christ (since there were no printing presses until then.)  So, while Tradition and Scripture are of equal importance in the Church, so the teaching Church tells us, we should not fall into the dangerous trap of saying “the bible says” without understanding the interpretation that the Church puts on that verse(s). Remember, St Augustine said that we would “not be able to understand Scripture if (we) did not first understand the teaching authority of the Church.” (that quote is from memory but I think it  is  verbatim. That is certainly the sense of what the Saint said.)

    Your final sentence, I agree with wholeheartedly. Let’s do that!

  • EditorCT

    Why don’t you stop being smart and simply explain what you  meant by your “gay” remark?  That would settle the matter once and for  all.  Nobody is confusing anything. You wrote: ” “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.”  Nasty nonsense.

    What did you mean by  it if not how at least two of us (unknown to each other) have interpreted it?

  • EditorCT

    Altar girls, removal of altar rails, priest facing people, lay people playing at being priests come Communion time, and all  the rest. 

  • Anonymous


    You have not answered my question about the Highway code and the Sacred Magisterium.

    You say that Fatima was a private revelation.  When the sun dances before the eyes of 70,000 people, does that not make the reality something rather more than a “private revelation”? Why don’t you study the available literature on the subject instead of just parroting the propaganda of the anti-Fatima brigade?

    I notice you have invited me to go to the sacraments.  Just out of interest, may I ask you this question:  When you receive Our Lord in Holy Communion, do you receive Him kneeling and on your tongue, your hands being unworthy to touch Him, or do you receive Him standing up and in your hands?

    Your answer will tell me all I need to know about the position Our Lord holds in your life.

  • Brian A Cook

    I hope that something good will come out of this.  Nonetheless, there is one huge issue hanging over all this which few here have addressed: the apparent tendency of the Society towards antisemitism and extreme-right politics.  There have been a fair bit of evidence of members of the Society promoting neo-facsist causes. Furthermore, the “errors” on religious freedom clearly stem, according to at least one commentary that I’ve read, on a double-standard that the human side of the Church had practiced for centuries, only to face repression under Communists and other totalitarians.  Do we really want to be totalitarian?  These are serious issues facing the New Evangelization.  May God bring good out of this discussion. 

  • Nishant Jeyaraj

    Let us hope the canonical situation of the Society is regularized as soon as God wills. But like Pope Benedict has said, the doctrinal questions cannot be cast aside. And, without offense to the supporters of the Society, I’m afraid it is Rome that is right and the SSPX that are wrong. Would the SSPX be willing to concede, in a spirit of humility, since they are not infallible, that they might be mistaken in condemning some of Rome’s decisions, especially those of the ordinary and universal magisterium?

    Once more, if the doctrinal aspects are settled, the society has nothing to lose and everything to gain by having a regular canonical situation. All of the faithful drawn to the reverence of Latin and the Extraordinary Form then can worship at their chapels without scruple. They would be able to expand more freely, and may even enjoy certain privileges from Rome, according to some reports.

  • Sweetjae

    Private revelations are just that, PRIVATE!  even seen by many it still is PRIVATE! Why? because the last PUBLIC Revelation was revealed already 2,000 years ago when the last Apostle died. So if there is another revelation after that it is called PRIVATE REVELATION and only the Church has the Authority to say if its genuine or fake and she also has the  only authority to interpret its contents….not you nor the SSPX. Period!!!!

    I received the Most Holy Eucharist standing on my hands? Anything wrong with that? IT IS THE INTENTION OF YOUR HEART THAT THE LORD IS LOOKING FOR….not so much of your outside appearance. One can kneel down and received the host but don’t believe the true Presence or just as obstinately disodebient to God’s ordained Authority (like Koher against Moses) such as the SSPX and Sedevacantists.


  • Anonymous


    You certainly have a king-sized chip on your shoulder about the SSPX (and Leprechaun) and it is plain to see.

    I am unaware of any instances where either the SSPX (or Leprechaun) have
    deigned to comment on the interpretation of the contents of any genuine
    Marian revelation. I say “genuine” to preclude Medugorje which the local ordinary has consistently declined to authenticate.

    Do you accept any of the messages sent to mankind by God through His mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary?  There are too many to name them all, but the refusal of the King of France to dedicate his country to the Sacred Heart of Jesus which led to him losing his realm and his head at the French Revolution, and the gravity of the message delivered at Fatima, should alone, be sufficient to convince you that private revelations endorsed by the local ordinary and the Church ought to be taken seriously.

    Your attitude seems to suggest that unless they are public revelations, you do not need to believe the messages they bring.

    Please visit this link: 
    and ask yourself whether or not you can safely disregard this “private” revelation.

    You ask if there is anything wrong with receiving the most Holy Eucharist in your hands. Answer: “Yes – everything”.  This disrespectful and quite irreverent practice was introduced by certain Dutch Bishops after Vatican II and none of the conciliar Popes saw fit to squash it.  Your claim that the Lord is looking into your heart and not at the respect you are showing for him by kneeling in His presence comes straight from the mindset of the charismatic happy-clappy brigade – and you claim not to be liberal!

    Save your breath to blow on your porridge, Sweetjae, and in the meantime take yourself to a year’s worth of Traditional Latin Masses and see whether you can absorb any of the santifying grace you will experience there.

    May God bless you.

  • Sweetjae

    You are so ignorant and your reading comprehension is unbelievable to suggest that my attitude about private revelations being unworthy of belief unless its public?? Fisrt, I have said there is no more public Revelation (google the catholic teaching on this) after the death of the Apostles. With regards to Fatima the Church already proclaimed it is valid and true, so therefore I believed it and try to do what Our Lady requested however, the Church teaches also  that faithful Catholics need not to believe in private revelations eventhough approved in order to gain Salvation….All necessary for salvation was written in the Bible taught infallibly by the Church.

    So sorry to disagree with you if you believe that way so be it,  my Church said nothing is wrong in receiving my Lord by Hand and rather  emphasized more on the importance of  believing and living with love and reverence by OBEDIENCE AND HUMILITY not of outside appearance like you and SSPX do…..anyways God will judge not you telling us it’s disrespectful.  Actually it’s you who are the very  disrespectful to Our Lord by giving a “show” then YET PROUD AND DISOBEDIENT TO HIS CHURCH!

    Look at Koher questioning the very Authority of  Moses, do you know what happen to the guy?  read Exodus….he looks like you and SSPX, like a clone!

  • EditorCT

    Sweetjae, you are the personification of the old adage that “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” 

    You make the classic mistake of thinking there are only two categories of revelation -  private and public. But there is a third category which applies to Fatima – public PROPHETIC revelation which did NOT end with the death of the last apostle, as Scripture teaches when St Paul warns “do not despise the prophets…” Indeed. Pope John Paul II said that  “Fatima imposes an obligation on the Church”  which, clearly,  no merely private revelation can do.  By definition, the Church merely approves certain private revelations as “worthy of belief” but not mandatory.  We are under no obligation to believe them. Fatima, as successive popes have made clear, is in a very different category. Read about public prophetic revelations and rethink your position

    You are also wrong about Communion in the hand.  Pope John Paul II said he could not recommend it, (instead of having the guts to do what his predecessors had done and reinstate the prohibition) and the present pope immediately said he would not give Communion in the hand, seeking – in UN-papal like fashion – to prefer to teach by example instead of obeying Our Lord’s command to “confirm (his) brethren in the Faith” – again, bearing in mind St Paul’s reminder that “Faith comes through hearing.”

    Your failure to understand the importance of true obedience (to Traditional Catholic Faith, doctrine and morality) over the opinions of popes, says it all.  That’s why you have a skewed view of obedience and papal authority.   You ought to read the writings of Satin (Cardinal) Robert Bellarmine who taught about the possibility of papal error and that Catholics should, under no circumstances, obey a papal error. You can’t possibly believe that the Holy Spirit inspired Pope Benedict to say what he did about prostitutes and condoms. Get real.  Or that the Holy Spirit is keen for Catholics to hear sermons preached by Protestant ministers and Episcopalian “bishops”  in Catholic churches  (Glasgow, this year, all documented in Catholic Truth Newsletter). This schismatic mentality of the Archbishop of  Glasgow and others, is a direct result of “the spirit of Vatican II” – the schismatic spirit of Vatican II to be precise.

    Google “True Catholic Obedience” or – after you’ve read the above link and only if you do read it – ask me to post another recommended link to a solid article on the subject.

    Get reading.