Rorate Caeli

Rome-SSPX: Declaration of the Pontifical Commission 'Ecclesia Dei'

Declaration
of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei"

The Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" takes this occasion to announce that, in its most recent official communication (6 September 2012), the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X has indicated that additional time for reflection and study is needed on their part as they prepare their response to the Holy See’s latest initiatives.

The current stage in the ongoing discussions between the Holy See and the Priestly Fraternity follows three years of doctrinal and theological dialogues during which a joint commission met eight times to study and discuss, among other matters, some disputed issues in the interpretation of certain documents of Vatican Council II. Once these doctrinal dialogues were concluded, it became possible to proceed to a phase of discussion more directly focused on the greatly desired reconciliation of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X with the See of Peter.

Other critical steps in this positive process of gradual reintegration had already been taken by the Holy See in 2007 with the extension of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite to the Universal Church by the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum and in 2009 with the lifting of the excommunications. Just a few months ago, a culminating point along this difficult path was reached when, on 13 June 2012, the Pontifical Commission presented to the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X a doctrinal declaration together with a proposal for the canonical normalization of its status within the Catholic Church.

At the present time, the Holy See is awaiting the official response of the superiors of the Priestly Fraternity to these two documents. After thirty years of separation, it is understandable that time is needed to absorb the significance of these recent developments. As Our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI seeks to foster and preserve the unity of the Church by realizing the long hoped-for reconciliation of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X with the See of Peter – a dramatic manifestation of the munus Petrinum in action – patience, serenity, perseverance and trust are needed.

[Original text: English]

47 comments:

Floreat said...

The SSPX has been clear in its response: there will be no acceptance of Vatican II, and hence no agreement during the life of this Pontificate.

The General Chapter of the SSPX, when it convened in July, agreed upon 6 conditions necessary for an eventual agreement with Rome.

None of these 6 conditions are currently satisfied and nor will they be until acceptance of VII is removed as fundamental to full regularisation.

Am I alone in interpreting the content and timing of this statement as a further attempt by Rome to exploit a perceived lack of unity in the Society?



GQ Rep said...

I side with the SSPX----considering the disaster of the Church over the last 50 years of Vatican II.

I don't believe that ANY reasonable person, looking at the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church, and as we are now, can logically conclude that it has been for the better.

Therefore, Blind obedience to whatever the Pope/Vatican say is not the answer.

Discussion is the answer. Discussion, research and discovery into the roots of the disaster and an admission of misguided initiatives and agenda on the part of the Vatican into what caused the disaster of Vatican II is necessary.

That the SSPX which maintains Catholic tradition in all its branches world wide is flourishing, while the Vatican II Catholic Church is dying of a rapid matastasis of the dissent and errors inspired by(if not actually caused by) the "reforms" of Vatican II is obvious.

No thinking, logical person would choose the Church of Vatican II, over the Roman Catholic Faith of the SSPX!!

Dorothy B said...

The wording of this declaration strikes me as warm and gentle. These qualities are particularly evident in the final paragraph. My own daily prayers have not ceased, and I am sure this is the case with very many of your readers.

Hurry up SSPX, the champagne is still chilling but shouldn't stay in the fridge forever! said...

Sounds logical and reasonable to me.

I just hope that the SSPX does not drag their feet too long and blow an opportunity. It really is now or never with Pope Benedict XVI at the helm of the barque of Peter.

poeta said...

Strikes me as an attempt to distance the PCED from the more pugnacious tone taken recently by Cardinal Müller.

recusant said...

I'm not sure whether the disconnect of this letter from real events of this letter - e.g. saying the events of June were progress in reconciliation, as opposed to a setback - reflects a naive optimism, or something else...

Additionally, I'm not so sure about accepting the common wisdom that this papacy is the only hope for a reconciliation ever. It has a tone of desperation, the fire sale, to it. This pope was literally an orchestrator of Vatican II; it will be impossible for the next pope to have such a personal stake in those documents as he has got. And I also take hope in the fact that a conclave of JPII cardinals chose Benedict...who knows what mercies the Holy Spirit may grant us through a conclave of BXVI cardinals?

Let us remember that God loves to humble the mighty and send the rich empty away...I am not so sure all those great princes of the Church who smugly wait for Benedict's death will like what they get.

poeta said...

Sorry, got ahead of myself there... Archbishop Müller.

Francis said...

It isn't the FSSPX who have abandoned two-thousand years of de-fide Catholic dogma.

New Catholic said...

Dorothy B., agreed.

poeta, that seems to be the appropriate way to understand this.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

This is bizzare, the society has made its position via Bp Fellay and Bp de gallatera very clear, there will be no agreement as Rome blew it.

Jean Francois said...

This is bizzare, the society has made its position via Bp Fellay and Bp de gallatera very clear, there will be no agreement as Rome blew it.

Despite any public comments by those two it would seem clear that the Vatican has not received an official negative response. In fact as is clear from the first paragraph of the letter that as of 6 Sept. the SSPX asked for more time to study the offer. The only ones dragging their feet are the SSPX. If they really cannot accept the offer then come out and say so, officially.

Knox said...

One ought to give more credit to SSPX than to assume that they will only give a response through declarations made to the public. Surely they will give an official reponse to the Holy See which they recognize as a legitimate authority. Such a response is even demanded by common decency.

Fr Levi said...

a troublesome SSPX bishop is sidelined, followed shortly thereafter by a statement from Rome saying they understand if the society needs more time to consider. Seems to me like a move from both sides towards the one goal ...

Ryan Ellis said...

The first thought I had was, of all things, the Cuban Missle Crisis.

Recall that the Kennedy Administration simply ignored one of the telegrams from Khrushchev, and answered another.

This is the PCED "ignoring" the non-consensus vote of the FSSPX from a month or so ago. Now that +Williamson is out, they are "still awaiting" the official response.

Very diplomatic and realpolitik.

Anil Wang said...

I think its clear that despite all the opinions that have leaked through from both the Vatican and the SSPX that discussions are ongoing and Bp Fellay actually did ask for more time to consider his options.

This is a good thing since he does have many options besides just saying no deal.

I think that he does realize that obedience ultimately has been the answer since disobedience is the whole reason nearly all abuses such as communion in the hand, confirmation after first communion, "altar girls", SOHO "masses", new age feminism at the LCWR, etc have happened. I think given the VII rebellion, he wants to make sure that the SSPX will not be forced to be someone who is disobedient and he wants to undo the damage of past disobedience.

Dismas said...

Not only does this communique render the situation back to a proper order and perspective, it restores and renews my resolve to patience, serenity, perseverance and trust.

Roma locuta est, Petrus officio gratias (grammar?).

Father Anthony Cekada said...

@Ryan Ellis.

Good analogy. The "Missiles of October."

Depending on which side you see as Khrushchev and which as Kennedy, by the way, Bp. Williamson comes out as either Fidel Castro, or General Curtis ("Nuke") LeMay.

Despite the public hardline declarations from both sides (Abp. Mueller and SSPX), the diplomacy/realpolitik goes on.

Note that it was not CDF and Mueller that issued this conciliatory statement, but Ecclesia Dei with its pragmatic American, di Noia.

I still maintain that if Abp. di Noia immerses himself in the SSPX theological mindset, he may very well be able to formulate a doctrinal declaration that SSPX could accept.

JabbaPapa said...

ongoing discussions

...

halleluia !!!!

Clario said...

Floreat, the SSPX does not reject Vatican II. The SSPX reject the errors of Vatican II.

Donnacha said...

Quite telling that the "encouraging" letter from Ecclesia Dei comes after SSPX dismissed +Williamson; as if another backroom requirement of the Vatican was met by SSPX leadership.

Vatican II Casualty said...

Floreat, get ready to eat your words. The agreement is coming, and coming quickly.

There were not 6 necessary conditions, but only 3. The other 3 conditions were only "desirable."

Of course Rome is attempting to exploit a very real disunity.

Vatican II Casualty said...

Floreat, get ready to eat your words. The agreement is coming, and coming quickly.

There were not 6 necessary conditions, but only 3. The other 3 conditions were only "desirable."

Of course Rome is attempting to exploit a very real disunity.

Martyjo said...

Both Bishop Fellay and the General Chapter of the SSPX made it clear that there would be no deal during this Pontificate.

Indeed, I was reading the other day Bishop Fellay's most recent interview in which he admits to being shocked by Rome's sudden about turn on the negotiations in June when all the positive alterations to the doctrinal preamble, resulting from three years of tough negotiations, were suddenly erased and the document was once more presented to him by the Prefect of the CDF in its original, unacceptable, format. it was accompanied of course with the usual demand for obedience to the Magisterium.

The document presented in June appeared to carry Pope Benedict's personally written instructions that the New Mass and Vatican II in its entirety must be accepted by the SSPX. There must be no talk of "errors of Vatican II."

For his part, Bishop Fellay said that he wrote to the Pope directly to clarify that His Holiness had indeed written what was presented to him by the CDF. This clarification was sought, said Bishop Fellay, because of the mixed signals he was getting from the Vatican from SSPX-friendly prelates suggesting that the Pope did not know of this development.

Sadly, the Pope responded affirmitively confirming that it was he who wrote those words insisting that the New Mass and Vatican II be accepted without question. It seems the Pope for whatever reason had completely changed his mind about a doctrinal agreement with the SSPX, resorting quite inexplicably to the position of the most bitter enemies of the SSPX both within and outwith the Church.

This became even clearer when the Pope went on to appoint Archbishop Muller Prefect of the CDF. This prelate is well renowned for his despise of the SSPX and is so suspect of heresy that the SSPX could never place their trust in him.

It seems the whole business was deliberately planned to halt the negotiations. It is even suspected that at least one European State, Germany has been suggested, threatened to break diplomatic ties with the Holy See if a deal was done with the SSPX. It is absolutely clear that some great pressure was brought to bear on the Pope to force such a sudden and dramatic U-turn on his part. Sadly, it is also clear that His Holiness has agreed to go along with the injustice. This makes the statement of Ecclesia Dei rather ridiculous.

I personally don't see why the SSPX should even bother to respond to those who have again treated this holy Catholic institution with duplicity, but I suppose Bishop Fellay really ought to make his refusal of their unjust demands official, if only for their files. One thing is certain, the Pope ain't running the Church with anything like the old Petrine authority. Isn't Vatican II Collegiality in action just a joy to behold!

Floreat said...

Floreat, the SSPX does not reject Vatican II. The SSPX reject the errors of Vatican II.

As we're all well aware, I think.

The stated purpose of VII was to "interpret" the Church's traditional teachings for the modern age.

Vatican II reflected Catholic Truth only insofar as it reflected that which already existed in the Magisterium.

In and of itself, the Council added nothing except a bad spirit and evil fruit.....not least the suppression of the Mass of All Time and the substitution of adulterated sacraments.

I'm not sure that these could accurately be included in its "errors". I pray that the SSPX continues to be able to resist their effects.

Gerard Brady said...

What I would like to see come out of these discussions is a clear statement from the Roman Authorities as to what Catholics are bound to accept now, in terms of doctrine, which they were not bound to believe before the second Vatican Council. The term 'acceptance of Vatican II' needs to be explicated before any progress can be made.

Floreat said...

Vatican II - If an agreement comes, it will be because Bp Fellay and the General Chapter have established that Tradition can again survive intra muros and it will be God's will.

Under those circumstances, I would be only too happy to eat my words.

I have to say, Bp Fellay has been categoric that he believes that no deal can take place during the life of this pontificate.

I read this latest announcement as Rome seeking to exploit the Society in the wake of the Williamson expulsion by the time-honoured tactic of divide et impera.

I pray that I am wrong.

Vatican II Casualty said...

Rather, the Williamson expulsion was a requirement of the Vatican in order for the Society to receive terms more agreeable, terms easier for the members and followers of the Society to swallow.

Vatican diplomats and tacticians are masters of their craft. The Society is sadly outclassed.

Matt said...

Floreat said, "None of these 6 conditions are currently satisfied and nor will they be until acceptance of VII is removed as fundamental to full regularisation."

Supposedly there is some wiggle room regarding the what and the how Vatican II is to be accepted. Unless, however, Rome is so immplacable there is no room at all in that big tent Rome claims the Church to be.

Matt said...


Martyjo said, "The document presented in June appeared to carry Pope Benedict's personally written instructions that the New Mass and Vatican II in its entirety must be accepted by the SSPX. There must be no talk of 'errors of Vatican II.'"

This is a very bothersome thing to have to confront. To be so intransigent in one's way of thinking means they have much to fear of the "errors" of their own issues. This is is typical of liberals, obviously not Traditionalists, because +Fellay shown he has bended and swayed over the past three years to get things into focus for Rome. Suddenly, *boom* nah? Mind-boggling.

In my opinion, though, to accept the SSPX whole and entire means de facto there are issues with Vatican II, and those of that mindset are not willing to let that happen.

BTW, here's a cute little ditty. The SSPX actually praised ++Gomez, L.A., for his call for using Tradational forms of Catholicism to catechize and evangelize in the thrust for the New Evangelization. Wow

Barona said...

Diplomatic... doors remain open...

Floreat said...

"...Vatican diplomats and tacticians are masters of their craft. The Society is sadly outclassed...."

That's an unusual way of looking at the issue. I had thought that the question was how to fully reintegrate fellow Catholics within the Church, not a war between opposing positions.

Equally, I'm sure that both parties to discussions are capable of discerning the Will of God and would not be so foolish as to imagine that human ambition can supplant it.

j hughes dunphy said...

This crisis of unity in the church between the Society of Pius X and the Vatican will not end till all parties realize the error is not an error 'per se' but a sin, the great sin of omission of failing to teach the truths of the faith for centuries as explicated in Holy Tradition, all because of the sinister spirit of Modernism which corrupted the Council, the Church and the world.
j hughes dunphy,orthodox
roman catholic.com

Big Picture said...

I am praying that our Pope uses the Year of Faith to present a true interpretation of Vatican II's documents that rejects the apparent errors contained therein, thereby paving the way for a potential doctrinal declaration acceptable to both the Vatican and the SSPX.

Martyjo said...

Matt, I agree with you entirely. Bishop Fellay has stated clearly that every time he asked the CDF prelates to provide doctrinal evidence in support of conciliar ecumenism, religious liberty, freedom of conscience and the New Mass they just ignored him and resorted to their usual demand for obedience to the Magisterium.

I have found that I get the same response from liberals when I ask them to produce evidence of this so-called "Hermeneutic of continuity" in relation to said novelties. They either ignore the question completely or resort to unjust accusations of disobedience on the part of the SSPX.

The truth is that the aforesaid doctrines and liturgy have been brought into existence in opposition to the perennial teaching and practice of the Church. They cannot be justified with solid theological and doctrinal proof, so they are enforced with an abuse of authority and a brutal demand for compliance under threat of censure. They are tactics that bear more the hallmark of the Kremlin than the Vatican.

floreat,

Vatican II did not call for a new liturgy, this was entirely a personal project of Pope Paul VI. In fact, the Council ordered that the main parts of the Mass must always remain in Latin. Pope Paul VI was the one who decided that he wanted a new Liturgy entirely in the vernacular language to accommodate ecumenism. The architect he chose for the purpose, and later exiled to Iran in disgrace, was Fr. Annibale Bugnini. Father Bugnini made the aim quite clear in a March 19, 1965interview with L'Osservatore Romano, when he stated: "We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is for the Protestants.”

That is precisely what followed and we all know the tragedy that resulted from such wanton infidelity to the Sacred Liturgy of the ages.

They may call the conciliar changes "renewal," "reform" or "new evangelisation," and demand subserviance to it, but the evidence suggests that we are dealing with a revolution the likes of which the Church has never before witnessed, whose bitter fruits are to be seen in the practical disintegration of the Catholic religion at parish level. That the Shepherds of our souls can continue to promote this catastrophe, seemingly in awe of some wondrous effects of the Council that the rest of us cannot see, and declaring unity with the Church's past when rupture is evident, is truly a mystery of iniquity. May Our Blessed Lord open the eyes of His Vicar and Bishops that they may finally see that Vatican II was no new Pentecost but rather a new Tower of Babel.

Floreat said...

Martyjo

I couldn't agree with you more.

The only point that I would add is that, while the suppression of the Mass of All Time and its substitution with the Novus Ordo may have been the initiative of Paul VI, and the reinstatement of Bugnini also his initiative, when he finally banished this acknowledged freemason to Iran, neither he nor the Council periti who ultimately replaced him as supreme head of the Church lifted one finger to undo the damage.

I wonder when the Mass would have eventually been freed, had it not been for Abp Lefebvre, his SSPX and their periodic visits to Rome.

We owe them an enormous debt of gratitude.

Martyjo said...

Floreat,

"I wonder when the Mass would have eventually been freed, had it not been for Abp Lefebvre, his SSPX and their periodic visits to Rome.

We owe them an enormous debt of gratitude."


Yes indeed! The entire Church owes them an enormous debt of gratitude, and that will one day be made official. At the moment only certain prelates are making that known privately to Bishop Fellay. In fact, Bishop Fellay himself reported that Pope Benedict XVI, when discussing privately with him at Castel Gandolfo in 2006, spoke of the venerable Archbishop Lefebvre. Coming from the Holy Father that's quite a statement.

Robert said...

Fr.Paul Kramer relates what was told to him by his German friend and fellow Jesuit, a Fr. Bollinger.

[Fr. Bollinger, is a German Jesuit and was a personal friend of both John Paul II and then Cardinal Ratzinger - a frequent visitor to the Vatican with a reputation of the highest integrity and of irreproachable charater, Seminary Rector and Professor in a South American Seminary.]

On the occasion of concelebrating a Mass with then Cardinal Ratzinger in 2000, shortly after the release of what was told to be the content of the Third Secret of Fatima, Fr. Bollinger, immediately after Mass demanded that Cardinal Ratzinger tell him if what was released as the content of the 3rd Secret was in fact all of it - to which, according to Fr. Bollinger, Cardinal Ratzinger said:

"Ratzinger said that in the Third Secret, Our Lady warns that there will be an evil council. And She warned against the changes; She warned against making changes in the liturgy; changes in the Mass. This is explicitly set forth in the Third Secret." - Fatima Crusader #80, pg 32 & #92, pg, 7.

It is also well known that Pope Benedict does not believe in the Third Secret of Fatima, that he has suggested that it was made up according to the imagination of Lucia.

Pope Benedict XVI has said that the Vatican Council II was an "anti-syllabus" - The "Syllabus of Blessed Pius IX was considered to be "Ex-Cathedra - an Infallible Declaration - de fide" in its condemnation of modern errors, by the majority of Catholic Theologians up until Vatican II.

Furthermore, Pope Benedict has also commented that refered to Vatican Council II as the "French Revolution within the Church, as have many others in the hierarchy.

Vatican Council II: Refered to as an "Evil Council" by Our Lady, as a counter syllabus, as the French Revolution in the Church. When will all Catholics yell - The King has no clothes on - but then there is the testimony of Lucia of Fatima when she said that 'Neither the bad nor the good listen to the warnings of heaven' and of the "diabolical disorientation" that has overcome the Church.

Let us add that two Catholic Mystics, Victim Souls, who both bore the Stigmata of Our Lord, both recognized as authentic by the Church and their local Ordinaries said revealed that Our Lord told them - Marie Julie Jahenny in 1902 that a "New Mass" would come that would be "Odious" in His sight and to Blessed Catherine Emmerich in the 1800's that a "New Mass" would come that would be "Impious" in His sight.

Is this the great Apostasy foretold by the Saints and Mysitis.

Carinal Mario Luigi Ciappi,who read the 3rd Secret of Fatima, personal Theologian to three popes, stated in his letter to Professor Baumgartner that in the Third Secret it is revealed, among other things, that the great Apostasy in the Church will begin at the Top.

The Great Chastisment, foretold by numerious Saints, Mystics and Holy Souls, is to punish "punish" the Church's Hierarchy and members as well as the world at large, for the great Apostasy now unfolding.

But of course in the end, both the Church and the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary will reign together, but not before God allows our enemies to severely chastise the Church and the world for this great Apostasy and the sins of mankind.

Matt said...


Martyjo, thanks for the affirmation. :-)


Regarding this individual who's thinking can be considered rather sinister, "We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is for the Protestants."

Really?! Yeah, those separated bretheren, those prodigal brothers of ours just came in by the thousands after that right? When our things began to look like their things, when our way of thinking began to sound sillier than their thinking, did that make them just want to jump ship and swim the Tiber right over? NO! They asked themselves what the point was and stayed put. OH, it was but the Faithful who fled out the Church by the thousands year after year after year as the foolishness became more and more etrenched. Was the individual naive, miguided, when he thought this up? Highly doubt it, but at the same time we can pretty much come to terms with the idea the Devil must have whispered in his ear in some shape or form because the far-reaching consequences of such actions are too damaging, far too irrevocable to be merely unitended consequences. It was too deadly and to the point.

Vatican II Casuality said...

Quote: "That's an unusual way of looking at the issue. I had thought that the question was how to fully reintegrate fellow Catholics within the Church, not a war between opposing positions."

If you don't recognize that there is an ongoing war between opposing positions, then you are lost at sea. The war will continue to the end of time. The question of the moment is, "Will the SSPX continue to man the ramparts, or have they already turned in their armaments for a comfortable place at the conciliar table?

Vatican II Casuality said...

Quote:
"I am praying that our Pope uses the Year of Faith..."

The devil is in the details. Notice that we are celebrating the year of faith, not the year of The Faith. This is the continuation of Assisi, where all faiths contribute to the well-being of mankind and lead to salvation. It will be vain to seek after doctrinal clarifications in the "year of faith."

Vatican II Casualty said...

Quote: "In fact, Bishop Fellay himself reported that Pope Benedict XVI, when discussing privately with him at Castel Gandolfo in 2006, spoke of the venerable Archbishop Lefebvre. Coming from the Holy Father that's quite a statement."

The Holy Father praises Martin Luther. The Holy Father praises Hans Kung. What is there to celebrate when the Holy Father extends his praise to Archbishop Lefebvre as well? Read Pope St. Pius X on modernism. Google Hegelianism. Then perhaps you might understand how the Pope's praise can encompass opposite ends of the theological poles.

Vatican II Casualty said...

Quote: "I wonder when the Mass would have eventually been freed, had it not been for Abp Lefebvre, his SSPX and their periodic visits to Rome."

It wasn't periodic visits to Rome that swayed the Vatican. Two realities impressed themselves on Rome: a) the dramatic decline of the Church post-Vatican II and b) the equally obvious fruits of the SSPX apostolate. Faced with a demographic armageddon, SOMETHING had to be done.

Martyjo said...

Vatican II Casualty,

My point about Pope Benedict XVI referring to Archbishop Lefebvre as "the venerable Archbishop Lefebvre" was to show what the Holy See really thinks in private about this great Churchman, regardless of what is said in public for the comfort of the conciliar masses. Bishop Fellay mentioned this comment of the Pope to demonstrate the same.

You'll note that the Pope speaks highly of Martin Luther in public, but only whispers his admiration of Archbishop Lefebvre in private. That should tell us something; it should tell us that Our Lord is still in charge despite outward appearances.

As for your denial of Floreat's assertion that SSPX periodic visits to Rome have had no effect on the Holy See, I beg to differ. My understanding is that Archbishop Lefebvre profoundly impressed Cardinal Razinger when he visited Rome back in 1988, and I further understand that the Vatican was awestruck by the public manifestation of Tradition when the SSPX and other Traditionalist friends went there on pilgrimage in 2000. Yes, periodic visits by Tradition have had a huge impact in the Vatican and elsewhere, no question about it. And why not? Archbishop Lefebvre was a Roman Catholic prelate who loved the Papacy and the Church till the day he died, and who left no possibility to help both during this crisis go untried. Unlike some unfortunate Traditionalists today, I'm thinking of the poor Bishop Williamson, who rather fancy the road of formal schism, which is the road to ruin that Archbishop Lefebvre constantly warned that some Traditional Catholics could well end up traversing. No, our Church and Pope need our help in this crisis, not our running from them as though they were incurable spiritual lepers. We may hate the sin but never the sinner!

Like St. Peter in the Acts of the Apostles, where we read of his imprisoned and how the whole Church prayed for him and secured his release, so we must pray for the conciliar Popes who are imprisoned in their Modernist mindset.

Martyjo said...

Robert,

Yes, you are absolutely right! The Fatima message is key to ending this present crisis in the Church and we know from the Pope's own admissions that he does not accept that message in its entirety. He holds to the view of the woeful Jesuit Fr. Dhanis, his friend, who was no devotee of Our Lady and who formulated the Fatima I, Fatima II theory, which is that parts of the message of Fatima are true but other parts were made up in Sister Lucy's pious mind. It's actually blasphemous to propose, as Fr. Dhanis did, that God would choose as his instrument one who was weak minded, or that He would permit so important a message for mankind to be watered down with childish fantasies, but that's the theory most senior prelates in the Church, including our present Pope, have come to accept. Hence the reason why the entirety of the Third Secret was not revealed and the consecration of Russia never fully accomplished. Hence the continuation of the chastisement.

It's interesting what you recount from the prophecy of the Third Secret of Fatima and other sources regarding the present crisis in the Church, since it seems Pope Pius XII predicted the same. His Holiness said: “I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s message to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in her liturgy, her theology and her soul.”

Pope Pius XII's biographer, Msgr. Roche, noted that at the moment Pius XII spoke these words, according to Count Galeazzi, “the gaze of the Pope, seen through the lenses of his glasses, became supernatural, and there emanated from his tall and slender body an irresistible mystical force.” Pius XII then said (in answer to an objection from a curial Cardinal):

The day will come when the civilised world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, “Where have they taken Him?”

If this doesn't refer to what has happened since Vatican II, then I can't imagine what else it refers to. Since a number of Curial Cardinals, including Cardinal Ratzinger, have since verified the apostasy in the Church, I think it safe to state that it was precisely the post-conciliar crisis that Pius XII was referring to.

Torkay said...

"Once these doctrinal dialogues were concluded, it became possible to proceed to a phase of discussion more directly focused on the greatly desired reconciliation of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X with the See of Peter."

Talk about a non sequitur! Absolutely nothing of a doctrinal nature was resolved by those discussions, so what can we conclude except that they were a mere formality that had nothing to do with the substance of the situation, which is regularization?

Since nothing was resolved by those talks, I wonder if this declaration is a subtle contradiction of Abp. Mueller's hostile position. "The SSPX must accept VII!!" Well, they didn't accept the errors of VII during the talks - why would they do so afterwards?

Something doesn't quite add up here, but maybe it's just my reasoning.

BTW, I'm really tired of seeing these comments that the expulsion of +Williamson was proof of disunity with the Society. The exact opposite is true: the Society's internal unity, in fact, resulted in the expulsion of a divisive element, thus strengthening its unity!

Catholic Mission said...

The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX)has more time to think. They can still announce that the Council without the visible dead theory is traditional.It is in agreement with their values on other religions.They may see Vatican Council II as not an issue any more.

There are Catholics reporting, here and there, that Vatican Council II is not a break from tradition. If Catholics, a few of them, think the Council is not an explicit exception to the Syllabus of Errors and extra ecclesiam nulla salus then there could be something here for the SSPX to think about.

Consider this: the Council's 'implicit intention' and 'invincible ignorance' refer to possibilities known only to God and not cases known in 2012 . The Council does not say they are known to us (so who does?!!). The Council does not say that these cases are exceptions to the dogma on salvation ( the secular media says so!) . The Council does not say that these cases are exceptions to the Syllabus of Errors.One has to personally assume these errors.

The SSPX Chapter Statement (July 19, 2012) told us that no one could go to Heaven in 2012 if he is not a member of the Catholic Church. There are no known exceptions.This is a treasure-statement. It's a big move towards full unity in the Church with the correct doctrines.

If there are no known exceptions in Vatican Council II then the Council is not a break with Tradition. The Chapter Statement indicates that the dead saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) are not visible in the Year of the Faith. They are not exceptions to anything.

So it is time to challenge the Vatican publicly to cite examples from the council which show it is a break with Tradition.Otherwise the next SSPX Communique should say that the Council is in agreement with their values on other religions.

Archbishop Augustine Di Noia's 'elements of sanctification' (LG 8) and grace (National Catholic Register interview 07/01/2012 ) which he suggests are exceptions to Tradition are known only to God. He cannot name any case today who is an exception to the dogma.

Archbishop Gerhard Muller's invincible ignorance cases (LG 16) are known only to God.(National Catholic Register interview 10/02/2012 ).So invincible ignorance does not contradict the dogma which Pope Pius XII called an 'infallible statement'.

The dead saved in invincible ignorance or elements of sanctification are not visible to us on earth.

This is the visible dead error or theory.The Council does not mention it but people take it for granted.

So the next SSPX Communique could affirm Vatican Council II without the visible dead error. Affirm it in accord with the 'uninterrupted magisterium of the Church'.Let the Communique endorse a Vatican Council II in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Error.

Since there is no known salvation outside the visible Church; no visible cases of the dead saved,the International Theological Commission's 'theology of religions' and 'ecclesiology of communion' has no rational base .The SSPX could continue to reject it.They could continue to reject a Vatican Council II based on an irrational premise of being able to see the dead.

It's a win-win situation. The Council is being affirmed by the SSPX without an irrationality, and so are the SSPX traditional values on other religions .

Vatican Council II is traditional so the SSPX does not have to go into schism and excommunication. Give the dissenters and liberals time in future to think. There will be a new problem, when it is known that AG 7 affirms the dogma and Traditiom and LG 16 does not contradict them.

chaimbeul said...

Torkay wrote:

"....Absolutely nothing of a doctrinal nature was resolved by those discussions. So what can we conclude, except that they were a mere formality that had nothing to do with the substance of the situation, which is regularization?"

I see what you are saying, and agree that nothing of a doctrinal nature was resolved, but we do not really know the exact content and context of the SSPX/Rome discussions. It's very possible that Rome did provide answers to the doctrinal concerns posed by the SSPX, but that the SSPX was not satisfied with the answers. So we can't really make a conclusion until we know more about those doctrinal discussions.