Thu 2nd Oct 2014 | Last updated: Wed 1st Oct 2014 at 15:58pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

SSPX leader: we do not have to accept the whole of Vatican II

By on Thursday, 7 June 2012

Bishop Fellay (CNS photo)

Bishop Fellay (CNS photo)

The leader of the traditionalist Society of St Pius X has said talks with the Vatican demonstrate that “Rome no longer makes total acceptance” of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council a condition for his group’s full reconciliation with the Church.

Accepting the Council’s teaching is no longer “a prerequisite for the canonical solution” of the status of the society, according to Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the SSPX.

In an interview published today on the society’s news site, www.dici.org, Bishop Fellay said it was the Vatican that approached the society, and not the society that went to the Vatican, asking to begin the talks.

“So the attitude of the official Church is what changed; we did not,” he said. “We were not the ones who asked for an agreement; the Pope is the one who wants to recognise us.”

In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications that had been incurred by Bishop Fellay and other SSPX bishops when they were ordained without papal permission 11 years earlier. Also in 2009, the Pope established a Vatican committee to hold doctrinal talks with society representatives.

In September 2011, the Vatican gave Bishop Fellay a “doctrinal preamble” outlining “some doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation of Catholic doctrine necessary to guarantee fidelity” to the formal teaching of the Church. Neither the Vatican nor the SSPX has made the text public, but the Vatican said it 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 Church.

Bishop Fellay submitted his first response to the document in March, but the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the approval of Pope Benedict, defined it as “insufficient”. The bishop gave the Vatican his second response in April and, as of June 7, it was still under study at the Vatican.

In the interview on the SSPX website, Bishop Fellay said: “We are still not in agreement doctrinally, and yet the Pope wants to recognise us. Why? The answer is right in front of us: there are terribly important problems in the Church today.”

The reconciliation talks, he said, are a sign that the Catholic Church has begun to recognise it needs to recover traditions and traditional teaching eclipsed by the Second Vatican Council. If the SSPX were to reconcile fully with the Church, Bishop Fellay said, its members would continue to denounce “doctrinal difficulties” in the Church, but would do so while also providing “tangible signs of the vitality of tradition” in its growing membership and vocation rate.

Speaking to members of the SSPX who are wary of reconciliation, Bishop Fellay said “one of the great dangers is to end up inventing an idea of the Church that appears ideal, but is in fact not found in the real history of the Church”.

“Some claim that in order to work ‘safely’ in the Church, she must first be cleansed of all error. This is what they say when they declare that Rome must convert before any agreement, or that its errors must first be suppressed so that we can work,” he said.

But the reality of the Church’s history shows that “often, and almost always, we see that there are widespread errors” and that God calls holy men and women to work within the Church to correct the errors, Bishop Fellay said.

“We are being asked to come and work just as all the reforming saints of all times did,” he said.

Bishop Fellay said he did not have a timetable for the conclusion of the talks. “There are even some who say that the Pope will deal with this matter at [the papal summer villa in] Castel Gandolfo in July.”

  • Patrick_Hadley

    Remember the Punch cartoon called The Curate’s Egg? The bishop says, “I’m afraid you’ve got a bad egg, Mr Jones.” The curate
    replies, “Oh, no, my Lord, I assure you that parts of it are excellent!” – The point being that if any part of an egg is bad then the egg is no good at all.

    The same is true for catechisms. Who wants a catechism that contains heresy?

  • JabbaPapa

    Sounds like Bishop Fellay is interpreting the overtures made by the Pope as a sign of weakness.

    ???????????????

    This is ludicrous !! These overtures are a sign of the true strength of the Church !!!

  • JabbaPapa

    Indeed — Muslims recognise that there is only one God, which is at least better than atheism, because it avoids the one unforgivable sin.

  • Nat_ons

    Now this is the true spirit of any loyal opposition, thank the good Lord. Not a Magisterium of Nuns contra magisterium and their head-line-seeking crew protesting against the correction of their egregious errors; rather, it is a working to put things right. Or at least – as His Grace, Bishop Fellay SSPX, points out with stunningly clear orthodoxy, compassion and understanding – doing what one can best do (amid so many turbulent can’ts, won’ts, isn’ts); who knows what opposition awaits any SSPX with Benedict XVI from within its ranks (and from the many rank egos still making Benedict XVI’s rule a struggle).

  • JabbaPapa

    The Catechism contains, in fact, no heresies.

    There are some cases of individual doctrines in the Catechism where some degree of dissent with them may be licit, up to a point, but to describe them as “heretical” constitutes a heresy in and of itself — as well as being in the vein of some forms of American Protestantism, which loves nothing better than to accuse these or those of “heresy”…

    To say this more technically, there are some doctrines in the Catechism that admit of more than one admissible interpretation, including some cases where contradicting interpretations are admissible. The doctrine of Religious Freedom is one such doctrine admitting of multiple interpretations.

    To insist that only one such interpretation is valid, with no Authority to do so from Pope, Magisterium, or CDF ; and especially from there to claim that the other admissible interpretations are “false” ; constitutes heresy of the first order, that is to say an exclusive doctrinal “choice” claiming that some perfectly licit interpretations of doctrine, Scripture, whatever are “wrong”, but that one’s own interpretation is systematically “correct”.

    To claim that one’s own interpretation of a doctrine that is defined as a question, rather than as a statement, is valid and that other interpretations are wrong, in the course of a discussion is fine — but to *teach* that the other ones are wrong isn’t.

    There’s a grey area between the two, of course, and this question of multiple possible interpretations does not apply, naturally, to any infallible statements of doctrine and the other Authoritative dogmata of the Reposit of the Faith… :-)

  • rjt1

    A sign of his great love. 

  • JabbaPapa

    It’s usually an unnecessary tautology rather than an “error”, but there are cases where the adjective has some actual distinctive meaning. Whatever … :-)

  • JabbaPapa

    A priest of SSPX who were regularly attached to a diocese could in some cases be religiously required to attend certain NO Masses of the diocese, and to co-celebrate such Masses.

    et cetera

  • JabbaPapa

    Overall you’re right, but in the detail you’re being far too black and white ; fallible and infallible.

    *Some* Catholic doctrines can be determined in that binary manner, but a great many Catholic doctrines belong to various intermediary stages between complete infallibility, and complete fallibility.

  • JabbaPapa

    In the interview Fellay makes it clear that after any reconciliation he
    and the members of his fraternity are going to continue to make public
    their denouncement of “doctrinal difficulties” in Vatican II.

    Such an activity, given which are the doctrines in question, is both permissible and licit within Catholicism.

    Only one of the doctrines in question (Religious Freedom) is concerned with infallibility, and the Vatican II statement of the doctrine is is a confused state of relationship with an earlier infallible statement of the doctrine, that has not yet been clarified by the Magisterium, CDF, or Pope.

  • JabbaPapa

    People are often confused — purely pastoral teachings are “doctrines”, even though they may be entirely fallible ones, and despite the fact that they do not constitute theological statements.

  • Parepidemos

    Perhaps this term is used because the SSPX broke away from the Roman branch of the Catholic Church. I do agree that there are many today who, erroniously, equate the Roman Caholic Church with the Catholic Church. In doing so, they (unintentionally) forget/ignore/insult those members of the Eastern Rite. This attitude certainly does not promote any reunion with our Orthodox brethren.

  • Chris

    Well said. People forget that the SSPX are dissenters and dissention is dissention whether it comes from the left wing or right wing.

  • Chris

    Exactly. Bishop Fellay appears to be saying that Benedict XVI is admitting he was wrong and the SSPX were right; this is arrogance on the part of the SSPX. As you said “ludicrous!.

  • Chris

    What do you understand a modernist to be?

  • EditorCT

    Behave yourself. There are no “branches” of the Catholic Church. There’s only one true Church founded on the Petrine rock. Get over it.

  • Jeremy Dobbs

     Archbishop Lefebvre himself signed 14 of the 16 documents (except Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes). The SSPX does not claim that Vatican II directly contradicts the Faith, with the only possible exception being from DH 4: “Provided the just demands of public order are observed, religious
    communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may
    govern themselves according to their own norms, honor the Supreme Being
    in public worship, assist their members in the
    practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction, and
    promote institutions in which they may join together for the
    purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious
    principles. … Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their
    public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the
    spoken or by the written word.” Compare that to the condemnations of Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors: “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by
    the light of reason, he shall consider true.” #15. “Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that
    persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own
    peculiar worship.” #78. As the Syllabus of Errors was an infallible pronouncement of doctrine, it does need to be reconciled to Dignitatis Humanae. We can certainly understand saying, “It is expedient in these times that we tolerate false religion displayed publicly”. But by inserting the word “right”, we have a problem that cannot be swept under a rug

  • Tom

    Praise God-I LOVE IT :))))) THERE IS ONLY ONE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH PERIOD! ! ! 

  • Jae

    So now a canonized Saint of the Church St. Pope Gregory VII was wrong because he didn’t agree with you and Ab Lefebvre? How about the saintly traditionalist Archbishop Fulton Sheen who agrees with St. pope Gregory?

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

    The Reformation Protestants who added “Roman” to the Church’s name certainly didn’t think it was “holy”. Period!
    http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm

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

    If the quote provided is accurate, then Pope Gregory was wrong – not because he didn’t agree with me, but because Muslims clearly do NOT believe in the same One God that we
     do, but since there weren’t a lot of Korans floating about in the 11th century, he is unlikely to be culpable for his ignorance on the subject.  We believe in God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  Muslims THINK we believe in One God, Father, Son and Mary (!) and, in any case, they condemn the doctrine of the Trinity outright. Check it out for yourself. I forget the exact Sura, but it will be readily Google-able.  And let this be a learning experience for you – popes are only guaranteed to be infallible when teaching the CATHOLIC faith – not Islam!
     

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

    Hardly.   Pope John XXII taught (in his personal writings and speeches) that there is only one judgement, at the end of time.  He denied that at death each soul has its own private, particular judgement.  He recanted on his deathbed, but nobody could describe his error as merely an example of “tautology” – he wasn’t saying the same thing that the Church teaches, in different words. He denied a doctrine. No question.

    The only defence is that he did not make his error binding on the Church. His error, like those of Pope Benedict XVI on condoms, for example, are found either in his private writings (like the Seewald interview) or in private speeches.  Not in formally binding Catholic teaching; that’s the (limited)  guarantee of papal infallibility at work. Only this week in the Catholic Times, we find Mgr Basil Loftus quoting “Professor” Ratzinger in the days when he publicly supported a review of Catholic teaching on divorce, remarriage, access to Holy Communion.  But Pope Benedict has not only NOT imposed that false teaching on the Church but he has publicly restated the indissolubility of marriage etc. It’s just amazing how many Catholics think that if the pope says it’s going to rain, will run out and buy a brolly. 

    As Bishop Fellay rightly said, there have and always will be errors floating around the Church. I thought his answer to the problem, spot on.

  • jflare29

    While I think it laudable that Abp Lefebvre may not have dissented as badly as I might’ve previously understood, I think there’s another problem.
    If the objections to Vatican II had been only what you’ve listed above, I’m thinking the Society would’ve had ample cause to make this case no later than the mid-1970′s and the Church would’ve had just cause to consider them. But that isn’t what I’ve seen. I HAVE seen SSPX reaction range all the way to accusing people of heresy when we mention Vatican II.

    Rights of a community cannot be swept under a rug, true. However, when a Society insists on consecrating a bishops against the express wishes of the Pope, then implying for many years that Rome has it wrong, I can’t sweep that under the rug either.
    Thus, though regrettable, I have little choice but to be more than a little suspicious of the Society’s views.

  • pete

    Actually, the Bishop is right, for the simple reason that Vat II was PURPOSELY NOT A DOCTRINAL COUNCIL, SO THAT WHILE CANONICAL AND AUTHORITATIVE IT HAS THE BINDING POWER OF A COLLECTIVE PASTORAL LETTER. And let’s get it straight, there is absolutely no requirement at all to think that the Holy Spirit positively inspired the Council or its texts. Though Bld. John XXIII THOUGHT he was inspired by his Guardian Angel in calling the Council, that MAY OR MAY NOT BE TRUE, because according to Catholic Truth the grace of infallibility IS NEGATIVE, NOT POSITIVE, ie PREVENTS ERROR in what the human agent asserts in definite circumstances defined by Vat I and WHICH DOES NOT APPLY TO PRUDENTIAL DECISIONS. AND there are STRONG INDICATIONS THAT IT WAS the Pope’s own brain-child, So when Council  TEXTS  REPEAT DOCTRINALLY BINDING TEACHING FROM THE PAST, all are to accept them by virtue of TRADITION, not by virtue of the authority of the Council. The rest MUST BE LISTENED TO AND GIVEN A PRESUMPTION OF AUTHENTICTY, BUT NOT REQUIRED SUCH THAT ONE IS EXCLUDED FROM THE CHURCH IF ONE SEES AMBIGUOUS TEXTS OR SOME CONTRADICTORY TO ESTABLISHED THEOLOGYAND SO DOES NOT ACCEPT THEM. Magisterial authority HAS THE OBLIGATION  to clarify in what precise sense an ambiguous text must be understood as the Catholic meaning, something Bishop Schneider of Khazakhstan has called for to no avail.  John XXIII called the Council in January 1959 to counter his correct perception that the laity were drifting away significantly from the practice of the Faith in the modern culture, especially in the West..  But Heaven ALREADY HAD A PLAN IN PLACE TO SOLVE THIS: the PUBLIC PROPHECY DELIVERED TO THE CHURCH AT FATIMA through private revelation. When the Pope got around to considering the unveiling the Third Secret by 1960 as instructed by Our Lady according to Sr. Lucia, it was in AUGUST 1959, by which time his project was already on the move. He did not like what he read and deep-sixed it. Apparently he, who came from a peasant family, thought Sr. Lucy mixed some peasant superstition with the authentic message. BUT THE RESULT WAS INSTANTANEOUS: FATIMA WAS DISPLACED AND THE ENTIRE CHURCH PRETTY MUCH WAS DISTRACTED (one of the tactics of the Enemy) FROM THAT WARNING until our own day from. This is no different from the kings of Judah ignoring prophecy which led to the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and Exile.
    Thus WHILE THE COUNCIL DID MAKE SOME VERY GOOD DECISIONS, IT ALSO GAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE ENEMY TO INTRODUCE THE SPIRIT OF THE WORLD INTO THE CHURCH IN A FORCEFUL DISORIENTATION THAT IS EVIDENT, though today we see the reassertion of orthodoxy and even practice among the remnant. After the Council under Paul VI practical errors of the highest imprudence ruled the day in almost every aspect of Church life, despite many good things ALSO occurring. BUT you can not kick out of the Church those who call a spade a spade and keep to the Tradition/tradition they were taught by the Church herself in a period of confusion, massive change and down right ERROR IN FACT, IF NOT TECHNICALLY DE JURE. Our humble and genius Benedict sees their predicament. After all legions of heretics are still in positions of influence and not disciplined for decades, while those who keep to what the Church gave them, even if rigidly in some cases (not in ALL) should DEFINITELY be given slack to say the least.

  • JabbaPapa

    The word Catholic actually has multiple meanings, but of course where it is used to refer to the Universal Church of Christ, using the “Roman” would be mistaken, you’re right.

    But when referring to the earthly Church, the same is not always true.

  • Mdbauer

    Vatican II is the one that needs changed. Bishop Fellay is right by sticking to his guns. Some of the things these last two popes say, is complete heretical. If a pope is a proven heretic, he cannot be pope, and should be relieved of his duties. The way the last two popes are saying that anti-christ religions are great religions and that they have a place in this world , should be proof enough. The Dogma’s of the Holy Catholic Church are the mere foundation of her. . I salute all the clergy that stand by the true Dogma’s of the Holy Catholic Church.,for they are the true followers of Jesus Christ The Son Of The Ever Living God..

  • Patrick_Hadley

    We know that the Pope is personally considering the SSPX reply. But was it wise for the Pope to have allowed himself to be trapped in this corner? He should have appointed his most trusted theologians to negotiate with SSPX and after considering the results of that negotiation got them to send the SSPX a final position paper that they had to accept in its entirety and without reservation. Leaving the decision totally in the hands of the SSPX would have been tactically much more astute.

    I suspect that the SSPX final reply to the Doctrinal Preamble is in a nutshell: “We accept everything in Vatican II that is in conformity and continuity with the infallible dogmas and traditional doctrines of the Catholic Church.” If Benedict were to accept this then he could also reconcile with the Rev Ian Paisley who could declare, “I accept as true everything taught by the Roman Catholic Church that is in conformity and continuity with the truth as revealed in the Bible.”

    Conditional affirmations based on mental reservations of that sort are worthless, and it would be ridiculous for the Pope to accept one.

  • Sweetjae

    I know what you are saying but that’s the way they are born and raised, that’s
    the way they understand the concept of God…as literally One as the Old
    Testament people of God were (Moses, David, Eijah, Isaiah etc).So following your logic, did the Isralites  and the Prophets worshipped another God?

    Anyways,
    let us get to the meat of the argument, do you think of any other God when we
    say God of Abraham? Do you think that our patriarch Abraham worshipped another
    God besides the God of Abraham? Be careful of your answer, Mr. EditorCt.

  • Sweetjae

    You guys are also the ones who brought of the novel idea of “Eternal Rome”? Who for SSPX and your standard?

    Anyways there is no problem even if you add “Roman” to Catholic Church because only for identity’s sake at that time and also the headquarters of the Catholic Church is IN THE SEE OF ROME, St. Iranaeus, Augustine, Aquinas etc, didnt seem to have a problem with only the Sedes and SSPX do. (probably because of their “eternal rome” doctrine?)

  • Paul

    JabbaPapa, Many thanks.
    I do not know what question(s) you are answering here.
    If you have an alternative answer to Doug Pearson’s question I would be happy to hear it.   

  • john654

    Amen!

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

    I never use the term “Eternal Rome” so don’t know what you are talking about. I suspect if is something you’ve heard from the SSPX as a means of underlining the fact that they accept all that is Traditional in the Church and just reject – rightly – those anti-Catholic novelties which have poisoned the faith of so many Catholics these past fifty years.  Just another way of describing “Tradition” I suspect.  In any case, I hardly think EWTN could be accused of being SSPX-sympathisers – the article I linked for your information is from their website, not from any SSPX source.

    Saints Iraneous, Augustine, Aquinas “etc” lived centuries before the Reformation, so obviously they didn’t have a problem with “Roman Catholic” – the description (she said wearily) dates from the Protestant Reformation to give the impression that their brand new church was the real thing and the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ was merely one branch of said Church.

    But listen, go ahead. Use the Protestant name if you wish. It’s hardly worth the hassle trying to educate folk in this matter when they struggle to understand the idea that Catholic Tradition is – alongside Scripture – integral to authentic Catholicism. Did you READ the EWTN article?

  • HapHarris

    Tell me the Church of Rome is not totally embroiled in the Great Apostasy as revealed by Cardinal Mario Luigi Ciappi, who  In his letter to one Professor Baumgartner said: “In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.” 

    Today the Church of Rome is no longer One, it is Many.  It is no longer Holy, it is Wholly.  It is Catholic is name only.  It is no longer Apostolic, it is Ecumenical.  

    By not Consecrating Russia to Our Mother’s Most Immaculate Heart the Church of Rome has essentially told our God…No (!) we will not obey Your Mandate (!)..delivered by Your Mother, Certified by the Great Miracle of the Sun and witnessed by more than 70,000 people-!!   By their “recalcitrance” the Pope and his Bishops are guilty of  “Crimes Against Humanity” thus making them Apostates-!!   Add to this: Just as surely as Our Blessed Lord was betrayed by Judas Iscariot with a kiss: The Modernist / Marxists  Policy Wonks of the Second Vatican Council betrayed the Mystical Body of Christ with their false teachings and novelties.

    As I read between the lines it seems to me that both Bishop Fellay and Pope Benedict XVI are divided in their minds…wishing to have things both ways. The SSPX has done its Christian Duty in advising those who are in Error and Heresy of their failings. There can be no favorable agreement with Rome until Rome returns to the Time Honored Traditions, Doctrines, and Dogmas of the once “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” of Antiquity. The true Content of the Faith now resides in Econe where it was delivered by Archbishop Lefebvre while in the Company of the Holy Spirit.  

    In all candor: The Society of St. Pius X, today, [IS] the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Antiquity in exile from Rome. In light of the false precepts of Vat II  together with the refusal to Consecrate Russia, while hobnobbing with the false religions of the world; it would seem to me Rome has lost all it’s moral authority.  The gathering at Assisi with all the false religions makes me suspicious that even Benedict XVI may be contemplating the New World Order with it’s One World Religion concept.  

    It is far past time for the SSPX to quit schmoozing with Anti-Apostles like Archbishop Levada, turn away from Rome and wait for Rome to emerge from the Tomb it has carved out for itself. [I am told there is the dissension within the Vatican itself that well may lead to revolution from inside.]
     
    Our Holy Mother has promised: “In the end the Pope and his bishops will consecrate Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and , the world will be given a period of peace.”  After WWIII begins consider how few bishops may be required to make the Consecration. She has also said, speaking of these end times: “Only I can help you.”

  • Slottech01

    Berny Fellay does not speak for us . There have been many talks amongst the people of the SSPX many will leave if this was to happen . We all know the Pope is full of deceit . Bernard Fellay is doing this for himself . He is a traitor . How can you say its for the better . To trust a bishop who oust his own priest for speaking the truth . Thank God for OUR LADY OF THE MIRACULOUS METAL SOCIETY because thats were we started to go to . I have met many ex sspx parishioners there . Berny Fellay will have to answer for this .

  • Kevin Beach

    In the history of the Church, has any other group publicly disagreed with the pronouncements of a Church Council, to the extent of creating a schism, and then been readmitted to the Church without recanting?

    The Second Vatican Council was called by one Pope and confirmed by three others: four successors of Peter, two of whom presided over the Council. “Whatever you [Peter] shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven. Whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven”. How can they have the nerve to defy Popes in Council and claim to be loyal to the Church?

    Peter and his successors are the Rock upon which Jesus has built His Church. Defy them on matters of faith or morals and you start chiselling away at Christ’s Rock. Vatican 2 may not have technically been a doctrinal council, but it still pronounced on many issues of faith and morals. It is delusional to suppose that you can publicly reject it just because it doesn’t fit into your personal idea of what the Church should be and stay in the Church.

  • rtsully1297

    Something must be going on, normally Bishop Fellay comments are not covered by main stream ‘catholic’ press.   
     

  • JabbaPapa

    Even though you’re asking an irrelevant question :

    In the history of the Church, has any other group publicly disagreed
    with the pronouncements of a Church Council, to the extent of creating a
    schism, and then been readmitted to the Church without recanting?

    YES : the Anglo-Catholics admitted into the various Ordinariates have not been forced to recant the **numerous** heretical errors of Anglicanism, but have instead been asked to give their simpler and more positive Profession of Catholic Faith in the Holy Sacrament of Confirmation.

    But the question is irrelevant — were guilty of “schism” (canonically, NOT doctrinally) the four ordained bishops, and the two ordaining bishops ONLY.

    SSPX as a group OTOH has NEVER been accurately described as “schismatic” by ANYONE.

  • JabbaPapa

    I’m sad for you — that road and that attitude leads only towards schismatic heterodoxy…

    Pray to Santiago for help and assistance to choose the rightful path according to the Will of our Lord : the Apostle is of great assistance to those who are stranded in whichever wilderness.

  • JabbaPapa

    This is heterodoxy, and it’s the pathway to Apostasy.

    You have NO Authority whatsoever to interpret the meanings of the Secrets of Fatima as you have done.

    Start praying for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart instead !!

  • JabbaPapa

    There are many errors tending towards schism and heterodoxy that have been posted last night.

    Recognising the existence of other religions — and their undeniable, real, material extent and importance in the World — does NOT in fact constitute promoting “anti-christ religions”.

    Your suggestion that the Pope might be a heretic smacks more BTW of US-style Protestantism than anything that I would recognise as being Catholic …

  • JabbaPapa

    To all of those I responded to earlier — you see ?

    ^^ THIS is how to write a Catholic-minded critique of the disputed innovations of the Vatican II Council, without falling into the seductive traps of heterodoxy, apostasy, sedevacantism, relativism, modernism, or schism.

    Respectfully, theologically, and in a Spirit of deep obedience to our Church.

    I do not necessarily *agree* with all points raised in the post — but pete most certainly has every Catholic and religious right to make those points in public.

  • Benedict Carter

    I urge all readers to have a look at the ‘Rorate Caeli’ blog or the dici.org site for Bishop Fellay’s full interview. The REAL news coming from it is not mentioned in the above article, but is contained in these two alternative sources. It is the new “Examination of Conscience for Priests” which reverses fifty years of Protestant theology and terminology and returns to the pre-Vatican II world in both theology and terminology. Deo gratias! Though the Hierarchy won’t say it (yet), Vatican II’s days are numbered. 

  • JabbaPapa

    He should have appointed his most trusted theologians to negotiate with
    SSPX and after considering the results of that negotiation got them to
    send the SSPX a final position paper that they had to accept in its
    entirety and without reservation.

    And in fact, this is exactly what has been done.

    Conditional affirmations based on mental reservations of that sort are worthless, and it would be ridiculous for the Pope to accept one.

    No Catholic is forced to agree with teachings that are in a formal state of theological dispute within the Magisterium itself.

  • Benedict Carter

    The SSPX are not in schism, as has been stated by many Cardinals, including Joseph Ratzinger more than once. 

    In schism from what? They deny no Catholic teaching and Vatican II taught no doctrine. The Society cannot accept in certain areas elements of Vatican II that deny constant Catholic teaching.

    INDEED, the SSPX ACCEPTS MORE OF VATICAN II THAN DO MOST BISHOPS, PRIESTS AND EVEN CARDINALS IN THE WORLD TODAY. 

    The Pope knows this: this is one big reason why he is chasing after them: the Society is pretty much the only authentic Catholic congregation/Order left in the Church today.  

  • Benedict Carter

    The only people who call Bishop Fellay “Bernie” are the sede vacantists of the Donald Sanborn variety. Embittered and lost souls. Fellay is true Pope material – a marvellous and holy man. 

  • Benedict Carter

    The sede vacnatists have descended onto the thread Jabba. Probably the same bloke with two or three posting names.

  • JabbaPapa

    So you’re responding “let it be” to the notion that SSPX be considered in dissent ?

    That’s rather uncharitable and uncatholic an attitude !!!

  • Benedict Carter

    Cardinal Ratzinger once writing that non-Catholic religions can be “extraordinary means of Salvation” overturns Catholic teaching Jabba. The modern Church has uttered many such infamies. Mdbauer is right. 

  • Benedict Carter

    Both above posts -excellent. 

  • Benedict Carter

    You’re fantasizing Jabba. No priest of the SSPX will EVER say the Novus Ordo. if you think such a circumstance might arise, you clearly know very little about them.