Rorate Caeli

Bishop Fellay: A Look Back at 2012

Rorate note: If you plan to post this audio link, which is exclusive to Rorate Caeli, or any other original Rorate work, especially our translations, please properly cite your source as being Rorate Caeli, if only as a simple matter of courtesy. 

As we ring in the Year of Our Lord 2013, Bp. Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), takes a look back at 2012, and the constant drama surrounding the talks between Rome and the Society - according to his view of things. 

While there's not much new news here, there are some fascinating anecdotes, which will surely keep the Vatican press office busy for a few weeks fielding questions on who really said what.

Listen here to the audio, delivered December 28 at Our Lady of Mount Carmel in Ontario, Canada.

75 comments:

Adfero said...

Reminder: we do not allow anonymous comments.

Malta said...

I don't know what to say, except to say without FSSPX, there would be no Summorum Pontificum (SP).

I went to a TLM yesterday in SF, NM (in the oldest church in the U.S.), a mass which didn't exist before SP for a generation after VII, but existed for 1,500 years, at least, in form, before VII. Beautiful mass!

Steve Calovich said...

Bishop Fellay states that the Fraternity of Saint Peter and the Institute of Christ the King aren't independent like his group, they must answer to local Bishops. I personally feel more at ease attending the traditional liturgy fully sanctioned by Rome. Reflect and thank God that He has preserved this oasis that is the Traditional Latin Mass. The years since the council could have been so much worse.

NIANTIC said...

I have great respect and admiration for Bishop Bernard Fellay. His talks are always very interesting and moving.

His comments regarding Paul Vl are quite disturbing. This unholy rush to beatification smell to high heaven.

A blessed and happy 2013 to all! Pax Christi.

Canada said...

This is an interesting synopsis by Bishop Fellay. Many truths are told - the Church is sick, the Council contains errors, etc. Regardless, this does not in any way change the fact that the SSPX broke the very Tradition they claim to uphold by becoming the official interpreters of Canon Law - a privilege enjoyed by the pope alone as the promulgator of the Law - in 1988. Their defense of a "state of emergency" is one they could not make because only the pope, at that time John Paul II, was the only human being alive with the privilege to say what is and what is not a state of emergency. The SSPX will claim he was a heretic. Oh please! Go look up the Church's definition of heresy with an objective mind and return to the discussion. Also, please study Canon Law (1917 or 1983) - both have the same information on the matter of interpretation of Canon Law; further, please read the documents of the FIRST Vatican Council on the pope's infallibility. After all this is done with a sound, non-biased, objective mind, then let us have a discussion. Also, apply all you've learned to the actions of the SSPX, and see who comes out to be the schismatic & heretic, for the two are never isolated. When you have one, you have the other.
In Jesus, Mary, Joseph.

Athelstane said...

At the 1 hour 10 minute mark: Bishop Fellay contends that 10% of all ordinations in France are to the FSSPX. Close to 25% of ordinations in France are to all traditionalist orders (FSSPX, FSSP, ICK, IBP, etc.).

Astounding numbers.

A sinner said...

They should just release the tapes of the doctrinal discussions between Rome and the SSPX along with the doctrinal preamble as was the original plan.

ExSSPXer said...

I pray that the SSPX comes into full communion finally. It is sad situation they live, one foot hovering near the door and the other firmly planted outside. But until they accept and actually live out a Catholic life, a life of true obedience, their understanding of obedience is in no way Catholic, it impossible for me to attend their services again. Poor souls.

Peter said...

I thinks the SSPX should choose their words CAREFULLY so they are not misunderstood. When Bishop Fellay simply calls the New Mass Evil - that in itself IS EVIL! For The Mass in ANY Rite is a great good because it is the sacrifice of Christ and it is where Christ is made present.

What Bp. Fellay should say is that the SSPX rejects the Reformed (deformed) Rite of Paul VI because of its ambiguity leads people to error and maybe even heresy and therefore it is evil - The RITE and not the Mass itself!!!

I was disappointed that it was Fellay himself who derailed the regularization of the SSPX through his Test/Experiment (DICI interview). If he did not do his test Rome would have approved his unaltered text and the SSPX would have been regularized... very disappointing.

John said...

Malta,
Had all SSPX priests joined in-communion traditionalist orders in 1988, there would be an SP, probably earlier, and there would be less controversy surrounding tradition. We would be better off today without an "independent" SSPX (INTERESTING word that "independent". Not very Catholic)

Gabriel said...

Canada,

I agree with some of what you write, but there is one point that needs correction: The matter of Papal Infallibility. Bishop Fellay, in his Angelus Press 2010 Conference talk, dedicated an entire segment to the critical misunderstanding of infallibility which resides among both sedevacantists and mainstream conservative Catholics. You can view the talk here:

http://www.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/bishop_fellay_2010_angelus_press_conference.htm

The entire thing is worth listening to (though it's over 2 hours long), but Part 6 is where Fellay discusses the interpretive errors surrounding Infallibility. I think his remarks will answer some of your concerns.

Also, I think you may be conflating binding interpretations of Canon Law which, as you note, are reserved to the Pope and more general interpretations of canon law, which can be exercised by any competent person. Clearly the latter cannot overrule the former, but you seem to be suggesting that the Pope alone interprets and applies the canons -- in other words, micromanaging the entire Church. Empirically speaking, we know that's neither true nor possible. Also, I haven't listened to all of Fellay's talk, but I was under the impression -- from his Angelus Press talk and the many other writings of the SSPX generally -- that the Society justifies much of its actions with "the salvation of souls is the highest law" (cf. Canon 1752). That's a powerful provision, and one that was no doubt placed at the close of the Code in order to reinforce what it -- and the Holy Church -- is indeed here for.

Heresy and schism are not the same, and one does not automatically follow the other. The Orthodox Church is in schism; however, no competent Catholic body has ever referred to them as heretics. Even the very conservative-traditional popes of the 19th C., including Pius IX, spoke of and reached out to the Orthodox as brothers in schism, not as heretics. So no, the two are not linked.

And besides, the SSPX are not in schism and if you listen to Fellay's talks (and follow the strange, contradictory attitude of Rome toward the Society), you will see that the charge of schism is more a polemical device used by those with an axe to grind than an authentic condemnation that emanates from the heart and mind of the Church.

Anil Wang said...

Gabriel said "And besides, the SSPX are not in schism and if you listen to Fellay's talks...the charge of schism is more a polemical device used by those with an axe to grind"

There's a simple test for schism, is the SSPX under the authority of the Pope. If the Pope were to say that a particular member of the SSPX were laicized or placed him under another disciplinary measure, would the SSPX recognize the laicization or disciplining? If priests were required to take a one month course only at approved seminaries, would the SSPX comply? Can a member of the SSPX be made Pope or at least be made a cardinal? Are any members of the SSPX a part of the USCCB or work in any way with the local bishop?

dp said...

No, Gabriel, you are right on the distinction between heresy and schism, but not on the seriousness of the facts on schism.first if all, concerning the orthodox, there are some doctrinal differences that could constitute a ground to speak of heresy: the filioque, namely. the point is that we say it in the creed, and that they, more than not saying it, they openly reject it as heresy.
as for the SSPX, I remind everybody that the illicit ordination of bishops can never be regarded as a pastoral measure, for the salvation of souls. there is a long history behind this, from the middle age to more recent times; the tradition of the Church wants that all those who are Catholic should be in communion with the pope, through the communion of the clergy and their elicit ministry. to break with that is to bring confusion among Christ's flock, and even when it looks as if such an act if schism should profit the Church, or part of the Church, in a long run we can be quite confident it will not. there is only one way to be sure that the gates of hell will not prevail, which us to be with Peter. the SSPX is in schism, otherwise we would be talking on nothing here. to deny the problem is not helpful

Gabriel said...

DP,

It rings strange to me that you resort to the authority of the Popes and yet I would challenge you to name a single Pope -- or single competent body of the Catholic Church -- that has ever stated that the Orthodox are "heretics." The Eastern rejection of the filioque goes back to its first promulgation nearly four centuries before the Great Schism. Were the Eastern Christians -- who were in full communion with Rome and inter communed with them -- "heretics" from that point forward? What about the Eastern Catholics in communion with Rome? None of them have to recite the Creed with the filioque; all they have to do is refrain from condemning the Roman Church from using it. (Some Eastern Catholics have used the filioque before, and some have since dropped it; others never did.) Also, it's worth noting that not every Orthodox reject the filioque as a "heresy." Much of the argument about the filioque is bound up with the larger argument about the Papacy and whether or not the Pope had the right to unilaterally amend the Creed. The fact that the Popes have not insisted that the Eastern Catholic churches insert it into the Creed seems to indicate that you are making much more of the issue than they ever did.

As for the other questions that have been circulated about the SSPX, let me say this: There is no canonical reason why a single member of the SSPX couldn't be made a bishop, cardinal, or pope. Moreover, since the Pope has not attempting to lawfully laicize a priest of the SSPX, we don't know the answer to your query. If it should ever come to that, we'll find out. It's worth mentioning that when SSPX hear confessions of people who have committed extraordinary sins (e.g., desecrating the Eucharist), their cases are referred to the appropriate Pontifical Commission for absolution and there has never been an issue with this. So clearly, despite the rhetoric, Rome considers SSPX confessions valid and, perhaps, even licit since they are willing to hear the cases of those extraordinary penitents and provide an answer on the means to their absolution and penance.

Inquisitor said...

Heresy and schism are not the same, and one does not automatically follow the other. The Orthodox Church is in schism; however, no competent Catholic body has ever referred to them as heretics.

Yes, their are several shades to the meaning of the words schism and heresy which causes a lot of confusion. Not all schismatics are heretics, but most schismatics are.

To put things simply schism is a rupture in the unity of the Church caused by a refusal to submit to the legitimate use of episcopal or Petrine authority. On the other hand, Heresy is the deliberate and obstinate denial of a dogma by a baptized person. Thus Schism is a sin against the hierarchy of the Church, where as heresy is a sin against the Faith itself.

For example, if a group refuses to obey the pope in such a way that the unity of the Church is compromised over an extended period of time, but the group never denies any dogmas, then the act would technically constitute only a schism. This form of schism is sometimes referred to as a "simple" schism. These kind of schismatics are NOT heretics.

On the other hand, if a group were to refuse to obey the pope on the grounds that the pope did not have universal jurisdiction over the Catholic Church then that act would deny a dogma--the dogma of the Universal Jurisdiction of the pope-- and it would thus be both a schism and a heresy. This kind of schism that combines both heresy and schism together into a revolt against the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and is sometimes referred to as a "mixed schism" by theologians. It is probably the most common form of schism, since the denial of a dogma is often offered as the justification for a schism.

In short, the word "schism" does not refer to the motive that caused a division in the Church. It refers to the objective act of rupturing union with the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. In most circumstances, schism is a sin that disturbs the peaceful and orderly governance of the Church. Schism does not attack the faith IN AND OF ITSELF.

Heresy is different. Heresy is a direct attack on the Faith itself. It is not a sin against the hierarchy of the Church it is a sin against the Faith. However, these two sins--schism and heresy--tend to walk hand-in-hand and when someone attacks the hierarchy their revolt is usually justified by attacking some part of the faith as well. Because of the closeness with which heresy and schism follow one another some people tend to use the word "schism" interchangeably with "heresy" even when this is not always technically correct.

kfca said...

I agree completely with Peter in his comment above. I greatly desire the regularisation of the Society, but the single most disturbing aspect of their attitude to the Church is their attack on the Person of Christ who is made present through the New Mass.

There is no doubt that the traditional Mass is the most perfect form we have, and that the new Mass is usually celebrated in a very far from perfect way, but in both, the same sacrifice is re-presented, the same sacrament celebrated.

I don't believe that the SSPX has been schismatic in the past - (however greatly this statement annoys them), I believe that the Society has subsisted in the Church of Christ, due in large part to the will of its SG for regularisation. While I think that the intransigent stance they adopted since the episcopal ordinations was necessary and hence justifiable in the past, I no longer believe that this is still the case.

The Holy Father has stretched out his hand to them, at great personal cost, and Bishop Fellay has rejected it. What use can the SSPX be to the Church and Her Mission now?

Truth Seeker said...

"At the 1 hour 10 minute mark: Bishop Fellay contends that 10% of all ordinations in France are to the FSSPX. Close to 25% of ordinations in France are to all traditionalist orders (FSSPX, FSSP, ICK, IBP, etc.)."

This means that 75% of the ordinations in France are according to the Ordinary Form or one of the Eastern liturgies.

Matthew Rose said...

Peter,

Recall that the definition of evil is an absence of good where good should be. So the New Mass can be valid, etc. etc., but since it can only be understood in terms of what it lacks vis a vis the TLM, it is evil. It lacks where it ought to be good because it was devised to strip down and destroy the real Roman Rite.

Catherine of Siena said...

The SSPX also took many of our most educated and devout souls out of the pews and out of the Church. We lost our fighters - those who could have combatted the rise of modernism from within the Church. It was a very, very clever and successful move by our Adversary, leaving the playing field open to its minions.

Athelstane said...

Hello Truth Seeker,

This means that 75% of the ordinations in France are according to the Ordinary Form or one of the Eastern liturgies.

I expect that the latter is quite small, but - yes, that's right.

Still, the idea that one in four French ordinations would be traditionalist would have been well nigh unthinkable 25 years ago, when Lefebvre was excommunicated.

Of course, most of the reason for that increasing parity has to do with the (almost complete) collapse of vocations in the dioceses. No matter how robust vocations are in traditionalist societies, they remain quite small compared to what the Church once looked like in France.

Truth Seeker said...

Catherine of Sienna, this is EXACTLY why I say that the SSPX needs the Church and the Church needs the Society.

Red said...

Matthew Rose said...

Recall that the definition of evil is an absence of good where good should be. So the New Mass can be valid, etc. etc., but since it can only be understood in terms of what it lacks vis a vis the TLM, it is evil. It lacks where it ought to be good because it was devised to strip down and destroy the real Roman Rite.


This is where I believe the SSPX gets it wrong. As an FSSP Priest once stated; the new code of canon law only requires fasting on two days out of the year while the former law requires much more. This does not suggest that the new code is prescribing something 'evil' since fasting is a good. The new code is good but the former prescribes something better and the absence of additional fasts does not render it evil.

The same with the new Mass - the N.O. is not defined by what it lacks but what it is. Justice demands this. That being said I do not see how the SSPX can refer to the N.O. as 'evil' because something is taken out. That would be like saying the rosary is evil if you neglect saying the Fatima prayer ('Oh my Jesus' prayer) at the end of each decade.

That being said I think some unofficial practices in the N.O. could be labeled as evil - obviously the abuses. And some of the prayers (such as the new Good Friday) prayer appears to be heretical but as with all things Post V2 more than one spin can be put on it to save it from being labeled as such.

B. said...

Catherine of Siena:
The SSPX also took many of our most educated and devout souls out of the pews and out of the Church. We lost our fighters

You have your history in reverse. The people were driven out of the Churches and they were given a kick in the back as a goodbye note. If someone had traditional tendencies as a layman, he was shunned by his pastor and refused communion on the tongue (Have you seen the video of Bishop Brown physically attacking woman who knelt for communion? I'm sure it was the SSPXs fault in your mind). If he was a pastor, he was removed by his bishop.

The people who were kicked out of the Church were desperate and confusedly wandering in the dark. Where the SSPX was not available, cults such as the Palmar de Troya or the Schuckhardt group flourished. Nobody ever asked why these pseudo-Catholic cults suddenly flourished after Vatican II. It would make an interesting study, I can name some more. If anything, we have to thank the SSPX for rescuing those poor souls from these kind of groups.

PEH said...

Well, we live in a world of contradictions thanks to Lucifer and Our Lord has told us we would be in this state as the following indicates:

The interpretation of the Navarre Bible:

"Jesus came to bring salvation to all men, yet he will be sign of contradiction because some people will obstinately reject him -- for this reason he will be their ruin. But for those who accept him with faith Jesus will be their salvation, freeing them from sin in this life and raising them up to eternal life."

And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary his mother: Behold this child is set for the fall, and for the resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be contradicted; [35] And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed. (Luke 2:34)

It is absolutely in line with precedents that the Secretary of State's office would be the principle means of sowing such contradiction. The Holy Father IMO must provide a direct link to himself if he really wants to fix "the problem of the Fraternity" during his pontificate.

Peter said...

As I said again, one must distinguish between the Mass AS SUCH and the RITE in which it is celebrated.

I personally, would restore the Rood Screen, the Pre-Pius XII fasts (and Holy week liturgy), the Medieval Sequences and Prefaces that were taken out of the Roman Missal by Pius V etc.

I do believe that the manufactured rites of Paul VI (especially in the way they are celebrated) are damaging to the faith and MAY be called 'evil' in that sense BUT the MASS ITSELF or Baptism, Confirmation etc in THEMSELVES as SACRAMENTS cannot be called evil even when celebrated with inferior rites.

Nauseated said...

Incredible. Look at all these attacks on the SSPX. Ingratitude combined with ignorance is among the ugliest sights to behold.

MartyJude said...

I may be way off the mark here, but does anyone else feel this might be a trap...to attempt to 'demonise' the SSPX and therefore have them declared as 'heretics' due to their refusal to accept the N.O. and VatII?!

Mbuku Kanyau Mbithuka said...

To the simple mind (which I am) The SSPX is a protestant leaning sect, whatever their reasons, not being in Union with the Bishop of Rome is not Catholic and Calling JP II a heretic is potentially a sin.

LeonG said...

Cardinal Hoyos and Pope Benedict himself have made it very clear that the SSPX are not in schism. They have always been treated as an internal church matter. Since they also adhere to the consistent teachings of the church and give the pope their filial devotion, it is problematic to make contrary claims. Accusers are either maliciously antipathetic, uninformed or misguided in their rationale.

Picard said...

Red (and others):

yes, you are right - the new fasting-rule is not (necessarily) evil, as well as omitting sth. in the Rosary.

But your analogy is not fitting.

Because the better analogy would be:
You have a Catholic Catechism. Then a protestant comes and obliterates, deletes all what is not pleasing to him as a protestant.

So would this new "Catechism" not be evil - as a Catholic Catechism?

Of course and that is the prefect analogy to the NewMass - it is nearly exactly what happened (well, it weren't the protestants themselfe but the modern "Catholics" that asked them and then did their job to obliterate/delete/supress the most of the specific Catholic elements and phrases).

But again, why is this really evil - to do so in a Catholic Rite or Catholic Catechism (and not only less good or imperfect, as the omission of some old fast-rules or sth. in the Rosary [btw., even that could be seen als evil - depending on the motives!!!])?

Well, because the examples you brought up are only examples of some pure imperfectness, some "negatio pura", as the terminus tech. in Latin is - the ommision of sth. that is not necesarry or obligatory and therefore no evil omission.

But then there is the other case (like in the NewMass or my Catechism-example): a "privatio": This is a negation resp. omision of sth. that is necessary or should have been there (of a "debitum").

Such a "privatio" is evil - as in all examples of sins and evilnesses, what are always privations!

MartyJude said...

Mbuku Kanyau Mbithuka said...
"To the simple mind (which I am) The SSPX is a protestant leaning sect, whatever their reasons, not being in Union with the Bishop of Rome is not Catholic and Calling JP II a heretic is potentially a sin."

Dear Mbuku, how can the SSPX be 'a protestant leaning sect'? They are merely following what Holy Church has followed for centuries until recent times. Are you are of the Protestant 'Reformation' in England? If you check out Michael Davies [R.I.P.] and his trilogy of books, beginning with Cranmer's Godly Order, it will be plain to see that The Church has protestantised herself. The SSPX are the French Priests galloping through England, at risk of martyrdom in order to bring the Sacred, Holy [now Extraordinary Rite] of Mass. To help the true 'Faithful' Catholics avoid the errors of the protestant communion service [now the Novus Ordo] and counteract the protestant ['new' Church] Teachings.

The third book illustrates/makes comparisons with the changes from Holy Mass into the protestant service...and the parallels are clear...with the post Vat.II changes from Holy 'Extraordinary Rite' to Novus Ordo [Ordinary Rite].

Maybe JPII will be declared 'heretical' in the future when the Crisis is resolved. How could his actions at Assisi I be seen in Catholic way, when he clearly broke the First Commandment? Again at Assisi II he allowed the same behaviours to continue - not even an error the first time, and corrected [repented] the second time.

This is ultimately what led Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop De Castro Meyer to consecrate without the Papal Pallium. A 'state of emergency' to continue the priesthood, sacraments, above all the True Mass.

It isn't the first time a Pope has been criticised [condemned even]. History will prove itself. Even St Paul stood up against St Peter at the Council of Jerusalem. Even St Peter was weak and made errors. Why should JPII be any different?

May God bless us all from the manger in Bethlehem. May Our Lady intercede for us, Holy Church and guide the Holy Father.

MartyJude said...

Sorry...I meant Papal Mandate, not Pallium! Not sure where that came from!!!

Bellarmine said...

It's very strange to see people (including those who have benefited so much from the SSPX counterweight!) still lazily parroting the "Protestant" smear against the SSPX.

To be Protestant requires, at the very least, the embrace of sola scriptura and sola fide. Yet the SSPX rejects both of these twin pillars of the Protestant Deformation.

The SSPX simply holds to the traditional teachings of the Church. That's it. To do so it must reject the novelties of Vatican II.

Fidelity can never involve betrayal. Therefore, fidelity to the deposit of faith can never involve any rejection of the deposit of faith. Thus, since the errors of Vatican II are rejections of the deposit of faith, fidelity to the deposit of faith demands the rejection of the errors of Vatican II. It's not hard to understand. Only tortured nonsense like a "hermeneutic of continuity" make it hard. Dispense with such sophistry and it again becomes easy to understand.

Since the supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls, when authority and this law conflict, the latter must be chosen. It's no accident that we were given the examples of Acts 4:19 and Galatians 2:11-14.

Also google for this:

Can Obedience Oblige Us to Disobey?

Mike said...


Marty Jude,

The sucessors of St. Peter have the gift of infallibility in their universal teaching on Faith and morals. They, like Peter himself, are far from impeccable.

There is a huge difference.

Mar said...

Well said, B. (17:34). The statement "The SSPX also took many of our most educated and devout souls out of the pews and out of the Church" is an abstraction that doesn't make sense. As to "We lost our fighters" - no one who had any say in the Church wanted 'fighters'; they were too 'rigid', 'triumphalistic', and oh-so-passe. The Church Militant was considered an outdated and unenlightened concept, totally at loggerheads with the now-fashionable 'aggiornamento'.

Tom said...

Mbuku Kanyau Mbithuka said..."To the simple mind (which I am) The SSPX is a protestant leaning sect, whatever their reasons, not being in Union with the Bishop of Rome is not Catholic..."

The Apostolic See has identified the Society of Saint Pius X as Catholic.

The Society, as Pope Benedict XVI has declared, consists of good and "sick" elements.

The Society is not beyond criticism. But let's tell the truth in regard to the Society of Saint Pius X.

The Society is Catholic. That has been made clear by the Apostolic See.

Tom

Tom said...

Nauseated said..."Incredible. Look at all these attacks on the SSPX."

Yeah...and keep in mind the scathing attacks against the Society that have been launched by none other than SSPX priests and...ummm...a certain bishop.

Tom

Steve said...

"It isn't the first time a Pope has been criticised [condemned even]. History will prove itself. Even St Paul stood up against St Peter at the Council of Jerusalem. Even St Peter was weak and made errors. Why should JPII be any different?"

The difference is that Rome has declared that Pope John Paul II is "Venerable".

Has the Church ever honored a person as "Venerable" only to later declare that person "heretical"?

dp said...

To call upon a condemnation of jpii is not helpful, not realistic, not wise. not to see that the SSPX is in schism is stubborn, and again not helpful, very unwise. to state that a bishop can consecrated others as bishops without the papal approval because of a state of emergency is insane, and schismatic too. to state that the NO mass is evil is blasphemous. it might be not the best way to celebrate, not the one pastorally appropriate, not the ideal, but it is approved by the Church, the true Church, the one in communion with the Pope, and therefore is not evil.
as for confession, I remind everybody that a priest receives the faculty to hear confessions from the lawful bishop of a diocese. lacking those faculties, the sacrament is invalid. now for all those who are in schism, o suppose that there is a different rule: no one denies that the orthodox absolve validly, though they ate not roman catholic. I cannot imagine a roman catholic subject going for confession to a priest of the SSPX and being validly absolved, unless on his deathbed. the priest that hear confessions must be authorized to do so byv the local ordinary or he must be presumably allowed because not impeded. those who have been ordained by bishops not in full communion with Rome should not be regarded as authorized to hear confession of anybody who considers himself a true subject to the Pope.

Mar said...

Well said, B. (17:34). The statement "The SSPX also took many of our most educated and devout souls out of the pews and out of the Church" is an abstraction that
doesn't make sense. As to "We lost our fighters" - no one who had any say in the Church wanted 'fighters'; they were too 'rigid', 'triumphalistic', and oh-so-passe. The Church Militant was considered an outdated and unenlightened concept, totally at loggerheads with the now-fashionable 'aggiornamento'.

MartyJude said...

Mike said...
"Marty Jude,
The sucessors of St. Peter have the gift of infallibility in their universal teaching on Faith and morals. They, like Peter himself, are far from impeccable.

There is a huge difference."

Mark,
How so, a 'huge difference'?!

Papal Infallibility, defined at Vat I [yes, there was a Vat I and previous Councils, now ignored in the mainstream/N.O. Church]...is when the Holy Father speaks 'ex Cathedra'...I'm not aware that a Pope has done so since Pius XII...am I wrong?

Certainly Vat.II, revered so much, is unequivocally described as 'Pastoral' and 'not Dogmatic' yet we 'must' adhere absolutely, to the detriment of previous Councils...as with Bishop Fellay's 'Talk', and everything since Vat.II, things are so ambiguous, so watered-down, that there may only be a 'basic' statement of Catholicism. Not defined or absolute...unless it comes to the SSPX...bt even then the Vatican 'plays games'. How can we play games with The Faith? There's no wonder that other 'Faiths', non-watered down are thriving and the Catholic Church is in devastating decline.

A huge difference to Peter and JPII? If that's what you are saying, Mark, we can agree. Peter was 'foolish'/'clumsy' at times. JPII was simply wrong with Assisi. Inexcusably wrong. He oversaw further destruction of The Church, with statements, but not censures, against Liberal/Modernist abuses/abusers. All so widespread.

He had a statement made on Vatican Radio during the Episcopal Ceremonies at Econe in '88 to effect the automatic excommunications. He 'promulgated' the new Code of Canon Law, with a Canon set up for Abp. Lefebvre. Why else would he do that?

All the while he 'relished' in the 'glory' of adoration from N.O. Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Surely that should be directed to God, and God alone?!

At least, the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, appears to be concerned for 'all' of the flock' not just those who 'cow-tow' to the post Vat.II reforms.

Yet even with Papa Benedict there seems to be ambiguities.

Hope I have replied to your comment fully.

MartyJude said...

"...Steve said...
"It isn't the first time a Pope has been criticised [condemned even]. History will prove itself. Even St Paul stood up against St Peter at the Council of Jerusalem. Even St Peter was weak and made errors. Why should JPII be any different?"

The difference is that Rome has declared that Pope John Paul II is "Venerable".

Has the Church ever honored a person as "Venerable" only to later declare that person "heretical"?...."

Well, if it hasn't happened before, there's always a first time. The N.O. Church has to establish itself and 'prove' itself as a 'better' more improved version, as the years prior to Vat.II must be proved no longer important. Why not 'beatify' JPII etc.?! Adds credence, but is it correct? Benedict spoke of the 'great John Paul' ...who had become a cult figure, a tough act to follow. Regardless of the blasphemies at Assisi I & II. The public scandals of the breaking of the First Commmandment!!!

So, what is the difference, I ask?

I cannot say JPII was heretical. Only God/His Church will decide such, but for the Pope to break the 1st Commandment is scandalous at the very least !!!

MartyJude said...

While it's sad that the FSSPX hasn't been 'reconciled', I think it's deplorble that people turn their backs on them now, no, that they condemn them...when there would not be a Summorum Pontificum, and therefore 'freedom' of the Holy Sacrifice of The Mass of our fathers, and associated Rites.

Bishop Williamson, [?Fr Morgan], and all Williamson's cronies, excepted, the FSSPX continues to follow the Tradition they have received, and to pray for the Supreme Pontiff, in all honesty, saying they accept him as Peter's Successor, but cannot accept the 'changes'. Unlike the rebellious N.O. bishops, priests [and laity], who do as they please. They offer 'lip service' to the Holy Father and walk away intent on doing their own thing. Who is worse? The 'honest' SSPX who declare their disagreements, or the Modernists who pretend to respect the Pope but walk away and do their own thing?!

Adfero said...

Catherine of Siena, I did not allow your last comment to go through. If you really have the letter from the Vatican you mentioned email it to me at athanasiuscatholic@yahoo.com

jp said...

But to offer lip service is quite important in the Church: it is a matter of reverence. irreverence has never been tolerated by Church authorities, one might be right, but no one should be irreverent. whenever someone declares he is with the Pope and respects his authorities formally and caninically, that person is fficially at the service of the Church, leave aside whether he thinks different or acts as he likes whenever he can. that is a matter that requires further steps in order to be proven.
as for jpii and Assisi I understand that many if you misinterpreted what happened. the pope never denied the first commandment, the pope never acknowledged other religions. and the pope never accomplished any gesture to hint that he was performing non Christian acts of worship.

Common Sense said...

Bishop Fellay clearly stated for all those who have ears to hear who the public enemies are and what their revolutionary objectives are. It appears to me that some of the people who comment are either attempting to divert the attention from the real issue, which is the timeless truth of Christ, based on Holy Scripture and the tradition of the Church, or are simply unaware or ignorant of the ramifications which post-VII modernism caused. So the real issue is the evil in the Church and subsequently in the world of which the catalyst was the culmination of the Second Vatican Council. What the Second Vatican Council did was a gradual sterilisation of the mindset, so the Catholics started thinking the unthinkable and tolerating the intolerable. Consequently over the course of two generations, such sterility of mind has impacted on our relationship with God and with other human beings. Everything else in this debate is secondary and in fact a distraction.

St Brendan said...

Bishop Fellay made a reference to the SSPX believing that the New Mass was "evil". This point was discussed at great length by Micheal Davies in 1997 in a book titled "I am with you always". I own a copy and it is very interesting. I learned a great deal about Church teaching, as well as the heated debate that was taking place by various traditionalist leaders at the time. The company that published the majority of Micheal Davies works, The Neumann Press still has the book listed for sale. Here is the link: http://www.neumannpress.com/iamwityoual1.html

Barbara said...

Inquisitor said:
"when someone attacks the hierarchy their revolt is usually justified by attacking some part of the faith as well."

I don’t know about that. Many Catholics (not only the SSPX) criticize a lot of the hierarchy and clergy (and that oh so wonderful Council ) because they have been betrayed by them. Is this attack? Well, ok, sometimes it is. I try to keep my criticism to content and not offend the person propagating the error, but it is very hard sometimes not to be disgusted because of their utter refusal to hear and see, never mind even acknowledge and take action. This is not attacking a part of the faith. On the contary. What must we do when leaders have gone astray and we have been left to our own devices in maintaining the integrity of the Faith? It is not my role at all to correct priests and the hierarchy (it is a sorry and tragic state of affairs that so many lay faithful(including myself)have arrived at this – it is not OK) – but if they are mystifying the perennial doctrine of the Church – I refuse to let them pull the wool over my eyes - and make me think all is well and they are handling things, when reality manifests most clearly that ALL is absolutely not well – at all and they are not handling things well –at all. That would mean switching off my little brain – which I simply will not do.

Kfca said:
"The Holy Father has stretched out his hand to them, at great personal cost, and Bishop Fellay has rejected it. What use can the SSPX be to the Church and Her Mission now?"

It would seem that way from a superficial judgment, but I believe Our Holy Father is too intelligent for such a shallow interpretation to hold. From reading his thought on this matter – he knows what is at stake and that the serious members of the SSPX (not the yo yos) are not playing games. Help, the crisis in the Church is of enormous proportions and I believe the SSPX still has a critical role to play in the restoration of things truly Catholic. They love the Church. They are serious people. The Holy Father wants them “in” too, but it is understandable more now why Bishop Fellay thought it better to decline the “offer” from Rome for the time being. Was it a real “offer” that in good conscience the Society couldn’t refuse? There were other factors too. For example, the new Head of the Congregation of the Faith.

And another thing - excuse me, but is it not high time some who comment here get their facts straight? What is this continuous accusation of the FSSPX being protestant and lack respect for the Holy Father? It is just a load of old rubbish and demonstrates that the probably well-intentioned Catholics who say it are in denial about how dreadful things really are in the leadership of the Church – or they suffer from just plain prejudice and lack knowledge of the facts behind the history of the SSPX and/ or, in fear, deliberately refuse to look reality in the face. Yes, I would say the reality is really scary for true Catholics – and I admit that I was one of the most reluctant of all to face it. Nowadays with the internet though, and if one strives for intellectual honesty the documented information can be found easily.

I write all this as a person who has no personal affiliation with the Fraternity. In fact I know not a soul.

With great respect, I entreat the Holy Father, who wants complete regularization of the SSPX, to use his complete Papal authority and with a word, put an end to this agonizing affair...

There we have it. This is how bad things are. A nobody like me begging the Supreme Pontiff.

Prayers for everyone concerned
Barbara

P.S. If only we had more Bishops with the straightfowardness and clarity of Bishop Fellay! I also know that there are still many great priests out there feeding their flocks despite the bad leadership in so much of the hierarchy!

Didimaya said...

Nauseated wrote:

"Incredible. Look at all these attacks on the SSPX. Ingratitude combined with ignorance is among the ugliest sights to behold."

But when the SSPX attacks the Catholic Church and its hierarchy, even the Pope, is this an ugly sight to behold? Or do you find it pleasant and beautiful? Catholics do have a right to criticize a group which regularly attacks the True Church as founded by Christ.

Matt said...

It is so interesting. Isn't it cool to be able to get both sides of a story instead of just from the mouthpieces from Party Central?

Listening to Fellay's description of events is so telling of the mindset of the present Church. I also find it so absolutely discouraging churchmen actually LIE. All of this "he said, she said" stuff, deinal by one and affirmation by another. Any wonder why there are no vocations in the dioceses but bursting at the seams with the SSPX.

Lily said...

Common Sense:
I agree with you 100%. Anyone who thinks Bishop Fellay is abrasive and unwilling to work with Rome is very mistaken. He has suffered enormously at the hands of Vatican "leaders." One day friends to the SSPX, and a knife to the back the next. Nothing on this audio is false. And anyone who does not believe the Masonic Lodge is alive and well and connected to the Vatican is mistaken. As a convert with a 32 degree Masonic father, I can tell you they consider it a great accomplishment to have influenced the changes in the mass to be more protestant. The only religion they hate is the Catholic Church because of the Real Presence. So on the audio when Bishop Fellay says the Rome Freemasonry Lodge announced before the Vatican did, that no agreement would be reached, it did not faze me. Many Cardinals are connected to or influenced by the Masonic Lodge today.

Common Sense said...

Dear Didimaya,

It appears to me that the post-VII Catholic Church bears rather the hallmarks of the apostate Church, as spoken by St Paul.

Yours faithfully in Christ, and God bless the SSPX.

Tom said...

A few comments, some negative, have appeared in this thread in regard to Pope Venerable John Paul II and Assisi 1986.

What I have always found interesting in regard to Traditionalists and their criticisms of Pope Venerable John Paul II and Assisi is the following:

The Pope's concluding address in 1986 at Assisi's World Day of Prayer for Peace declared bodly that true peace os found only in Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1986/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19861027_prayer-peace-assisi-final_en.html

Pope Venerable John Paul II, October 27, 1986 A.D. :

"IN CONCLUDING this World Day of Prayer for Peace, to which you have come from many parts of the world, kindly accepting my invitation, I would like now to express my feelings, as a brother and friend, but also as a believer in Jesus Christ, and, in the Catholic Church, the first witness of faith in him."

"The form and content of our prayers are very different, as we have seen, and there can be no question of reducing them to a kind of common denominator."

"In relation to the last prayer, the Christian one, in the series we have all heard, I profess here anew my conviction, shared by all Christians, that in Jesus Christ, as Saviour of all, true peace is to be found, "peace to those who are far off and peace to those who are near".

"His birth was greeted by the angels’ song: "Glory to God in the highest and peace among men with whom he is pleased".

"To use an expression of Paul the Apostle: "He is our peace"."

"Peace depends basically on this Power, which we call God, and as Christians believe has revealed himself in Christ. This is the meaning of this World Day of Prayer."

"I humbly repeat here my own conviction: peace bears the name of Jesus Christ."

Tom

Clario said...

Tom, actions speak louder than words. Nevertheless, for a devastating critique of his words, see The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church. Angelus Press.

Mar said...

Well, Tom, you speak of bold declarations, but the Gospel warns about leaders who say one thing, but do another.

Barbara said...

Thank you for that Tom. That was reassuring. I still wish Blessed Pope John Paul II hadn't started those ecumenical interrelgious meetings though ....most people judge actions ...often forget the words...I didn't know them.

To Didimaya,
Perhaps you live in one of the really good dioceses left under a good Bishop? Otherwise I cannot relate to your comment. Honestly Didmaya, you should see where I live. Apart from several havens (where I take refuge ) - there is devastation everywhere - in the liturgy, in Catholic moral teaching - Catholic Identity - pratically gone - and I live in a so- called Catholic country.

It is important to denounce all this. By the way I have never heard Bishop Fellay or the Archbishop himself attack the person of the Pope...do you have any instances? Thanks.

Barbara

CH DUPUY said...

For all those that have attacked unjustly the SSPX in this post and the comments in the conference by bishop Fellay:
Apparently you did not listen the conference until the end, where bp.Fellay says tha the Holy Father was favorably disposed toward regularizing the SSPX, until the very end, where he abruptly changed his mind. This even seemed strange to the SSPX Superior General, who wrote personally to the HF to clear ou the matter, and his answer confirmed his position.
The reason: there are in the Church very powerful dioceses such as the German, French and Austria, who threatened the Pope to disregard such accord, and in the case of Schoenberg in Austria, even with outright schism.
Such are the consequences of the VII decree on Collegiality, and consequently the loss of authority of the Supreme Pontiff.

Tom said...

Clario said..."Tom, actions speak louder than words."

Yes.

Speaking of actions...on October 27, 1986 A.D., there were people throughout the world who harmed innocent men and women via murder, rape, assault and theft.

That same day, in contrast to the Culture of Death, Pope (now Venerable) Pope John Paul II stood, if you will, before the world's religions and their leaders to proclaim that only through Jesus Christ and Christ's Catholic Church could each person on earth find true peace.

Rather than throw in with the Culture of Death, Pope Venerable John Paul II offered the world that day true peace via Jesus Christ.

As you said, actions speak louder than words...and Pope Venerable John Paul II's actions that day were actions of peace — true peace.

Tom

Tom said...

Barbara said..."Thank you for that Tom. That was reassuring. I still wish Blessed Pope John Paul II hadn't started those ecumenical interrelgious meetings though ....most people judge actions ...often forget the words...I didn't know them."

Barbara, until a few years ago, I was unaware as to Pope Venerable John Paul II's closing address at Assisi 1986 A.D.

Until that time, I had bought into the criticism and interpretation of Assisi I that had flowed from Traditionalists.

But when I first encountered the Pope's address in question, only then had I realized the true meaning of his words and actions that day at Assisi.

Pope Venerable John Paul II that day, via his words and actions, directed the world's religions, leaders and adherents to Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church as the world's only source of true peace.

Tom



Paula said...

I listened to Bishop Fellay's Dec. 28th talk with great interest. He is a truly courageous Catholic. God bless those unafraid at this time to stand firm and defend the faith. Nothing he said in this talk goes against what the Church has always taught regarding our Catholic faith. Don't gloss over his comment about Pope Paul VI; he would not assert such a statement without irrefutable proof, which he undoubtedly has access to. It is always a good thing to examine closely both sides.

Common Sense said...

Dear Tom,

The Ven. J.P.II not only called up Assisi but also, back some 20 years ago, visited the main synagogue in Rome. Reading at that time about his visit, I'm not aware that he preached Jesus Crucified to the Jews. Until the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church was essentially a missionary organisation. In order to basically please her enemies she became their bedfellow. The Ven. J.P.II, a so-called Catholic spirit, was rather a universalist. Should you have any doubts, you are free to verify some of his writings for yourself, where he states that every person is already united in a certain way to Christ and basically his or her salvation is assured. When Archbishop Lefebrve condemned his actions at Assisi, he surely had solid grounds for doing so. He was Pontiff for 27 years. In light of that, has he made a Catholic Church that is stronger, more respected and influential? Or did he leave the Church in a pitiable condition, essentially a toothless and clawless tiger which is ridiculed and despised?

Tom said...

Common Sense said..."Dear Tom, The Ven. J.P.II not only called up Assisi but also, back some 20 years ago, visited the main synagogue in Rome. Reading at that time about his visit, I'm not aware that he preached Jesus Crucified to the Jews. In light of that, has he made a Catholic Church that is stronger, more respected and influential? Or did he leave the Church in a pitiable condition, essentially a toothless and clawless tiger which is ridiculed and despised?"

The world has always ridiculed and despised Holy Mother Church.

I realize that an overall examination of Pope Venerable John Paul II's Papacy reveals strengths and weaknessess. That applies to each Pope, beginning with Saint Peter.

My comments noted simply that folks who bashed Pope Venerable John Paul II in regard to Assisi overlooked the Pope's closing address at Assisi, which featured the declaration that true peace is found only in Jesus Christ and His Holy Catholic Church.

On the day in question, regardless as to what certain Traditionalists have pretended for years, Pope Venerable John Paul II stood before the world's religions to declare that Jesus Christ alone is our true peace.

Tom

~~~~~~~~~~~~ said...

"Pope Venerable John Paul II stood before the world's religions to declare that Jesus Christ alone is our true peace."

Talk is cheap.

Tom said...

~~~~~~~~~~~~ said..."Talk is cheap."

Talk is holy when you stand before the world's religions to declare that Jesus Christ alone is our true peace.

Tom

cyrillist said...

"Talk is holy when you stand before the world's religions to declare that Jesus Christ alone is our true peace."

And after he said that, what did his audience do? Did they rise up en masse with howls of execration, lay violent hands upon him, and sweep him away to the public square, whence he was immolated in an auto da fe?

I'm sure that they all smiled politely, figuring that, well, that's what Catholics say.

Don't get me wrong, his statement was fully laudable. It's just that it would take a bit more than that to change my mind about Assisi. Like maybe if John Paul II had issued an unmistakable call for outright conversion at that event.

Tom said...

cyrillist said..."I'm sure that they all smiled politely, figuring that, well, that's what Catholics say.

"Don't get me wrong, his statement was fully laudable. It's just that it would take a bit more than that to change my mind about Assisi. Like maybe if John Paul II had issued an unmistakable call for outright conversion at that event."

1. He made the unmistakable declaration that true peace is found only in Jesus Christ.

2. He declared that Jesus Christ is the "Savior of all" the world.

3. He declared that the Catholic Church is the first witness of Faith in Jesus Christ.

4. He declared that "peace depends basically on this Power, which we call God, and as Christians believe has revealed himself in Christ. This is the meaning of this World Day of Prayer."

Therefore, the meaning of World Day of Prayer at Assisi was to call attention to the world's religions , it's leaders and adherents — the world itself — that any quest to find and obtain true peace may be found only in Jesus Christ and His Holy Catholic Church.

The reality is that anybody who participated in World Day of Prayer acknowledged the following:

1. Jesus Christ is the world's true peace.

2. The Catholic Church is the one, true and original witness to Faith in Jesus Christ.

3. That only the Pope — the Catholic Church — possessed the authority and ability to gather the world's religions to one place...and then inform said religions that their quest for true peace is futile should they look anywhere except to Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church.

Tom

BeeGee said...

Don't forget, as a FSSP Priest once observed, that Aaron made the golden calf for the people yet God continued to honor the authority He bestowed upon him after the fact. Christ told His disciples (and us) how to react to situations of abuse when he referred back to the Mosaic authority bestowed upon the Priests of His time: Do as they say not as they do.

My main concern with the SSPX is that they don't observe the proper stance on true and false obedience. The proper response is to obey your superior in ALL things EXCEPT sinful requests. Therefore the proper stance would be recognizing the authority of the local Bishop and complying with His requirements unless they are asked to do something sinful. Yet it appears the opposite is true: they set up shop in spite of the local Bishop, as if he didn't exist and totally ignore him. An analogical situation would be an alcoholic father who has made repeated attempts at getting his son to steal for him to support his addiction. The son would be right to refuse the request but wrong to totally disregard all of his father's legitimate requests during times of sobriety or totally disregarding his father altogether because of his addiction.

Obey in all things except sin.

cyrillist said...

@Tom: "The reality is that anybody who participated in World Day of Prayer acknowledged the following..."

Come on, Tom, the participants acknowledged no such things, and I'm sure that they'd be astounded if anyone thought that they did. From your take, you'd think that Assisi was Pentecost or something. At best, Assisi was a kind of UN-style summit for the world's religions, with the Church viewed as a benevolent host, but merely one-among-many, which remains nothing short of appalling. I like wish fulfillment as much as the next guy, but with all due respect for your idealism, this is just over the top.

CH DUPUY said...

@Tom:
JPII was also the Pope that believed in Universal Salvation, as is portrayed in his encyclicals, particularly the first one. Likewise, he did nothing to stop the abuses by Fr. Maciel Degollado of the Legion of Christ, who was a friend of his. When he was confronted with the scandals by pedophiles in North America, he tried to diminish the importance by saying that they were "a few ones"; but not so, they were thousands as has been lately revealed. Not only that, but towards the end of his life he tried to deny the existence of Hell, by stating that it was not a place, but some indeterminate situation of the soul. Faced with the uproar that this provoked that directly contradicts what our Lord Himself stipulates in the Gospels, he was forced to backtrack, by correcting himself, that it was a place, but immediately tried to soften the effect by saying that "nobody knew who was there" (??), thus subtly implying that it might be empty, in the guise of what Hans Ur Baltasar said in his writings.

Tom said...

cyrillist said..."Come on, Tom, the participants acknowledged no such things, and I'm sure that they'd be astounded if anyone thought that they did. From your take, you'd think that Assisi was Pentecost or something. At best, Assisi was a kind of UN-style summit for the world's religions, with the Church viewed as a benevolent host, but merely one-among-many, which remains nothing short of appalling. I like wish fulfillment as much as the next guy, but with all due respect for your idealism, this is just over the top."

The participants at Assisi assembled under the Apostolic See's terms.

The Apostolic See defined the meaning of World Day of Prayer.

Pope Venerable John Paul II declared at Assisi that the Catholic Church is the original and true witness of Jesus Christ.

Pope Venerable John Paul II declared at Assisi that true peace is found only in Jesus Christ.

The Venerable Pope then declared that the above is the true meaning of Assisi.

Therefore, please explain as to how a participant at Assisi, having been informed as to the meaning of Assisi, could deny that he spent that day acknowledging that true peace is found only in Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church.

Tom

Tom said...

CH DUPUY said..."JPII was also the Pope that believed in Universal Salvation, as is portrayed in his encyclicals, particularly the first one. Likewise, he did nothing to stop the abuses by Fr. Maciel Degollado of the Legion of Christ, who was a friend of his. When he was confronted with the scandals by pedophiles in North America, he tried to diminish the importance by saying that they were "a few ones"; but not so, they were thousands as has been lately revealed. Not only that, but towards the end of his life he tried to deny the existence of Hell, by stating that it was not a place, but some indeterminate situation of the soul. Faced with the uproar that this provoked that directly contradicts what our Lord Himself stipulates in the Gospels, he was forced to backtrack, by correcting himself, that it was a place, but immediately tried to soften the effect by saying that "nobody knew who was there" (??), thus subtly implying that it might be empty, in the guise of what Hans Ur Baltasar said in his writings."

Pope Venerable John Paul II, July 28, 1999:

"Eternal damnation remains a real possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it."

That said, I have discussed Pope Venerable John Paul II and Assisi I.

To return to that discussion, I have demonstrated via the Pope's words that he declared at Assisi that Jesus Christ is the only true peace.

The Pope also declared at Assisi that the Catholic Church is the true and ancient Church of Jesus Christ.

Tom

Tom said...

CH DUPUY said..."JPII was also the Pope that believed in Universal Salvation, as is portrayed in his encyclicals, particularly the first one. Not only that, but towards the end of his life he tried to deny the existence of Hell, by stating that it was not a place, but some indeterminate situation of the soul. Faced with the uproar that this provoked that directly contradicts what our Lord Himself stipulates in the Gospels, he was forced to backtrack, by correcting himself, that it was a place, but immediately tried to soften the effect by saying that "nobody knew who was there" (??), thus subtly implying that it might be empty, in the guise of what Hans Ur Baltasar said in his writings."

The following in regard to Pope Venerable John Paul II and Cardinal Baltasar contradicts your claims:

http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2007/03/hans_made_him_d.html

Tom

cyrillist said...

@Tom: "Therefore, please explain as to how a participant at Assisi, having been informed as to the meaning of Assisi, could deny that he spent that day acknowledging that true peace is found only in Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church."

So... gotcha, Assisi participants! Because you didn't read the fine print, you've officially signed on to the Nicene Creed! No crossed fingers, no take-backs, please stop by the baptismal font on your way out...

No, no, no, no, no. If the Church actually tried to impress your line of reasoning on the attendees, their response could only be, "Curses! We've been duped!" Not cricket, old egg.

Last word yours.

cyrillist said...

Tom, one more point: As you present the Apostolic See's definition and the Holy Father's declarations, then yes, in a narrow, legalistic sense, the Assisi participants could be said to have made the tacit acknowledgments you claim.

But I maintain that it's still a gotcha, and that the participants would be quite bemused at the notion that such acknowledgments could be taken in any way seriously.

The takeaway from the various Assisi confabs remains that the Church met with other religions on an equal basis, and that any veiled papal statements regarding the possible supremacy of the Catholic faith were in no way sufficient to change that fatal perception.

CH DUPUY said...

Tom said:
"Eternal damnation remains a real possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it."
So "eternal damnation REMAINS!!..."
I thought that Hell has always been. As to your quote from the Pope it says essentially the same as my quote: "Nobody knows who is there". It implies that there are few souls or none at all. But the seers of Fatima saw otherwise, as there were incalculable number of souls burning like cinders.
As to your quotes from Cardinal Baltasar or the Pope, you can find every kind of quote in their writings contradicting what they once affirmed.