Posted on 10/16/2013 8:48:30 AM PDT by NYer
The head of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has denounced Vatican II, described the post-conciliar liturgy as “evil,” and said that he is grateful the group never reached an accommodation with the Holy See.
In a provocative address to the Kansas City audience, Bishop Bernard Fellay said: “It is has never been our intention to pretend either that the Council would be considered as good, or the New Mass would be ‘legitimate.’” He said that although the Novus Ordo Mass introduced after Vatican II may be valid, “The New Mass is bad, it is evil.”
Bishop Fellay told SSPX supporters that talks with the Vatican, designed to regularize the status of the breakaway traditionalist group, collapsed last June because the Vatican insisted on acceptance of the teachings of Vatican II. The SSPX leader flatly rejected the teaching of Pope Benedict XVI that Vatican II statements should be read in the light of consistent Catholic teaching. “The Council is not in continuity with tradition,” he said. “It’s not.”
While the SSPX leader said that the “hermeutic of continuity” preached by Benedict XVI was unrealistic, he acknowledged that the former Pontiff was somewhat sympathetic to the concerns of traditionalists. Under Pope Francis, he said, the gap between the SSPX and the Holy See is widening.
“When we see what is happening now,” Bishop Fellay said, “we thank God—we thank God!—we have been preserved from any kind of agreement” with the Vatican.
The harsh words from the SSPX leader appear to signal an end to any realistic hope for a reconciliation between the traditionalist group and the Holy See, and an indefinite continuation of the schism that began in 1988 when the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ordained Fellay and three other bishops in defiance of orders from Pope John Paul II.
Additional sources for this story
Some links will take you to other sites, in a new window.
I don't think the real question was whether Chappaquiddick Ted truly validly married Joan. It was clearly beyond him psychologically to enter into a valid marriage. One must be able to form clearly in one’s mind ideas like “monogamy,” “fidelity,” “sobriety,” “obligation,” “duty,” and “chastity” if one is to marry validly.
The REAL question was why the Church subsequently permitted him to attempt a second marriage. I have heard of annulment cases where at least one party to the putative, but ultimately declared null, marriage, was not permitted to again re-attempt sacramental marriage because of the psychological impediments that continued to exist in that party..
sitetest
The “Catholic Caucus” label will be removed because the article discusses sedevacantists who are not members of the caucus.
Careful now. The Catholics here will start to label you something other than Catholic. And then ban you from Catholic Caucus threads.
Their excommunication was lifted by Pope Benedict XVI. The Catholic Church stil considers them as members, albeit their personal positions.
This thread remains a CATHOLIC CAUCUS.
Thank you for that.
Thank you for saying this. I am most certainly a Catholic and have every right to reply to Catholic Caucuses.
Absolutely!! This thread is for discussion by CATHOLICS.
Attn: Religion Moderator: PLEASE RESTORE THE CATHOLIC CAUCUS STATUS.
To be fair to the Religion Moderator, he is basing his actions on some guideline as to what kind of Catholic can respond to Caucuses. Perhaps it is this guideline that needs to be adjusted.
That would seem like a no-brainer. I've wondered why a person considered incompetent to receive the Sacrament of Matrimony the first time automatically becomes competent the next time ... absent a clear conversion.
And for those, like myself, who need a definition:
The term “sedevacantism” is derived from the Latin phrase sede vacante, which literally means “the seat being vacant”.[3] The phrase is commonly used to refer specifically to a vacancy of the Holy See from the death or resignation of a pope to the election of his successor. “Sedevacantism” as a term in English appears to date from the 1980s, though the movement itself is older. Going back to John XXIII or Pius XII, or Pius X.
Ah, for the days of the Merovingian papacy or the Protestant Reformation. (semi-sarcasm)
I've read that many annulments come about during the course of folks converting or being received into full communion with the Catholic Church. And many of these folks bring a whole set of luggage with them. I've known converts with two, three failed marriages prior to conversion. Since these folks are formally converting, it seems reasonable that many of them have learned something or have repented of something that makes it possible that they may attempt marriage again.
But regarding Chappaquiddick Ted, the man's basic lack of common decency or fundamental morality should have told against granting him permission to remarry.
sitetest
I was an RCIA sponsor for a man who was then in his 50s joining the church. He and his wife, a cradle Catholic, both had previous marriages. I got to know him very well - it was like bringing my father into the Church, he was even from the same part of the Midwest - and there was no question that both of them were practically unrecognizable compared to what they had been at the time of their first marriages.
They had not received Communion since their marriage, and the whole congregation at the Easter Vigil was sniffling when they went up together.
To be honest, I sometimes wonder if I’m “really” married, in spite of the assurance from some very respectable priests. But in the case of Ted Kennedy, good gravy, a sociopath is incapable of contracting Christian matrimony ... maybe even of legal marriage. Being stone cold nuts is always an exception.
“To be honest, I sometimes wonder if I’m ‘really’ married, in spite of the assurance from some very respectable priests.”
LOL. Don't feel bad. I've entertained similar doubts, myself. My wife and I were so naive, so young, so stupid, so immature when we got married. We always say that we grew up together (especially having known each other since age 16).
But the bottom line is, we knew what marriage was, we knew it was permanent, we knew that in a Catholic marriage, there are three - you, me and God (kids come later, one hopes). We knew it was a vocation, and we believed that we were called to that vocation with each other, and that it is through marriage that spouses become holy.
After 30 years, it's worked for my wife!! She's a SAINT! Me? Well,... I'm married to a SAINT who prays for me all the time, so there's hope for me, too!
sitetest
We weren’t Catholic when we were married. My husband was unabaptized at the time. The Lutheran Air Force chaplain didn’t ask. Nonetheless, various pastors have said it’s good. Our pastor in Tulsa did a Catholic “verification” of our vows, so maybe that counts.
A “verification” of vows? Not sure I’ve heard of that.
Me, either. I’ve heard of a “clarification” of vows, where those unhappy souls are desperately searching for a loop-hole. Maybe the “verification” comes after the “clarification”, when that undotted I is found..
Oh, whatever it was. Renewal? Restatement? I still don’t know if we’re married. If he decides to ditch us, whatever, freep that. Maybe he can walk away clean.
The same is true for any individual or group that chooses to separate itself from the Catholic Church. The same argument applies here.
Why not? If atheists should be encouraged to be as atheist as possible because that is what they view as the Good, and if they are also saved by being such, then why should not liberal cafeteria Catholics be as they think they should be? Won't they be saved by being that too as atheists are saved by denying God?
But, as for the SSPX, I just think it is funny that the pope has not already publicly forgiven them and welcomed them back. Are they not lost sheep which he should be pursuing? And they are no more repentant than are atheists who do not seek faith, or homosexuals who live openly such lifestyles, and the pope seems to be okay with them. Don't the SSPX have consciences which compel them in their beliefs as those people do in their own? Sadly, such ideas rarely apply to those who simply believe as the Church did for almost 2,000 years. They are not welcomed back, but must make attestations of accepting every nuance of liberally interpreted VII ideas. They must apologise for every imagined offense. They must worship with the modern liturgy and praise it when asked about it. When a bunch of Anglicans who have historically denied numerous dogmas of the Church want to return no explicit avowals of any council "teaching" is required, and they are even allowed their own liturgy which was written by archheretic and murderer Cranmer. But, the SSPX are held to test after test, and are not even allowed to worship with the Church's own liturgy! And, the pope who cannot shut up about how we must support atheists in their atheism has nothing to say about supporting Catholics in their catholicism. Very sad, but only too typical.
Convalidation? Radical sanation?
Convalidation requires renewal of vows (renewed consent). If you did that, you're married.
Radical sanation doesn't require renewal of vows. I think my brother-in-law and sister-in-law got one of these. I forget why they needed one. That's probably it, if you were baptized and your husband wasn't, which would be an impediment to marriage (I think that would be disparity of cult).
Convalidation or sanation, if you got either of these, you're pretty much married.
sitetest
I guess we must have. Our pastor at the time knew about this stuff. Tulsa is an orthodox place, in a flat, boring, tornado-prone way. I still miss the square-mile grids of everything.
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.