Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Little Snag with the SSPX Reunion
Insight Scoop ^ | February 27, 2009

Posted on 02/28/2009 3:16:22 PM PST by NYer

From the Italian news agency ANSA, this news (ht: National Catholic Register):

The Society of Saint Pius X whose ultratraditionalist bishops were recently rehabilitated by Pope Benedict XVI will not accept the reforms introduced by the Second Vatican Council, the head of the order has told a Swiss paper.

Monsignor Bernard Fellay told the daily Le Courier on Thursday that the Council has caused the Catholic Church ''only damages''. ''The aftermath of the Council has been to empty seminaries, nunneries and churches. Thousands of priests have left their orders and millions of faithful have stopped being practicing Catholics and have joined sects''.

''If these are the fruits of the Council, they're strange indeed''. The Society, he said, is not willing to negotiate on the Council when it begins preliminary talks on rejoining the Church on a number of doctrinal issues.

''The Vatican has acknowledged the need for preliminary talks aimed at dealing with basic issues which stem from the Second Vatican Council. Making the acceptance of the Council a preliminary condition is putting the cart before the horse,'' he said.

The Vatican has not yet commented. But, of course, the February 5, 2009, statement from The Secretariat of State of the Holy See flatly stated: "An indispensable condition for any future recognition of the Society of St. Pius X is their full recognition of Vatican Council II and of the Magisterium of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI." Monsignor Fellay seems to have it backwards, for he apparently wants to put the cart ("basic issues which stem from the Second Vatican Council") before the horse (the Council itself, as well as the whole issue of Church authority). More to come soon, I'm sure.


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events
KEYWORDS: benedictxvi; catholic; fellay; pope; sspx; vatican; vcii

1 posted on 02/28/2009 3:16:22 PM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; nickcarraway; Romulus; ...
The Society of Saint Pius X whose ultratraditionalist bishops were recently rehabilitated by Pope Benedict XVI will not accept the reforms introduced by the Second Vatican Council

Is it possible to recognize a Council and not recognize its reforms. And do they mean all reforms or selective ones, like the liturgy?

2 posted on 02/28/2009 3:18:10 PM PST by NYer ("Run from places of sin as from a plague." - St. John Climacus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
''The aftermath of the Council has been to empty seminaries, nunneries and churches. Thousands of priests have left their orders and millions of faithful have stopped being practicing Catholics and have joined sects''

Who in the Vatican could honestly disagree?
3 posted on 02/28/2009 3:21:10 PM PST by irishjuggler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

more blustery hullabaloo from SSPX.

They’re too stubborn to admit anything about anything.


4 posted on 02/28/2009 3:22:00 PM PST by Scotswife (GO ISRAEL!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Well, it’s a confused issue, as Pope Benedict has pointed many times since the early 1980s. There never was, or briefly was, a liturgy of Vatican II, since the 1969/70 Mass, went against most of the recommendations of the Council. Can one be a true Catholic and go against “the Spirit” of Vatican II?


5 posted on 02/28/2009 3:22:36 PM PST by nickcarraway (Are the Good Times Really Over?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer

But what are the reforms of VII?
Pope JXXIII said that VII was a pastoral council.
What doctrine requiring assent was formally defined?


6 posted on 02/28/2009 3:24:59 PM PST by rogator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Sounds to me like someone, either on the far right or far left, trying to sabotage the reconciliation.

The “reforms” that came after the council were often unwise and badly carried out. Benedict himself has said as much. He has certainly said that about the liturgical reforms.

Now, if the SSPX gets more specific and specifies certain documents of Vatican II, that would be a problem. But een there, Cardinal Ratzinger repeatedly pointed out that, like any document, the Vatican II documents have been intepreted through two different lenses: the lens of continuity, the lens of rupture. I could readily envision an effort to get the SSPX to accept Vatican II documents premised on the former. Whether they will or not, . . .

Another possible explanation for this particular news item is that Fellay is doing some public negotiating, jockeying for position in the “discussions.”


7 posted on 02/28/2009 3:31:51 PM PST by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.

The SSPX would have you believe that VII is responible for everything wrong in the Church when there was rot way before VII. In fact, I think VII might have been responsible for exposing the rot and bringing it into the light so that it could be dealt with.

Those people who interpreted VII wrongly were already subversive, they just thought that VII allowed them to become less subtle.

All in all many actions and interpretations were incorrect but many, many, many Catholics have been encouraged to actually know their faith and their theology rather than just going through the motions.

If you look at your own life you will see that when times are bad, when you are confused and afraid, and you see no other way out than to rely on the goodness of God is when you have grown in your soul, VII has been such a challenge for many faithful Catholics. It is up to us to help steer the Church by actively living our faith. Asking priests to be true to the faith and helping them to be true to the faith. And most of all, to support the Church with prayer because we can’t do a thing without God. It is He who will quicken the heart and heal the soul, through His Church.


8 posted on 02/28/2009 3:53:51 PM PST by tiki (True Christians will not deliberately slander or misrepresent others or their beliefs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NYer; informavoracious; larose; RJR_fan; Prospero; Conservative Vermont Vet; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment

Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

9 posted on 02/28/2009 4:12:42 PM PST by narses (http://www.theobamadisaster.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Ask all Bishops if they are in total accord with the Council of Trent. When they ALL send their letter of “total support and agreement,” then this story can become an issue.

Francis


10 posted on 02/28/2009 4:13:17 PM PST by Frank Sheed (Fr. V. R. Capodanno, Lt, USN, Catholic Chaplain. 3rd/5th, 1st Marine Div., FMF. MOH, posthumously.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I’m getting tired of this Fellay. He seems to think he is the pope. Everyone is much closer that they realize, unity could be achieved if he would only adopt a cooperative attitude, and perhaps some humility. I think what SSPX (and so many of us regular Catholics!) really objects to is not Vatican II per se, but the “Spirit of” Vatican II, the nutty, out-of-control “reforms” that were in no way meant to be part of the Council, but in the 1970’s zeitgeist took hold as they never should have (and some radicals in the Church had been planning this all along since the 1950’s). Pope Benedict himself has spoken eloquently and firmly on the fact that there is “no such thing” as the SOV2, and the meaning of the Council is entirely contained in the documents of the Council.

Benedict has virtually laid out the red carpet for SSPX, if they persist in defiance, they may never have another chance. Can you imagine any other potential Pope, with the finesse, intelligence and will to make this happen? Benedict is almost 82, SSPX better grab this opportunity and Fellay is responsible for many lost souls if he refuses.


11 posted on 02/28/2009 6:41:43 PM PST by baa39 (Mater Dei, ora pro nobis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rogator

None!


12 posted on 02/28/2009 6:45:16 PM PST by baa39 (Mater Dei, ora pro nobis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tiki

It is not the Council but that which followed. The degradation of the Liturgy, the casting away of all tradition, the experimental Mass; moral relativism, seamless garments were all concurrent with the post Vatican II period. I believe it is the malaise of this period against which SSPX rebelled.


13 posted on 02/28/2009 7:04:03 PM PST by steve8714
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: tiki

It is not the Council but that which followed. The degradation of the Liturgy, the casting away of all tradition, the experimental Mass; moral relativism, seamless garments were all concurrent with the post Vatican II period. I believe it is the malaise of this period against which SSPX rebelled.


14 posted on 02/28/2009 7:05:08 PM PST by steve8714
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: irishjuggler
Who in the Vatican could honestly disagree?

Nobody, but neither will the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy find much traction there.

15 posted on 02/28/2009 7:14:25 PM PST by aposiopetic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: aposiopetic
Nobody, but neither will the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy find much traction there.

Is it a fallacy in this case? If Vatican II (or, rather, the infamous "Spirit of Vatican II") did not provide the wrecking ball with which the liberals have used to decimate the Church from within, why are they constantly invoking, defending and seeking to preserve it?
16 posted on 02/28/2009 7:27:24 PM PST by irishjuggler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: irishjuggler
Vatican II (or, rather, the infamous "Spirit of Vatican II")

You've put your finger on it. They're not the same.

17 posted on 02/28/2009 7:29:50 PM PST by aposiopetic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: aposiopetic
They're not the same.

True enough. And there's no time like the present for the Holy Father to disabuse the "Spirit of Vatican II" crowd of their pretensions once and for all. Discussions with the SSPX might provide the Vatican with an excellent opportunity to clarify exactly what V2 does and does not mean.
18 posted on 02/28/2009 7:59:38 PM PST by irishjuggler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NYer

bumpus ad summum


19 posted on 02/28/2009 7:59:53 PM PST by Dajjal (Obama is an Ericksonian NLP hypnotist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: irishjuggler

Agreed. The opportunity is there for correction. Prayers for all the bishops are in order.


20 posted on 02/28/2009 8:05:20 PM PST by aposiopetic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Is it possible to recognize a Council and not recognize its reforms. And do they mean all reforms or selective ones, like the liturgy?

Matters of discipline like the liturgy are malleable. Matters of teaching fall into several categories. Dogmas defined infallibly must be held.

21 posted on 02/28/2009 8:16:31 PM PST by cmj328 (Filibuster FOCA or lose reelection)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tiki

That’s probably the best post I’ve ever read concerning VII.

Kudos.


22 posted on 02/28/2009 8:40:58 PM PST by Scotswife (GO ISRAEL!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: baa39

“I’m getting tired of this Fellay. He seems to think he is the pope. Everyone is much closer that they realize, unity could be achieved if he would only adopt a cooperative attitude, and perhaps some humility.”

That’s been the problem from the gitgo.
These guys have been “more catholic than the Pope” from the beginning.
And as far as I can tell - reconciliation is dependent upon the Pope admitting he and JPII were wrong.


23 posted on 02/28/2009 8:42:41 PM PST by Scotswife (GO ISRAEL!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tiki

“All in all many actions and interpretations were incorrect but many, many, many Catholics have been encouraged to actually know their faith and their theology rather than just going through the motions.”

Couldn’t agree with you more!

Mel


24 posted on 03/01/2009 1:25:30 AM PST by melsec (A Proud Aussie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NYer

The documents of Vatican II are actually very orthodox:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V2ALL.HTM


25 posted on 03/01/2009 1:29:31 AM PST by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tiki
All in all many actions and interpretations were incorrect but many, many, many Catholics have been encouraged to actually know their faith and their theology rather than just going through the motions.

Sure, many pre-V2 Catholics were "just going through the motions," but you know what? Going through the motions (and maybe just maybe getting a little out of it by accident) was better than not showing up at all. In 1965, 50% of all Catholic children in the U.S. were in Catholic schools. Now, it's 15%. In 1965, most U.S. Catholics got married in the Church; now most don't. Most attended Mass weekly; now most don't. The "Spirit of Vatican II" propagandists call this progress. As Judge Judy says, "Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining."
26 posted on 03/01/2009 1:36:04 AM PST by irishjuggler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson