Rorate Caeli

SSPX-ROME
Holy See Communiqué: SSPX invited to "clarify"
UPDATES: today's meeting; why the Pope will not give up

COMMUNIQUÉ: MEETING BETWEEN THE PREFECT OF THE
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
AND THE SUPERIOR GENERAL OF THE SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X,
MARCH 16, 2012


During the meeting on September 14, 2011, between His Eminence Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, and His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, a Doctrinal Preamble, accompanied by a Preliminary Note, was delivered to the latter, as the fundamental basis for achieving full reconciliation with the Apostolic See. This Preamble spelled out certain doctrinal principles and criteria for interpreting Catholic doctrine that are necessary to ensure fidelity to the Church’s Magisterium and sentire cum Ecclesia.

The response of the Society of St. Pius X to this Doctrinal Preamble that arrived in January 2012 was submitted to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for their review and was then forwarded to the Holy Father for his judgment. In compliance with the decision by Pope Benedict XVI, the evaluation of the response of His Excellency Bishop Fellay was communicated to him by a letter delivered to him today. This evaluation notes that the position that he expressed is not sufficient to overcome the doctrinal problems that are at the basis of the rift between the Holy See and the aforesaid Society.

At the conclusion of today’s meeting, out of a concern for avoiding an ecclesial rupture with painful and incalculable consequences, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X was invited to be so kind as to clarify his position so as to heal the existing rift, as Pope Benedict XVI wished.

[Original languages: Italian and French ; we have replaced the VIS translation with one by Michael J. Miller, which closely follows the French text.]

__________________________________ 

Addendum (Radio Vaticana):

"Bp. Fellay is invited to clarify his position, in order to be able to heal the existing rift, as is the desire of Pope Benedict XVI, from now until April 15."
__________________________________ 

[UPDATE - 1500 GMT] In an article on today's events, Salvatore Izzo reports the following for Italian news agency AGI:

The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal William Joseph Levada, delivered [the content of the communiqué] to the Superior General of the Society, Bishop Bernard Fellay, in a conversation that lasted for over two hours ... . During today's meeting in the Palace of the Holy Office - in which the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Abp. Luis Francisco Ladaria, and the Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, Mgr. Guido Pozzo, also took part, while Bp. Fellay was joined by his assistant Fr. Nély - a complete rupture was avoided by the Holy See, making it clear that Benedict XVI still expects a recomposition.
__________________________________

[UPDATE: 1800 GMT - Comment on the events of the day, by Jean-Marie Guénois, blogger for Religioblog, the religion blog of major French daily Le Figaro -  we have also replaced the VIS translation above with one that more accurately reflects the French text.]

Why doesn't Rome give up hope on an agreement with the Lefebvrists?

Jean-Marie Guénois - March 16, 2012 17h46

This deformation of information is quite curious... While Rome reveals today that a new meeting took place this morning between Bp. Fellay, leader of the Lefebvrists, and Cardinal Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the scope of reaching an - admittedly very hard - agreement, many colleagues [in the media] speak of an "ultimatum" imposed by the Vatican in order to find a solution within "one month".

I have read and reread the official communiqué and I do not find in it either the word "ultimatum" or above all any trace of a spirit of ultimatum. That is to say, of a pressure attached to a calendar in order to reach a result by forcing down the power lever.

No ultimatum

And what is worse: to affirm that is to profoundly deform the information published today by the Vatican. Especially since this matter of the ultimatum came from the interpretation of the words of Fr. Lombardi, Vatican spokesman, who answered the question of a journalist on the "deadlines". It is estimated that the Vatican would expect a response from now "up to around one month". He did not speak, as far as I know, of an ultimatum. Which would be, for that matter, ridiculous, for a crisis that has been open for... fifty years, since the opening of Vatican II!

Here is in fact the whole text of the communiqué. It is short enough to be quoted:

[TEXT OF THE COMMUNIQUÉ]

Not a meaningless courtesy

This very Roman courtesy is not at all meaningless. Quite the opposite, it indicates that the Pope still wants an agreement, whether we want it or not. And that Bp. Fellay wants it as well, whether we want it or not.

It seems to me, on the contrary, that the negotiation enters the homestretch. It has changed in its nature: it is no longer of a doctrinal, but of an ecclesial nature.

Allow me to explain myself: for three years, one might say, the systems engineers, on the Lefebvrist side and on the Vatican side, have worked in order to try to make two versions of the same "Catholic" software compatible. But... dating from two very different times.

They have tried it all. And they have indeed concluded that there is a technical and ...definitive incompatibility. That is, a theological "incompatibility" between Vatican I and Vatican II, to make this simple.

But this disagreement, formally established, does not mean that an "ecclesial" solution - we would say "political" in worldly language - is henceforth impossible.

It is this new negotiation that begins today with the letter delivered to Bp. Fellay.

Rome, it seems to me, is not looking for a cheap compromise. The Lefebvrists would not accept it, anyway. That would be the source of difficult problems in the mid-term.

Not a matter for bookkeepers

Rome wants an agreement, founded on a grand vision of Catholicism. A vision that is capable of integrating several families some of which are very far ones from the others. A spirit capable of accepting an internal debate, this "disputatio" that belongs to the great intellectual tradition of the Catholic Church - now currently lost.

In sum, an exit from this crisis through the high road. And not by the low way of these compromises of petty bookkeepers, who will never be in agreement on the interpretation of their results and their spreadsheets, because they are in fact limited to millimeters and commas almost with the meticulousness of Swiss clockmakers.

The Benedict XVI style is not there as far as I could observe it. With him, intellectual precision and rigor go along with grandness of vision and spiritual and intellectual vitality. He will never let himself be locked within the numbered notes of a supposed ultimatum, especially taking into consideration the time scale of the Church.

A meeting with the Pope?

And, after all, it cannot be excluded that, once the response of Bp. Fellay to today's mail comes to the Pope's hands, the latter, who has for a long time longed for finding this unity, would invite this rebellious son, once again, as he did shortly after his election in 2005.

And that he puts to him, like a father to a son - that is to say, man to man, and not as technician of a theology to technician of another theology - the matter of trust. Such is the will for reconciliation, even if all its details and all its past affronts will never be fixed. 

This is of the essence of the audacity of Christ's disciples. But it is also the characteristic of great men who know how to make, when the time has come, a true decision.

117 comments:

Francis said...

"At the end of today's meeting, moved by concern to avoid an ecclesial rupture of painful and incalculable consequences, the superior general of the Society of St. Pius X was invited to clarify his position in order to be able to heal the existing rift, as is the desire of Pope Benedict XVI".

In other words, Rome is telling the SSPX they have one more chance to accept the modernist, relativist and indifferentist ideology and "theology" of Vatican II which is the promotion of the NWO.

Scott Quinn said...

Okay. But what, exactly, are the points that need clarification? The Vatican looks silly by not being transparent and allowing the issues that trouble thinking Catholics to be debated and resolved in a public forum. The Vatican's behavior towards the SSPX also runs counter to its absurd embracing of John Murray's religious liberty argument. This pope is quite obviously not serious about ending the rift. So be it.

Ole Doc Farmer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ole Doc Farmer said...

Not good. Time to intensify prayers.

Melchior Cano said...

"Urbi et Orbi:

We have not yet reached a clarification on the clarification given by the Society in response to the clarification they requested in response to the preamble. But we all know that clarification is very important, so we've asked Bishop Fellay to further clarify his position."

Ferraiuolo said...

Roma locuta est, causa finita est.

Keep on praying

Chris said...

ANOTHER clarification is requested? I thought Bishop Fellay already provided a clarification? I'm completely confused. Is this another way of saying, "LAST chance to reconsider or else you're all excommunicated?" Could someone skilled in Vatican-speak please propound on the meaning of this?

New Catholic said...

This Communiqué is what is urgent need of clarification...

I am not Spartacus said...

Because the sentire cum Ecclesiais now different than it was prior to V2 and because The Magisterium and The SSPX are fully committed to their respective Doctrinal Beliefs, it prolly was irrational to think an accommodation could ever take place.

Oh well, there will be a future Pontiff who will set-right all that is now wrong.

Liz said...

So sad to read this. I had hoped that they would allow the SSPX to "rejoin" the Church as they continued to discuss the differences. They certainly allow other discenting voices to remain in the Church even as they call for gay rights, women priests and embrace other positions contrary to the teachings of the Church.

beng said...

The letter states that the position he expressed is not sufficient to overcome the doctrinal problems which lie at the foundation of the rift between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X.<


It seems that there's something more to this.

It was usually the SSPX who request clarity from Rome. This is because, it was assumed, Rome used V2-esque languange.

But now, it's Rome who summon +Fellay for clarification.

Did +Fellay put his diplomat hat and submit a very diplomatic answer? Who knows.

Marko Ivančičević said...

Not everything that Vatican says equals to what the Pope says...sad but true...
Those commissions are trying to keep bp. Fellay away from the Pope..

Francis said...

Maybe, just maybe, it's time for the SSPX to play the game and tell Rome what they want to hear just to get into "full communion" with the Holy See. That's what the modernists did in the 1920's and 30's, so they infiltrated the Church from within and causes the crisis that we have today. Yes, the SSPX, and all trads want the conciliar church and her hierarchy to instantly return to upholding the orthodox and traditional dogmas of the Catholic faith, but sadly, barring a miracle from Heaven, that's not going to happen IMO. The SSPX can do alot more good inside the Church than out.

Tom Esteban said...

Didn't have to wait long for the armchair theologians to appear! Apparently many out there are all privy to the documents.

Asking for clarifications is not a bad thing; nor is it necessarily a circumlocution or "new-speak". Let's do the traditional Catholic thing and take the word in the best way possible - the way in which it presents itself for interpretation prima facie. Documents of the kind that I assume are being studied and exchanged can indeed be ambigious. I know, I know, the SSPX can make no mistakes... but for those who live in the real world, they perhaps are not as explicit as they should be. I don't know. Perhaps Rome merely wants to know more. And why not? If they are working towards reconciliation they (Rome) don't want to be taken for a ride - just as the SSPX don't want to be duped either. C'mon, let's give this full support rather than start mouthing off.

If this is going to be done properly, as it should be, then it will take time.

Hey, who knows, maybe the clarifications are not anti-Trad but pro-Trad. Maybe Pope Benedict is saying, "Hey, you know, you can be a bit more strict on this point".

Praying, praying, praying!

Thom said...

Prayers are certainly needed, but I read this as "tag, it's your turn" in the round and round nature of these discussions.

The deadline is interesting, however, and I don't really know what to make of that.

Gregorian Chant said...

'He that reigns in the highest, to Whom has been given all power in Heaven and Earth, entrusted the government of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, to one man alone on the Earth, namely to Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and to Peter's successor, the Roman pontiff, in fullness of power. This one man He set up as chief over all nations and kingdoms, to pluck up, destroy, scatter, dispose, plant and build. . .'

Pope St. Pius V

totustuusmaria said...

Scott Quinn wrote: "The Vatican looks silly by not being transparent and allowing the issues that trouble thinking Catholics to be debated and resolved in a public forum."
Of course, theology debated among people who aren't qualified is quite dangerous. And and every heresy can and does come out of the ignorant playing with the faith.

Igumen Gregory said...

And yet the far left dissenters operate in the bosom of the church with virtual impunity. Something wrong with this picture!

totustuusmaria said...

I most certainly think that the canonical situation has to be clarified, one way or the other. But the implication that foot dragging could result in a declaration of schism and the resultant excommunications is frightening. Let us pray.

Scamandrius said...

@ Ferraiuolo

That does not seem to be the case at all. In fact, perhaps the opposite.

Prof. Basto said...

Actually, that is the fundamental part of the communiqué:

"The letter states that the position he expressed is not sufficient to overcome the doctrinal problems which lie at the foundation of the rift between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X"

So this new "clarification request" that is now made seems to be not only a demand for clarity, but also a statement. A statement that the Holy See considers the SSPX position insufficient.

It is probable that the Holy See letter points out the specific insufficiencies detected in the SSPX response, and that it asks the SSPX to accept certain propositions unequivocally.

Thus, I'm guessing that the SSPX are invited to clarify their response, but in a way that overcomes the insufficiency, that in, in a way that shows that the propositions considered essential by the Holy See are accepted by the Fraternity.

Bill P. said...

I don't know what the protocol is, but a publication the intials of which are N.O.R. (March, 2012) has an article "Liturgical Winners & Losers" which summarizes the forty years of the Novus Ordo Mass.
It is tempered but scathing, including the collapse of ICEL. I in don't recall it mentions the S.S. P.X., but I don't believe based on the force of this article that Bp. Fellay should give an inch. The "Losers" above are clearly the proponents of the Novus Ordo "religion".

Niantic said...

Sometimes I wonder if the Vatican is really interested in the SSPX being "reconciliated". Most in the upper echelons of the Vatican are unrepentent Modernists and promoters and defenders of "the spirit of V2". They know of, and clearly see, the destruction all around them, but they seem to have a diabolical satisfaction in letting it all happen.
Witness the fact that any Modernist group is acceptable and given the honors of being "in full communion" regardless of their destructive behaviour and scandal they cause.
But when it comes to the SSPX all hell breaks loose and pure hatred and condemnation abound. Other Traditional Priests are oppressed as well and accused of all sorts of misdeeds, and the list goes on and on. Who is there to defend them all? Not those occupying the Vatican. It is really very sad and frustrating. How long Oh Lord, how long...?

Geoffrey said...

Francis,

Actually, you have no idea what the Pope is asking the SSPX to clarify. You have not seen the contents of these lettters but have only heard the same generalities that we have.

Best wishes,
Geoffrey

poeta said...

I hope and pray this is some sort of matter that could still be overcome, by (for example) agreeing to the broadest possible definition of "obsequium religiosum."

Ecclesia Militans said...

"Bien sûr, aucun accord"

Athelstane said...

Well, at least they're still talking.

I don't think it's a bad thing to keep the details of the negotiations confidential, at least while negotiations are ongoing. And I don't think Bishop Fellay thinks it's a bad idea, either.

Keep praying, and wait.

I am not Spartacus said...

Didn't have to wait long for the armchair theologians to appear!

Dear Mr Esteban. In the very first official act of his Pontificate, Our Holy Father wrote a letter to the Jews who live in the Holy City of Rome; Our Holy Father approved the offering of the Real Mass merely as an act of toleration for those Catholics who were raised-up in the Faith during the time the Real Mass was normative; and Our Holy Father approved the Catechetical Program of the Kiki Cult and so one does not have to be a weatherman to know that the ecclesiastical winds represent a virtual hurricane of novelty that will blow-away any attempt on the part of The SSPX to decamp in the Holy City of Rome for The SSPX has made it crystal clear that its synapses are activated by Tradition and so their collective intellect is definitely not aligned with the current, and transient and temporary, currents of thought that have swamped that which I was born into - The Pre-V2 Catholic Church.

I am not Spartacus said...

"Bp. Fellay is invited to clarify his position, in order to be able to heal the existing rift, as is the desire of Pope Benedict XVI, from now until April 15."

Quasi Modo Sunday. Hmm. Maybe Bishop Fellay is thought by some to be a new born babe and by others but a disfigured hulk who will kidnap the Esmerelda of the new Springtime

I.A. said...

We don't know what Rome's Preamble included but some assume that part of it was that the Society accept V2 and the validity of the NO Mass. In addition the Society may have been offered a position in the Church such as that of the Fraternity of St. Peter or, even better, a Personal Prelature such as Opus Dei has. If the Society rejects V2 and the validity of the NO Mass, they are also rejecting the authority of the Pope, and thereby rejecting Tradition. I believe that this is one of the doctrinal issues under discussion.

Magdalene said...

I'm so glad that a deadline has been set by Rome for a clarification by the superior of the SSPX. I think that the superior was planning on stalling indefinately, and just keep on like they always have. But now they have to make a choice.

As the Catholic Church is not the democracy that some trads wish it were, we faithful do NOT have a right to know all of the contents of the communications between Rome and the SSPX. It would be nice to know everything, of course, but we do not have a right to it.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

Oh come on Tom, theres optimism and then theres denial of reality. This is what the third clarification they've requested? Really the SSPX should narrow it down to one sentence 'We don't accept modernism'. One hopes thats clear enough!

But seriously what are these 'doctrinal issues'? Surely he's not referring to those psuedo doctrines created by a non infallible pastoral council which apparently avoided creating any doctrines? How very confusing.

But yes I agree we should pray, indeed prayer is our only hope. It appears that pope benedict XVI is not serious about addressing the serious problems within the Church today. The very fact that such groups as the neocatechemunal way, focalore, taize and other scandalous and doctrinally suspect groups are approved and the SSPX is not makes a mockery of The Church.

Francis said...

Geoffrey,
You're right. But One can assume from past differences between Rome and the SSPX on issues such as the conciliar novelties and definition of ecumenism, the NO, "religious liberty" and collegiality these would be sticking points, especially on ecumenism, "religious liberty" and collegiality. I hope the Holy Father will change his, and Vatican II's modernist interpretation and creation of these novelties and go back to upholding the de-fide dogmas of the Church which IMO the SSPX have never abandoned. I'd be real happy to be wrong about this, and I hope that I am.

Pilgrim said...

The society say that VII is ambiguous. Then the pope tells them that all ambiguity is to be interpreted in the light of previous tradition. What is the problem?

R.John said...

I would like to see the SSPX come out with a strong profession of faith (a sort of Creed) affirming the doctrinal teachings of the Church that are currently clouded by ambigiuty and/or denied by heresy. I think this is something that is needed today.

Tom Esteban said...

JMJ always good to hear from you; hope you are well. With respect, I must say that it is you who must acknowledge the reality! The reality is both historical and contextual. Historical because, well, do some reading into the foundations of the Redemptorists for example. See how much back and forth there was in trying to approve the Rule. Good grief. Look at the Franciscans. Look at all the major orders of institutes of consecrated life. It's never simple. It's never been a simple "Oh this looks good let's all have a party together while I give you all that you request". There are always clarifications wanted. Always little issues. It takes time for the right things to happen. Contextually I say, because this period in history is also peculiar, as is the situation of the SSPX. This attempt at regularization isn't happening outside of the current Catholic milieu (especially in the Vatican itself, we all know there are staunch leftists there). One needs to take these things into account.

The funny thing is, JMJ, that in your own statement you hardly seem to recognize the irony of it all! You think it's as easy as the SSPX saying "We don't accept Modernism"? Funny, because the Pope, along with the CDF, will say the same thing (as they should be expected to). So where's the problem? Well, that needs discussing. And so, the discussions continue.

I cannot for the life of me understand why Traddies are sometimes so much in search of a conspiracy that they'll go over-the-top in their suspicions. Suspicion has its place, but it must be kept there. Discussions are not always bad, nor are clarifications. Rather than bowing to the misuse of these terms by liberals we should be reclaiming them and using them as they are meant to be used. This happens to be such a case.

You know, I like to trust the Pope and the CDF. Call me crazy!

I will just wait and see what happens after posting this! Peace be with you.

M. A. said...

What are you trying to say, Gregorian Chant?
_____________________
"...This one man [pope]He set up as chief over all nations and kingdoms, to pluck up, destroy, scatter, dispose, plant and build. . .'

Pope St. Pius V
______________________

We traditionalists fully accept what this saint pope said. However, it is to be understood as a Pope having the power to pluck out heresy, destroy it, scatter with anathemas to the four winds those who oppose the doctrine of Jesus Christ, and to plant the good seed of His Word and build up and establish firm foundations for the growth and propagation of His Church throughout the entire globe.

Joe said...

R.John said...

I would like to see the SSPX come out with a strong profession of faith (a sort of Creed) affirming the doctrinal teachings of the Church that are currently clouded by ambigiuty and/or denied by heresy. I think this is something that is needed today.

I agree... and in the past to bring folks "back into the fold", that profession was the Apostle's Creed. If that same criteria were used, there would be no issue today, I think. Interesting...

P.K.T.P. said...

This is the Pope's no response response. Once all the clarifications have been clarified, the Holy See will presumably decide something, like what is the status of the S.S.P.X. The Pope may also actually do something, as John Paul II made some provisions when the 1988 agreement failed. The Sons of the Holy Redeemer have been waiting for over three years now just for canonical form. Something will be in the works.

The latest statement is interesting only for what it does not say. There is not even mention of the possibility of formal schism should Bishop Fellay not satisfy the Pope on this.

Meanwhile, Benedict XVI does not help much by planning to revise the 1962 Missal. He makes his own efforts harder still.

P.K.T.P.

Chris said...

"Please sign this ambiguous document. Don't worry. We'll clarify what it means later."

Hmm.....where have I heard this before....

Malta said...

@Ora: Surely he's not referring to those psuedo doctrines created by a non infallible pastoral council which apparently avoided creating any doctrines?

Vatican II taught many doctrines (or "teachings," which are usually binding, but you are correct, it formed no new dogmas, which are always binding, and to disbelieve in them is heresy; probably 7 out of 10 catholics today are formal heretics).

Therein lies the rub. A good attorney will always try to wear the hat of his opponent before he argues his case. I'm a Traditional Catholic, but before that I was an atheist and a Modernist Catholic when I first converted. You have to understand the praxis and the prism through which both sides see the situation.

The FSSPX used to annoy me, now I love them and often go to their Chapels, pray with them and donate to them.

I say this, by way of background, because I know from experience that Rome and Econe are just never going to see eye-to-eye.

This leads to your comment about doctrines. Rome thinks the doctrines taught at VII must be followed; Econe thinks that some are untenable vis-a-vis Tradition (and I agree). The showdown is one of enormous import and implication. Both sides need to emerge from their trenches and sing the Christmas songs to each other (which I honestly think they are trying to do, our Pope was a friend of Michael Davies, and the latter said then Cardinal Ratzinger was friendly towards Tradition, which he has proven to be, though no Traditionalist is he).

Doctrines are not infallible. There are no new dogmas in Vatican II. But some assent of mind and will is owing to an ecumenical council, the largest such council the Church has ever had. That is Rome's position, and it is correct, it is probably, in large measure, Econe's position, as well. It is what degree of assent, and to what measure, and to which documents, and to which doctrines which is in play.

The hierarchy of the Church is composed of fallible men; these things are not easily resolved, and both sides are entrenched. But with its Rosary Crusades the SSPX has truly shown it wants formal reconciliation, and by lifting the excommunications, with Summorum Pontificum and with the doctrinal discussions Rome (really only our Pope) has shown that it wants SSPX back in the gates.

Please pray for our Holy Father, because despite a lot of nay-sayers out there I think he is truly doing everything he can to get SSPX back in the gates, and the crumbling city in the walls needs the master masons of the SSPX like never before.

ACS said...

April 15th is Divine Mercy Sunday.

Martin said...

I think the Vatican wants a clear answer to the original "ultimatum" which was the Preamble. They didn't get a real answer to it, so that is insufficient. They want a clearer answer to the Preamble and I can totally understand that.

However, I think the SSPX made a mistake in their initial answer to the Preamble. Even now, I think they should respond with a simple statement to the effect that they hold and will hold everything in the Apostles', Nicean, and Athanasian Creeds, AND that they do and always will abide by any and all dogmas defined by the Catholic Church, under the authority of the Pope. As for VII, it is for the Pope and his Curia to specify what, if any, is the dogmatic content of VII. This would put the ball in the Vatican's court to clarify exactly what must be held, and the day the Vatican is forced to do this, all of the empty theologian-speak of VII will become evident, as will the fact that no one needs to hold to it. I really wish they had done something of this sort. Instead, the SSPX entered an arena already enveloped in VII lingo, and engaged in a theological discussion that did not lead to a clarification of VII. Anyway, maybe on the ground things were different. But now the hour is late.

Scott said...

*facepalm*

More Newspeak said...

A clarification of the "clarification" is warranted.

John (Ad Orientem) said...

If this is not an ultimatum it is at least notice to the SSPX that Rome has given as much ground as they are going to and that time and patience are running out. The ball is now firmly in Bishop Fellay's court.

poeta said...

This is Bishop Fellay's "Lefebvre moment," isn't it?

He surely needs our prayers more than ever.

El Eremita said...

Malta, you said:

There are no new dogmas in Vatican II. But some assent of mind and will is owing to an ecumenical council, the largest such council the Church has ever had. That is Rome's position, and it is correct, it is probably, in large measure, Econe's position, as well. It is what degree of assent, and to what measure, and to which documents, and to which doctrines which is in play.

According to father Gleize's response to mons. Ocariz (which was included in the first response to the preamble), the SSPX denies that any kind of assent is owed to any of the VII documents, due to several defects that they (wrongly) attribute to the council as a magisterial act.

I have a strong feeling that this is the position for which Rome is asking a clarification, as not even mons. Lefebvre rejected the council "in toto" (this is even acknowledged in Gleize's paper, and... well... Lefebvre gave his placet to more than one of the documents of the Council!)

If the only problem were the individual propositions, then this would be easier... unless the SSPX considers such proposition, not only as erroneous or "not traditional", but as heretical. That would require further clarifications as well because, at least in Gleize's essay, the individual doctrinal problems are not developed, just mentioned.

Barbara said...

Talk about waiting with bated breath... but I think Bishop Fellay will not abandon us.

My prayers everyday to the Blessed Virgin for a complete reconcilation!

Barbara

Prof. Basto said...

Martin made a very interesting proposition:

"I think the Vatican wants a clear answer to the original "ultimatum" which was the Preamble. They didn't get a real answer to it, so that is insufficient. They want a clearer answer to the Preamble and I can totally understand that.

However, I think the SSPX made a mistake in their initial answer to the Preamble. Even now, I think they should respond with a simple statement to the effect that they hold and will hold everything in the Apostles', Nicean, and Athanasian Creeds, AND that they do and always will abide by any and all dogmas defined by the Catholic Church, under the authority of the Pope. As for VII, it is for the Pope and his Curia to specify what, if any, is the dogmatic content of VII. This would put the ball in the Vatican's court to clarify exactly what must be held, and the day the Vatican is forced to do this, all of the empty theologian-speak of VII will become evident, as will the fact that no one needs to hold to it. I really wish they had done something of this sort...".


Very interesting indeed. A simple answer, affirming the dogmas and submitting to Rome.

But is it now possible? What if Rome is demanding commitment to specific areas touched by Vatican II, such as religious liberty?

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

Its good to hear from you Tom as well.

With all due respect one cannot seriously compare the Redemptorists or the Franciscans to the SSPX. The issue there was disciplinary not doctrinal, it was such and such a requirement in the constitutios and those sort of 'wrinkles' can be ironed out. On the other hand the issue with the SSPX is dogmatic, Rome quite simply rejects most preconciliar teaching, the SSPX rejects most post conciliar teaching. A dogmatic problem is an entirely different kettle of fish to a disciplinary problem and unlike a disciplinary one is virtually insusceptible to compromise.

As for modernism, Rome could claim it rejected modernism all it wanted, it would not be true. Amusingly it has gone almost as far as accepting it in its criticism of pre conciliar teaching and other bishops throughout the world have been much more forthright. It really does not matter what Rome says, it cannot when it couchs things in vague 'could mean anything you want terms' it matters what Rome does. And one can quite clearly see from the actions of previous pontiffs and even Pope Benedicts actions that they accept modernism.

As for conspiracy, theres no conspiracy, simply a lack of naivety. Anything less would be foolish considering the 40 years of persecution tradition and the society has endured and for that matter continues to endure. How many bishops apply double standards when it comes to liberal and orthodox catholics? Or invent reasons or at the very least are not entirely honest when refusing to allow a TLM? Or completely and sometimes deliberately misunderstand the motu propio? The answer is many, many of them and even Rome itself sometimes does so. People could be called conspiracy theorists for believing such things and yet they are right.

If you wish to trust groups which have repeatedly issued documents contrary to the Catholic faith and allowed either deliberately or through negligence orthodox and traditional catholics to be run to the ground whilst they are praising liberals and heretics such as Hanks Kung and Hans von Balthasar you may do so. I however will not.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

Malta, I suspect you are referring to me.

I know what you are trying to say, but frankly I do not believe Rome truly wants the SSPX back in or it would that stop these ridicalous games. The assent due to Vatican II is absolutely nil as regards all the modernism it taught and the assent due to the ordinary magisterium as regards everything else. But you try separating the modernism from the odd isolated acceptable statement.

El Eremita said...

Prof. Basto, you said:

What if Rome is demanding commitment to specific areas touched by Vatican II, such as religious liberty?

At most, Rome can demand "obsequium religiosum", which, as it's known, is not binding in conscience.

Let's remember the agreement of 1988:

"3. À propos de certains points enseignés par le Concile Vatican II ou concernant les réformes postérieures de la liturgie et du droit, et qui nous paraissent difficilement conciliables avec la Tradition, nous nous engageons à avoir une attitude positive d’étude et de communication avec le Siège Apostolique, en évitant toute polémique."

This attitude proposed by the agreement is in line with Donum Veritatis guidelines regarding theological dissent on non-definitive doctrines.

But as I said before, I suspect that the position of the SSPX goes beyond "dissent" (at least regarding religious liberty)... maybe they hold that the "Vatican II doctrinal novelties" are actually heresies. If that's the case, then "respectful dissent" is not possible and an agreement couldn't be signed until both sides agree.

P.K.T.P. said...

Guénois is a dreamer, and we are now all entering a dream. The real problem is that the spirit animating the conciliar revolutionaries is completely incompatible with the perennial spirit of the Church. No matter how nuanced an analysis may be, Truth and Error cannot meet and embrace. Not possible. The most they can do is to delay this dispute to some future time.

A little honesty is needed here. The spirit of the Vatican II periti is the spirit of 1789. This is not the spirit of the great doctors of the Church. Life is complicated enough as it is but this is clear.

P.K.T.P.

doctor b said...

Isn't if "funny" that the only thing that matters to the Faithful is that we want to be Catholic. As a Catholic gentleman who attends a thriving, young family filled SSPX parish in Florida, I am greatly dismayed that I can not go to Sacramental Confession without getting a valid absolution at said parish. What am I and many others going to do if this ultimatum does not come to a full resolution? In a post-conciliar Church where sin is rarely mentioned, I am being put into a situation that threatens my immortal soul if I confess to a SSPX holy priest. It is odd to think that Protestantism used to be the other side. Now the battle is within with deadlier consequences. Ora, Ora, ora.

David Werling said...

Time is not on the Vatican's side. The Revolution is progressing at a very fast pace at this point, and the liberty of the Catholic Church in every western culture is coming to a very quick demise. Soon we will be back in the catacombs, the Vatican a pile of rubble, and the SSPX priests, and a few other like minded ones, will be all that's left, hiding in the shadows of the very near nightmare future that a withered Church militant has allowed to ascend in the spiritual vacuum of modernity.

"Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not over me; but weep for yourselves, and for your children." Lk 23:28.

GQ Rep said...

Regardless of the outcome, considering Benedict XVI's distasteful (to use polite language)hosting of the "Archbihop" of Canturbury last weekend in Rome and participating in a joint Anglican-Catholic vespers service with the radical ecumaniac Camaldolese monks Sab Gregorio , and also inviting this man to participate in the upcoming Catholic Synod of Bishops in the Fall, I support the SSPX totally.

God Bless the SSPX, and Bishop Fellay. Stand strong SSPX!!!!

Clinton R. said...

It is very sad that as the Vatican always is taking about ecumenism, it does not seem willingly to be inclusive to the SSPX. The Vatican is welcoming to the heretical Anglicans, Lutherans, the Neo Catechumanal Way and the like, but yet are hostile to the SSPX, who has never deviated from the true Catholic faith. Many, many prayers are needed right now. +JMJ+

Evagrius said...

If Vatican II was not infallible, then the Church is not infallible. It is hard to think of another Council which can more fully claim to represent a gathering of the Universal Church around its Supreme Pastor.

Buskin said...

Guenois' remarks are a perfect example of the use of language to avoid giving clarity. I cannot make sense of what he says. Does he know what he means ?

""We have not yet reached a clarification on the clarification given by the Society in response to the clarification they requested in response to the preamble. But we all know that clarification is very important, so we've asked Bishop Fellay to further clarify his position.""

## After which will come a clarification to clarify the clarification that clarified the clarification that clarified the clarification that clarified the clarication. This is onion-ring theology.

The Magisterium desperately needs to explain how - for example - vigorous Papal condemnations of religious liberty can priduce the doctrine of a right to religious liberty. It is possible to ketch ideas as to this this might happen; but the Church teaches it has happened, and it is the Church's doctrine, not that of theologians, hiwever perceptive, that needs to be explained. So what is the Church's explanation ? (Yes, we all know about DH paragraph 2 - sorry, but asserting that the traditional doctrine remains intact is not good enough, since the newer doctrine cancels out part of the older. And the older doctrine is in any case completely ignored in the Church)

New Catholic said...

I apologize for several mistakes and typos in the translation of the Guénois text. After some thorough reading, I think it is acceptable now.

NC

Gregorian Chant said...

M. A.
You asked what I am trying to say?
I didn't say anything, St. Pius V did, and I liked the quote :)
Beautiful!

charliem said...

"as the Vatican always is taking about ecumenism, it does not seem willingly to be inclusive to the SSPX. The Vatican is welcoming to the heretical Anglicans, Lutherans, the Neo Catechumanal Way and the like, but yet are hostile to the SSPX, who has never deviated from the true Catholic faith. "
The evident, logical explanation of this is unnerving.

Francis said...

Evagrius said "It is hard to think of another Council which can more fully claim to represent a gathering of the Universal Church around its Supreme Pastor".

I can think of a few: The Fourth Council of the Lateran, Florence, Trent, Vatican I. Unlike Vatican II these councils actually taught dogma, and upheld and reiterated past dogma.

P.K.T.P. said...

Evagrius makes an absurd claim. Vatican II is only infallible when it repeats previously-declared infallible teaching. The reason is included with L.G. in a note of the Doctrinal Commission: the assembled fathers did not invoke infallibility. No matter how numerous or august the participants, they cannot speak infallibly (with the Pope's assent) unless they manifest their will so to do.

P.K.T.P.

Matt said...

I've taken a careful look at the main postings on this subject. It gives me pause to realize Rome does have a double standard. Liz stated my sentiments exactly. Why are all the oddities in the Church tolerated out of hand, while the conversatives and the Traddies are required to justify and qualify everything they do?

The SSPX is the complete antithesis of the liberal side. It's my conclusion, therefore, Rome doesn't want anything as stalwart Tradtional as the Society because there may be more than meets the eye regarding what Rome may have in mind down the line. Having the SSPX in the door will be the exact counter-weight they would have to struggle against.

It's also really curioius whether all of this is being filtered to the Holy Father. Are they giving him a slanted version of what is going on as opposed to what is really going on? Why all of a sudden there is one more clarification to the clarification? Can't Fellay and the Holy Father just meet and discuss? Holy Father, we want this. Excellency, we want that...

I'm not trying to infer the Society may not be asking for things a bit out of their league. It takes two, I know. For a long time now, however, I think the Church thrives on protracted drama. Looking back over the past since the Council, what other conclusion can one arrive at?

Prayer and more prayer,

Matt

Ora et Labora said...

Time for this to stop we need a final answer to this not so merry go round.

A FINAL ANSWER PLEASE...YES OR NO.

???

Now for those of us who hope the answer is yes, it time once again to start storming heaven.

This is a very important time in history let us keep this in mind.

Mary Help of Christians pray for us!

Anonymous said...

I like this:

"The Benedict XVI style is not there as far as I could observe it. With him, intellectual precision and rigor go along with grandness of vision and spiritual and intellectual vitality. He will never let himself be locked within the numbered notes of a supposed ultimatum, especially taking into consideration the time scale of the Church.





A meeting with the Pope?


And, after all, it cannot be excluded that, once the response of Bp. Fellay to today's mail comes to the Pope's hands, the latter, who has for a long time longed for finding this unity, would invite this rebellious son, once again, as he did shortly after his election in 2005.




And that he puts to him, like a father to a son - that is to say, man to man, and not as technician of a theology to technician of another theology - the matter of trust. Such is the will for reconciliation, even if all its details and all its past affronts will never be fixed.




This is of the essence of the audacity of Christ's disciples. But it is also the characteristic of great men who know how to make, when the time has come, a true decision."

Bartholomew said...

To Magdalene:

To come to a traditional Catholic web site at a time like this, disparaging the SSPX and adding insult to injury by the utilization of the pejorative "trads," displays callous insensitivity.

I've already prayed for you. It's Lent.

Bartholomew said...

The essence of the reply to the "preamble" by the SSPX was that they could accept the conciliar "authentic teaching Magisterium" IF Rome would reiterate the dogmatic nature of "Pascendi" and the "Syllabus of Errors." This would, of course, negate any "hermeneutic of rupture."

If that proposal was unacceptable to the Holy See, then they are not serious about any notion of a "hermeneutic of continuity."

Marko Ivančičević said...

Evagrius said...
If Vatican II was not infallible, then the Church is not infallible. It is hard to think of another Council which can more fully claim to represent a gathering of the Universal Church around its Supreme Pastor.

LOL dude which planet are you from?
Nowhere was the power of infallibility invoked(To invoke Holy Spirit on the beginning doesn't mean that they will not reject Him later, and it doesn't mean the same as "to invoke the power of infallibility") . If the V2 teaches something different or in fact contrary to what the Church taught all along then there is error. If it states in another document something that is in accord with previous doctrine then this part is ok and infallible(because the doctrine itself is infallible).

Pope Paul VI said on several occasions that they didn't invoke the virtue of infallibility on the Council or it's documents. Everybody knows that it was only pastoral and not dogmatical council, and since it is pastoral it doesn't teach any certain dogma(it merely reiterates some of it in a obscure way - there are no anathemas on anything like all the councils since Nicea had), and hence it isn't infallible...
I could say it is on the level of some Pope's Sunday Mass sermon. If he says something good, then ok, and if not ...well then we are in big trouble mr.

Oliver said...

This impasse must always be seen in the context of Bp. Fellay and his immediate circle wanting an agreement and most of the membership not wanting one.It would be fatal for him to go ahead and he probably knows it.

Adfero said...

NB: For those of you upset that we're not publishing your comments, much of the time it's because you have not used a name, and are trying to post as anonymous.

As you'll see in the notes section above the comments box, you must use a name, or a pseudonym, when posting here.

Credo In Unum Deum said...

I think the truth lies somewhere between Evagrius and Marko. That the council did not have the character of infallibility is a matter of historical record. But the Catechism doesn't have that either. The council was also more than a Sunday sermon. To the extent that there was teaching in V2, we must accept it. The question is not, did it teach, but, WHAT did it teach. V2 is in need of clarification.

R. John said...

There is the possibility that the Pope is being fed lies and false information about the Society. It does seem more likely that he is on the side of the Modernists and heretics (given all that he had done and written in the past), but you never know. It may be that he suspects that he is being fed lies and false information, and therefore wants to meet with Bp. Fellay in person in order to avoid the middle-men.

It seems to me that this is probably the only hope at this time. But let us not forget that the current Rosary Crusade will be ending on Pentacost this year. I am very interested to see what this will bring.

For the time being, let us not run from the cross (the cross of being persecuted by heretics in the hierarchy), but rather press on for the glory of God and the salvation or souls. This life will end soon enough for all of us. Let us keep our eyes on the end and be encouraged that we are permitted to endure (as the mystical body) what our Lord endured during His Passion. What a great grace it is to have the faith in these trying times. It does bring a lot of sufferings, but these sufferings will be our glory in eternity. Let us be encouraged, renew our strength, and press on as soldiers of Christ.

Tradical said...

I'm realistic about the challenges that are inherent in these 'discussions'.

The only certain thing that I can see is the fault-lines between the Vatican and the SSPX will be drawn in stark relief if the SSPX is condemned.

As an aside: I noted that the Washington Post immediately brought up the issue of progress with the Jewish religion.

The pressure of human respect on the Holy Father, in my mind, would be enormous if the general idea is that that acceptance of the SSPX without a capitulation on V2 would be a rejection of V2.

P^3

Ora et Labora said...

R. John, Pope Benedict XVI is not naive, or afraid of anyone or misinform or ignorant about what happens around him, the world or the situation with the Society St.Pius X.
This man was dealing the the FSSPX in 1988 he knows the situation better than anyone.

Benedict XVI is one of the brightests men alive in spite of how many people might disagree with him, including myself at times the Pope knows the politics the Curia Romana plays and all the ins and outs of how things are done in Rome and world politics as well. This man is an intellectual.

Remember the Pope has written many books essays, articles on different theological magazines etc.
This man was a Professor of Theology and remember who he was before he became Pope.

Please it is time to stop the conspiracy theories they are not helping.

The Holy Father knows the situation well and he is asking the FSSPX for a final answer we all need an answer.

YES OR NO.

All we can do is pray that God's will, will be done, and not ours.

R. John said...

Ora et Labora wrote: "R. John, Pope Benedict XVI is not naive, or afraid of anyone ... Benedict XVI is one of the brightests men alive in spite of how many people might disagree with him..."

I realize that it is natural for men to look up to their leaders, but have you read any of Ratzinger's theological books? He either denies or casts doubt on just about everything the Church teaches, from original sin, to eucharistis adoration, to the resurrection of the body (and much, much more).

It is good to show proper respect for proper authorities, but it is no virtue to live with our head in the sand. We need to be able to face reality, even when the reality we face is painful.

Ora et Labora said...

R. John,
What are you talking about???

It is I who is responding to your comments don't turn it back on me.

Please read what you wrote:

"There is the possibility that the Pope is being fed lies and false information about the Society."

and this:

"It may be that he suspects that he is being fed lies and false information, and therefore wants to meet with Bp. Fellay in person in order to avoid the middle-men."

"We need to be able to face reality, even when the reality we face is painful"

Now trust me there is no one more realistic than me.
One more thing going deeper into this discussion is useless and usually it becomes a battle of who comes up with the wittiest comments and the point of the discussion is lost.

But one thing is certain and is that we should ALL AGREE that it is time we get an answer from the FSSPX:

YES OR NO.

Ora et Labora said...

Rorate I hope you publish my answer to John R there is nothing wrong with what I said to him.

R. John said...

Ora et Labora,

I was trying to give the pope the benefit of the doubt, and, in fact, I certainly think it is possible that he is being fed false and misleading information about the Society.

Ora et Labora wrote "But one thing is certain and is that we should ALL AGREE that it is time we get an answer from the FSSPX".

What kind of answer are you looking for? Their position has always been perfectly clear: they still hold to what the Church taught prior to Vatican II and refuse to accept the masonic errors that have been formally condemned by the Church, such as religious liberty, and false ecumenism, which amounts to religious indifferentism.

The SSPX is willing to be in union with Rome as long as Modernist Rome does not force them to embrace heresy. Is that really too much to ask? It appears so.

Peter said...

This whole thing could be just for the consumption of the world press and liberal 'Catholics' in the Church. The Vatican is showing how tough they are so when they regularize the SSPX no one will claim that they just gave them everything and demanded nothing.

We do live in a Media age so let's not take anything at face value!

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

Ora et labora, the SSPX has always been fairly clear, yes to true Catholic doctrine, No to modernist heresy, Rome on the other hand has said everything from yes to no to maybe, to lets see, maybe in a while and all manner of vague answers.

Francis said...

There's no doubt that His Holiness could be getting fed bad information about the SSPX, and Catholic tradition in general by the likes of devout modernists like Bertone, Levada, Schonborn and Muller among others. However we must not forget that Father Ratzinger was a peritus to Cardinal Frings at Vatican II. By Father Ratzinger's own accord he considered himself a "reformist" at the Council and His theology writings and actions as Father Ratzinger, Cardinal Ratzinger and now Pope Benedict XVI have proved that he is a modernist (E.g his promotion and acceptance of the false and masonic inspired ecumenism, saying the jews don't need to be baptized, believe in Our Lord and convert to His Catholic Church etc.) Therefore His Holiness, while throwing us trads a bone once and a while, has no desire to return the Church to Catholic orthodoxy and tradition.

Knight of Malta said...

@ORA: ...but frankly I do not believe Rome truly wants the SSPX back in or it would that stop these ridicalous games.

You are quite right: Rome does not want SSPX back in inasmuch as it threatens their modernist praxis.

But the Holy Father most certainly does want them back in--badly. What other group has he acquiesced to the to the demands from than the SSPX, and to think is is a society representing less than .01% of the Church? You can be sure that the Holy Father is being battled heavily on this, which might account for much of the gamesmanship. I don't that the Holy Father is intentionally playing at brinkmanship, but much of the Modernist Church is; the Church heart is failing, and the SSPX is the AED she needs to survive, in my opinion. Pray mightily of the Pope.

Gregorian Mass said...

I will continue to pray for both sides. An agreement must be reached for the good of all involved, including the Faithful. If the SSPX is only adhering to what has always been held it will certainly come across to the Faithful, if an agreement is not reached, that Rome has definately turned its' back on its' own Traditions. This can not look good. In the event of any formal declaration of schism or the like then the SSPX may as well make public all the responses from Rome about their discussions. This will then enter the public forum and if true, that Rome is obstinant in denying Tradition then this will be very, very bad for the Church. Regular lay people will be able to see so clearly that Rome is turning her back on her own children which happened in the 60's once before. And for the SSPX, they will be further marginalized, the Faithful, lost to decide for themselves. But it is Rome that will hurt the most. The rhetoric will be turned up and with the release of any information or responses Rome will have quite a bit of pressure to explain itself to more than just the SSPX group. There are huge consequences of not reaching an agreement. Neither side will gain, both will lose big time. If rejected it will appear that Rome is no longer interested in anything prior to the Second Vatican Council. This also does enormous damage to her credibility. I think an agreement has to be reached, and pray that the Holy Father and Bishop Fellay give a dozen clarifications until full reunion is reached. It is more than just reuniting with the SSPX, it is Eternal Rome reuniting with her own identity and past which was broken circa 68, 70. They want Catholics to come home? Rejecting its' past is not going to bring home the ones who left for the precise reason that they could not practice the Faith as they were taught. No agreement means rupture did and continues to take place. Bad for everyone.

Brian said...

All we have here is that the response expressed by Bishop Fellay, is not sufficient to overcome the doctrinal problems that are at the basis of the rift between the Holy See and the aforesaid Society.

And that, out of a concern for avoiding an ecclesial rupture with painful and incalculable consequences, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X was invited to be so kind as to clarify his position so as to heal the existing rift, as Pope Benedict XVI wished, by April 15.

Is it not only reasonable to expect that discussions may go back and forth a few times. Our Holy Father desires to heal the rift and wants the agreement. The April 15 date helps to keep things moving, it is not a date for a final "Yes or No" from the SSPX.

Clearly there is a great deeal of thought being given to this about which we are currently unaware. Cardinal William Joseph Levada spoke with Bishop Fellay for two hours. Given the historic moment which these discussions represent and the significant issues involved, it is difficult for me to see this as anything but good news.

Tradical said...

@Ora
"... is that we should ALL AGREE that it is time we get an answer from the FSSPX: YES OR NO."

Ora, this depends on the nature of the question.

Is it:
Do you accept the Council?

Can't say 'yes' to something as vague as the nefarious documents themselves ... can we?

or is it:
Do you believe that the Catholic Church IS the Church of Christ?

Definitely say yes to that one!

So really the 'question' is as important as the answer (ie the preamble in its modified form).

The second point 'we get an answer from the FSSPX' is also interesting. One can also ask the Vatican to reaffirm the Syllabus and Pascendi (as noted elsewhere). As a Catholic there should be no problem in doing so ... right?

P^3

Johannes Faber said...

April 15th is Low Sunday. Also known as Divine Mercy Sunday.

Assume the best! Assume that the SSPX were not as strong as they could have been! Assume the Holy Father is telling them to state their full, whole and undiplomatic answer! Assume that he has chosen Divine Mercy Sunday as a wink that they will be given what they want! Why assume the worst? Do we believe in God or what?

Tom said...

1. I will pray for peace and an agreement between Pope Benedict XVI and the Society of Saint Pius X.

2. I refuse to read anything negative in the Communiqué in question.

I will simply await word from Bishop Fellay — should he release a statement — as relates to his recent meeting with Roman officials.

Thank you.

Pax

Tom

Peterman said...

"April 15th is Low Sunday. Also known as Divine Mercy Sunday."

Exactly.

I have known both traditionalists AND very liberal priests who completely ignore Divine Mercy Sunday. This is a huge mistake to make. Our Lord did appear to Saint Faustina and the holy Spirit worked with/on JPII so that even someone filled with as many mystifying liberal actions, was still made to do our Lord's will. Saint Faustina had her visions long before any Vatican II nonsense was happening. Our Lord extends his mercy and we're foolish not to take it.

Stella said...

John Paul II may have been all for the Divine Mercy (probably because he was Polish) but I've been told previous Popes,Pius XII, John XXIII and Paul VI all condemned it.

Francis said...

All one has to do is ask any modernist these four questions in a yes or no format. Then afterward you can listen to them trip over themselves by trying to explain in modernist and relativist "theology" how these questions are more than yes or no. For them it might be, but for Catholics who have no agenda except to try and save our souls and others and to try to live a traditional Catholic life they are pretty simple and straight forward. I would love to ask these questions to Cardinal's Schonborn, Levada and Bertone.

(1)Do you believe that the One True God is the Holy Trinity, and that all men must believe and worship Him?

(2)Do you believe that all men must believe in and worship The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in whom alone there is salvation?

(3)Do you believe that the Catholic Church is the one true Church/faith that Christ established outside of which there is no salvation?

(4)Do you believe that all men need to be validly baptized to have a chance of eternal salvation?

Doc said...

Once should not affirm the dogmatic nature of the Syllabus, since it does not have one. The Syllabus by design does not assign theological grades of certainty to the condemnations. Instead, it refers back to the original documents of the Pope. To determine the true meaning and the theological value of the subjects treated, one must refer back to the original texts--not all are de fide. The Syllabus' weight is similar to that of the Catechism of John Paul II or Vatican II, the theological weight of the doctrines presented remain at the level they were before--like the CCC and Vatican II, the Syllabus is not a super-dogma.

Likewise, Pascendi cannot be affirmed as dogmatic in toto any more than Vatican II can. It is a diverse document. It does contain teaching on the dogma of the Church consistent with Tradition which of course can be affirmed as dogmatic and if reaffirms past condemnations, some of which are de fide and others at other grades of theological certainty. And it provides practical remedies, which are certainly not dogmatic, some of which were abolished by St. Pius X's immediate predecessor.

One last point in reference to an early comment. The Church's use of coercion over the baptized in spiritual matters was not at issue in the Vatican II declaration on religious liberty, only the state's inherent coercive power in religious matters (ie those not delegated it by the Church). The 1983 Code of Canon Law still asserts this power of the Church over the Baptized.

Can. 1311 — Nativum et proprium Ecclesiae ius est christifideles delinquentes poenalibus sanctionibus coercere.

(elsewhere christifideles is defined as the baptized)

Clayton Orr said...

Isn't it amazing how some on this thread are waiting for the judgment of Bishop Fellay, who has neither ordinary nor extraordinary jurisdiction, and not that of the Holy Father?

Mike said...

I've read St. Faustina's diary. It's really 100% Orthodox in every way. Great love for the Church; great love for the priesthood; intense self-denial to conform to Christ.

It's bracing stuff, not for the weak in faith.

GQ Rep said...

Perhaps it is too early for me to jump to this conclusion, but it seems to me that with this negative decision towards the Society of Saint Pius X, fully approved by Benedict XVI, the Pope has truely proven his true inclinations.
He is in favor of an agreement witn the SSPX, solely on the Vaticans' Vatican II terms.
He has allowed for a return of the Tridentine Latin Mass not because of any personal devotion to Catholicism, but as an accomodation.
Benedict XVI during his Pontificate has revealed himself to be 90% content to being just an extension of the John Paul II reign and agenda. He has bent over backwards to immitate the inclinations and actions of John Paul II ( the Assisi meeting, meeting with the Roman Jews in a synagogue in Rome, with Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. , and now his new close relationship with the "Archbishop of Canturbury", presiding at a Vespers service. IN other words, Benedict XVI, who was elected with such high expectations to "clean house" in the Vatican and to be a true disiplinarian and correct the Church's wrong drift, seems to be increasingly liberal and accepting of that drift. His hosting the "Archbishop" of Canturbury, and the rumors that he is about to appoint a 100% radical liberal ecumaniac heretic as Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith reveals the true Benedict XVI.
This website, and many other traditionalist Catholic websites have been betrayed by the actions of this Pope.
I might sound very negative, but I have been fortunate enough to see alot of the Catholic world over the last four years.
I am just barely 31. Five years ago, I was a highschool teacher in the suburbs of Philadelphia who on a dare and as a joke, went to a photographer had a series of shots made, created a portfolio and submitted it to a major modeling agency in New York....never expecting to be picked up. It's not as easy to be a male model...especially if you are from an ethnic minority in the USA (Japanese American). Blacks have the hardest time getting a contract...I don;t know why.
But only three weeks later, I got a call, and was wisked up to NYC for a series of interviews and offered a contract a month after that. All on a joke and a dare....never expecting anything to happen.
I've been lucky enough to see much of the Catholic world on photo shoots over the last 5 years...at first sporadically, and now full time. Perhaps you have seen me.
But I tell you that the Catholic Church is dead except in the SSPX and other groups. The Ecclesiae Dei groups are a sham. They are persecuted. They are harassed. They are despised (because they are flourishing, and the Vatican II Orders are dying).
But this decision against the SSPX by the Pope and the CDF will backfire on them. They might think they hurt the SSPX, but the tide is with the SSPX, not the Vatican. Many, Many Catholics in France love the SSPX, and hate the Vatican II Church, bishops...and by extension...the Pope. Why? Because they have given them nothing to nourish their souls. That's why so many are leaving. That's why Islam is growing in Europe.
This decision will seriously hurt the Vatican...not the SSPX.
And if the Pope DOES pick this German Bishop Muller as the new Prefect of the CDF, a total heretic....then we have all been decieved about who Benedict XVI is in his soul.
And that's tragic. For us because we had such great Faith in this man, and for the Church.

Johannes Faber said...

In this instance it doesn't matter whehter it was condemned or not - the fact is that the Holy Father presently recognises it, and if we are assuming the best, we can assume that his choice of that date was deliberate. Whether in reality it is something harmful is another question - the fact is that the Holy Father could be saying something with his choice of date.

As for it being condemned, the devotion itself is pure Passion meditation and words from the Roman Canon and from the Good Friday liturgy. I have not read the book though!

Catholic Mission said...

Sunday, March 18, 2012
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria and the SSPX team made a specific doctrinal error : Vatican SSPX talks collapse

Vatican threatens SSPX with excommunication if they do not except Jewish Left version of Vatican Council II

The Vatican has issued a communiqué regarding the failed talks with the SSPX (1) and seems to suggest that the SSPX could once again be excommunicated if they do not accept Vatican Council II as interpreted by the Jewish Left media and political institutions and Catholic liberals.(2)

The SSPX accepts Vatican Council II as a historical event and recognizes that there are many interpretations of the Council.

They reject the interpretation of Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J, the Vatican Secretary of State accompanied by the former Rector of the Angelicum University,Fr.Charles Morerod O.P, who is now a bishop in Switzerland. They both made a doctrinal error when officiating at the International Theological Commission.(3)

The same error is being made by the SSPX.

None of them will comment on this doctrinal issue.
-Lionel Andrades



1.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.it/2012/03/sspx-rome-holy-see-press-office.html
2.


At the conclusion of today’s meeting, out of a concern for avoiding an ecclesial rupture with painful and incalculable consequences, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X was invited to be so kind as to clarify his position so as to heal the existing rift, as Pope Benedict XVI wished.



3.


Saturday, February 25, 2012
INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION OBJECTIVELY WRONG ON INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/02/international-theological-commission.html


Former Secretary of the International Theological Commission holds that those saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance are known to us and so an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/02/secretary-of-international-theological.html

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/cardinal-luiz-ladaria-and-sspx-team.html

Mike said...

GQ Rep,

Have you ever heard of rash judgment?

Well, I'd look it up, if you haven't.

Most of the things you write are conjecture, based on negative premises, which are themselves conjecture.

Pray.

Knight of Malta said...

It is absurd to think the Pope is going to reimpose the "excommunications". If the response by SSPX, imposed by an April deadline, is still inadequate, then status quo. Paul VI lifted a nearly 1,000 year old excommunication on the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, it would be preposterous for the Holy Father to reimpose the excommunications after just lifting them.

Levada is probably not helping things. It would be nice if the Pope could simply and unilaterally tell the SSPX they can continue to question the areas of Vatican II that they are concerned with, while admitting that it was a valid Council, and set-up a structure fully reuniting the Society.

But their are power-politics at play, not all of them in the Pope's power to control.

Jordanes551 said...

John Paul II may have been all for the Divine Mercy (probably because he was Polish) but I've been told previous Popes,Pius XII, John XXIII and Paul VI all condemned it.

Their judgments were based on partial and erroneous translations of St. Faustina's diary. They did not have access to the Polish originals. Blessed John Paul II, since Polish was his mother tongue, was able to have the matter investigated afresh, leading to his reversal of their prior, mistaken rulings.

Johannes de Silentio said...

There seems to be so much speculation here. Are we not piling inference upon inference? There is much that remains unknown to all of us. In the face of such uncertainty, is it not best to seek refuge in the certainty of prayer?

"In the world you shall have distress: but have confidence, I have overcome the world."

GQ Rep said...

"Levada is probably not helping things. It would be nice if the Pope could simply and unilaterally tell the SSPX they can continue to question the areas of Vatican II that they are concerned with, while admitting that it was a valid Council, and set-up a structure fully reuniting the Society.

But their are power-politics at play, not all of them in the Pope's power to control."

I saw Levada up close once, when I first went to Rome on a photo shoot, and had a day to kill sight-seeing, 2010. We saw him crossing St. Peter's Square. Nice man, but didn't look well. Doesn't look too good now either.

I checked about him with a priest friend of mine who lives in Rome, and who works in the Vatican. He is young, so he's just a low level clerk. He said Levada bends with the wind. He's not the Pope's man. Neither is Bertone. They both have the same agenda, and it's not the Pope's.

That Benedict XVI allows this to continue shows his weakness. He's bowed to this group for the most part from the beginning, and now he stuck with them, and those bad decisions.

Bartholomew said...

Gee, Doc, that would be news to Denzinger.

Tom said...

"It is absurd to think the Pope is going to reimpose the "excommunications"."

What crimes, if you will, that would warrant excommunication have been committed of late by the SSPX bishops?

Prior to the lifting of the SSPX-related excommunications, were the SSPX bishops required to sign a premable akin to the current Rome-SSPX preamble?

Tom

I am not Spartacus said...

The Revolution is progressing at a very fast pace at this point, and the liberty of the Catholic Church in every western culture is coming to a very quick demise.

Dear Mr.Werling. Excellent and prescient. And God Bless you for writing about the lIberty of Holy Mother Church and not Religious Liberty - always condemned in Tradition.

The AmBishops are leading their flocks to embrace the Americanist heresy as if the Liberty of Holy Mother Church can be conflated with the Americanist heresy and the putative liberty of every Tom-started community and Dick-created communion and Harry-established congregation.

Jesus established ONE Catholic Church and the idea that, say, the Salvation Army ought have the state protects its right to promulgate heresy is an idea so insane that it had to have been conceived in the intellects of judaised protestants - American's Fathers.

GREAT job, Mr Werling.

Fr. Sanchez said...

News flash to some here, "the Syllabus and Pascendi" were not infallible documents. They too need to be defended theologically just as much as any other claim of Catholic doctrine that is said to go back to the Apostles. This is one aspect of the problem. The other is what level of assent is required to the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium which has not declared a specific doctrine infallible? What is "traditional" in this regard I wonder? Maybe there are somethings that haven't been definitively defined and the SSPX needs to be comfortable with that. Maybe that's the problem. They're not. In this light, demanding that the Pope reaffirm those too previous documents is ridiculous. Come to the table of debate in the bosom of the Church. You are more than welcome. But, don't set up a quasi magisterium that has already claimed to have decided the issue. This is hurting and dividing the Body of Christ. It's a Schismatic mentality if I've ever seen one. Can we live in a Church that only submits to infallibly defined dogma? That's what the liberals want. You would then just approve their shenanigans. Traditional ascent to the Ordinary Magisterium is needed and honest debate amongst theologians in bosom of the Church will hammer out the rest. Submit to the Ordinary Magisterium and leave the distrust at the door. Where is your supernatural sense of faith?

Bartholomew said...

News flash to Father Sanchez:

Stop setting up straw men. No one said they were infallible documents. BUT they are sources of dogmatic teaching.

Who would have thought that after 50 years of post-conciliar theology?

Francis said...

Father Sanchez,

While you are correct in saying that the Syllabus and Pascendi aren't technically Ex-Cathedra they are the affirmation of de-fide Catholic dogma against the evil of modernism as defined DOGMATICALLY by the First Vatican Council:

From the First Vatican Council:
"Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.... For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.... If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema."

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear Fr Sanchez. Those Papal Encyclicals were completely in line with Tradition and in fact are Tradition.

You can not name one of the 261 Popes prior to V2 who would have thought them opposed to what Holy Mother Church has always believed (including the members of Holy Mother Church, sensus fidelium) and taught whereas every single one of the 261 Popes prior to V2 would have opposed Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's wrong decision to make them walk the plank off The Barque of Peter

Mr Larson's excellent work in this area has yet to be answered.

http://www.waragainstbeing.com/parti-article1

The plain and simple truth is that the Catholic Church I was born into believed and taught Doctrines completely at odds with the V2 Epoch noxious novelties that have led to Effete Ecumenism and Ideological Indifferentism and which rupture with Tradition is destroying Holy Mother Church.

I am the same age as Israel and I have a good memory. I am not an idiot. I know as clear as day that what the then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger did vis a vis Pascendi and Lamentabili was a New Theology from of supercessionism -and I ain't buying it.

Rodg said...

Fr. Sanchez,

With all due respect, when you say that traditional obedience to the ordinary magisterium is needed, I agree, but you and many others who make this claim seem to be applying it in a very selective manner.

This loyalty is needed, but the question is: did our most recent popes and senior prelates follow your call during the 1950s and early 1960s with regard to Chruch-State relations, the Social Reign of Christ, and treatment of material schismatics and heretics? Or did they take the opportunity with sufficient authority to start tossing things out the window, however 'non-infallible' without sufficient regard for the Ordinary Magisterium and for their obligation to have an strong faithful confidence in what the Church had classically proclaimed through an assent of intellect and will?

It seems the latter. And one cannot selective claim we must now have an assent of intellect and will, when the questionable teachings at issue were formulated from a clear lack of such assent in relation to what was taught prior to 1960.

SkinnyBaldGuy said...

Fr. Sanchez,

"Amidst, therefore, such great perversity of depraved opinions, we, well remembering our Apostolic Office, and very greatly solicitous for our most holy Religion, for sound doctrine and the salvation of souls which is intrusted to us by God, and (solicitous also) for the welfare of human society itself, have thought it right again to raise up our Apostolic voice. Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned."

The above sounds like it meets all the conditions of an infallible statement according to this laymen's eyes and it's from Quanta Cura; the encyclical letter of Pius IX issued alongside with the syllabus.

The Catholic Encylopedia states, " All Catholics, therefore, are bound to accept the Syllabus. Exteriorly they may neither in word nor in writing oppose its contents; they must also assent to it interiorly."

Stephen said...

Pope Paul VI certainly was no fan of the SSPX
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1976/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19760524_concistoro_it.html

Ogard said...

The SSPX must accept the Council and subsequent documents, and do it unconditionally. Otherwise, they would for ever retain the status of a Christian community which is not in full communion with the Church, as it is the case with other separated Christian bodies. Like the latter, they will be treated charitably considering the possibility of invincible ignorance, but the establishment of a full communion can be ruled out. Obviously, their Judgement will be more severe because more has been given to them but they have chosen to squander it.

Fr. Sanchez said...

The "infallibility" of The Syllabus of Errors" is doubted by many theologians and supported by others. So, the possistion of the Church is still out on this one. The current Magisterium can make a final decision on this one. It's not the place of SSPX to do so.

Tradical said...

Hi Ogard,

Missed ya!

(although I suspect you'll never read these words of welcome since the thread is a little stale).

"... must accept the Council and subsequent documents, and do it unconditionally. ... Judgement will be more severe ... "

At what level of acceptance would you want them to apply to the Council? With Faith or just reason?

What specifically would you have them accept?

Religious Liberty - interpreted in continuity with the Pius IX et al?
That shouldn't be a problem.

Religious Liberty - interpreted in continuity with 1789. That might be difficult.

or perhaps that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mediatrix of all Graces? Oops sorry that was excised since it was unecumenical.

Perhaps that Communism is intrinsically evil ... oops the Council didn't denounce Communism ... did it?