Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SSPX rejects Vatican's latest offer
Cath News ^ | June 28, 2012

Posted on 06/27/2012 4:03:39 PM PDT by NYer

The SSPX traditionalist Catholic group on Monday slammed as "clearly unacceptable" a Vatican doctrinal document that was supposed to lay the foundation for the group's reconciliation with Rome, reports NCR Online.

The move comes after three years of complex negotiations between the Vatican and the Society of St Pius X and was revealed just as Pope Benedict XVI appointed a high-profile American archbishop to a key post to oversee relations with traditionalists.

A letter by Fr Christian Thouvenot, secretary general of the SSPX, to SSPX bishops and regional leaders was leaked on the Internet on Tuesday. Thouvenot later confirmed its authenticity.

The letter says the SSPX superior general, Bishop Bernard Fellay, told the head of the Vatican doctrinal office, American Cardinal William Levada, that "he couldn't sign" the Vatican's doctrinal offer during a meeting on June 13.

Benedict has actively sought reconciliation with the group since his election to the papacy in 2005. In 2009, he lifted the excommunication of the four SSPX bishops and started doctrinal talks in the hope of healing a decades-old rift within the Catholic church.

The negotiations led to a Vatican proposal that was delivered to Fellay in September. The "Doctrinal Preamble" was aimed at overcoming the doctrinal differences between the Vatican and the group, which rejects the modernizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), including church acceptance of ecumenism and religious freedom, and its rejection of anti-Semitism.

In his letter, Thouvenot writes that Fellay proposed his own version of the Preamble last April which, "according to several agreeing sources," seemed to "satisfy the Supreme Pontiff." But he added that cardinals in Levada's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith "amended" the text and it "now reintroduces, substantially, the propositions of September 2011."

During his June 13 meeting with Levada, Fellay "immediately informed him that he could not sign this new document," which he deemed "clearly unacceptable." The SSPX will hold its general assembly in early July to discuss the issue.

FULL STORY SSPX calls Vatican offer 'clearly unacceptable' (NCR)


TOPICS: Catholic; Ministry/Outreach; Worship
KEYWORDS: catholic; fellay; levada; sspx; vatican

1 posted on 06/27/2012 4:03:46 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; thefrankbaum; Tax-chick; GregB; saradippity; Berlin_Freeper; Litany; SumProVita; ...

SSPX update, ping!


2 posted on 06/27/2012 4:04:50 PM PDT by NYer (Without justice, what else is the State but a great band of robbers? - St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
From Catholic News Agency ...

SSPX letter indicates refusal of Vatican reconciliation effort

3 posted on 06/27/2012 4:06:55 PM PDT by NYer (Without justice, what else is the State but a great band of robbers? - St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Too bad. But it’s not clear from the article what the grounds were for this failure of agreement—whether the two sides are irreconcilable, or whether it’s something that can still be fixed.

Also, I don’t entirely trust the National Catholic Reporter to give us the straight facts. I think they’d like to see this fail, and therefore would tend to magnify the problems.


4 posted on 06/27/2012 4:21:31 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

Yeah, the National Catholic Fishwrap had to get a dig in at the SSPX (and at all Catholics too) by (1) implying that Catholics only opposed anti-semitism as a result of Vatican II and (2) that the SSPX is at odds with Vatican II in part because Vatican II, for the first time, rejected anti-semitism.

So, the SSPX favors antisemitism. (The Fishwrap gets away with this by pointing to Williamson’s ravings. The SSPX ought to toss Williamson out on his ear. He does them no good whatsoever. Except that, I suppose if they did that, it would split the group even more.)


5 posted on 06/27/2012 4:33:54 PM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

“Also, I don’t entirely trust the National Catholic Reporter to give us the straight facts. I think they’d like to see this fail, and therefore would tend to magnify the problems.”

Why on earth would they misrepresent the facts here? Fellay hasn’t shown anything to suggest that he’s been negotiating in good faith.

What concession has Fellay made in any of this?


6 posted on 06/27/2012 4:36:01 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Well, now it is time to really rethink if the Vatican II was such a good thing in its essence, as we can add the permanent schism in the Church to its other unwholesome fruits.


7 posted on 06/27/2012 5:27:42 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Of course they did. They were never seriously interested in coming back, because they don’t want to submit to lawful authority.


8 posted on 06/27/2012 5:36:52 PM PDT by mockingbyrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mockingbyrd

Is the Church of Jesus fallible? SSPX says so. So that would make it a bunch of hooey, whether they change “back” to the SSPX “plan” or stay in supposed “error”. That’s some monumental pride in camels hair the SSPX is holding, it seems to me. The pope seems downright begging the kid to come back in for dinner before he catches cold (or hot). (We all know how that can happen to men).


9 posted on 06/27/2012 6:38:24 PM PDT by If You Want It Fixed - Fix It
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Strange gamesmanship.


10 posted on 06/27/2012 7:32:24 PM PDT by polkajello (Romney: The Lesser of Two Weasels)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: If You Want It Fixed - Fix It
Is the Church of Jesus fallible? SSPX says so.

It seems to me that the other side of this discussion also says this. Vatican II either upheld the eternal Catholic faith, or it changed it. If it didn't change anything then there seems no way a traditionalist could be in error for believing as he does. On the other hand, if one holding the pre-Vatican II faith is in fact in error then there can be no denying that that council did change the faith. And you can't change the faith unless you first insist that what has been believed up to that time has in fact been wrong. Wrong cannot be other than an admission of fallibility.

This is why I find this whole situation both interesting and troubling. If Vatican II is seen as a part of the entire life of the Church then it should be interpreted as such, which means seeing its provisions as lying within the faith which existed then, and not as an introduction of a new faith. I am hopeful that whatever happens with the SSPX that we can begin seeing VII interpreted as a Catholic council rather than as a new religion being built on the ruins of that one, which is effectively how it has been viewed by most up to this time.

11 posted on 06/27/2012 9:07:20 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Sirius Lee; lilycicero; MaryLou1; glock rocks; JPG; Monkey Face; RIghtwardHo; ...

This regards a leaked, internal letter - not a formal rejection, if I understand correctly.


12 posted on 06/27/2012 9:25:02 PM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: polkajello
Reverence for and standing for Sacred Dogma is now viewed as a ‘game’? Tell that to the Lord, when you stand before Him.
13 posted on 06/28/2012 5:45:22 AM PDT by Robert Drobot (Fiat voluntas tua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cothrige
Vatican II either upheld the eternal Catholic faith, or it changed it. If it didn't change anything then there seems no way a traditionalist could be in error for believing as he does.

Unless the "traditionalist" believes that Vatican II changed the eternal Catholic faith - which Vatican II didn't proclaim itself to do and no Pope since then has taken it as doing.

I am hopeful that whatever happens with the SSPX that we can begin seeing VII interpreted as a Catholic council rather than as a new religion being built on the ruins of that one, which is effectively how it has been viewed by most up to this time.

That's what John Paul II said and Benedict XVI is saying with their "hermeneutic of continuity." The issue with Vatican II is that its wording leaves open the interpretation of a change to the faith - as well as the opposite interpretation.

14 posted on 06/28/2012 7:52:14 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

This is based on a leaked document, which may be true, but it was probably a mortal sin to leak it. I’d prefer to wait to hear from Pope Benedict. The same document also implied that the Pope approved the revision by Fellay, then Cardinal Levada added back some of things that had been changed. All rumors, but I guess that’s what counts these days.


15 posted on 06/28/2012 8:32:38 AM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mockingbyrd

If it comes down to a contest between Pope Benedict and Cardinal Levada, I’ll be siding with the Pope.


16 posted on 06/28/2012 8:38:14 AM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NYer

This has sure been a day for bad news.


17 posted on 06/28/2012 12:46:21 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
Unless the "traditionalist" believes that Vatican II changed the eternal Catholic faith - which Vatican II didn't proclaim itself to do and no Pope since then has taken it as doing.

I don't see how that could be the case. If no change has occurred, then what can they be denying? No, Vatican II has effectively been interpreted by the mainstream as the foundation of a new faith and the SSPX is being attacked for not accepting those changes. Who cares if they deny a council if that council changed nothing? How many Catholics give any heed to any other council than Vatican II? The priests I have known have never shown any indication they thought any council ever existed outside of Vatican II, and further they actively deny numerous aspects of the faith which all those councils upheld. Are they ever in any trouble? Why is that?

Unfortunately we live in a post-Catholic church. Popes have no influence regarding orthodoxy any more. Our last pope made some suggestions about an optional private prayer, i.e. the Rosary, and all the Catholics leapt on it as a direct revelation from heaven which forbade any use of a traditional Rosary throughout the world. However, contrast this to the reaction of the "faithful," including bishops and priests, to the Holy Father's teachings and instructions on the liturgy? Crickets, if not open denial and insurrection. That popes, or councils, have not claimed to change the faith does not mean that the faith hasn't changed and that the hierarchy and curia are not enforcing those changes on others. The faith my children are taught in churches today is not the faith of our patron saints. It just isn't. We can say it is, but it isn't and we all actually know it. And when the SSPX refuse to play ball and continue as they did for centuries before we all somehow find ways to insist that they are the ones changing the faith, and not all of us. Too bad.

18 posted on 06/28/2012 3:12:11 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: cothrige; JustSayNoToNannies
Vatican II either upheld the eternal Catholic faith, or it changed it.

Thank you for these posts.

Note also that the burden on proof is on the Curia and not on the SSPX in this, because it is the Curia that promulgated and now defends Vatican II. It is therefore incorrect to view the dispute as such where the SSPX must make some concessions and the Curia must make other concessions. The fact is that despite the formal authority, the true authority is with the Sacred Tradition, against which any innovation has to be justified. It was wonderful that this Pope made the steps toward reconciliation, but clearly another step or steps are needed.

Perhaps firing Levada for apparently not negotiating in good faith would be a good step to restart the reconciliation. I'd like to see the Holy Father engage in it without intermediaries; it is the central task of his pontificate.

19 posted on 06/29/2012 4:58:33 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cothrige
Unless the "traditionalist" believes that Vatican II changed the eternal Catholic faith - which Vatican II didn't proclaim itself to do and no Pope since then has taken it as doing.

I don't see how that could be the case. If no change has occurred, then what can they be denying?

The changes that they and "Catholic" liberals falsely believe to have been decreed.

20 posted on 06/29/2012 8:05:55 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: annalex
despite the formal authority, the true authority is with the Sacred Tradition, against which any innovation has to be justified.

Vatican II can be interpreted as consistent with Sacred Tradition (although, tragically, it can also be otherwise interpreted) - and it is this consistent interpretation that the Pope calls for as a "hermeneutic of continuity" and within which he defends the authority of Vatican II.

21 posted on 06/29/2012 8:09:42 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
Vatican II can be interpreted as consistent with Sacred Tradition

Well, either Levada could not interpret it that way, or did not want to, and I think the latter is the case since the acceptable to SSPX interpretation was offered to him and he re-wrote it.

You can take the man out of San Francisco, but you cannot take San Francisco out of the man, if you pardon the cliche.

22 posted on 06/29/2012 6:10:05 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies; annalex
The changes that they and "Catholic" liberals falsely believe to have been decreed.

If I am understanding you correctly in what you are saying here I still would not be very clear on what heretical error could be placed at the feet of the SSPX. If that body thinks that the Council promoted something innovative and wrong, but the council didn't really do that, that doesn't quite seem to deserve the response or treatment they are currently getting. The pope could simply say "No, we don't believe that or do that, and what you do and believe is certainly just fine." If the council didn't change the faith then there is really nothing to correct as regards the SSPX, but rather the real danger would be the 99% of Catholic priests and bishops who teach that the council actually did make those changes to the faith and in turn enforce them on parishes throughout the world. The SSPX may be wrong in confusing the actions and opinions of the 99% with dogma, but in a practical sense you cannot blame them. Actions do speak louder than words, and Rome has never, to my knowledge, corrected any of those errors.

BTW, in the above I refer to heresy as the SSPX are regularly held up as deserving to be removed or kept out of the Body of Christ for their positions, and that would seem to require something of that kind for such a response to be appropriate. I may be wrong in that though as I can actually not think of any heretics, regardless of how dangerous, notorious or scandalous, which the Church feels deserve such treatment (outside of groups like the SSPX of course). When Fellay is a threat to the faith but Richard McBrien isn't I can honestly say I must not understand anything at all.

23 posted on 06/29/2012 8:05:24 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: annalex
The fact is that despite the formal authority, the true authority is with the Sacred Tradition, against which any innovation has to be justified.

What you say here makes sense, and seems obvious to me, but that is really what confuses me about the whole thing. As an outsider (I have never seen a Mass in Latin as they were always banned by the bishop here) I just find it all very confusing. People say that the SSPX are innovative and holding to a different faith than the eternal Catholic one, and yet they are traditionalists. How can that be? If traditionalists don't hold to the "true faith" then it can only be that everybody else's definition of that has changed, and not the other way around. Or so it seems to me. And we see them being required to accept some particular interpretation of Vatican II before being allowed back into the Church, and yet at the same time Anglicans (who have made no bones about denying many councils throughout history) are being brought back in by the droves without ever being asked about particular interpretations of specific councils. Why is that? I was raised Anglican and I am fully aware of the many, many heresies and denials of the faith rampant in that church, and yet they are somehow accepted as being more catholic than the SSPX? How could that even be a little bit possible? Self professing lesbian Buddhists cannot be denied communion, but we can't allow the SSPX back in? Huh?!?

24 posted on 06/29/2012 8:20:13 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

My apologies as I meant to direct the above comment to you as well in case you felt it might impact our conversation. I had done that for post 23 and intended to do the same for 24 but forgot.


25 posted on 06/29/2012 8:23:17 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: annalex

“Our last pope made some suggestions about an optional private prayer, i.e. the Rosary, and all the Catholics leapt on it as a direct revelation from heaven which forbade any use of a traditional Rosary throughout the world.”

Ummm...huh?


26 posted on 06/30/2012 12:05:09 AM PDT by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

“The changes that they and “Catholic” liberals falsely believe to have been decreed.”

They may not have been decreed, but they are being taught and practiced. SSPX, like William F. Buckley, stands athwart history shouting “stop.”

Without SSPX there would be no indult allowing bishops to permit the Tridentine Mass.

I am not affiliated with SSPX, but I see among their critics the same malice and dishonesty that I see among the partisans of Barack Kardashian.


27 posted on 06/30/2012 12:10:52 AM PDT by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: cothrige
Self professing lesbian Buddhists cannot be denied communion, but we can't allow the SSPX back in? Huh?!?

I completely share your amazement, except being around this controversy for about 10 years now (since I started really paying attention, in other words), it dulled.

Of course the truth is that the Vatican II produced a number of non-doctrinal documents and introduced some liturgical changes, which, the bishops thought, was in continuity with the Tradition. Then the groups on periphery of Catholicism, both inside of it like the liberal wing of Catholicism, and outside of it, like the secular press and the Jews, took it to mean precisely the opposite, discontinuity. Things got so bad that the Traditional Mass got banned, and the elements of it meant to remain in the Novus Ordo disappeared.

In 21c, and especially, in this blessed pontificate, things began to improve. Several traditionalist ecclesial bodies were received back, like the Fraternal Society of St. Peter, SSPX got from under the excommunications, and the Latin Mass restored withing the new liturgical calendar and with restrictions.

The dialog with SSPX, -- or rather with the serious wing of it, as it has some closet sedevacantists there as well, -- went just fine from there. And now we have gotten to the crux of the matter: is Vatican II, according to the Roman Curia, a new religion that cannot be reconciled with SSPX or is it just a left liberal flavor of Catholicism in continuity with the rest of the Church here and in Heaven.

If the leaked document is to be believed, the way to see it as continuous withing the Church was presented by Bishop Fellay, and it was not rejected outright but rather re-written so that it no longer reflected the desired continuity. So therefore, at least with Levada in charge of the dialog, we have our answers: Roman Curia does not see Vatican II as continuous.

So Levada should be fired, and probably, His Holiness needs to take up the task himself, or else this generation of Catholics will know that the Catholic Church is still on her journey through the desert, unfortunately, and remains unattentive to the needs of our souls.

28 posted on 06/30/2012 1:44:37 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: dsc; cothrige
huh?

I did not write the statement that you are quoting. I did, however, read of complaints that the Rosary prayer is discouraged in some churches, but for clarifications you probably need to ask Cothrige, who wrote it in post 18.

29 posted on 06/30/2012 1:48:32 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: dsc
Ummm...huh?

Just ask yourself, how often do you encounter prayer books with the traditional format of the Rosary, or which lays out the traditional way of saying it daily? Do you see many churches or groups which say the Rosary publicly according to the traditional form? I don't. I haven't found a prayer book without the Luminous mysteries since they were suggested by Pope JPII. And yet they were optional suggestions given regarding a private prayer. I have had more than one person, when I mentioned that I don't like those mysteries, respond to me with references to needs for obedience. References to obedience, as well as the almost 100% and very enthusiastic adoption of them, show that people want to see these mysteries as much more than mere optional suggestions. And yet, when the pope teaches definitively on matters pertaining to the public worship of the Church, or actually legislates in his role as supreme pastor, what do people, especially priests and bishops, do? Ignore him of course. That has always been interesting to me.

30 posted on 06/30/2012 9:55:11 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: cothrige

“That has always been interesting to me.”

I see what you mean now.

Of course, the “Luminous Mysteries” changed and diluted a great devotion and blessing, which would explain the theological left’s eagerness to accept them.


31 posted on 07/01/2012 9:49:07 AM PDT by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: cothrige; annalex
If that body thinks that the Council promoted something innovative and wrong, but the council didn't really do that, that doesn't quite seem to deserve the response or treatment they are currently getting. The pope could simply say "No, we don't believe that or do that, and what you do and believe is certainly just fine."

I think the Church's relations with the SSPX declined at a time, and as a result, of great confusion - quite possibly extending to Popes - about the continuity of Vatican II with Tradition. I think the current Pope is in the process of getting said exactly the message you suggest.

When Fellay is a threat to the faith but Richard McBrien isn't I can honestly say I must not understand anything at all.

I agree that the time has passed when handling innovators with kid gloves can have any further spiritual benefit (if it ever did), and the time has come to tell them that if they are not for Christ's Church they are against Her.

32 posted on 07/02/2012 12:05:51 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: cothrige
And we see them being required to accept some particular interpretation of Vatican II before being allowed back into the Church, and yet at the same time Anglicans (who have made no bones about denying many councils throughout history) are being brought back in by the droves without ever being asked about particular interpretations of specific councils. Why is that?

The SSPX rejected the Church's teaching authority (as reflected in Vatican II) while members of the Church; Anglicans rejected the Church's teaching authority while clearly outside the Church. When the latter ask to join the Church, they make a statement of change that the former do not.

33 posted on 07/02/2012 12:14:56 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: dsc
They may not have been decreed, but they are being taught and practiced.

Agreed.

Without SSPX there would be no indult allowing bishops to permit the Tridentine Mass.

Quite possibly so.

I am not affiliated with SSPX, but I see among their critics the same malice and dishonesty that I see among the partisans of Barack Kardashian.

I don't consider myself a "critic" of the SSPX; I regard their separation with regret, and pray for its end. I think few if any of their true critics are anything other than McBrienist innovators.

34 posted on 07/02/2012 12:20:57 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies; cothrige

I agree completely, and behold: Levada retired.


35 posted on 07/02/2012 5:13:35 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Unfortunately, I don’t think Cardinal Levada’s replacement is any improvement.


36 posted on 07/06/2012 1:50:02 PM PDT by ebb tide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide

The replacement (forgot his name) has the benefit of knowing what had lead the negotiation to a dead end, and is also free from the negative inertia accumulated by Levada.

We’ll see.


37 posted on 07/06/2012 8:13:38 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | 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