Rorate Caeli

SSPX denies doctrinal talks with the Vatican

Brian Mershon reports in The Remnant:

News reports disseminated primarily on French language websites and blogs last week asserting that the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has been in secret doctrinal discussions with theologians of the Holy See are incorrect, according to the Society’s official news service.

“The SSPX denies having any doctrinal discussions at present either with officials or theologians of the Vatican,” said Fr. Arnaud Sélégny, Secretary General of the SSPX, from the SSPX’s official Dici news service (www.dici.org).

“Bishop Fellay has not, and did not, appoint any theologian priests of the SSPX mentioned in the [errant online] ‘news’ forums to carry on such doctrinal discussions,” he said.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Looks like the deceiving war is in full swing.

Benfan said...

Okay, so they didn't discuss doctrine.

Anonymous said...

Now I know what this post title was about ...

Il dialogo impossibile

alsaticus said...

Sad news. I was delighted by this - now false - information posted on a French forum, coming from "reliable sources" as it was told.
If Bp Fellay had truly appointed a Commission of theologians to have doctrinal talks with a similar Roman Commission (or groups), it would have been a great step forward. Only positive results could come out of such a dialogue for SSPX and for the Church at large.

nb. I was a bit surprised by the name of cardinal Cottier as one of the Roman partners because he has always been very distant with trads, and sometimes more hostile than anything else.

Anonymous said...

Well, if they were discussing v2 theology Bp Fellay would be facing mutiny. Perhaps we have a news floater again, to gauge world response. Once the floaters yield their experimental results, they could gauge when the excommunications will be revoked for the real theology debates to begin. We saw the same thing happen before the MP was released. For my part, the sooner the discussions on V2 begin the better. Only then can the Church move forward on this "internal" dispute. And what better way for the SSPX to drive home the real issues with V2? What better way to explain that the prudential judgments of V2 were never infallible? Something is up, and I'm sure these rumors did not start by accident.

Anonymous said...

"Il dialogo impossibile"

There is nothing to dialogue about, as long as Rome does not change her attitude toward the II Vatican Council and the post-council period. The contrary would be hypocresy.

Rapprochement between Rome and Econe is not possible unde Pope Benedict XVI, because he, at heart is a LIBERAL, and a faitful disciple of the ill-famed Paul VI.

The "cold war" is bound to continue if Econe remains pure at heart.

As long as Econe remains faithful to Tradition, there will be hope for the Catholic Church.

A.M.D.G.

Anonymous said...

"Il dialogo impossibile"

There is nothing to dialogue about, as long as Rome does not change her attitude toward the II Vatican Council and the post-council period. The contrary would be hypocresy.

Rapprochement between Rome and Econe is not possible under Pope Benedict XVI, because he, at heart is a LIBERAL, and a faitful disciple of the ill-famed Paul VI.

The "cold war" is bound to continue if Econe remains pure at heart.

As long as Econe remains faithful to Tradition, there will be hope for the Catholic Church.

A.M.D.G.

j hughes dunphy said...

Dear Rorate:
It is so sad to see this division and Our Lord prayed mightily for unity. All signs of talks and discussions between Rome and PiusX are wonderful hope, especially the way a sincere traditionalist group like Pius X has had to suffer so long and so much to defend Tradition while liberal Catholocism has run riot over just the truths, liturgy, and catechetics that Pius X has tried so much to preserve in the last forty years.
There is not much difference between liberal Catholocism and Protestantism in the last forty years, especially with their endless attack upon Tradition, the Eucharist, and the Mass. Lord have mercy on us all! Benedict XVI is a saintly pope who will manage this. Keep him in our prayers!
God bless us everyone!
j hughes dunphy
http://www.theorthodoxromancatholic.com

Anonymous said...

A doctrinal discussion would certainly be interesting. I imagine it would be something like Stephen Hawkin (Rome) trying to discuss quantum mechanics with someone who failed high school physics (SSPX). The intellectual disparity would be almost comical. I mean, imagine Williamson pompously cracking out his Jack and Jill analogies. Yes, they may work on subjugated housewives and uneducated dullards, but trained theologians...

Anonymous said...

The last anon wrote: "Rapprochement between Rome and Econe is not possible unde Pope Benedict XVI, because he, at heart is a LIBERAL, and a faitful disciple of the ill-famed Paul VI."

I don't agree. Pope BXVI is indeed an affacionado of "The Council" since he was one of its rising stars. Nonetheless, his agenda has been made quite public. He seeks to define and interpret V2 "in the tradition of continuity". In fact, every traditional Catholic must realize that V2 will at some point have to be evaluated at an official level in light of Sacred Tradition. It was an Ecumenical Council of the Church. It did have the power to make infallible dogmatic definitions. In spite of Pope Paul VIs "Nota Praevia" disclaiming that V2 was making any doctrinal definitions, did the Council make any dogmatic declarations? Which ones were they? Which ones were merely prudential declarations, assuming, per Pope Paul's nota praevia that most if not all of V2s pronouncements in fact fell under this category?

As long as the ultra-liberals (read anyone more liberal than BXVI) keep touting it as the Super Council and Second Pentecost of the Church, Rome itself will keep being stuck in the proverbial mud. BXVI wants to have V2 looked upon not as a super council or a second pentecost, just as a regular Ecumenical Council. This is the division between BXVI and his "neo conservatives" on the one side, and the "ultra liberals", the Cardinal Martini types.

In light of this, there is much for the SSPX to debate with Rome. For the SSPX does not seek to claim that Vatican 2 was not a valid council at all. The SSPX' position, as was clearly enunciated by the late Archbishop Lefebvre - is just that V2 made no new dogmatic pronouncements - only prudential ones - and, that according to Sacred Tradition, prudential judgments, even of the Supreme Pontiff or an Ecumenical Council, are not infallible.

Thus the common ground between Rome and Econe is the simple fact that Vatican 2 was a legitimate Ecumenical council, capable of making infallible dogmatic definitions. The debate must therefore be, with that underpinning agreement, which definitions were in fact dogmatic in nature, and which ones were prudential. And in getting Rome to agree to those that were prudential, Rome will have no choice but to permit a difference in opinion - for they cannot bind against a prudential judgment.

Anonymous said...

Someone said:

"A doctrinal discussion would certainly be interesting. I imagine it would be something like Stephen Hawkin (Rome) trying to discuss quantum mechanics with someone who failed high school physics (SSPX). The intellectual disparity would be almost comical. I mean, imagine Williamson pompously cracking out his Jack and Jill analogies. Yes, they may work on subjugated housewives and uneducated dullards, but trained theologians..."

I was unaware that either intellectual brilliance or arrogance was a constitutive element of orthodox faith. I guess brilliant theologians who don't believe must be preferred to simple faithful who do.

Anonymous said...

One posted:
"Yes, they may work on subjugated housewives and uneducated dullards..."

To which another replied:
"I guess brilliant theologians who don't believe must be preferred to simple faithful who do."

Bravo! I would guess The Little Flower would agree with your sentiment, #2. She was declared a Doctor of the Church despite her simple understanding of the faith if I recall. How many brilliant heretics exist within our ranks, many of whom call themselves theologians?

I can think of many "subjugated housewi(ves)" would take umbrage at the comment af the former. As for me, give me the simple faith of The Little Flower.

Xavier.

Anonymous said...

"He seeks to define and interpret V2 "in the tradition of continuity". "

Yes, but nobody in the Curia or among the Bishop care much for what he can say in this aspect.

As long as the latitudinarian dogma of Laissez-faire guides the Church, and BXVI believes in this, there is no point in talking.

Anonymous said...

Anon wrote:"
As long as the latitudinarian dogma of Laissez-faire guides the Church, and BXVI believes in this, there is no point in talking."

His desire to establish for posterity an evaluation of V2 in light of the continuity of Tradition is in itself an indication that he does not believe in laissez-faire. Or otherwise, he wouldn't bother. His action on the MP similarly proves that at least on the front of reconciliation with the SSPX he is serious enough to counter the laissez-faire mindset. That should be enough motivation to concede some good will and hope for fruitful discussions with the Pope's men. The saints and Our Lord engaged in much less hopeful discussions with the wayward prelates of their times.

Anonymous said...

"That should be enough motivation to concede some good will and hope for fruitful discussions with the Pope's men."

Yes, I concede SOME good will on the part of Benedict XVI.

Don't judge me wrong, I do pine for a reconciliation between Rome and Econe, the Catholic Church needs it badly, and I do believe that Benedict XVI knows that this is necessary, but I just don't believe that he has come to point where this will be possible: an evaluation of V2 and the post-council, in light of tradition.

That would entail a serious counter-reformation in the life of the Church, and this would be bloody. There is no other way around.

I do not believe that Benedict XVI is willing to face this bloodshed. I believe he hopes he can still manage to make a synthesis between Catholic Tradition and Liberalism, which is absolutely not possible.

For the sake of the Church, I hope that an evalution of V2 and the post-council will be made, if not under this papacy, under the next, as long as Schönborn is not elected, although he seems to be the heir apparent of Benedict XVI, preferred by Benedict XVI himself.

LeonG said...

He seeks to define and interpret V2 "in the tradition of continuity".

This is disguised modernism. The "living tradition" oxymoron contains all the seeds for the present current of neomodernist and secular postmodernist thinking to revise and redefine tradition as a phenomenon existing only within the individual consciousness. It is this which gives "tradition" its external reality otherwise it would remain without any precise external form, since everything dpends on human construction for its supposed reality. Applying Husserl's principles to this, as the papal predecessor would have done, means that the objectivity of church doctrine and orthodox liturgical practice were only objective in the human mind and sentiment. Phenomenologically spreaking, categorical constructs are merely subjective phenomena existing at the level of human consciousness. This gives abundant space for consigning the immutable and the unchangeable to the post-conciliar revisionist tendencies of which 'living tradition' is a most notable part.

It is this "principle" which permits someone to claim that two liturgical forms which have almost nothing in common either historically, stylistically or in their content, are one and the same rite. That all are saved no matter what has been taught since universal salvation has emerged as the overriding criteria of divine mercy which makes eternal damnation intolerable to so loving a god. And so it goes on.

Professor Amerio intimated that at the level of the essence of things the modernist environment had reduced every aspect of the faith to senselessness, since one could even imply, as the papal predecessor did in an encyclical, that man through work, quodam modo, participates in and renews the mystery of the death and resurrection of Our Blessed Lord. And so St Joseph once the wonder worker & patron of The Church evolves as the marxian-type proletarian worker saint.

Quite the contrary to an opinion made here, there are plenty of good theologians at SSPX who will be able address the complete and utter nonsense that post-Vatican II theology has descended to as it encourages us to follow the interreligious pathway where all the religions of the world immanently join forces towards Omega Point. This is where the neomodernist post-conciliar church is leading all those who subscribe to its VC2 principles. The objective evidence is there for all to see except to the egological and ignorantist neomodernists who appear to deny the very existence of objective external reality.

thetimman said...

As someone who is not an SSPX attendee, I found the "subjugated housewives and uneducated dullards" comment insulting and counterproductive. Why would the
SSPX have any reason to trust a person who spouts such condescending drivel or think that they should enter into any substantive dialogue with such a one? Luckily, I don't think the Holy Father would describe faithful Catholic families this way.

Ma Tucker said...

I am not a member of SSPX, however I cannot feel but grateful for their presence. I do not think we would have the MP without them. They will have much to contribute if a way can be found out of this mess regarding their standing. A mess, that the Pope himself is on record as saying that could have been handled much better in hindsight. They have a good man in Fellay and I hope a way forward can be found.

Anonymous said...

I think that many of the theologians of the FSSP, and the other traditional Orders, as well as lay theologians... could engage in high level discussions with the Vatican about these issues. The SSPX need not be involved. Might be better if they weren't. After such dialog their work could be submitted to the SSPX for further input. Direct negotiations need not be necessary at this point. Preliminary studies should come first. Rome seems willing to let Tradition ( whoever represents it) come to the table. This is an important step, in my opinion.