Fri 18th Apr 2014 | Last updated: Thu 17th Apr 2014 at 22:10pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Vatican tells SSPX: your response is not good enough

By on Friday, 16 March 2012

Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior of the SSPX, ordains a priest in Econe, Switzerland (Photo: CNS)

Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior of the SSPX, ordains a priest in Econe, Switzerland (Photo: CNS)

The Holy See has said that a statement by the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) is “not sufficient” to overcome the doctrinal problems that keep it estranged from Rome.

In a communiqué published today the Holy See asked Bishop Bernard Fellay, the superior of the SSPX, to “clarify his position in order to be able to heal the existing rift, as is the desire of Pope Benedict XVI”.

The SSPX statement had been a response to a “doctrinal preamble” issued by the Vatican outlining principles that would form the basis of any further discussion between the SSPX and Rome. The preamble, issued in September, had come at the end of years of talks.

Last November Bishop Fellay said that the preamble needed changes before it could be accepted as the basis for reconciliation.

He 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.

In its communiqué the Holy See said that the SSPX response had arrived in January.

  • Mdfutschik

    Don’t know about your 84 year old mother… you didn’t mention her in your post, so I wasn’t addressing anything about her.

  • Jae

    Well your evidence so far is, a liberal clergy here a traditionalist clergy there, as long as they spew some words that will will suits you and fit your presupposition against the pope and Church….very convient for you, brother? Then call that factual evidence. Do you want me to quote a Sedevacantist clergy appealing to Tradition that say SSPX is as liberal and a whore sleeping with the modernist Church?

  • Jae

    I did answer your charges against ecumenism, the problem is you ignored it, couldnt rebut it because you don’t dare to throw some Truth found in non catholic religions. If yes, then justify your answer. Now, my question to you is, WHERE in Tradition does it say a catholic can refuse obedience to any Council of the Church even pastoral in nature? WHERE in Tradition does it say a catholic can cherry pick which Council is orthodox according to ones interpretation?

    Don’t play blind again.

  • Jae

    Benedict, if you are not able to find a teaching from Tradition or the Scripture to support your answer if any to my question, then we must say it’s an extra biblical, man made pseudo doctrine which you are sadly a blind follower with blind obedience to a mere man named Bishop Lefebvre.

  • Jae

    The great obfuscation, we just gave concrete examples and rebut your allegations against false ecumenism yet you did nothing to respond…..still awaiting your rebuttal to my post above about the flawed interpretation of SSPX and on ecumenism.

    I answered your first allegation and you still haven’t given one iota of an answer to my question, WHERE in Tradition does it say a catholic can refuse obedience to any Council of the Church even pastoral in nature? Is it in Tradition a catholic can cherry pick and judge which Council he considers orthodox?

    So your answer? Hopefully not another question from you.

  • Jae

    Orthodox caved-in to an error…Artificial Contraception! plus they can’t convene an ecumenical Council which is a major characteristic of Jesus’s Church.

  • Anonymous

    a) As usual, I do not feel compelled to respond to the full detail of your comments

    b) I am in utter disagreement with your main point, as should be obvious

  • Anonymous

    Read his books for goodness sake!

    No, thanks !!

  • Anonymous

    Not a tactic

    Yeah right, as if I hadn’t seen it a hundred times before…

  • Anonymous

    “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus,” is as valid today a it was hundreds of years ago.

    Yes, but it is by no means certain that the Orthodox actually *are* extra Ecclesiam…

  • Anonymous

    Deflect, deflect, deflect, a well-known nu-Church tactic. Talk irrelevancies, as the point made cannot be answered. Deflect, deflect, deflect.

    This is rubbish, just as your tendency to describe any who might disagree with you as “liberals” “nu-Church” or “modernists” is rubbish.

    If any are attempting to “deflect”, it would appear to be you.

    Your response to some posts that disagree quite fundamentally with the actual liberal positions, is to accuse the people having written those posts of being “liberals”.

  • Angelo

    The Real Question here is, Will the SSPX accept the “Doctrinal Preamble”? Or will they forsake the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ? According to Vatican Council ll, if they remain outside the Church they have no salvation whatsoever even if they shed their blood for Christ. The SSPX needs to look at reality. And if they do they would be giving a great contribution for the Latin Tridentine Mass. Will they trade the truth for pride?

  • Anonymous

    There was very little ambiguity in Summorum Pontificum — but the same extremist liberals who created ambiguity ex nihilo from the Vatican II documents, used the same tactics to try and find it in the motu proprio.

    Give them an inch, and they will take a mile.

    It is probably a godsend that Pope Benedict XVI was personally subjected to this sort of rubbish — in such an easily corrected manner ; because it will have provided him with the personal experience that’s needed to weed out the so-called “ambiguities” of the Vatican II documents.

  • Benedict Carter

    The truth is precisely the question under discussion. 

  • Benedict Carter

    Jabba, if you knew something about the subjects you continually show your ignorance of before commenting, it would be better for you. 

  • Benedict Carter

    So don’t comment on his positions then, Jabba, if you know nothing about them.

  • Anonymous

    Let me ask you this, where in Tradition does it say a catholic can refuse obedience to any Council of the Church if it’s pastoral in nature?

    Just to answer this technical point — the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Canon Law establish the degree of cooperation and obedience that is expected of Catholics, as well as establishing those conditions where a failure of cooperation or a disobedience are not to be reprimanded.

    The simple existence of a personal disagreement can only be reprimanded where it concerns infallible doctrines or other similarly mandatory contents.

    Those Catholics having received any sacramental or Sacrament of Order have extra requirements of cooperation and obedience placed upon them than other Catholics ; therefore less freedom to express personal disagreements than others.

  • Anonymous

    Come on then – the challenge for you is to reconcile Vatican II’s document on Religious Liberty with the constant teaching of the Magisterium until that point.

    It is not possible to prove anything to someone who a priori denies the validity of the evidence, whilst simultaneously refusing to question the a priori position itself.

    Hence, I’m unsurprised that you appear to misunderstand the actual meaning of “hermeneutic of continuity” — hermeneutic is neither an easy word to understand, nor an easy discipline to put into practice — or you would understand that the very questions that you’re asking are among the very contents of the hermeneutic of continuity itself !!!

    The hermeneutic of continuity *requires* that traditional Catholicism MUST define the conditions of a proper interpretation of the Vatican II Council.

    It is an exegetic attempt towards the denial of the liberal excesses, and most certainly not some sort of magic word like abracadabra to make them permanent.

  • Anonymous

    If you were to end your blanket assumptions that I didn’t, this would be more helpful.

    Your notion is that your positions constitute knowledge, and that failure to hold such positions constitutes ignorance.

  • Anonymous

    There is a vast difference between being somewhat aware of his positions and knowing “nothing” about them, dear Benedict.

    Quite apart from which, I had already made plainly clear that my knowledge of those positions has its limits, so that I’m not sure if you have any actual point here.

  • buckle

    This is wishful thinking. The letter was extracted from him by the bishops as the price to be paid for the SP itself. It was a quid pro quo arrangement where the letter was implemented but not the SP. It is a cafeteria Catholicism in action.

  • Anonymous

    Quid est veritas ?

    Indeed !! :-)

  • Anonymous

    Amen !!!!

  • anthony

    Youre right.. the Pope and the Vatican have been somewhat hesistant is excommunicating goats who confuse the flock.. the chief duty of the magisterium is to provide clarity .. 

  • CatholicVoice

    True Catholics pray that the SSPX ceases forthwith these faithless negotiations with the counterfeit church of Vatican II. Christ has no fellowship with Belial. Neither do Catholics with the judaeo-masonic infiltrators and apostates who seized control of the Church’s visible institutions after the death of Pope Pius XII.
    Those whose prefer to be in “good standing” with the antichurch (and its antipope) rather than to be persecuted for holding on to the faith of all time will receive their just reward. It begins even here with their profound moral blindness, their utter inability to distinguish Christ’s True Church (now in eclipse) from this repulsive modernist simulacrum which persecutes traditional Catholics.
    We don’t know the original, authentic text of the word of Our Lady of Salette (still unpublished) but we can be reasonably confident that they contained the prediction inscribed in the later version: Rome will become the Seat of the Antichrist.
    Don’t be fooled. The Church has changed her teaching in no way at all. Everything the Saints and Martyrs died for is as true and holy as it will be for eternity, Amen. The heretics, the perverts, the colluders with Christ’s inveterate enemies (e.g. the ADL) - all will be thrown into Hell unless they repent. Being in their “good books” is worse than nothing. It will ultimately exclude us from the true book, the Book of Life.
    Pray. Study. Inform yourself about the true situation in the Church. Don’t follow blind, self-serving leaders who daily refuse God’s invitation to sacrifice all to retain the Pearl of Catholic Truth and Holiness. You could perhaps start by visiting http://www.vaticancatholic.com.

  • buckle

    I am not convinced that infiltration was required to subvert the Church. The disaster emanates from the two great wars. The second of the which saw the ideologies of the two victors, USA and the Soviet Union, integrated into mainstream Catholic theology in the immediate post-war era. For the first time in its history Europe no longer controlled its own destiny leading to a loss of confidence which spead en masse to European Catholic thinkers. As Lord Clark stated in his 1969 masterpeice “Civilization” – confidence is the key to the survival of any community. 

    I see no end to this crisis in the short term from within the ranks of the Church so events external to the Church will now determine its future – God help us.

  • Anonymous

    Something had to change, greater ecumenicism was needed, Protestants and Jews should be the allies of Catholics, not enemies. Latin was getting to look a bit silly, especially with expansion into Africa and Asia. If you look at the actual documents of V2 and not the “spirit of v2″ interpretations, it all seems pretty reasonable. In any case, it IS a valid council so, to be frank, either get used to it or have a seat with SSPX… sorry to say.

  • CatholicVoice

    Thanks for reply. But you’re not seeing things aright. It can take a while, even for genuine truth-seekers (of which there are few).
    (1) Neither the Church nor her theology has been subverted. That can never be. This is a matter of doctrine based on Christ’s promises. No, the infiltrators may have seized her visible institutions including the papacy, but cut off from the living sap (like the bogus Anglican religion), their ill-gotten gains no longer form part of the Church. Recall what happened when Satan attempted to seize the papacy in Revelation (12.4-5). He failed. The child (the true papacy) was simply removed by God for a period of time, and the Woman (the True Church) fled into the wilderness where she was protected (although many of her offspring were confused and remained trapped in Satan’s new simulacrum “church”). Satan was left holding an antipapacy, not the true papacy. Naturally he took his protest to Heaven, but lost his case (7-10). He can never subvert the true Church, but what he can do (and has done) is create a deceptive replica.
    (2) The World Wars (including the Third almost upon us) were planned and implemented by the same judaeo-masonic powers that infiltrated the Church’s institutions. And the mastermind behind all was Satan himself. He communicated his blueprint for these wars to Albert Pike, a Jew and Freemason in the late 1800s. This is hotly denied of course by those today implicated in the conspiracy, just as is the genuiness of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. But the nigh perfect correlation of subsequent events utterly disproves these vain denials.
    (3) The Church cannot be subverted, but this doesn’t stop Satan from trying, and he has done so ever since the time of Christ. His plans became particularly sophisticated from the 18th century onwards. Perhaps you should start by reading the Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita, and then investigate the abortive Rampolla takeover and the subsequent Roncalli/Montini connection. Don’t expect the BBC (an agency of these same antichristic hidden powers) to offer more light than darkness on the real history of the world. It’s rabidly anti-Catholic and loves to pander to dilettantes.

  • http://www.azoic.com/ Irenaeus of New York

    Let us pray for reconciliation. 

  • Anonymous

    Amen

  • Anonymous

    I did not mean to suggest that I was blithely unaware of the political aspect. :)

  • Benedict Carter

    Goes back to the 19th century, and the first Modernists. It is they who won at Vatican II and who have just about destroyed the Church with their “Reformation” Mark II. 

  • Brian A. Cook

     I don’t’ know what to tell you.

  • Brian A. Cook

     I don’t know what to tell you. 

  • Brian A. Cook

     I don’t know what to tell you.

  • Brian A. Cook

    I don’t know what to tell you.

  • Brian A. Cook

     Thank you. 

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/ EditorCT

    I’ve just posted this comment on the Catholic Truth blog but cannot resist posting it here as well.

    Here’s a howler, folks.

    A reader rang me a short time ago to say he’s just read the Catholic Herald for this week. Luke Coppen’s editorial is on the subject of the Vatican admonishment to Bishop Fellay that he needs to clarify his position. Luke’s concluding advice to Bishop Fellay is to be more concerned about the unity of the Church than the unity of his organisation (SSPX) – you truly could not make it up.

    Then, by way of ironic masterpiece, a columnist (forget which one) opines that we need “another Rowan” – that is, another pro-”gay”, pro-women priests/bishops “Archbisop” of Canterbury!

    And this, for the benefit of those of you across the pond, is considered to be the best of the bunch (of Catholic newspapers) over here.

    Gimme strength!

  • Benedict Carter

    I can help you. 

    You could write for instance, “I don’t know what to tell you because I have nothing to say, having no understanding of the issues at all”.

    That would sum up your contributions nicely. 

  • JabbaPapa

    I think that any opinions based on the concept that the Vatican issued an “admonishment” or “ultimatum” to Fellay are derived from some non-factual reporting.

    In fact, the dialogue is continuing — and Fellay appears to have given some encouraging signs that agreement upon the doctrinal issues continues to progress.

    All that the communiqué says concerning “one month” is that this is the time that has been set for the next regular examination of the situation.

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/ EditorCT

    “concept … admonishment …derived from non-factual reporting” Tell that to the person who wrote the above headline!

    By the way, it’s Bishop Fellay – not “Fellay”. Contrary to Modernist claptrap, he is a very real Bishop of the Catholic Church – unlike the schismatic Rowan Williams, that the Herald would like to see multiplied!   Talk about Theology for the Brain Dead…

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/ EditorCT

    “concept … admonishment …derived from non-factual reporting” Tell that to the person who wrote the above headline!

    By the way, it’s Bishop Fellay – not “Fellay”. Contrary to Modernist claptrap, he is a very real Bishop of the Catholic Church – unlike the schismatic Rowan Williams, that the Herald would like to see multiplied!   Talk about Theology for the Brain Dead…

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/ EditorCT

    “concept … admonishment …derived from non-factual reporting” Tell that to the person who wrote the above headline!

    By the way, it’s Bishop Fellay – not “Fellay”. Contrary to Modernist claptrap, he is a very real Bishop of the Catholic Church – unlike the schismatic Rowan Williams, that the Herald would like to see multiplied!   Talk about Theology for the Brain Dead…

  • JabbaPapa

    Cripes. Seems that one can be accused of modernism in here at the drop of a pin !!!

    No need to get so excited, I have an increasing degree of respect for +Fellay and for his clearly Catholic intentions.

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/ EditorCT

    I appreciate that.  In case you’ve missed it, there is a video cip of Bishop Fellay giving a talk on how the inter-faith dialogue (such as that resulting in the Assisi events) is effectively asking Our Lord “to step down”.  There is a comical analogy of the one true Church of Christ using airplanes.  You can see/hear him at http://www.catholictruthscotland.com by clicking on the new section on The Church…

    Profound AND comical – enjoy!

  • Ga343

    Cardinal Ratzinger was the mediator for Pope Paul VI when the SSPX broke off. This is the first schism since the Vatican Council. Why bother with this offshoot and bend over backwards to bring them back. We better concentrate with reunion with our Lutheran and Orthodox brothers. This SSPX has been in schism for years and still take a stubborn intransigent position. Why bother with them. Don’t we have better issues to deal with.If the Holy Spirit is not on their side Let them just wither away. It seems Benedict16 takes this as a personal defeat that he was not able to make a reconciliation all these years!

  • JabbaPapa

    What tosh !!

    The SSPX excommunications for schism involved certain individuals and their unilateral decisions to proceed with some unsanctioned (and therefore illicit) ordinations — whilst the Holy See was acting, albeit perhaps rather slowly, to try and secure a good candidate to be a Bishop towards the SSPX.

    No matter how some of the more radical SSPX crowd may present things, from a more generally Catholic point of view, this was a disciplinary schism, NOT a doctrinal schism.

    SSPX has NEVER been in a state of doctrinal schism from the Catholic Church, but there have been a certain number of erroneous doctrinal positions taken by a certain number of people either directly involved in the rupture or contributing implicitly towards its existence.

    The more extremist bridge-burners in the SSPX are certainly bad news ; but the Traditionalist friends that I have met on the Camino de Santiago, in various places online, in my diocese and my Church life, deserve far, Far, FAR better from their fellow Catholics and brothers and sisters in Christ than this odious suggestion of yours to “let them just wither away” …

    Such words as yours come not from the Kingdom of God, but from another place entirely…

  • buckle

    BC you are legend on the blogs but you’ve got to forget this Malachi Martin crap.

    British trads “want their cake and eat it”. The British start a World War, assist in the denazification of the conquered (who were actually blown to bits by their conquerors) and then wonder why the theologians of said country emerge in a somewhat incoherent state as they precede to impose their self-hatred and guilt on any institution of which they are part.

    Who needs a conspiracy theory?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509432307 Carl Betts

    Elevated to sainthood for obstinate refusal to submit to the Holy See? Preposterous. You cannot accept earlier councils while rejecting Vatican II. The both have the same authority. 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Q2WGFXLGRYZP5QYQRUPSXEQF54 John

    VatII was a pastoral council, not even a real council, there is nothing there to accept. All the damage has been done by the “interpretation of the council”. This is the excuse that’s always used anyway so that conveniently there is no one and nothing to blame. “It’s just a bad interpretation of the council”.. yeah sure.