A Little Snag with the SSPX Reunion

Insight Scoop ^ | February 27, 2009

[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.

[cmj328]

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.

[Scotswife]

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

Kudos.

[Scotswife]

“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.

[melsec]

“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

[iowamark]

The documents of Vatican II are actually very orthodox:

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

[irishjuggler]

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."