Rorate Caeli

Pope speaks about SSPX in General Audience

From the Holy Father at the end of today's General Audience:

Before greeting the Italian pilgrims, I still have three announcements.

The first: I have learned with great joy the election of Metropolitan Kirill as new Patriarch of Moscow and all the Russias. I invoke upon him the light of the Holy Ghost for a generous service to the Russian Orthodox Church, trusting him to the special protection of the Mother of God

The second.

In the homily pronounced on the occasion of the solemn inauguration of my Pontificate, I said that it is the "explicit" duty of the Pastor "the call to unity", and, commenting upon the Gospel words regarding the miraculous catch of fish, I said, "although there were so many, the net was not torn"; I continued after these Gospel words, "Alas, beloved Lord, with sorrow we must now acknowledge that it has been torn!". And I continued, "But no – we must not be sad! Let us rejoice because of your promise, which does not disappoint, and let us do all we can to pursue the path towards the unity you have promised. Let us remember it in our prayer to the Lord, as we plead with him: yes, Lord, remember your promise. Grant that we may be one flock and one shepherd! Do not allow your net to be torn, help us to be servants of unity!"

Precisely in the accomplishment of this service of unity, which qualifies, in a specific way, my ministry as Successor of Peter, I decided, a few days ago, to grant the remission of the excommunication in which the four bishops ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, without pontifical mandate, had incurred.
I fulfilled this act of fatherly mercy because those prelates repeatedly manifested to me their deep suffering for the situation in which they found themselves. I hope that this gesture of mine will be followed by the solicitous effort by them to accomplish the ulterior steps necessary to accomplish full communion with the Church, thus testifying true fidelity and true recognition of the Magisterium and of the authority of the Pope and of the Second Vatican Council.

The third announcement.

While I renew with affection the expression of my full and unquestionable solidarity with our brothers receivers of the First Covenant, I hope that the memory of the Shoah leads mankind to reflect on the unpredictable power of evil when it conquers the heart of man. May the Shoah be for all a warning against forgetfulness, against denial or reductionism, because the violence against a single human being is violence against all. No man is an island, a famous poet write. The Shoah particularly teaches, both old an the new generations, that only the tiresome path of listening and dialogue, of love and of forgiveness lead the peoples, the cultures, and the religions of the world to the hoped-for goal of fraternity and peace in truth. May violence never again crush the dignity of man!
Benedict XVI
General Audience
January 28, 2009

52 comments:

Anonymous said...

MOst unfortunate that he uttered the words "Second Vatican Council" UGH.

Confiteor said...

... thus testifying true fidelity and true recognition of the Magisterium and of the authority of the Pope and of the Second Vatican Council. (emphasis added)

Aye, there's the rub.

Is every word of, say, Dignitatis Humanae, binding on the conscience of every Catholic? This business of the "authority" of Vatican II will -- and should -- be a topic of much debate.

Athelstane said...

You can hardly expect otherwise from a man who was a prominent peritus at aforementioned Council.

RipK10 said...

So buffling that the Vatican still plays the Vatican-II card. I wonder if it is habitual or in denial. Jesus taught us to judge the tree from the fruit that it produces..

Anonymous said...

That is leaving open the question :
what does "true fidelity and true recognition of the Magisterium and of the authority of the Pope and of the Sceond Vatican Council" mean ?

The Magisterium includes the entire Tradition and so how is Vatican II fitting in this : this is why the discussions between Rome and SSPX are supposed to start.
The pope's word however is a signal for those who had too quickly trumpeted that SSPX could find a full communion and rejecting every word of Vatican II : it is silly to say so and to think so. Besides the post-conciliar Magisterium is constantly referring to Vatican II various documents.
Facing the real problems at stake with some parts of Vatican II, those parts which are of permanent value, those which are not, those which require clarifications.
As a reminder in 2001, Bp Fellay said to a Swiss paper : "we approve 95% of Vatican II". The 5% left will be the matter of the discussions. And this will do GOOD for the whole Church, not just for the SSPX.

Alsaticus

Gravitas Catholica said...

Good grief, he just had to slip that in there. Agh.

sacodos in germania said...

Yes I agree 100%...how unfortunate the Holy Father said this. I'm sure this is not going to sit well with SSPX nor with traditionalist in gerneral for that matter. It's as if he recognizes that there is a problem then turns around and denies that there's a problem and if his intention is to bind all catholics to every word of the council then he's not being very realistic. Or he said this to maintain 'la bella figura" before his opponents, liberals, progresives, etc.

Anonymous said...

On the whole I rejoice that Pope Benedict has remitted the excommunications of the SSPX bishops. Many comments on this blog seem to indicate that the Second Vatican Council is something to be loathed. The Second Vatican Council, as an ecumenical council, deserves to be respected. True, somethings happened during it for the wrong reasons, but we also have to believe that God would not let the Church be lead astray. As pointed out in a previous post, SSPX agrees with 95% of Vatican II, and truth be told much of what has happened in the Church is not directly because of the documents, but because of some people misinterpreting and acting outside of the scope of what the documents say. I would challenge any person that looks on Vatican II with disdain to read through all of the documents, and seek guidance on passages in which you "disagree". True Theology begins with Faith and seeks understanding. Likewise, we should begin with Faith that the Church has not been led astray, and seek to understand the Truths that are expressed in the documents. Docility my friends is the key. God Bless & Oremus Pro Invicem!

sacerdos in germaina said...

sorry typing too fast and not paying attention ...that should be 'sacerdos' in germaina

David said...

Lets not spoil the current moment by these reactionary comments. Take a deep breath and don't read your worst fears into the Holy Father's comments.

ponte said...

I think that the Holy Father said what he had to. Just as he had to address Williamson's outrageous remarks he also had to cleverly deal with some of the post-excommunication public statements of the SSPX, statements express gratitude but then give the false implication that there never were excommunications to begin with or that "tradition" was excommunicated and now is not. It's arrogance like that that is a greater danger to reconciliation even more so than hot-head Bishop Williamson.

If they acknowledge that V2 actually was the 26th ecumenical council, then wouldn't it have to have some sort of authority de natura in their eyes? However, there are massive flaws and ambiguities about what the authority of much of it actually means and actually is.

I look forward to the "talks" that will hash all of this out and finally let the SSPX have their day as well as forcing not only clarifications but a more official acknowledgment of said flaws and ambiguities.

I know that it is not the consensus of this thread but I really don't think that the Holy Father's words should bother the SSPX that much when they know what has been accomplished and how they can now become more involved "players" in the game of V2 interpretation. I actually take the Holy Father's remarks more with the objective to calm down the media and opposition he had in the hierarchy (eg. usual suspects of France and Germany). He has to tip his hat to V2 just to shut them up.

Paul Haley said...

Source: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/gerald_warner/blog/2009/01/27/fifty_years_on_time_to_revisit_
and_reform_the_second_vatican_
catastrophe

"In England and Wales in 1964, at the end of the Council, there were 137,673 Catholic baptisms; in 2003 the figure was 56,180. In 1964 there were 45,592 Catholic marriages, in 2003 there were 11,013. Mass attendance has fallen by 40 per cent. In "Holy" Ireland, only 48 per cent of so-called Catholics go to Mass. In France, there were 35,000 priests in 1980; today there are fewer than 19,000. Renewal?"

"In the United States, in 1965, there were 1,575 priestly ordinations; in 2002 there were 450 - a 350 per cent decline. In 1965 there were 49,000 seminarians, in 2002 just 4,700. Today 15 per cent of US parishes are without priests. Only 25 per cent of America's nominal Catholics attend Mass. Worse still is the erosion of faith among those who ludicrously describe themselves as Catholics. Among US Catholics aged 18-44 (the children of Vatican II) as many as 70 per cent say they believe the Eucharist is merely a "symbolic reminder" of Christ."

I just wanted to highlight these figures for emphasis. The million dollar question for the hierarchy to answer is WHY? How could catholic practice go so downhill while the traditional Mass and the Faith that characterizes it were summarily replaced with a not-so-effective alternative? The answer is contained in this extract from His Holiness's letter to the bishops accompanying the motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum:

Quote:
Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.
Unquote


This quote might be the starting point in discussions between Bishop Fellay and the Holy See - the objective being to answer the "WHY" question and formulate plans for reversing course. After all, folks, the SSPX never denied that Vatican II was a valid council but that many of its pastoral decrees as opposed to doctrinal decrees could be and were misinterpreted.

These words are not insignificant because they were written by the Vicar of Christ, the Supreme Legislator of the Universal Church. They indicate deep-seated problems and tendencies which will not disappear overnight. Vigilance, hard work and prayers, many prayers and sacrifices, will be required. It is my firm belief that His Holiness would welcome a constructive dialog on the matter.

Remember that Fr. Ratzinger as he was know at the time of Vatican II had invested heavily in the work of the council as a peritus and can hardly be expected, I think, to disown it now. Having said that, as they say, hindsight is almost always 20-20, and perhaps that is now what Pope Benedict XVI is seeing in today's landscape.

David said...

As Alsaticus said, the prospective talks between the SSPX and the Holy See will be a good for both the SSPX and the Church, as many Catholics in perfect communion with Rome are themselves confused or have reservations about certain conciliar sententiae and formulations.

Frankly, the remark on accepting the authority of Vatican II does not bother me as much as calling the Jews "brothers" and receivers of the "First Covenant" (rather than the "Old Covenant"). Jews are not my brothers; the adopted sons of God, who have died to Christ with me in baptism, these are my brothers.

sacerdos in germania said...

Paul H.,


You right in saying that the Holy Father is not going to disavow the council. I say the same thing but with regard to you're last point... I hope you're right.
oremus...

Anonymous said...

The Spanish blog says that Williamson wrote to the pope asking forgiveness...

Cosmos said...

I think that if the Pope failed to promote and uphold the generic authority of Vatican II, he would be making the same mistake of imprudence and scandal of his predecessors. The Church cannot promote that Council for decades through an enormously popular (and in many ways saintly) leader, and then just stop and make an abrubt turn AGAIN. This would implicitly reinforce the false idea that much of Church life is really just the will of those in power. This Pope is a brilliant and devout man who knows what he needs to do: begin the process of putting the pastoral council in its proper perspective, reclaiming those parts of the tradition which were discarded, and move foward. It will not always look how we want it too, but his work over the past 30 years should bring a lot of peace that he understands the issues better than we do.

Anonymous said...

A reading from I Corinthians 10, verses 31-33. This is the Word of God: "So, whatever you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please all men in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved." I note that it says, "GIVE NO OFFENSE TO JEWS". That is a command by St Paul the apostle. Obedience is not optional dear friends.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

Could you supply the quote from the "Spanish blog" that +Williamson has apologized to the Holy Father?

I'm sure we'd all be interested.

Thanks.

~ Belloc

Anonymous said...

It's funny, before Summorum Pontificum I was a sickening pessimist. No longer. When it comes to this Holy Father I am an undying optimist.

" I hope that this gesture of mine will be followed by the solicitous effort by them to accomplish the ulterior steps necessary to accomplish full communion with the Church, thus testifying true fidelity and true recognition of the Magisterium and of the authority of the Pope and of the Second Vatican Council."

...before the motu proprio Pope Benedict had to walk a tightrope in his language because the French Bishops threatened him with open schism. The Motu Proprio was delayed but eventually came out.

Keeping in mind that the everyone recognizes the Second Vatican Council is part of the "authentic magisterium of the Church" I don't think this necessarily overrules the idea that the SSPX will not have to make any doctrinal concessions.

Just look at the Institute of the Good Shepherd and the Transalpine Redemptorists.

Actions speak louder than words.

The Postmodernist said...

"...true recognition of the Magisterium and of the authority of the Pope and of the Second Vatican Council."

Another ambiguous statement that we don't really know what it entirely means. Only the Pope, or another Ecumenical Council can perhaps clarify and determine the existence (and if there is) the limits of infallibility present in the Council.

Anonymous said...

VAC II - 5 points that are the problem, let the talks begin, and pray to our Lady.

Anonymous said...

It doesn't necessarily mean that the SSPX will have to accept the Council in its entirety. We can interpret the Holy Father's statement in the following way: when they accomplish full communion, this will be a testimony that they “accept” the Council, not in an infallible way, but as it is: a real Council of the Catholic Church, tough pastoral (and not dogmatic) in nature. We should remember that a sedevacantist does not accept the Council even in this sense.
But let’s pray for the Holy Father and for the SSPX.

humboldt said...

I pray that the status quo will be mantained until there is another pope who can maturely evaluate the SSPX situation.

Anonymous said...

The Pope's words settle the matter of whether the excommunications were actually imposed:

I decided, a few days ago, to grant the remission of the excommunication in which the four bishops ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, without pontifical mandate, had incurred.

Anonymous said...

I have a great idea and it would be a great goal for all - let us take Vatican II back from the hippies and restore it to its proper place.

So much was produced in such a short period of time, if any mistakes were made, we can correct them.

We need a new Spirit of Vatican II, one founded in tradition. Let us start today.

Joe B said...

Does "brood of vipers" sound familiar? There are many ways to point out the truth and still be in accord with scripture.

Anonymous said...

Postmodern,

you say this quote is ambiguous,

"...true recognition of the Magisterium and of the authority of the Pope and of the Second Vatican Council."

But is the position of the SSPX not ambiguous? If we are Roman Catholic, that implies accepting the Magisterium and being visibly united to the vicar of Christ. Vatican II was a valid council and the SSPX accept that. Bishop Fellay said that his society accepts all Church councils while having SOME RESERVATIONS with Vatican II. Benedict is bringing this council into line with tradition. It will take time

Anonymous said...

Well, the message here is clear owing more to the ordering of the announcements rather than what was said in each. What is said in each is what one would expect to be said.

The Pope mentions the election of the R.O.C. Patriarch to recognise that the venerable R.O.C. takes precedence over the S.S.P.X. Of course, this is as it should be: the former is an ancient patriarchate and Kiril is a positive election for Rome and for us all.

Immediately after the mention of the S.S.P.X 'as an act of mercy' (just so that nobody will think that it manifests any capitulation on ideas by the Pope), he indirectly denounces Holocaust deniers. Who could he have in mind? We all know the answer to that!

All the diplomatic initiatives are what one would expect, except this is hardly subtle. But, then, remember that this Pope is a German and Germans are not known for their subtlety!

What is buried in this and easily missed is the fact that, as in the Decree, the Pope does not specify if an agreement on doctrine must precede or follow an agreement on the juridical structure for the S.S.P.X. The Pope is avoiding being 'pushy' but is giving Bishop Fellay an opportunity to show his filial obedience and accept regularisation first. It also shows indirectly that the Pope accepts Fellay's apology regarding Williamson; otherwise, more would be demanded.

Of course, more is going on behind closed doors. For example, the Pope, it is said, will not ask them to 'sign on' specifically to Vatican II or to any other specific Council, but merely to accept papal authority and the Magisterum. Since Vatican II appparently does not add dogma, this should be acceptable to both parties--and it's an end run around the hardliners in the S.S.P.X, and against the hardline liberals too.

The world is unfolding as it should . . . .

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On the first comment, what is really unfortunately, actually, is that he mentioned that sickening work 'dialogue'. Now there's a term I hate. I refuse to use it. Discussions will do; conversation is fine. But the Pope is being very cagey and ensuring that this reconciliation is 'inserted' into the 'discourse' of NewChurch, all necessary to keep the liberal loons in line.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On Confiteor's comments: Well, all Catholics have to accept every Council in accordance with the proper authority of each. The question is What *is* that authority in the case of Vatican II?

Anyway, as far as I know, the liberal heretics who have taken over NewChurch have never been asked to swear in writing to bear true fidelity to the dogmatic Council of Trent of Lateran IV. If they were so asked, we'd have been rid of them long ago.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

How to solve the Metz pact problem?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous wrote:

I have a great idea and it would be a great goal for all - let us take Vatican II back from the hippies and restore it to its proper place.


I love this blog.



- Keith

Stanislas Wojtiech, Stanislawów, Ukraine said...

An embarrassing and very disappointing speech, apart from the political correctness (I do agree with the fact that the Shoah happened, but I do not think it is a quasi-religious event like Benedict XVI seems to), as it promotes the 2nd Vatican Council revolution as "truth" and "necessity".

This is just the start of longer processes.

Joseph Alois Ratzinger was one of thé most radical and liberal (neo-modernist) theologians during the Second Vatican Council's sessions, even if unimaginable by today's media reports and labels like "conservative", just because Ratzinger does not cater moral theology to homosexuals and abortionists. (As if the Catholic faith is only about morals and not on Catholic dogma of faith, on divinity, salvific boundaries, orthodox Catholic ecclesiology and anti-ecumenism and anti-indifferentism.)

This speech reveals a lot.

The Society of St. Pius X is obliged to continue its 100 % Roman Catholic and perennial resistance movement against Neo-Modernism and Laicism.

Jomo said...

Try this for good sense

http://www.crc-internet.org/CCR/2009/excommunication.php

Anonymous said...

Not wishing to demonstrate any lack of humility with regards to the many intelligent folks on this blog, BUT ...

Arbp Lefebvre himself always acknowledged the authority of the Second Vatican Council and stated so.

The devil is in the details. Being an ecumenical council, in so far as any dogmatic definitions were made, V2 had the guaranteed charism of infallibility. The point Arbp Lefebvre and now Bp Fellay continue to make is that on prudential matters and anything non-dogmatic (such as the utopian whinings of certain texts of the council), it is not infallible.

But this is precisely why the SSPX and the Holy Father have made this rapprochement with a commitment to the *necessity* of talks. They need to talk about a common formula of accepting V2 - which was a legitimate ecumenical council of the Church - for what it was. A valid council with a papal nota praevia denying any attempt to teach dogma and laying down a prudential plan for dealing with the modern age, the latter being something that is never guaranteed infallibility.

I concur with the few on this blog that the Holy Father has given us enough reason to hope that He is genuine in finding a way forward that glorifies Sacred Tradition.

Keep the Faith!

prosper said...

How sad to see people criticising the Holy Father for expecting the SSPX to accept the authority of an ecumenical council. If you would have it otherwise, how can you consider yourselves friends of Tradition?

Discuss whether the Council defined any dogma (Cardinal Ratzinger said it didn't), discuss whether its texts were lamentably ambiguous, discuss what it means to say it remained on a pastoral level. But don't deny its authority. Otherwise you might as well be sedevacantists, denying papal authority in the face of teaching which has at times in history been vague or confusing. No. An ecumenical council is an ecumenical council. It is to be hoped that in the coming discussions, the SSPX and the Roman authorities will between them help further the work of reading Vatican II in continuity with the rest of the Church's teaching. Denying its authority is no solution.

It would be good to see a post addressing the latest on La Cigüeña de la Torre. For those who don't read Spanish: it appears that Bishop Williamson himself wrote a letter of apology for the damage caused by his remarks, the contents of which proved a pleasant surprise to the Vatican.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone the news article posted below?

(And I'm almost beginning to wonder whether the Bishop Williamson/Jewish flap was planned...perhaps to portray Traditional Catholicism as something linked to Nazism...which, in turn, would allow Church officials the opportunity to inform the world of such things as the following.)

ROME, JAN. 27, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Dialogue between Jews and Christians is a sensitive issue, and there have been many misunderstandings about the new Good Friday prayer for the Jews, says a scholar in the matter.

According to Father Michel Remaud, director of the Christian Institute of Jewish Studies and Hebrew Literature of Jerusalem, the Good Friday prayer for the Jews used in the "extraordinary rite" is not a prayer for their conversion, but rather a prayer for the Jewish people.

He said the text approved by Benedict XVI does not say "Oremus pro conversione Judæorum" (Let us pray for the conversion of the Jews), but "Oremus et pro Judæis" (Let us also pray for the Jews).

So, in the tinkered-with 1962 Missal, during the Good Friday Liturgy, Catholics no longer actually pray for the conversion of Jews?

After nearly 2000 years, the Church has ceased to pray in Her official liturgy for the conversion of Jews?

Anonymous said...

I think it is sad whenever papal authority is misused. Before Vatican II it was misused against the Cristeros in Mexico. It has been misused for most of the last forty years against Traditional Catholics. I think the SSPX has done great work for Tradition to be preserved in the Catholic Church and look forward to their
contribution in future years. In this man's opinion Bishop Williamson's gaffe pales when compared to Pope John Paul II kissing the Koran.

May God Bless Bishop Lefebvre,

A.M. LaPietra

Anonymous said...

If you don't believe in the Popes authority, why do you think he is able to lift te excommunication of the SSPS' bishops?

Dan Hunter said...

Wow!

Bishop Williamson wrote a letter of apology to the Holy Father.
Great to hear that.

ponte said...

Well said Prosper and some others. We have to live in reality my blogosphere friends!

beng said...

How sad to see people criticising the Holy Father for expecting the SSPX to accept the authority of an ecumenical council. If you would have it otherwise, how can you consider yourselves friends of Tradition?

My sentiment exactly.


SSPX is not stupid enough to say that Vat II is not an ecumenical council with binding authority (tho it doesn't bind much). So why is some people does [say it]?


Know your Catholicism please.

Anonymous said...

Of course the SSPX recognize the authority of Vatican II. Vatican II did not teach anything with a note of authority as requiring something new to be accepted, and proposed it pastoral initiatives a methodologies for renewal, without dogmatically imposing them.

The SSPX have always acknowledge that. That is why they have criticized the pastoral initiatives.

The problem is that the rest of the hierarchy are confused on this score, and hold Vatican II to be superior to Trent and Vatican I.

So the Pope needs to open a dialogue on Vatican II not with the 4 but with the other 4000+ plus all of whom were consecrated with papal mandate.

You see, it is not the late Archbishop who caused the problem.

And to continue to imply that is historical revisionism far worse than anything every uttered by Bishop Wiliamson.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Anonymous said...

From the CRC of Abbe de Nantes:

"The lone issue in what already appears to be a dialogue of the deaf is found in the solution that the Abbé de Nantes has advocated for forty years: the appeal to the infallible judgement of the Pope. It is not a question of discussing, it is not a question of the rights of tradition to co-exist despite the hegemony of error, it is a question of knowing if conciliar teachings are in
Faith, which is what the Abbé de Nantes has denied in all conscience for forty years, while providing countless proofs of his accusations. Nevertheless, only Pope can settle this question once and for all, not by imposing his opinion as a private theologian, but by answering it in the correct form that guarantees him the infallible assistance of the Holy Spirit."

What a gem of wisdom! I would hope that the Fraternity would take this approach in the matter of clearing up the ambiguity of VII documents.

Thanks, Jomo.

M.A.

Anonymous said...

I note that the Pope did not say that the S.S.P.X would have to accept Vatican II. He said that the Society would have to accept "the authority ... of Vaticn II". Vatican II and the authority of Vatican II are not one and the same thing. The Society must accept whatever authority Vatican II documents bear and must accept Vatican II doctrine to the extent required by the authority each one bears.

That should not be a problem.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Pardon me, but I accidently cut off part of the quote as found in the CRC of Abbe de Nantes.

"...it is a question of knowing if conciliar teachings are in accordance with the deposit of the Faith, which is what the Abbé de Nantes has denied in all conscience for forty years, while providing countless proofs of his accusations..."

The above is the part I messed up.
Now, the passage makes better sense. Isn't that the real test of orthodoxy? to teach what has always been taught here and everywhere for all times?

M.A.

LeonG said...

"...true fidelity & true recognition...."

Indeed, the opt out clause for those who dissent from the liberalist interpretations of those ambiguous documents.

Atty. Venice Bayongan said...

"...the Pope, it is said, will not ask them to 'sign on' specifically to Vatican II or to any other specific Council, but merely to accept papal authority and the Magisterum. Since Vatican II apparently does not add dogma, this should be acceptable to both parties--and it's an end run around the hardliners in the S.S.P.X, and against the hardline liberals too."

This I think is a do-able alternative. Since there is really no pronounced dogma stated or rather - defined within Vatican II. The SSPX, furthermore accepts, ALL infallible pronouncements of all the other Ecumenical Councils. What the Vatican wants from the SSPX would only be to recognize some authority emanating from the Council(it maybe pastoral, moral, but not necessarily infallible in nature). Since many of us traditional Catholics in full communion with Rome, already accept the authority of Vatican II, more or less, it maybe the same for the SSPX. As for my personal opinionated stance, I believe Vatican II is infallible, but as to the limits of that infallibility, I am not really sure. As to the essence and nature of Vatican II, I believe that it is already the Magisterium's problem or domain to handle, not traditional Catholics or the SSPX. We're only required to accept it (in general or with ambiguity, perhaps). I think that only a future Pope (or Pope Benedict XVI's future clarifications)or another Ecumenical Council, which can only resolve this issue finally.

Instavrare Omnia In Christo

solvency ii said...

It makes you think what the lord would say in reaction to this?>

angelic said...

solvency ii - I truly believe the Lord would say, "Vatican who?"

I don't recognise Vatican II and I'm not SSPX so where does that leave me ?

Statistics provided by Paul Haley are enough for me.

Joe B said...

We recognize Satan and that he has been given some authority on Earth. Doesn't mean anything good comes from it.

Almost everyone recognizes the disaster starting concurrently in time with the council, but the divide is in the link between the two.

If the discussions focus on that link, they are doomed. But if they focus on reconciling the ambiguous, confusing, novel, and self-contradictory statements in the conciliar documents, this process will be of far more significance in eternity than Vatican II was.

A most challenging endeavor, but this is precisely what SSPX was put here for, and superbly equipped and trained they are for the task. Seasoned in time and discipline, this is their hour.

And I have absolute confidence they will properly bring Our Lady's influence to the task, that's for sure!

It is the hirelings of the Holy Father who will represent him in this matter I have grave doubts about. SSPX has been unable to find competence in them up to now, so where will they come from? It is for them we must pray.

Anonymous said...

1) If You are a catholic You should respect the ENTIRE catholic faith and tradition (magisterium) that means ALSO VATICAN II. How can someone not accepting ALL the Ecumenical Councils of the Church be a catholic?..the One's that didn't accept Cahlcedon (in 451 I think it was) where caled "Monophysites" (syriac-orthodox, armenians,copts) and even if we now have good relations and ecumenical dialogue with them they still are not in communion with them..the same thing with the followers of Nestorius after Ephesos..when the Council of Florens tried to reunion all the Eastern christians it demanded of them the recognition of all the Councils after 451 or 1054 (depending of which "schism" the churches "belonged to")..I honestly don't understand why the situation with all "lefebrists", "sedesvacatinsts" and other "traditional" catholics should be different? I think the reforms of Lateran, Trident or local synods in the middle ages also had many opponents..for example many priests not accepting the 100% celibacy for all priests..that wasnt required as a rule before..I think every reform of the church takes effort from the people to go out from our human narrowness and open for the Holy Spirit and His guidance in the Church..HAVE CONFIDENCE TO THE POPE AND DONT CRITISIZE HIM..Dear Father (Sacerdos in GermanY)I don't understand how a catholic priest a "traditional" priest can critize the Pope? that's fariseism..I don't mean that all after Vatican II was good..but it was a matter of modernistic "leftwing" interpretation..it wasn't the interpretation of the Council itself, or the intention of the Church or the Holy "Counciliar" Popes (John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and now H.H. Benedict XVI) we should be grateful to have had HOLY POPES in the XX century..the difficult and brutal century..and many holy shepherds (not all of them off course..but who are we to judge?)

2) I think the situation in the Church wasn't ideal eather the years before the Council. Some reforms and dialogue with the world was needed. SECULARISM isn't just Vaticanum II fault, it happens in the world anyway..and the Church has to find new ways to continue give the True Faith, the Holy Gospel to all the nations of the world. Yes there have been many "misinterpretations" , and I'm happy we now can celebrate the "old Mass" and have beack more of the treasures of traditional catholicism..but I think the great thing of the Catholic Church is that its Catholic, it stand in the middle..either You go too much to "the right" or the "left" is dangerous..LETS HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE POPE AND THE HOLY CHURCH (I mean..do You really think that God would have abandoned the Church and let it go astray after the Council?..that is not to have confidence in God..to think that the Pope is a heretic or to be sedesvacantic..I have more Confidence in the Pope than in small secteric groups!) Sorry for my bad english..I hope You understod
(greatings from (still) Catholic Poland)