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

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

SSPX leader: we cannot accept preamble in its current state

By and on Wednesday, 30 November 2011

Bishop Bernard Fellay, centre, pictured before an ordination Mass in Econe, Switzerland (AP Photo/Keystone, Olivier Maire)

Bishop Bernard Fellay, centre, pictured before an ordination Mass in Econe, Switzerland (AP Photo/Keystone, Olivier Maire)

The head of the traditionalist Society of St Pius X has said a “doctrinal preamble” presented by the Vatican needs changes before it can be accepted as the basis for the group’s reconciliation.

The statement by Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior of the society, appeared to hold out hope for further discussions with the Vatican, but it was unclear whether the Vatican would be willing to revisit the text.

“It is true that this doctrinal preamble cannot receive our endorsement, although leeway has been allowed for a ‘legitimate discussion’ about certain points of the [Second Vatican] Council. What is the extent of this leeway?” Bishop Fellay said in an interview posted on the society’s website.

In September, when Bishop Fellay was handed the preamble, the Vatican did not publish the document but said it “states some doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation of Catholic doctrine necessary to guarantee fidelity” to the formal teaching of the Church.

In his interview, however, Bishop Fellay said the preamble was “a document which can be clarified and modified, as the accompanying note points out. It is not a definitive text.”

“The proposal that I will make in the next few days to the Roman authorities and their response in turn will enable us to evaluate our remaining options. And whatever the result of these talks may be, the final document that will have been accepted or rejected will be made public,” he said.

Asked whether the past two years of talks with the Vatican have been pointless, Bishop Fellay said they have allowed the society to present their objections to the doctrinal difficulties caused by Vatican II “and consequently show why adherence to the Council is problematic. This is an essential first step.”

“In Rome itself, the evolving interpretations given to religious liberty, the modifications that have been made on this subject in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and in the Compendium of it, the corrections that are currently being studied for the Code of Canon Law … all this shows the difficulties that you run into when you try to abide by the conciliar documents at all costs,” Bishop Fellay said.

“From our perspective, this nicely shows the impossibility of adhering in a stable way to a doctrine in motion,” he added.

The eventual “canonical solution” envisioned by the Vatican for the society was expected to take the form of a personal prelature, or a Church jurisdiction without geographical boundaries. Bishop Fellay said such an arrangement would be pointless unless the doctrinal differences were resolved.

Last month Fr Paul Morgan, the British superior of the SSPX, said that the preamble had been deemed “clearly unacceptable” by SSPX leaders meeting in Italy. He made the comment in a newsletter posted line and then removed.

  • Nat_ons

    This is genuine discussion; points made, areas of agreement reached, remaining issues to be re-considered .. all very adult and sensible, in fact rather gentlemanly (the snipping of petty asides apart, of course).

    Whether any Christians are ready to be consistently adult in their due considerations – inside or outside of the Roman communion – remains to be seen .. history makes one doubt it.

    Everything natural and unnatural is stacked up against such reasonableness, and agreements based on it; only supernatural grace and effort remain to make a difference.

    The whole SSPX must realise – or at least come to realise – it is not the church catholic nor the ruling definer of orthodoxy, it is only an order of witness to the Faith – nothing more, nothing less.
    Would that the Vatican – or its ruling offices – could finally let go of the hermeneutic of discontinuity in regard to the Second Vatican Council; its pastoral guidance (well or poorly expressed) merely informs Tradition .. it does not add to it.
    So – although my perspective may seem odd and actually be disordered (in need of something more than rose-tinted glass for assistance) – I can see no reason why the SSPX cannot humbly seek admission to communion with the Holy Father, and Rome’s officialdom make this possible .. if grace not the flesh is allowed to rule. 

  • Anonymous

    I very much hope that the Vatican engages with the discussion and brings this to a successful conclusion. We need the SSPX in union, especially as the reform of the reform gathers pace.

  • Anonymous

    Vatican II was the focus for this disagreement.  John XXIII was at least a Masonic and Communist sympathizer.  He disparaged the Fatima apparitions as “childhood hysteria”.  He was followed by Paul VI who realized too late that things had gotten out of hand.  Giuseppe Siri, AB of Milan, evidently was elected Pope twice and forced through threats to abdicate.  Malachi Martin writes about it.  JPII tried to bring things back with Ratzinger as the “trigger of the gun”.  The SSPX Society is only the way things were before Vatican II.  Paul VI stated that the devil had infiltrated and died soon after.  Take a look at the state of the Catholic priesthood and you will be sympathetic to the movement started by AB LeFevre.

  • Anonymous

     In the last parish in which I resided, Clifton Diocese, Mass resembled a C of E service and adopted such affectations; I suspect, from that which the parish priest informed First Communicants, that Transubstantiation was not believed in; from the pulpit was criticism of both BXVI and The Magisterium; when a locum priest was there, he was of the same ilk, as was the parish priest’s predecessor. Presumably, Clifton was running a placement formula of ‘High’ (Trad), Middle and Low Church clergymen, in appropriate parishes. 

    In Continental Europe and Ireland, there exist highly vocal groups of both clergy and laity which are vehemently against both Rome and The Magisterium.

    Whilst I have little or no truck with the +Williamson coteri presumably banished to the UK. I refer to that element as virtual “Wee Frees” with a tendency to oppress those to whom they are opposed and have even been known to vilify individual parishioners from the pulpit.  Criticism of SSPX is entirely illogical, when compared with the outrageous goings-on elsewhere in Mother Church.

    By quoting Fr. Morgan, the CH is only bolstering the Sedevacantists endeavours to bring-down +Fellay and cause a split in SSPX.  CH’s judgement therefore is suspect, as also in the coverage of the PEEP debacle.   

  • Benedict Carter

    The Catholic Church since Vatican II has been strangled almost to death by anti-Church, based on a new theology of Salvation which can very easily lead to heresy, and has often done so, even at the highest levels of the Church. Vatican II was a catastrophic leap of naivety into the dark at the least, and a deliberate plan put into effect by enemies of Christ at the most.  

    Vatican II’s documents are no good: this Pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, has had to correct at least one of them with the document “Dominus Iesus” of 1991. 

    The Novus Ordo is a neo-protestantized abomination; the Catholic identity and mentality has been destroyed; most Catholics now have either lost the Faith, don’t know it, or adhere to some quasi-protestant understanding which is NOT Catholicism. 

    This Pope, trying to plant the seeds that in time will correct this utter disaster, must accept that some of the blame lies at his door: as a periti at that dratted Council, he was one of the Revolutionaries. 

    This is the Great Apostasy foretold by Our Lady at Fatima and by many Saints: a full-scale revolt against Papal authority by the Bishops worldwide, a total falling away from the Faith and the creation of a new religion, based on the naturalistic tenets of socialism and Masonry. 

    Most modern churches now resemble Masonic temples, popular piety has been laughed to scorn, immorality, even rampant homosexuality, amongst the clergy has been rife and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass trodden underfoot. 

    What can the laity do? Attend ONLY the Old Mass for a start. Teach your children the old prayers, in Latin. It really isn’t difficult. Pray with them at bedtime and in the morning. Give them their Catholic birthright, stolen from them by the appalling 60′s and 70′s generations!

  • Anonymous

    Vatican II was an apostate council. Rome has already fallen away from the Faith.

    Watch this video by Most Holy Family Monastery called “VATICAN II: COUNCIL OF APOSTASY”:

    This is the MHFM website:

    http://mostholyfamilymonastery.com/

  • Anthony

    The frightening thing is I think you believe some of that clap-trap.

  • Anthony

    With any luck, the discussions with SSPX will be guillotined. The Church has being playing patty cake with these schismatics for far too long.

  • Anonymous

    Vatican Instruction “Universae Ecclesiae”
     
    On the Application of the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum”
     
     
    “7………………Among the statements of the Holy Father was the following: ‘There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the Liturgy growth and progress are found, but not a rupture. What was sacred for prior generations, remains sacred and great for us as well, and cannot be suddenly prohibited altogether or even judged harmful. ‘
     
    19. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.”

     Pope Benedict launching the Year of Faith, to mark the beginning of the Second Vatican Council, October 2011:
    “I feel more than ever in duty bound to point to the Council as the great grace bestowed on the Church in the twentieth century: there we find a sure compass by which to take our bearings in the century now beginning.”

    A year of events to mark the beginning of the Council? Think of how we will be invited to celebrate its conclusion.

    It will almost certainly involve a liturgy. The Ordinary Form, of the Mass, is clearly the best option – as it is the norm.

  • Sweetjae

    Why do you people always complain? Really! Throwing everything even the toilet
    seat to the Church of Rome as if secularism started by Vatican2 . You people are
    just one-issue campaigners, conspiracy theorists and just plain misguided rants
    toward the Magisterium of the Church.

    All of your “interpretation about any prophesy” of Fatima on
    the tribulations, false teachers etc, are nothing to us because you are
    speculating according to your wrong reading to prophesy because you are making
    conclusions apart from the Authority of the Magisterium of the Church. 
    WHERE IN TRADITION THAT SAYS A CATHOLIC
    CAN REFUSE OBEDIENCE TO THE TEACHINGS OF ANY COUNCIL OF THE
    CHURCH????

  • AJ

    SSPX and their 5-offshoots plus the Sedevacantists and other radTraditionalists say they are all following only the infallible Tradition they have received yet the odd part is they arrived at diametrically opposing views and doctrines from the same infallible Catholic Tradition. Similarly, the protestant’s idea that the
    only Infallible Teaching is found in the Bible  yet they arrived at
    different and opposing doctrines from the same Bible.When I debated differing protestant apologists like Jehovah Witnesses, Puritans,
    Mormons, Baptists, Born Agains, Pentacostals, SeventhDay Adventists etc these
    Protestant churches are all claiming the same and coming from the same Bible, the same “clearness”, the same Holy Spirit,  yet
    arrived at differing and opposing views and doctrines from the same Bible.

    Look at where protestants are now, split from split. Look at where the “traditionalist movement” now just 40 years after they split from the See of Peter, split from split, sadly including the catholic SSPX from her came 5-offshoots already, yet you guys still claim that you are right in your interpretive authority of Tradition yet you can’t even agree with your fellow “traditionalists”.

  • AJ

    All of your “interpretation about any prophesy” of Fatima on the tribulations, false teachers etc, are nothing to us because you are speculating according to your wrong reading to prophesy because you are making conclusions apart from the Authority of the Magisterium of the Church.  The ultimate problem of making either Scripture or Tradition the
    living authority is that it is of necessity subject to interpretation. INTERPRETATION
    IS A HUMAN ACT, therefore authority (interpretive authority included) must rest
    in humans. Now, if everyone is their own authority, nobody can claim
    authoritative interpretation, because their authority is no higher than anyone
    else’s. But this entails subjectivism, and not a “faith once
    delivered,” although that phrase could just as easily be re-interpreted
    as, “the faith once delivered and forever stumbled over and
    misinterpreted.” For correct (apostolic) doctrine to be ascertained in any
    objective sense, it cannot come from within (either the person or the text).
    Consequently, one cannot derive correct doctrine from the scriptures without
    first being properly taught the Scriptures and Tradition. (Apostolic
    Authority).

    Any book or documents written including the Bible and Tradition
    can not make a decision and pass judgment of who’s got it right or wrong.

    Don’t you  just  realized it by reading and thus interpreting
    and making up your own conclusions based on what you read in the Bible or Tradition
    (outside the Apostolic Authority) you are already exercizing and affirming
    authority by yourself?

    And the reason why there are so many differing traditionalist  is precisely because they all said the Tradition
    is  the only credible authority yet they
    disagreed on how to interpret it. Sola Scriptura’s for protestants and Sola
    Tradicio of the SSPX, Sedevacatists and others are biggest downfall is that it fails to address the issue
    of interpretation.

  • AJ

    SSPX, Sedevacanrtist always defend their position in order to justify their continued refusal to submit to the proper Authority of the present Magisterium of the Church is based on the mistaken notion that Vatican 2 is pastoral in nature thus a catholic can refuse obedience to. They always insist that Teachings that have the “Anathema” and “Ex-Cathedra” clause are the only ones catholics can give their intellectual and willful assent, so thus Vatican2 was not.

    4-Questional Facts:1. Practically most Councils of the Church are pastoral in nature even the the Council of Trent. Should we refuse also the 7th, 11th, 13th Ecumenical Councils of the Church because they were purely pastoral?
    2. If a catholic can refuse obedience to any pastoral Teachings of the Church then we have to trash nearly 80 percent of all Tradition like, Papal Encyclicals, Apostolic Letters, e.g. Humana Vitae, Stem-cell, cloning, DNA manipulation, Pontifical Commission’s pronouncements, Papal teachings on Social Justice etc. etc. just because the Church didn’t invoke the “Infallibility” clause. (including those post-Vat2).

    3. If a catholic can blame the Council of Vatican2 for “bearing bad fruits”, then why should we not blame the Councils of Trent and Florence because both Councils also “bore bad fruits” of Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther, abused of the doctrines of Purgatory, Indulgences etc. that came from those Councils? Why not blame all the Councils for all the troubles?

    4. Finally, where in Sacred Tradition that says that a catholic can refuse to the pastoral Teachings of the Church, Councils and the Magisterial Authority of the Church (Pope and Bishops in communion with him), is it found and taught in Tradition? Or that we can “pick ‘n choose” (protestant tactic) which Council of the Church is true and orthodox to us just because they agree with what we think is right and what we think Tradition truly says?

  • AJ

    Not all teachings of the church should be marked with INFALLIBILITY, Ordinary Magisterial teachings are supposed to be obeyed and followed according to Tradition without the infallibliity clause. Good examples, Apostolic letters of Humana Vitae, Pontifical Commission of Stem-cell, Cloning and Euthanesia, Papal teachings of Social Justice and so many, many more. 

    By your standard we can trash all of them because they don’t carry the INFALLIBILITY and ANATHEMA clause. Your standard is not found in any Church Tradition, sir.

    What you are saying by your above statement is that you assert and claim infallibility by yourself that you are right and the Pope, Bishops or who anyone who disagree with you are wrong. By yourself you claimed INFALLIBILITY and passed ANATHEMA on those who diagree with you. Simple.

  • AJ

    “The Novus Ordo is a neo-protestantized abomination; the Catholic identity and mentality has been destroyed; most Catholics now have either lost the Faith, don’t know it, or adhere to some quasi-protestant understanding which is NOT Catholicism. ”

    FABRICATION, pure lies coming from groups against the Catholic Church. WHO are you to  say that? All your interpretation of Tradition are just like that, OPINION! fallible human opinion without any Apostolic Authority whatsoever.

    SSPX always say that they only believed to what they have received! In a have true however not the REAL Truth of God.May I ask, WHOSE VERSION of tradition are referring to? Tradition according to the Sedevacantists? Tradition
    according to SSPX? Or according to some offshoots from SSPX like, Priestly
    Society of Saint Josaphat, Society of St. Pius V or Istituto Mater Boni
    Consilii??Tradition according to the coptic church? Orientals? ETC, ETC.

    The reason is, although protestants differ from you only in the “OBJECT” of
    protest, you both share the “primacy of conscience” principle. Wherein, the
    protestants claimed and believed that they have the right to Interpret the Holy
    Scripture (Bible) apart from the Magisterium of the Church thus their “Sola
    Scriptura” and you and ultra-traditionalists claimed and belived that you have
    the right to interpret Holy Traditon apart from the Magisterium of the Church
    thus your “Sola Tradicio”.Same clone, same mold.Scripture and
    Tradition form one , Single Deposit of Faith which only can only be and only who
    have the right to make Interpretation, enact Laws and preserve both is no other
    than the Magisterium of the Church.YOU, SSPX AND SEDEVACANTISTS HAVE NO
    RIGHT TO MAKE INTERPRETIVE JUDGMENTS. Jesus said not you nor anybody but Peter
    and Bishops in communion with him, PERIOD!

  • Anonymous

    As someone who is critical of the Council and the ambiguities contained in its documents I simply cannot agree with you that it was an ‘apostate council’. 

    I’m afraid that you may be giving credence to the pseudo-secret of La Salette that declares that “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist”. The Church has ruled against it.

    But your post just shows the extent to which the post-conciliar events have been the occasion of a great many Catholics stumbling in their faith.

  • Benedict Carter

    The SSPX aren’t sede vacantists.

  • Benedict Carter

    And you truly haven’t got a clue about the subject at all.

  • Benedict Carter

    When you cut & paste other people’s diatribes, do you think you could clean up the editing after posting? Thanks.

  • Benedict Carter

    Cardinal Hoyos:

    “Anyone who says that the SSPX are in schism do not understand the situation”.

  • Benedict Carter

    But not split on doctrine, which is the only measure of “split” that has any meaning whatsoever. So the analogy with protestants is meaningless. 

  • Anonymous

    Say what you will.  Every knowing individual sees that Vatican II was a disaster.  It would appear that JPI was assassinated and that JPII almost suffered the same fate in an attempt by the devil to destroy the Church.  Ratzinger continues to try to right a sinking ship.  Read Malachi Martin who was a cogent observer and confidant of JXXIII who was the source of the problem.

  • Amdg

    and Hoyos’ theological credentials are??? since he is now removed from his former position of “authority”.

  • Benedict Carter

    There are now Canonical rules about age limits?

  • Anonymous

    You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free.  Read Malachi Martin. 

  • Anonymous

    The problem is you read particular authors, and not the acts of the Magisterium, and its most recent  teaching Council.

     
     
     Pope Benedict launching the Year of Faith, to mark the beginning of the Second Vatican Council, October 2011:
    “I feel more than ever in duty bound to point to the Council as the great grace bestowed on the Church in the twentieth century: there we find a sure compass by which to take our bearings in the century now beginning.”
    The Catechism of the Catholic Church will be central to the Year of Faith.

    For some reason the SSPX doesn’t  seem to endorse the above, or:

    Vatican Instruction “Universae Ecclesiae”
     
    On the Application of the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum”
     
     
    “7………………Among the statements of the Holy Father was the following: ‘There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the Liturgy growth and progress are found, but not a rupture. What was sacred for prior generations, remains sacred and great for us as well, and cannot be suddenly prohibited altogether or even judged harmful. ‘
     
    19. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.”

    Nor could its members take this oath, written by a Joseph Ratzinger, and which is a requirement for Office Holders in the Church:
    “PROFESSION OF FAITH and THE OATH OF FIDELITYON ASSUMING AN OFFICE TO BE EXERCISED IN THE NAME OF THE CHURCHCongregation for the Doctrine of the Faith“With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed. I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.”Schism may be a technical term. Assent to authentic teaching is an Act of Faith. 
    PROFESSION OF FAITH and THE OATH OF FIDELITYON ASSUMING AN OFFICE TO BE EXERCISED IN THE NAME OF THE CHURCHCongregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
    “With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.
    I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.
    Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.”

    Schism may be a technical term. Assent to authentic teaching is an Act of Faith.
     

     
     

  • Anonymous

    John Vennari reviews the new translation of the Novus Ordo Mess as implemented in the US last weekend. He makes sound observations about the New Mess as a whole.

    Quote:

    http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=425485#425485

    The New Mass – at its best – is not really a Catholic liturgy. It was not made for the worship of God that is His due, but was constructed for the sake of a modernist ecumenism that is contrary to reason, and that has always been condemned by the Catholic Church.[6] As early as 1933, St. Maximillion Kolbe rightly declared, “Ecumenism is the enemy of the Immaculata”[7] – the enemy of Our Lady herself!

    The reason I never attend the New Mass has never been the question of validity: is the consecration valid or not? To me, that’s not the issue. The reason I only attend the Tridentine Mass and never the New is because the New Mass is not really a Catholic form of worship. It is at its best – in its purest form – a modernist and Protestantized liturgy constructed to serve the false gods of liberalism and ecumenism.

    And it is the architects of the Mass who have told us this.

    Archbishop Annibale Bugnini admitted, “We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be a shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.”[8]

    Likewise, Journalist Jean Guitton, a close friend and confident of Pope Paul VI, confirmed that its was the direct aim of the Pope to protestantize the liturgy. In a radio interview in the 1990s, Guitton said:

    “The intention of Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy – but was is curious is that Paul VI did that to get as close as possible to the Protestant Lord’s supper… there was with Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too catholic, in the traditional sense, and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.”[9]
    Thus we better understand why Cardinal Ottaviani and the Roman Theologians say in the Critical Study:

    “It is obvious that the New Order of Mass has no intention of presenting the Faith taught by the Council of Trent. But it is to this Faith that the Catholic conscience is bound forever. Thus, the promulgation of the New Order of Mass, the true Catholic is faced with a tragic need to choose.”[10]

    Many of us choose to have nothing to do with this New Mass because it is not truly a Catholic form of worship.

  • Anonymous

    Quote:

    Vatican Cardinals Ottaviani [head of the Holy Office at the time] and Bacci, in their famous Letter to Pope Paul VI on June 5, 1969, (that accompanied the Critical Study) rightly warned that the New Mass “represents both in its whole and in its details a striking departure from the theology of the Mass as it was formulated by Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The ‘canons’ of the rite definitively fixed at that time erected an insurmountable barrier against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery.”[1]

    The Critical Study of the Roman Theologians on the New Mass, otherwise known as the “Ottaviani Intervention”, spotlighted the many deficiencies inherent in the New Mass: Here are some of the defects they noted:

    • A new definition of the Mass, as an ‘assembly’ rather than as a sacrifice offered to God;

    • Omissions of elements emphasizing the Catholic teaching that the Mass makes satisfaction for sins, a teaching utter rejected by Protestants;

    • The reduction of the priest’s role to a position approximating that of a Protestant Minister;

    • Implicit denials of Christ’s Real Presence and the doctrine of Transubstantiation;

    • The change of the Consecration from a sacramental action into a mere narrative retelling the story of the Last Supper;

    • The fragmentation of the Church’s unity of belief through the introduction of countless options;

    • Ambiguous language and equivocation through the rite which compromises the Church’s doctrine.[2]

    Further:

    • The Study said “It is obvious that the Novus Ordo obsessively emphasizes ‘supper’ and ‘memorial,’ instead of the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of the Cross.[3]

    • The Study points out that in the New Mass, “the central role of the Real Presence has been suppressed”.[4]

    • The Study accurately noted that the New Mass “has much to gladden the heart of the most modernist Protestant”.[5]

  • Anonymous

    If the Council was wrong, and you and the SSPX are correct, why is  it the Reformer of the Reform, Pope Benedict, bases practically everything he says on the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. Here is a quote from him for the 2011 World Day of Prayer for Vocations:
     
    The Second Vatican Council explicitly reminded us that “the duty of fostering vocations pertains to the whole Christian community, which should exercise it above all by a fully Christian life” (Optatam Totius). I wish, then, to say a special word of acknowledgment and encouragement to those who work closely in various ways with the priests in their parishes. In particular, I turn to those who can offer a specific contribution to the pastoral care of vocations: to priests, families, catechists and leaders of parish groups. I ask priests to testify to their communion with their bishop and their fellow priests, and thus to provide a rich soil for the seeds of a priestly vocation. May families be “animated by the spirit of faith and love and by the sense of duty” (Optatam Totius) which is capable of helping children to welcome generously the call to priesthood and to religious life. May catechists and leaders of Catholic groups and ecclesial movements, convinced of their educational mission, seek to “guide the young people entrusted to them so that these will recognize and freely accept a divine vocation”.

    Sensible people will follow Peter (Pope Benedict), and not Benedict Carter for their own sanity, and salvation.

  • James

     No, the person posting above clearly knows what he is talking about.  Rather than addressing the issue, you and other crazy people are merely pretending to be more Catholic than the Pope which is infantile and pathetic..!! SSPX = No difference from Luther and Cranmer!

  • Dominique

    Reading some  comments I can understand this: The Holy Father is caught between both your arguments. SSPX defends its views and remains fermly upon them, while “progressists” as called by them argue that they are misunderstood. The point is this: the church needs to find proper unity again. the pope is trying hard for this but see between what he is caught. This is worse than a political party!
    Both parts have to be reconciled. Leave one alone. Pray for unity. We are not that different after all. We are both right and wrong. We must make peace and stop this nonsense. If the Levebrist start understanding this too, negociation will advance more rapidly and more effectively for the good of the Church we all belong too. I know this demands grace, but it not for our personnal advantage but for the one of the church we love, the Catholic church.

  • Anonymous

    <>

    The true Catholic Church always has its “unity” in the “one faith, one lord, one baptism”. We profess the unity of the Catholic Church in the creed when we profess “One holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” The trouble is that the modernist Vatican doesnt believe in one faith, one Church: the heretics believe in ecumenism, in “many faiths, many churches, many lords and many gods”. They profess ecumenism and syncretism not Catholicism — that is why they are not Catholics but ecumenical syncretists. The modernists have cut themselves off from Catholic unity because they do not profess the Catholic creed with the role of the Church as the “one, true Church”. The modernists can return to Catholic unity only if they leave off their ecumenical and liberal heresies and profess the exclusivity of Catholicism as always professed by the faithful. But they dont want to be simple Catholics with the simple creed, they want to be ecumenical syncretists and likely they will die as such outside of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

    The modernist Vatican has betrayed and “cast out” the Church’s own loyal faithful in order to please the world (and esp. the rabbis). The modernists even allowed Archbishop Lefebvre to die “excommunicated”. That is unforgivable and the break will likely prove permanent. Vatican II is heretical and already anathema and eventually the traditional bishops of the world will all come together in a council to condemn it and to re-establish the Catholic papacy. Meanwhile the Vatican II Anti-Church will continue to collapse by its ecumenical nature.

    Outside the Church there is no salvation. No surrender to the modernists!

  • Timothy Johnson

    Convoked by Antipope John XXIII and concluded by Antipope Paul VI, the so-called “Vatican Council II” has nothing whatsoever to do with the Catholic Church. The freemason and modernist Angelo Roncalli had long ceased being a Catholic before his “election” in the 1958 conclave, a wholly illegal conclave that was hijacked by judaeo-masonic infiltrators.
    To Catholics who have yet to fall on their knees and humbly implore Almighty God, through the intercession of His Blessed Mother, for the specific grace of knowing whether the sedevacantist analysis is the true one, one must ask, “What are you waiting for? Why have you not already done this?”

  • Dallasgreenberg

    James ur boys many of them in the Mainstream visible Catholic church that we see day to day like celebrating with those who follow Luther and Cranmer.  Didn’t Pope Benedict XVI “celebrate” Lutheran services in his trip in Germany…  didn’t Pope John Paul II call Assisi and have services with Animists, Buddhists (placing Buddha on an alter) etc. Nice dishonesty over there bud, why don’t I give you a pack of gum as a reward…

  • Anthony

    Why would I listen to Malachi Martin? Instead of the magisterium? That doesnt sound like a Catholic approach to me.

  • Benedict Carter

    The Church is always “One”. Some of Her members may leave, but then they are outside the Church (to whit in our own days, all the neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant so-called liberal “Catholics”, dissenters, heretics). The Catholic Church remains One always. 

  • Benedict Carter

    A note to all readers. The above poster, well-known on the Damian Thompson blog in the Telegraph, is an imposter who in his first incarnation as “Anonymous11″ regularly wrote open heresy. As “Arthurthepriest” he attempts to gain credence for his dissenting views by pretending to be a Catholic priest. 

    He has been caught out in lies, engages in personal abuse all too regularly and is a poisonous individual whose sole aim is to silence the Traditionalist voice.

  • Anonymous

    The magisterium was infiltrated by the devil.  JPII tried to set things right.  Cdnl Raymond Burke was driven out of town here in St. Louis by liberal interests.  So, is that okay by the magisterium?  Ratzinger has to overcome a lousy time in the history of the Church with segments pushing for the new world government and equality for everyone.  This means a gay infiltrated priesthood cannot make sound moral judgments any longer especially here in the United States. 

  • Anonymous

    unfortunately, this is the truth. 

  • amfortas

    Ah yes, an article about SSPX was bound to bring out the loonies.

  • amfortas

    Actually, it was Pope Paul VI who described V2 as pastoral council.

  • amfortas

    I think you’ll find the Reformation pre-dated Trent which was part of the Catholic counter-reformation.

  • amfortas

    Contemporary Catholic liturgical practice maybe neo-protestant but the Novus Ordo as such is not. A simple reading of the texts makes that clear.

  • amfortas

    Very clever BC, position yourself as a reasoned debater. Behind the mask is a presbyterian loon.

  • amfortas

    BC, you are also well know from the Telegraph blogs as a presbyterian loon.

  • Arthurthepriest

    Benedict

    For the record I am a Roman Catholic Priest in active ministry, and I have only one posting name.

    You might also recall the following:
    Catechism of the Catholic Church:
    2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:
    - of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
    - of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;
    - of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

  • Arthurthepriest

    Benedict

    Would a person who claims to be a member of the “One” Church assent to the following teachings:

    1.
     
     Pope Benedict launching the Year of Faith, to mark the beginning of the Second Vatican Council, October 2011:
    “I feel more than ever in duty bound to point to the Council as the great grace bestowed on the Church in the twentieth century: there we find a sure compass by which to take our bearings in the century now beginning.”
    2. The Ordinary Form of the Mass is the norm for Catholics.
    3.Inter-faith dialogue and Ecumenism are an essential part of the Mission of the Church, and the call to a New Evangelisation.

    On the Damian Thompson blog you appear to deny all three, and indeed yours posts here  suggest similar leanings.

    I advise people to listen to, and follow, Pope Benedict, and not Benedict Carter.

  • Anonymous

    Benedict

    For the record I post under only one name. I am a Roman Catholic Priest.

    You might also note the following Church teaching:

    Catechism of the Catholic Church:

    2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:
    - of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
    - of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;
    - of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.”

    Dear Readers, Benedict posts under other names including “The Great Stalin”, and if people disagree with him he alleges they are, for example, alcoholic, insane, and a sexual deviant, and, as noted above, heresy.

    And yet he cannot say:

    1. The Ordinary Form of the Mass is the norm
    2. The Second Vatican Council is, as the current Pope says, central to our Mission and Teaching.
    3. Assisi 3 offers us a model for inter-faith, and ecumenical dialogue.

  • Anonymous

    The very fact that the Holy Father is negotiating with the Society demonstrates that all these arguments above about schism and sede-vacantism are completely redundant. What these discussions have done is to bring out the cause of the current crisis in sharp relief: and that cause is DOCTRINE. Even if the Society fail to do a deal with Rome it will never again be seriously accused of heresy or schism. Why do so many people hate the Society? Because the truth hurts!

  • Benedict Carter

    Presbyterian!!??!!