Thu 20th Nov 2014 | Last updated: Thu 20th Nov 2014 at 22:22pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo

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,, 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.”

  • EditorCT

    Well, Benedict Carter, at least this one’s original!  Truly, you just couldn’t nake it up!

  • Alan

    Do I detect the sound of a raw nerve being hit?  My query is actually a genuine one.  We are all influenced by our own personal preferences and prejudices in the relative weight we choose to give to different councils, encyclicals, and other pronouncements.

  • EditorCT

    Listen. Anyone who does not know that 2 + 2 = 4 should not be let loose near a cash register.  Similarly, anyone claiming to be a Catholic who does not know elementary Catholic doctrine on the centrality of Catholic Tradition, should not be pontificating on the subject on any blog. With respect.

    It is utter nonsense (with respect) to talk about our “personal preferences and prejudices” in the matter of Catholic doctrine and morals. The Church is entrusted to guard and preach the moral law – cannot change it – and she is authorised ONLY to teach that which has been handed down from the apostles.  Dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception which were not formally pronounced as such until recent times, were, nevertheless fully revealed and part of the deposit of Faith. Christ, remember, promised that the Holy Spirit would come and remind his first apostles of all that He had taught them.  The Church is  NOT authorised to make it up as we go along, to fit the culture of the times in which we live.

    Now, tell me again; what do we get when we add 2 + 2?

  • Helen Westover

    Catholics must accept Vatican II, including on Judaism, Cardinal Koch SaysROME (CNS) — The Catholic Church’s relationship to Judaism as taught by the Second Vatican Council and the interpretations and developments of that teaching by subsequent popes, “are binding on a Catholic,” said the Vatican official responsible for relations with the Jews.Swiss Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews and a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, spoke to reporters May 16 after delivering a speech on Catholic-Jewish relations in light of Vatican II’s declaration “Nostra Aetate” on the church’s relations with non-Christian religions.The afternoon speech followed Cardinal Koch’s participation in a meeting of the doctrinal congregation to examine the latest progress in the Vatican’s reconciliation talks with the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X.”There are questions to clarify in discussions with this community. I can’t say more than that,” he told reporters, echoing a Vatican statement saying the reconciliation talks are ongoing…”All the doctrinal decisions of the church are binding on a Catholic, including the Second Vatican Council and all its texts,” Cardinal Koch said when asked if the SSPX would be expected to accept all the teachings of Vatican II. “The ‘Nostra Aetate’ declaration of the Second Vatican Council is a clear decree and is important for every Catholic,” he added.This is from Catholic Family News – Fellay would be insane to go along with this.

  • Helen Westover

    Go to

  • EditorCT

    Unfortunately for poor Cardinal Koch he doesn’t have the authority to make anything binding on Catholics.  Good try though!

  • Helen Westover

    Ha ha!  

  • Savethesspx

    It’s not the SSPX that has to reconcile with “Rome” to be considered Catholics, it is up to “Rome” (by Rome I mean the Conciliar Church) who should convert to Catholicism.

    I am praying so the SSPX continues the restoration of the Catholic Faith without the intrusion of the Conciliar Church, we all know how those Catholic groups who have “reconciled” with have end up. (at the end the Conciliar Church forces them to accept the heretical teachings of Vatican II including the celebration of the protestant Novus Ordo Mass).

  • Burt

    Oh Brother! ….I got to admit…. I was unaware of this document NOSTRA AETATE signed by Paul VI . …
    Now that your comments  have brought it to attention I have visited The Holy See website, and   I have been reading, and cogitating
    I can see right away why it is discomforting to SSPX and Catholics with a reasonable grasp of orthodoxy.

    To me the document is rather an unfortunate  exercise of existential  angst, philosophising about the whole phenomena of the existence of religion itself. Well very nearly!

    It does at times appear uncomfortably syncretic 

    The point is that the declaration itself is derived from the perspective of one who is completely aware that his faith, the religion he himself presents, is actually ultimate truth. ….Actually it’s a synod. A group declaration .

    It reads really like a charitable letter written by someone trying to be kind.  

    It reminds me of the embarrassed angst an extremely beautiful young woman must feel if her fellow classmates are all rather plain little things.

    It must be like that when you’re the head of the One True Church surrounded by a whole load of false creeds.

    Trying to be kind and pointing out that they got some cute things about their religions too….

    Oh Dear ….. I wanted to do that …OY……POPE!……NOOOOO!!!..

    It’s a charitable attempt to defuse issues and break barriers. It’s definitely NOT dogma.

    But interestingly, if SSPX adherents might allow,…It derives from that same awareness of being (even if it makes us blush!) The One True Church.

  • JabbaPapa

    Vatican II teaches no heresies, notwithstanding that some extremist liberals have manipulated some Vatican II teachings as if they supported their own abuses or heresies.

    The notion that the Catholic Church should need to convert to Catholicism is an absurd non-starter.

    The Novus Ordo is not a “protestant Mass”, notwithstanding that some deliberate mistranslations of the Order of Mass into the vernacular, the older English translation particularly, may be riddled with Protestantisms that are not intended to belong to any properly Catholic liturgy.

  • JabbaPapa

    Despite your claim that he does so every day is there any evidence at all that the Pope has celebrated even one TLM in the last forty years?

    Reports from the Holy See that he does so constitute “evidence”.

    I can see no reason whatsoever why I should disbelieve these reports. This is because I am not a radically minded skeptic.

    It is a strange definition of being in communion when the SSPX priests and faithful loyal to them would never assist at a Mass celebrated by the Pope or in the form used by 99% of Catholic priests.

    In fact, the Catholic Church comprises more than one Rite in its celebrations of the Holy Mass.

    And you say “never” — I do not believe it. Regularised SSPX clergy will from time to time be required to either celebrate or co-celebrate Novus Ordo Masses, within the requirements of their specific clerical duties or particular personal circumstances.

    This is a non-problem, because SSPX formally recognises Novus Ordo Masses as being licit and valid, notwithstanding that they also regard them as being flawed.

    Would SSPX priests give Holy Communion to Catholics who were enthusiastic followers of “The Spirit of Vatican II” and declared their belief in religious liberty and the salvation of people from other faiths?

    The individual religious state of individuals cannot be accurately described by such blanket statements.

    “The Spirit of Vatican II” is technically an Error, rather than a heresy ; the doctrine of religious liberty is not a heresy ; the salvation of people from other religions or of no religion at all is a matter that resides in God’s hands alone, and does not concern the religious state of any baptised Catholics in any way whatsoever, unless they should actually deny that God has that Sovereign Power of Salvation.

    When Lefebvre ordained the four bishops he said, “The day when the Vatican will be delivered from this occupation by Modernists and will come back to the path followed by the Church down to Vatican II, our new bishops will put themselves entirely in the hands of our Sovereign Pontiff, to the point of desisting if he so wishes from the exercise of their episcopal functions.” Do you really think that this day has come?

    Funnily enough, yes I do !!! :-)

    I’m personally not a traditionalist, nor a liberal, nor a reformist, nor a modernist, nor a conservative — but there is a new spirit of orthodoxy growing strongly within our Church, under the blessed guidance of our previous Pope (who is much maligned from some quarters, but he was in fact the fountainhead of this orthodox renewal) and our current Pope, and we have been greatly blessèd in both of them.

  • JabbaPapa

    English-speaking Catholics (due to the intellectual specifics of a typical English-language education) too often fail to understand that there is a difference between “full acceptance” of the Vatican II documents and complete 100% agreement with every single article of their contents.

    The proper Catholic understanding is that you fully accept the authority of all Councils and all Council documents, but that you can, once you have taken this step, discuss specific detail *contents* of those documents within the framework of that general acceptance, including at a complex intertextual level incorporating acceptance of all other such doctrinal documents in your examination of the detail of any of them.

    This approach is standard fare according to the specifics of the Roman or Athenian/Byzantian/Alexandrian or Parisian intellectual traditions, but somewhat foreign to the Oxford or New England traditions.

  • Parasum

    “Regularised SSPX clergy will from time to time be required to either celebrate or co-celebrate Novus Ordo Masses, within the requirements of their specific clerical duties or particular personal circumstances.

    This is a non-problem, because SSPX formally recognises Novus Ordo Masses as being licit and valid, notwithstanding that they also regard them as being flawed.”

    ## It’s a serious problem. Is soiled drinking water to be recommended, when clean water is available, merely because drinking the soiled has not yet caused cholera ? That a rite may not be illicit or invalid, does not make it spiritually desirable or prudent or safe to use. It can still be dangerous. That it is is valid & licit, does not in the slightest mean that is is in organic continiuty with Tradition.

    Abp. Lefebvre refused to offer Mass according to the Pauline revision even once, as is well known – for Rome to require SSPX priests to use it is absurd. Rome is clearly trying to deceive the SSPX, just as it deceived Father Bisig & the Fraternity of St. Peter.  

    And why would Catholic priests – which SSPX priests, if “reconciled”, would definitely be – want to insult Almighty God by offering Him Mass in a rite they are convinced is “flawed” ? Only the V2 Church would think it was A-OK to fob Him with that sort of “worship” :(

  • JabbaPapa


    One church is not in fact “as good as another”, because “the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church”.

    I don’t think you’ve really thought this one through to its fullest logical conclusions :-)

    (hint : those conclusions are entirely traditional and orthodox in nature)

  • JabbaPapa

    The verb “to subsist in” is an “existence verb” grammatically, which means that its meaning is broadly *equivalent to* but not *identical to* the verb “to be”.

    The 1994 document provides a broader interpretation of the verb, the 2000 document a narrower and more precise one — but they are both essentially correct.

    But quibbling over one word does not provide truth, particularly when doing so elsewhere than in the Latin — the truth resides in the statement as a whole, that “the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church” — no other churches nor religions than the Catholic Church are cited as being where the Church of Christ subsists.

  • JabbaPapa

    Well said !!

  • JabbaPapa

    I do realise, of course, that this is a difficult question — but I’m talking about exceptional cases in the present and future, not about ordinary liturgical practices.

    SSPX clergy who are, on a Sunday, present in a diocese where they are not permitted to say the Mass, can at present find themselves required to attend (but not of course celebrate !!) a Novus Ordo Mass, to fulfil their Sunday obligation. Such a situation is non-negotiable — and indeed, the opposite is true, that where a non-traditionalist priest unable to say Mass may find that the only Sunday Mass available is one provided by a SSPX priest, then his obligation would be to attend that Mass. But even this current fact of vis-à-vis obligation would change in case of a regularisation !!

    But in future, a regularised SSPX priest who were to be regularly attached to a diocese, or archdiocese or Bishops Conference, or to the Holy See, or many other such particular cases would likely end up in positions whereby actual celebration or co-celebration of such Novus Ordo Masses might be religiously required of him, and just as non-negotiably.

    I mean — let’s say Bishop Fellay were elevated to be a Cardinal ; there would be liturgical obligations on him, if so, that he pure and simple could not escape.

  • Parasum

    JP2 & BXVI are/were v. keen on re-admitting the “Orthodox” (so called), *without* requiring them to accept Papal definitions durkng the last 1,000 years. That is what that abomination the “Ratzinger formula” is all about. Which goes far further than anything connected to the SSPX does.

    To quote:

    ““Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than what had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium . . . Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, San Francisco, Ignatius, 1987, p. 199.”

    ## That is an atrocity. It amounts to saying that there are two Faiths, not one.  Silly old St.Paul, to think there was one – but at last he has been corrected.  It canonises relativism as principle for theology: In the West, it is heresy to deny papal infallibility, but in the east, it is traditional & orthodox to deny papal infallibility. This makes Catholicism into a lie. Such confusion cannot be of God. Such are the fruits of the “New Pentecost”.

  • Parasum

    Apparently there are two excommunications, not one [see link]:

    “No signed document and no set of negotiations can return the leaders and members of the SSPX to the one true Church, until and unless:
    1. they admit that they have sinned gravely,
    2. they repent from those sins,
    3. they receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation, from a priest or bishop who can lift an excommunication,
    4. they accept the teaching authority and the temporal authority of the Second Vatican Council,
    5. they specifically accept the particular teachings of the Second Vatican Council,
    6. they accept the teaching authority and the temporal authority of the Popes and the body of Bishops in communion with him since the Second Vatican Council,
    7. they specifically accept the particular teachings of the Popes and the body of Bishops in communion with him since the Second Vatican Council,
    8. they unite themselves in love, faith, and hope to the Pope and his successors, and to the body of Bishops and their successors;
    9. they repent from and cease all arrogance, malice, and claims of grave errors in magisterial teachings.

    At the present time, it could not be clearer that the leaders and members of the SSPX are entirely unrepentant from heresy, schism, and other grave sins. Therefore, the SSPX remains automatically excommunicated, and some (perhaps many) of its leaders and members remain in a state of actual mortal sin, not in a state of grace.”

    The link:

    So either:
    Rome is lying through its teeth about the excommunications & the status of the SSPX;
    or the SSPX have got the wrong end of the stick;
    or this writer is mistaken. 

  • Parasum

    The Pope appears from his utterances to be a heretic. There can’t be one standard of orthodoxy for Popes and another for the plebs. If he is a heretic, that is his own fault, not ours. The Catholic Faith & its sources cannot be accommodated to heretic Popes in order to make them seem orthodox.  

    If St Leo II & his successors could recognise that Honorius I was a heretic, plebs like us should be able to accept that such Judases exist. To exclude the possibility that a mere man elected Pope can fall; into heresy all but guarantees that he will. The servile toadying to Popes that glorifies them instead of praying for them, is no kindness to them, or to the Church.

  • Paul English

    Burt, I wish I could take such a light hearted view of it.   2&3 Nostra Aetate, which is a compressed statement of everything that is wrong with V2, is the root cause of the malaise that has been with the western church ever since.  The idea that other gods are good has informed every aspect of western culture and intellectual life since V2.  It has poisoned lives, blocked up grace in souls, corrupted believers … it has done just about everything the Bible says it does.
    We as a church will recover from this fundamental, root mistake, but only when we unmask its demonic nature and explicity correct it in teaching.

  • Paul English

    JabbaPapa, Thank you for not dismissing the word of God.

  • Alan

    With respect, you have not answered my genuine query.  Benedict Carter and others often claim that some teachings of Vatican II contradict earlier teachings.  If this is the case (which I dispute), how do you decide which of these contradictory teachings are correct? 

  • EditorCT


    The Church is not authorised (by Christ) to introduce new teachings. Therefore, we MUST accept the teachings which have been authoritatively handed on.  If every previous pope in the Church’s history taught that ecumenism is condemned and that no Catholic may participate in ecumenical activities (which is the case), then that has been the consistent teaching of the Church for centuries and nobody from the Pope down can teach anything to the contrary.

  • JabbaPapa

    Sorry mate — the article that you linked to is GROSSLY inaccurate !!!

    The four bishops are in a state of schism for disciplinary NOT doctrinal reasons — AND their excommunications have already been lifted in the first place.

    Now, some of the measures that you allude to for the *permanent* lifting of their excommunications are correct, but the last remaining action that they need to take in that list is a Profession of Catholic Faith, and there are some reports that the Doctrinal Preamble in question is just such a Confessio Fidei.

    Any failure by any of the four bishops to make that Confessio Fidei would, according to information I have seen, reinstate the excommunication(s) of any bishops not doing so, but none of the other rubbish that’s mentioned in the site that you link to is of any relevance whatsoever !!!

    It is fairly likely that each individual SSPX priest will also need to make the same Confessio Fidei personally, in order to return to Full Communion with the Church.

    The matter is now in the personal hands of the Pope by the way.

  • JabbaPapa

    You don’t — the Magisterium does.

  • Herman U. Ticke

    The particle “not” is a negative particle grammatically which means that the statement
    is the exact opposite of the positive.

    You shall not commit adultery
    You shall commit adultery

    The first sentence provides a broader interpretation(!?)  the second  a narrower and more precise one — but they are both essentially correct.
    But quibbling over one word does not provide truth, particularly when doing so elsewhere than in the Latin.

    I brushed up on my Latin and now I am able to experience both
    continuity and discontinuity at the same time….why didn’t I think of that.

  • Herman U. Ticke

    Following a particularly hectic
    bout of discontinuity overnight
    and taking note of the gratifying response
    my request for clarification of
    “subsistit in”  I feel sufficiently encouraged
    to introduce the evil twin of “subsistit in” 
    namely  “partial communion”.

    If someone can save their soul in an
    easygoing ecclesial community why
    bother joining the Catholic Church?
    Will he/she be partially saved?  Which part?
    This link is a good place to begin:-

    You need to solve both questions before
    Bishop Fellay can be reconciled.  If he doesn’t know
    what Vatican 2 said how can he agree with it?
    Fifty years and counting…

  • Burt

    Paul,  sorry if my comments appeared unduly lacking in seriousness. I completely agree with you that Nostra Aetate is very problematic.
    I was not aware of the document prior to yesterday, and I admit I was taken aback on reading, and re-reading it.It seems to me very much an example of the manifestation of the heresy of Modernism.The heresy Pius X warned of in his Encyclical ‘Pascendi’.To me it explains the backdrop to Blessed Pope John Paul II’s unfortunate. Assisi debacle.
    Like you I feel the fruits of VII are mainly rotten fruit.

    I am sure that you are correct that Grace has been lost to the Church and consequently to the world because of the Modernist Agenda.

    If I seemed a bit light hearted I suppose it’s only because I was trying to take heart only by seeing the document as an own goal. in a match with the Devil Our Lord kind of promised the Church will win in the end.

  • Alan

    My own history may help you understand.  As a very young man in the early 1960s I considered becoming a Catholic, and decided against because of what I saw as the intolerant attitude of the Church (“error has no rights” etc.).  In the late 1960s I became a Catholic, as Vatican II had done much to erase those attitudes.  If SSPX and their friends had their way and Vatican II was scrapped, I for one would have to find another home. 

  • hunhsa700

  • Alan

    You are utterly wrong about ecumenism.  See para. 821 of the Catechism.  I was a member of my local Ecumenical Commission, along with my bishop.

  • JabbaPapa

    The particle “not” is a negative particle grammatically which means that the statement is the exact opposite of the positive.

    You’re confusing grammar with logic — the above statement is true when “not” is used as a function in logic, but it is not true when “not” is used in normal language (this sentence of mine does not constitute “normal language” by the way).

    “it’s not three o’clock” isn’t the exact opposite of “it’s three o’clock”, because they do not describe a binary structure, but various intermediary positions as defined by context in a continuum, relative to three o’clock-ness.

    Not every negative statement is the exact opposite of a corresponding positive one — ie it’s not “anti-three-o’clock” either.

    (though frankly, why you’ve brought this question up is beyond me — the sentence “the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church” does not contain the word “not”)

  • JabbaPapa

    The Pope appears from his utterances to be a heretic.

    If that’s what you believe, then you can hardly consider yourself as being in Communion with the Church, can you.

    That’s a schismatic statement, pure and simple.

  • JabbaPapa

    The Church is not authorised (by Christ) to introduce new teachings.

    This is *generally* true, but there are some blatantly obvious exceptions to the general rule.

    However, where you’re being more straightforwardly absurd :

    If every previous pope in the Church’s history taught that ecumenism is condemned and that no Catholic may participate in ecumenical activities (which is the case)

    Rubbish !!!

    Pope Leo XIII :

    But if the authority of Peter and his successor is plenary and supreme, it is not to be regarded as the sole authority. For He who made Peter the foundation of the Church also “chose twelve whom he called apostles”; and just as it is necessary that the authority of Peter be perpetuated in the Roman pontiff, so the bishops who succeed the apostles must inherit their ordinary power. Thus the episcopal order necessarily belongs to the essential constitution of the Church. Although bishops do not receive plenary, universal or supreme authority, they are not to be looked upon as mere representatives of the Roman pontiffs. They exercise a power truly their own and are ordinary pastors of the people which they govern.

    Pope Benedict XV
    (1914-1922) was the first to be forced to address th[e] issue [of Protestant-led ecumenism] when the Catholic Church was
    invited to a Protestant ecumenical “Faith and Order” conference in 1919. He refused to participate in this conference; in fact, the Holy Office issued a decree on July 4, 1919 prohibiting Catholics from taking part in conferences dealing with Christian unity being held by separated Christians, unless the Holy See explicitly permitted such

    Ecclesia Catholica (1949) : “They [the bishops] should therefore not only carefully and efficaciously keep this movement under vigilant observation, but also prudently foster and guide it unto the twofold end of assisting those who are in search of the truth and
    the true Church…”

    Both the Second Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence (1438-1439) attempted to reunite the Eastern and Western Churches, and on paper at least, they succeeded — but disunity in the East ruined both attempts. The Church has nevertheless been engaged in ecumenical dialogue with our separated brethren since before the word “ecumenism” even existed.

  • Helen Westover

    You obviously would have a problem with Christ – “I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me.”

  • Alan

    I don’t understand you at all.  As a Christian, I subscribe to everything Christ said.

  • Helen Westover

    Just compare with NostraAetate.

  • JabbaPapa

    I can make neither head nor tail of this strange verbiage that you have posted.

  • EditorCT

    So, Venerable
    Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to
    take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can
    only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of
    those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it.  MORTALIUM ANIMOS, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS


  • Helen Westover

    I was going to post that – thanks for saving me the trouble.  

  • Alan

    Nostra Aetate was about relations with non-Christian religions.  Ecumenism refers to relations with other Christians.  I still don’t get your point.

  • Alan

    If you had ever engaged in ecumenical dialogue, as I have, you would know that much of the differences are actually misunderstandings, on both sides.

  • Jae

    Well, also even the authority of a valid Council of the Church is not binding to you, Ms. editorCt. The only binding authority that you seem to recognize is yourself and those that agree with your interpretation of Tradition.

  • Jae

    Though I agree with you, I’m just echoing what CDF was saying about words “subsist in” in relation to other people of faith at el., Orthodox churches etc outside the boundaries of the Catholic Church.

  • JabbaPapa

    Statements about the past are of little bearing on the future.

    Your quote contains no infallible denunciation of inter-religious dialogue.

  • Jae

    But Parasum’s notion is that the Church promulgated an “inferior mass” though valid and licit but still soiled. I really think this novelty comes and borne from rebellious and proud minds in the likes of Luther and protestantism that the Church can promulgate soiled doctrine and mass. There is no historical precedent, not found in the Bible and Tradition so therefore Parasum’s assertion was just a flawed opinion of man.

  • Jae

    Yes I agree with you Helen that since there is no precedent in the Church history of her valid council making and promulgating errors thus the Catholic church today must be an apostate church, not the true church , not a valid pope, so why are you still around with us? This is the position of Sedevacantism, conclavism, SSPV which are just logical.

  • Parasum

    ## The SSPX seems not accept the notion of “partial” communion. If they do not, your question has to be posed differently, and has to take into account what Rome means by “partial communion” & “subsistit”, not just how the SSPX understands these phrases.

    An agreement in which the parties understood the terms differently would be worthless. 

    “If someone can save their soul in an easygoing ecclesial community why
    bother joining the Catholic Church?”

    ## Wrong question, because wrong presuppositions

    “Will he/she be partially saved?”

    ## Salvation is not divisible into parts.

  • JabbaPapa

    Your linking of this notion of the “inferior Mass” with Luther is rather insightful.

    Thanks !!