Tue 21st Oct 2014 | Last updated: Tue 21st Oct 2014 at 16:13pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Vatican gives SSPX doctrinal statement to sign

By on Wednesday, 14 September 2011

Cardinal Levada had a two-hour meeting with Bishop Fellay this morning (Photo: CNS)

Cardinal Levada had a two-hour meeting with Bishop Fellay this morning (Photo: CNS)

The Vatican has given the traditionalist Society of St Pius X a formal “doctrinal preamble” listing several principles they must agree with in order to move toward full reconciliation with the Church.

US Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, gave the statement to Bishop Bernard Fellay, head of the society, during a meeting at the Vatican that lasted more than two hours.

Although the Vatican did not give the society a deadline, leaders are expected to study and sign the preamble “within a few months”, according to Jesuit Fr Federico Lombardi, Vatican spokesman.

The cardinal and bishop also discussed possible “elements of a canonical solution” for the society after “the eventual and hoped-for reconciliation”, according to a statement issued by the Vatican after the meeting.

Fr Lombardi said: “Today the most likely solution would be a personal prelature,” which is a Church jurisdiction without geographical boundaries designed to carry out particular pastoral initiatives. It is led by a prelate, who is appointed by the Pope; currently the Church’s only personal prelature is Opus Dei.

The document given to Bishop Fellay to sign “states some doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation of Catholic doctrine necessary to guarantee fidelity” to the formal teaching of the Church, said a statement issued by the Vatican after the meeting.

At the same time, the statement said, the preamble leaves room for “legitimate discussion” about “individual expressions or formulations present in the documents of the Second Vatican Council and the successive magisterium” of the popes who came after the council.

Fr Lombardi would not respond to questions about specific Church teachings and developments listed in the preamble, but said Church tradition has always held there are varying degrees of Church teaching; some require an absolute assent while others are open to interpretation.

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

The Vatican statement did not mention any of the specific areas where Bishop Fellay’s group has said the Catholic Church and the popes since the Second Vatican Council had broken with true Catholic tradition. They object to the reform of the Mass, to much of the Church’s work in ecumenical and interreligious dialogue, and to the council’s stand on religious freedom.

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

In addition to the society’s rejection of many Vatican II teachings, members also objected to the beatification of Pope John Paul II and, particularly, to Pope Benedict’s convocation of another interreligious meeting for peace in Assisi.

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

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

The Vatican and the society appointed a commission to discuss the issues and members met eight times between October 2009 and April 2011, the Vatican said.

The meetings “reached the aim of clarifying the respective positions” of the two sides, it said.

COMMUNIQUE CONCERNING THE SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X

VATICAN CITY, 14 SEP 2011 (VIS) – At midday today the Holy See Press Office released the following communique concerning the postion of the Society of St. Pius X:

“On 14 September at the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal William Joseph Levada, prefect of the congregation and president of the Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’; Archbishop Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer S.J., secretary of the congregation, and Msgr. Guido Pozzo, secretary of the pontifical commission, met with Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Society of St. Pius X, who was accompanied by Fr. Niklaus Pfluger and Fr. Alain-Marc Nely, respectively first and second assistant general to the society.

“Following the appeal of 15 December 2008, addressed by the superior general of the Society of St. Pius X to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, the Holy Father decided to remove the excommunication against the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre. At the same time, he approved the opening of discussions with the society in order to clarify doctrinal problems and to heal the existing rift.

“In order to put the Holy Father’s instructions into effect, a joint study commission was set up, composed of experts from the Society of St. Pius X and from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who met in Rome on eight occasions between October 2009 and April 2011. Their discussions, which aimed to identify and study the essential doctrinal difficulties in the controversial issues, had the result of clarifying the positions of the two sides and their respective motivations.

“While bearing in mind the concerns and demands presented by the Society of St. Pius X about protecting the integrity of the Catholic faith against Vatican Council II’s ‘hermeneutic of rupture’ with Tradition (a theme addressed by Pope Benedict XVI in his address to the Roman Curia on 22 December 2005), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith maintains that the fundamental basis for achieving full reconciliation with the Apostolic See is the acceptance of the text of the Doctrinal Preamble, which was handed over during a meeting on 14 September 2011. The Preamble defines certain doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation Catholic doctrine, which are necessary to ensure faithfulness to the Church Magisterium and ‘sentire cum Ecclesia’. At the same time, it leaves open to legitimate discussion the examination and theological explanation of individual expressions and formulations contained in the documents of Vatican Council II and later Magisterium.

“At the same meeting, certain suggestions were made for a canonical solution to the position of the Society of St. Pius X, with a view to achieving the desired reconciliation”.

  • Colin Kerr

    It’s probably not prudent to say, but these schismatics should repent for their disobedience to the Holy Church. I hope that there is some recognition of sin here. They are being reconciled to the Church, not vice versa.

  • Moises Carvalho

    “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”.

    SSPX is not schismatic, nor sedevacantist. But they have principles. Don’t think (thank God) they’ll ever accept the IIVC.

  • Anonymous

    Let’s hope and pray that there is a reconciliation.

  • Irenaeus Saintonge

    They’re not schismatic. That was established a few years back now.

  • Dms

    They, and any Catholic, has to “accept” that Council at least as much or as little as any other Ecumenical Council.

  • Louis Tofari

    The SSPX accepts what is doctrinally correct in Vatican II, but rejects its Modernist errors (ecumenism and collegiality). For example, Archbishop Lefebvre cites Vatican II’s document on the formation of seminarians in the SSPX’s Statutes.

  • Spoudaios

    Deo Gratias! The SSPX is great and I pray for them. Their presence and work is needed in the reforms that are ongoing in the Church. May God bless them with abundant blessings.
    Ave Crucis, Spes Unica!

  • http://twitter.com/ExSimon Simon D

    Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him. SSPX refuse to submit to the Pope and have cut themselves off from the full communion of the Church. I’m sure that a few years back someone did some tactful or self-serving dancing to explain why we can see SSPX as not being in schism, but they aren’t in submission to the Pope, so in what way are they not in schism?

  • booklady

    In the areas that IIVC does not contradict the already established Tradition of the Catholic Church, like say the clarifications of doctrine that were settled at the Council of Trent, the SSPX is in agreement. VCII claims to NOT have defined any new doctrine or dogma — it was only supposed to be “pastoral”– but in EFFECT it has caused a RUPTURE within the Tradition. If something was once defined as TRUE it must
    be true for all time. Doctrine can “develop” to some degree but it cannot do a 180 and dismiss what has always and everywhere been promulgated by the Catholic Church. Pastoral approaches are not a point of doctrine. So IMO there is nothing to definitively “accept” in VCII.  I thank God for the courage of the SSPX.

  • American Seminarian

    So much for ‘conservative’ criticism of Cafeteria Catholicism. Perhaps, if SSPX is so at odds with Church teaching (i.e. Vatican II), they should leave. Isn’t that what we tell people who adamantly disagree with the Church? Such as, if you want women priests, join the Episcopalians. Just a thought.

  • Dan

    How have the FSSPX refused submission to the Roman Pontiff?

  • Basil Loft@ss

    No, that is not what happens. Dissidents of the sort you describe are rarely discouraged but actively encouraged to participate in the life of the Church often attaining positions of authority. Only the SSPX are treated appallingly in the manner prescribed by you.

  • Louis Tofari

    Bishop Fellay’s interview in English has just been posted at SSPX.ORG.

  • Basil Loft@ss

    The biggest problem will be intimidation and bullying by bishops under the influence of their ‘monsignori’. These are the same people who gave us the sex scandals when much of their behaviour bordered on the illegal. They continue to intimdate seminarians attached to tradition and would attack a reconciled SSPX at every opportunity. These men and their predecessors are oblivous to the chaos they have caused for the last 50 years. It is a dialogue of the deaf.

  • Colin Kerr

    Heresy to the left, heresy to the right, schism this way, schism that way, hate of Vatican II or hate of Nicaea I – it’s all the same. A sin against the Body of Christ is a sin against the Body of Christ. Women priests is heresy and rejection of Vatican II is heresy. Conservatism is a sickness just as deadly as liberalism.

  • http://twitter.com/ExSimon Simon D

    Well, they were suppressed by Paul VI, so their continued existence is a refusal of submission to the Roman pontiff. They ordained bishops in specific contravention of the direction of John Paul II, which is a refusal of submission to the Roman pontiff. They operate without legitimate ecclesiastical oversight in a clearly irregular manner. On a broader scale, I don’t see how the point can be denied when the only reason for the society’s existence—their raison d’etre—is their refusal to submit to certain matters that have been decided or confirmed by the Roman Pontiff. If SSPX isnn’t in schism, then why does it exist? And one has to ask: You can’t negotiate to come back in unless you’re out, so if SSPX is in full submission to and communion with the Roman Pontiff, why are these talks even happening? Its existence and participation in these talks presuppose schism.

  • Emma

    Pray for reconciliation and for Christian unity, enough of these disagreements:be one flock under the one Shepherd, Jesus Christ, and under our vicar of Rome, Pope Benedict XVI

  • Parasum

     Which is why the Popes have to reject the Assisi abominations & the Balamand Declaration & the ending of attempts to convert the Jews. Whe Rome errs, it has to be opposed,  because it is not gtrreater than than Christ. There cannot be compromise over matters of faith, Pope or no Pope. Jesus called Peter “Satan” – which is much severer than anything any Society bishop has said. If Peter can be Satan, so can his successors be Satans, if they reject the Faith – that includes JP2 & Benedict XVI. If they do Satan’s work, they have to be resisted, for the good of the Church and the Faith; for they arte not above either. 

  • Parasum

    That’s what happens to Catholics, when anti-Catholics rule the roost. :(

  • http://twitter.com/ExSimon Simon D

    And yes, I am of course aware that Dario Card. Castrillon has made a number of conciliatory statements suggesting that SSPX are not in formal schism, that certain schismatic acts don’t add up to schism in gross, and various other diplomatic statements that one would expect from someone charged to a certain degree with the responsibility to be diplomatic toward SSPX. Unlike his eminence, however, I have no reason to slice the hair ever finer and sugarcoatn it (nor, on the other hand, any incentive to slander SSPX, an organization whose opinions I have some degree of sympathy).

  • Moises Carvalho

    Disagree. IIVC is NOT a dogmatic council, but a pastoral council. Every catholic is free to accept it or not

  • Moises Carvalho

    Well, in word of former cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:

    “The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire
    living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start
    from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at
    all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely
    pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself
    into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the
    rest.”

    Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI
    given July 13, 1988, in Santiago, Chile

  • Moises Carvalho

    Also, from Pope Paul VI:

    “In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any
    extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of
    infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of
    the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according
    to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each
    document.”
    Pope Paul VI
    General Audience, 12 January 1966

  • Moises Carvalho

    So, accept IIVC or not is not a question of dogma. Its just an abuse from Rome to force SSPX to accept the modernist errors of the IIVC

  • Moises Carvalho

    For those brothers who blame SSPX, I suggest an interesting video called “What We Have Lost and The Road to Restauration that can be viwed in conviccion TV web site in section of documentaries “Documentales”

    http://www.convicciontv.cl/documentales/lo-que-hemos-perdido-.y-el-camino-a-la-restauracion.html

    The audio is in english with spanish subtitles.

  • http://twitter.com/ExSimon Simon D

    Your quote from Paul VI (its full text is at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/audiences/1966/documents/hf_p-vi_aud_19660112_it.html)
    does support your claim in a literal sense: It is not a question of dogma. But
    that claim is a red herring, for no one suggests otherwise, and once this is
    realized, the quote from Paul cuts against you: The teachings
    of the council come stamped with the authority of the “supreme ordinary
    magisterium.” And canons 752-53 make clear that a “religious submission” to
    such teachings are required. Joseph Card. Ratzinger put it appealingly—as it
    happens, in the very speech from which you selectively quoted. SSPX,
    then-Cardinal Ratzinger said, “have let no occasion slip to allow the world to
    know of their disobedience to the Pope, and to the magisterial declarations of
    the last 20 years….” (You can read the whole speech here: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3032&repos=1&subrepos=&searchid=292734).
    And it is necessary, Ratzinger continued in the part of that speech that isn’t
    in the cut-n-paste SSPX defense toolkit, “to defend the Second Vatican Council
    against Msgr. Lefebvre, as valid, and as binding upon the Church.”
    (Emphasis added.)

     

    In essence, you are misappropriating the comments of the Holy
    Father and then-Cardinal Ratzinger (amusingly slugged, in mock papal style, “given
    at…”) to bolster the untenable claim that Holy Mother Church communicates in
    two categories, infallible and ignorable. Ain’t so. You cannot simply ignore a
    council of the Church, no matter how much you (or I) might disagree with it,
    just because it didn’t propose dogma. And the schism doesn’t require apostasy
    or even heresy: It requires a refusal of submission to the Holy Father.
    Rejecting the papal-approved decisions of the council, even though they are not
    dogmatic, is schism.

  • Basil Loft@ss

    The Council needs to be binned. It was the product of a post-war consensus which is now starting to unravel as the American economy collapses. That whole war was based on one huge deceit anyway and is simply untouchable as a subject of serious historical research. What we get is endless propaganda via the “History Channel” (Hitler Channel) which, together with Hollywood’s effusions, has rendered most Americans and Europeans brain dead.  

  • Nat_ons

    Not entirely, MC,

    One is not free to regard or disregard as one pleases the pastoral care, teaching or admonition of any ordinary authority of the Church – whether a Local Ordinary or a Council in ordinary rather than extra-ordinary convocation. 

    The infallibility of such authority to teach rests not on the bishop, the meeting of bishops, or the approval or otherwise of all the bishops .. it rests on Christ (as does all such teaching authority, hence its root infallibility).

    However, you are right to point out that a dogmatic authority in teaching differs from a pastoral authority; not because it acts on a different authority, but because its purpose differs – dogma binds officially.

    In this the stance of the SSPX is honourable if obdurate. It aims to present the prime purpose of the Council as set out by its opening address, ‘which is predominantly pastoral in character’. For, as Blessed John XXII indiccated: ‘The substance of the ancient doctrine of the Deposit of Faith is one thing, the way in which it is presented is another’; the presentation of the ‘Deposit of Faith’ was swiftly abandoned by many, but not at the will of the Fathers at Vatican II.

    Reservation on novel character in doctrine, such as Archbishop Lefebvre expressed, is not a willy nilly do-as-you-please let out clause, such as the Libertine Modernist whim still insists is the ‘spirit’ of VCII.

    According to the Servant of God, Paul VI, at the closing address he and his fellow Fathers had ‘spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity’.

    The authority used, although not extra-ordinary in dogmatic inspiration, was and is authoritative – but with due reserve.

    ‘While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.’ Can. 752; 1983 Code of Canon Law.

    Where the Deposit of Faith may have been expressed negatively a pastoral expression of this faith may, nonetheless, be positive. Such was the pastoral aim that the Fathers at Vatican II expressly endeavoured to achieve, but failed woefully in their hope-filled charity .. as the Accuser clearly desires. A new pastoral expression of doctrine was properly (if unguardedly) intended, rather than any ‘new doctrine’ claiming to be given by divine inspiration; although new points of doctrine were advanced, these must be viewed in continuity or at least contiguity with what had previously been defined dogmatically or pastorally – as might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles.  

    http://www.romancatholicism.org/vatican-ii.htm

  • Basil Loft@ss

    Reading through the link (which doesn’t work anyway) you’ve misread the text.

    “There is a glaring contradiction in the fact that it is just the people (progressives) who have let no occasion slip to allow the world to know of their disobedience to the Pope, and to the magisterial declarations of the last 20 years, who think they have the right to judge that this attitude is too mild and who wish that an absolute obedience to Vatican II had been insisted upon” i.e. when dealing with Lefebvre.

    Ratzinger is addressing liberals and not the SSPX. He is defending rapprochement with the SSPX. I suggest you learn to cut ‘n paste!

  • Basil Loft@ss

    Reading through the link (which doesn’t work anyway) you’ve misread the text.

    “There is a glaring contradiction in the fact that it is just the people (progressives) who have let no occasion slip to allow the world to know of their disobedience to the Pope, and to the magisterial declarations of the last 20 years, who think they have the right to judge that this attitude is too mild and who wish that an absolute obedience to Vatican II had been insisted upon” i.e. when dealing with Lefebvre.

    Ratzinger is addressing liberals and not the SSPX. He is defending rapprochement with the SSPX. I suggest you learn to cut ‘n paste!

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    You and the rest of the papolatrists who hate the SSPX are going to have to come to terms with this fact, given in the blog article:
     
    “Fr Lombardi would not respond to questions about specific Church teachings and developments listed in the preamble, but said Church tradition has always held there are varying degrees of Church teaching; some require an absolute assent while others are open to interpretation.”

    Note: Bishop Fellay is not quoted here, this is the Vatican’s spokesman.  Shock horror!
     
    ps anybody who still thinks the SSPX are in “schism” (I noted one publication used the novel term: “mini-schism” today – idiots) really should not be out alone at night, never mind participating in a grown up discussion. I see below you think that Dario Cardinal Hoyos was lying for political reasons when he insisted in a number of interviews that the SSPX are not (and never have been, he said) in schism.  Diplomacy,you say. Well he wasn’t very diplomatic when he said that eople (like you) who think they are in schism, “do not understand the situation”…

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    So, you think that Dario Cardinal Hoyos was lying for political i.e. diplomatic reasons when he insisted in a number of interviews that the SSPX are not (and never have been, he said) in schism. “Diplomacy”,you say. Well he wasn’t very diplomatic when he said that people (like you) who think they are in schism, “do not understand the situation”… 

    When was the last time you read an article by Monsignor Basil Loftus who writes in both the Catholic Times and the Scottish Catholic Observer. If you must call someone a “schismatic”, try him – like a lot of apostate clergy “in good standing” he is, de facto, in schism from the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. In last week’s offerings he  was insisting that we should all be delighted that the followers of non-Christian religions pray to their “God or gods” for world peace.  Yeah, right, like world peace is sure to come as a result… 

    Instead of having a go at the SSPX, you should be thanking them profoundly. But  for the action of Archbishop Lefebvre, we wouldn’t even recognise the errors and heresies in the writings and homilies of these “priests in good standing.”

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    In other words, where a document includes traditional Catholic teaching (e.g. Lumen Gentium paragraph 25) we must accept it with docility…

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    Not one of the popes has pronounced VII as “vaid and  binding upon the Church” – a speech given by a pope or a cardinal, or a book containing the pope’s views, are not binding on anyone. Only those teachings which can be found in Tradition can possibly bind the faithful. Ecumenism and inter-faith dialogue are not “teachings” of the Church – they are novelties which are offensive to God.  In due course they will once again be the subject of a papal prohibition.  Roll on Pope Pius XIII !

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    You should get a pay rise, Basil.  Soon!

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    No it’s not what we tell people who disagree with the Church.  Unfortunately.

    For example, Cardinal Schonborn is dialoguing away there with a batch of his “priests in good standing” who want everything from “gay” rights to banal rites, married priests, the lot.  No question of any of them being suspended or excommunicated. And I could provide  a list of similar heretics who are working away to their heart’s content in parishes the length and breadth of the UK and Ireland. I won’t say the USA because you must know that yourself. Get a grip. 

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    So, you will agree with the “conservative” Fraternity of St Peter who have stated that no matter what happens, no matter how wrong the pope is etc. we shut up and wait till God sorts it out (words to that effect)

    Is that why you think God gave us intelligence and free will? Oh and our baptismal and confirmation duty to be “Soldiers of Christ”?

    Gimme strength.

  • Brian A Cook

    This is for anyone who randomly browses and somehow ends up here.  Here is the background.  Our Lord prayed that His followers would be reunited. Mother Church
    sees herself as the body of Christ par excellence. She has tried to
    work towards reconciling with separated Christians, particularly in
    recent decades.

    The case of the Society has been a particularly difficult one for two
    reasons. The Society has boasted of being practitioners of true
    Catholicism and pretending to honor the Pope while at the same time
    blatantly defying him. The Society has also been credibly linked to the
    extreme Right, the most notoriously in a bishop who denies the Nazi
    Holocaust. Indeed, I’m concerned that the links to the extreme Right
    will cause trouble.

    The Pope and the Church’s hierarchy started a discussion with the heads
    of the Society a couple of years ago to discuss possible reconciliation.
    I’m certain that even if there is a further step taken towards
    reconciliation–the Society’s superior has indicated an unwillingness to
    accept the Council–the will still be much work to be done and more
    than a few bumps in the road. May God bring wisdom and guidance to all
    involved.

  • Poster

    Good news…pray!!!

  • Poster

    that is, pray for SSPX reunion with Rome – since they are not now in union with Rome – those who believe their status is ok are wrong. The Pope has clearly stated that they are not in union with Rome and that they  do not currently have any legitimate ministry in the Church. But we want them back, so pray, pray!

  • Moises Carvalho

    Its just too sad that many catholics can’t see that the IIVC was made by the “most dangerous enemies of the church” described by S Pius X by not those who are out but from those modernist mansonics and communists already infiltred on the church. Its all in his Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 1917. Its a nonsense in the history of the church

  • Jim Demesne

    I dunno bout all this, I am thankful I have the Mass of almost all the saints back to attend and in which to worship God with like my loyal loving parents did and theirs before them (etc.).  But I do know we are persecuted in the most spiritually tormenting invasic daily way by hundreds of jumped-up anti-Catholic or ignorant employees of our New Zealand Dioceses and that any attempt to end this regime of utter evil is waved away with a so-called Bishop’s word.  Who can fix this?  The Orthodox – not yet.  The Pope – given support and time.  SSPX upon reconciliation – significantly.  All of us, together.  Real suffering demands His Hands, Our Hands.  Kids taken away from parents suffering.  Choirmasters forced to be buried to pop music.  The Mass disallowed.  Psuedo-woman Priests everywhere arrogating an unbelievable array of tasks to themselves.  Hosts trampled.  Hopelessness & despair for the weak – sacraments denied to the strong.  Gotta end.  Lord please.

  • Moises Carvalho

    Thanks for your reply, Nat_ons

    Well, I didn’t mean that we can freely reject pastoral teatchings just because they are not dogmatic. But we must accept that the reforms of the IIVC were too much dramatic as polemic changing drastically the way that catholics live their faith in all world. Its almost another church, another faith, and clearly, another speech. Think as an outsider observer, not as a catholic man: Isn’t the church very different from the times of Pius X to the times of Benedict XVI?

    What I am pointing, so, is that we can freely reject a council that, before, rejected our faith, changed our mass, changed our Roman Cathecism, transformed heretics into saints (Luther, Calvin, etc.) and tried to make our liturgy so empty like the protestant cults.

    We catholics are not obliged to follow the modernist way of the IIVC.

  • Dabbadabba

    Which Pope?

  • Moises Carvalho

    I think the words I putted above were too clear to be missinterpretated. Why am I misappropriating the comments of the Holy Father? Just because you didn’t like them? Trying this type of disqualification without consistent arguments just show how dishonest you are.

    There is nothing in YOUR cut-n-paste toolkit that gives another interpretation for the words I’ve putted above.

    Ah, and please, whenever you put a link, make sure you put a WORKING link, as for the Paul VI’s text, you have putted a link to the Holy See front Page. That doesn’t help too much.

    I think you should try to take a better internet cut-n-paste toolkit for your defenses of the modernist pseudo-catholic IIVC!

  • Sweetjae

    When SSPX refused submission of their assent and will to the Magisterial
    Authority of Catholic Church that ratified the Council of Vatican 2 …the same
    Authority that ratified the very first council of Jerusalem, Nicea, Ephesus,
    Constinople to Trent. It’s good to know that the Church is doing everything for
    a wayward child to be home again however it depends upon the leaders of SSPX to
    reciprocate. The ball is on their court.

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    Since, on various blogs, you have been given umpteen quotes from various sources, including Pope Benedict himself who said that Vatican II chose, deliberately, to remain “on a modest level, merely a pastoral Council” I think it is fair to assume that you are now deliberately lying in an attempt to further your hatred of the traditional Catholic Faith and the SSPX given to us by God to defend it in this time of unprecedented crisis. A “merely” pastoral Council does not hold the same authority as the dogmatic Council of Trent and your insistence that the opposite is true is a sign either of your intellectual paucity or, as I have already said, evidence that you are a liar.  You tell me.

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    When the liberal Cardinal Cassidy headed the Vatican’s ecumenical outreach department or whatever it’s called, he was asked at a press conference if he would include the SSPX in his work. He replied “no” because the SSPX situation “is an internal matter”.  Now, by definition, “internal” means “inside” so the SSPX are inside the Church – just (like me and many other Catholic laypeople) refusing to accept novelties in APPEARING to teach that all religions are equal etc.  In fact, there has been any and never will be any binding statement on Catholics to believe this, so these “teachings” are no such thing. They are aberrations which will be roundly condemned by a future pope. Then the papolatrists will have a hard time of it being “loyal” to this pope with these “novel” ideas such as “outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.”

    As for your jibes about the Society being “credibly linked to the extreme Right…”  Nasty, untrue, but, in any case, totally irrelevant.  The diocesan churches have been very credibly linked to the extreme left, with priests standing for election at the highest political level in some countries. Helping their parishioners climb the latter of material success is more important to these guys than saving their own souls and the souls of the people entrusted to their spiritual care.

    Bishop Williamson had the temerity to question the numbers who died in the holocaust.  Are you unaware that the Jews took time to settle on 6 million, that the number given on the original plaque was a lot less and revised to  6 million?  So it seems Bishop  Williamson is not the first person to query the numbers. That makes him a silly man, no more. Asked for my opinion by a  student keen to research an historical event, I’d recommend researching the numbers who died in the two world wars, the Irish famine, the Highland Clearances, the American Civil War – ANYTHING but the holocaust.  That is defined dogma and nobody dare question it.
     You w
    But no matter what his personal views on politics and history may be, Bishop  Williamson is not a heretic. And THAT is all that matters.  You will never find him permitting “gay” Masses as does Archbishop Nichols, nor will you find him writing the heresy that Monsignor Basil Loftus writes in his newspaper columns in both England and Scotland (implicating both English and Scottish bishops).

    As for the Society’s “unwillingness to accept  the Council”… the Society – like a lot of people, myself included,only refuse to accept those parts of the Council which contradict what the Church has always taught and that anyone with a  truly Catholic sense and soul, must do.

    Read page 10 of the August Catholic Truth newsletter which gives quotes on ecumenism from the major pre-Vatican II popes http://www.catholictruthscotland.com (select Newsletter page and click on the August newsletter icon)

    Then come back and tell me that you still insist on accepting Vatican II sta tements on ecumenism that flatly contradict these infallible papal statements. Or maybe just apologise for getting it wrong re the SSPX?

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    Apologies for typing errors in my previous post responding to Brian A Cook. For  quite some time now, I have not had an “edit” button (just “like” and “reply”) so I am unable to make corrections.

  • Anonymous

    I sincerely hope that the preamble contains nothing to which it is impossible to assent (e.g. on ecumenism or interreligious dialogue) and that therefore it can be signed and that a personal prelature can be set up. The Church needs such faithful priests and laity as are in the SSPX.