Castel Gandolfo, Aug. 29 (CWNews.com) – Pope Benedict XVI (bio – news) met on Monday with Bishop Bernard Fellay, the head of the Society of St. Pius X, for talks aimed toward reconciliation between the Holy See and the traditionalist group.
Joaquin Navarro-Valls, the director of the Vatican press office, reported that the meeting had been held "in a climate of love for the Church and a desire to arrive at perfect communion." He said that the Pope and Bishop Fellay were hoping to make gradual progress in overcoming differences, so that a full agreement could be reached "in a reasonable time."
In his own statement after the meeting, Bishop Fellay said that his visit to the Pope showed that the SSPX "has always been, and will always be, attached to the Holy See." Echoing the Vatican’s official statement, Bishop Fellay said that the 35-minute conversation had produced an agreement to work gradually toward a resolution of the differences between the traditionalist group and the Vatican, "in a spirit of great love for the Church."
…After the meeting Bishop Fellay said that members of the SSPX would pray "that the Holy Father will find the strength to bring an end to the crisis in the Church and ‘restore all things in Christ.’"
In a July interview, Bishop Fellay said that he wanted to meet with Pope Benedict, and ask him to give permission for all Catholic priests throughout the world to use the Tridentine rite in celebrating Mass. He said that he would also ask the Pontiff to rescind the decrees of excommunication for himself and the other bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988.
Informed Vatican officials speculate that Pope Benedict may be prepared to grant the traditionalist request for a "universal indult" allowing the use of the Tridentine rite. [Source]
If with a universal indult I am sure the SSPX will still be around. Some of it’s members including some bishops might get regularized (or whatever the correct term is), but as Papabile points out some such as SSPX Bishop Williamson are off their rocker. The SSPX will just have more and more break off from them just as what happens to all schismatic groups. Some will find there way back into the Church and others will start their own schismatic branches from the SSPX as has already happened. Hopefully though most members will find there way home.
36 comments
I used to read a radtradder on usenet who wasn’t even satisfied with a universal indult. He would be satisfied with nothing less than the return to the mandatory Tridentine rite.
He would be satisfied with nothing less than the return to the mandatory Tridentine rite.
He should be careful what he wishes for. Does he really want the cabal of crummy liturgists to get their mitts on the trid mass?
Like anybody who sets themselves at odds with the official Church, the LeFebvrists have attracted quite a few oddballs. No doubt some of them will not come along back to the Church when the society does. What they will lose is legitimacy. However you look at it, the SSPX has real claims to institutional legitimacy.
When Fellay and the sane elements of the SSPX return to the good graces of the Vatican. The remainder will start a new group, or join the SSPV, or the Feeneyites, or who knows what. At first they won’t matter, and eventually they will die out, or become like the Old Catholic Church, pointless.
It’s happened before.
The “schismatic branches from SSPX” aren’t “branches” from SSPX because they no longer have any connection to it. There are plenty of oddballs out there, like one who ran off and declared himself Pope, but they have left the Society. The core of SSPX is a sane, or saner, than most. With the possible exception of Bishop Williamson. 😉 Bishop Fellay doesn’t want that much, when you think about it. Just for Rome to admit that any priest can say the Tridentine Mass without asking for permission first.
In response to Scott’s saying “Does he really want the cabal of crummy liturgists to get their mitts on the trid mass?” That’s exactly what happened at Vatican II, and the results are the unrecognizable mess in use today. If the Old Mass were returned, it would obviously be under the understanding that no one messed with it. If someone did, it wouldn’t be the Old Mass anymore, would it?
In one of the Instructions on the Mass that came out under the fair hand of Cardinal Arinze (!), there was an Instruction that cagily read:
“All Priests, everywhere, have the right to say Mass in Latin”.
The implication was that Priests need no prmission by anyone to offer Mass in the Latin language; they have that right being Priests. Of course, to offer Mass in the TRADITIONAL RITE is another matter, but one could argue that the above is worded so that it can be done, as it does not forbid it! I’m aware that there are all manner of problems with this interpretation. But since Cardinal Arinze is in himself not against the provision of the Traditional Rites being made much more freely available than is currently the case, one has to wonder if this Instruction is not a start in that direction…
We live in hope!!!
I recall Arinze’s statement to which Jack refers. As I understand it, Arinze made it clear (to me) that the Tridentine Mass was NEVER made impermissible, only that common vernacular became permissible as well. I was amused when he smiled and made the statement, regarding his own country on why they commonly held Mass in Latin, (it’s not an exact quote, but thereabouts)
…but of course my country only speaks 15 different languages, so we use the Latin Mass…
So, given that most priests should know even better than I that the Tridentine Mass is not discouraged, what is the hub-bub, bub?
I’m with you Teresa.
Although, I was talking with a priest the other day, and after that talk, I think the thought of speaking latin is going to be frustrating for many priests because they no longer speak Latin, and have no desire to say mass in Latin. As far as SSPX goes, I completely see why they are who they are.
I take issue with the way the Society is often so despised and attacked from both “liberals” and “conservatives,” particularly the conservatives.
At one time I myself believed that Archbishop Lefebvre was in serious error. However, after a lot of reading and study on the subject, I cannot help but conclude that he was right on a number of points.
One post above describes the Society as being “at odds” with the Church. But, one commonly misunderstood problem is that the Declaration on Religious Liberty is truly at odds with the constant teachings of the pre-Vatican II popes. I do not see how it is disloyalty to the Church to recognize this fact. Dignitatis Humanae does not constitute infallible teaching. Yet, it would seem one has been required to except this document if one wants to be granted the indult for the Traditional Roman Mass. But the Council was supposed to have been pastoral, not dogmatic. Why are trying to impose non-dogmatic (and therefore non-binding) Vatican II teachings on us as if they were dogmatic?
Another problem is that, no matter how painful it is to admit, the post-Vatican II Liturgical Reform very closely resembles the Protestant Reformation. Lex orandi, lex creendi. And, most of the elements of the Tridentine Mass which expressed Catholic concepts on the priesthood and the propitiatory Sacrifice have been suppressed. The outcome of the Reform has been a disaster for the Church, as we know.
One might seriously disagree with Lefebvre’s action in consecrating bishops without papal permission; but it is clear he did not intend to break with Rome in doing so. He did not reject the papacy. He believed, correctly or erroneously, that it was a necessary action to ensure the survival of Catholic Tradition, the traditional formation of priests, the Traditional Roman Liturgy, etc. We cannot help but wonder if he was right, judging from some of the outcomes of the Fraternity of St Peter.
Also, why are people so hard on Bishop Williamson, when the (papally approved) episcopacy is filled with “wackos” who go far beyond any alleged “wackiness” of Williamson’s…do the sex and embezzlement scandals and the “Taj Mahoney” ring a bell?
The “Taj Mahoney”. Oh my gosh that say it all doesn’t it? Thank you Dave.
Look, as soon as you cut yourself off from the Church, you’re wrong. Doesn’t matter how good or bad your arguments were beforehand.
If Lefebvre had stuck around, he might have done some good. Since he didn’t…he obviously wasn’t all that worried about the state of the Church.
Furthermore, if he’d really been interested in sticking around, he would have been doing his darndest to read those magisterial documents in a way which went along with his ideas (or humbly submitting to the Magisterium of the Church). If I can think of ways to do that, presumably a priest and bishop should have been able.
So what he was doing was the ecclesial equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and yelling “Lalala! I’m not listening!”, as opposed to offering logical argument. He gave his opponents the game. He proved them right, all by his lonesome ownsome.
Maureen:
You, like many of the other conservatives, can’t seem to see beyond a vision of “the pope (or the Church) says so and that’s it!” Your post seems to lack charity in its attitude, as well, like so many of the “conservatives” I know (well, what FEW conservatives there are left… 95% of the “[New]Church” around here seems to be full blown liberal).
Maureen, you must understand, Lefebvre knew he did not have many more years on this earth at the time of the consecrations. How much good could he have done in the less than three years of his earthly life after the consecrations? He felt the need to make sure priests would be formed according to tradition. At that time, nearly all seminaries were completely contaminated with heresy, immorality, and error.
Again, you seem so quick to judge Lefebvre, but are you willing to judge Paul VI or John Paul II? You won’t, simply BECAUSE they were *popes*. Of course, it is not our place to judge anyone. But my point is, beware of extending the powers of the papacy beyond their limits!
You say Lefebvre would have read “those magisterial documents” (I assume you mean Dignitatis Humanae and Church in the Modern World) in a way “which would have gone along with his ideas.” But the thing is, as far as I can see, “his ideas” were also the “ideas” of Pius IX, Pius X, Leo XIII, Pius XI, Vatican I, etc, etc.
Even the General Secretary of Vatican II, in his theological note concerning the Council, stated that we must distinguish between the traditional teachings repeated by the Council, and those of a novel character. Those of a novel character must be taken with reservations, he said.
Again, I ask you, why do you, and why do the liberals, and why does Rome, seek to impose upon all of us non-binding teachings (which oppose the traditional teaching of the Church) as if they were binding dogmas? Can you answer this?
We need not “humbly submit” to error. My contention is that Dignitatis Humanae teaches error. And, this is not out of the realm of possibility. The Council was merely “pastoral,” and therefore not part of the dogmatic magisterium, at least not in the novel parts.
If anyone can convince me otherwise, if there’s something I’m unaware of, please do tell.
Dave is exactly right ! The result of Archbishop Lefebvre’s foresight will prove beneficial for the Church. He knew he was ailing, and that in order to continue to ensure a constant stream of excellent new traditional priests, he sacrificed his standing in the Church (excommunication) by consecrating the 4 bishops. Now, with a reconciliation between Pope Benedict XVI and the SSPX imminent, those 450 excellent priests and 4 traditional bishops will be a welcome boost in the Church’s effort to recover from the devastation since Vat II. And, the posthumus lifting of the excommunication of the Archbishop, is his reward for his fine service to the Church in spite of the persecution he endured.
I’ll go even further in my prediction: just like St. Athanasius in the 4th century, who was the leader of a very small minority of bishops who defended Christ’s Divinity against the heresy of Arianism (which had swept through the Church like wildfire, and which was finally put down at the Council of Nicea), I believe Archbishop Lefebvre will one day also be raised to the honors of the alter.
Pope Meets With Head of Schismatic Group
Folks, I want to close this cycle of emphasis on the travails of the so-called Catholic traditionalist movement–those loyal to the Holy See and the schismatic sort–with these recent news and some commentary…
This talk in defense of SSPX is just plain mistaken. You can never do what wrong to achieve good. The saints even when unfairly persecuted by those above them submitted in obedience and as a result there example of holiness won supreme.
This is why progressives and rad trads are just two sides of the same coin. They both know better and will not fully submit and be obedient.
Being disobedient to proper Church authority to acheive some good is very muddled morally. Everyone who is disobedient thinks they are doing it for the good of the Church, but schism is not a good. Causing some to be excommunicated is not a good. Illicit administrations of the sacraments is not a good. He backed out of a deal that would have allowed him to ordain bishops and retain the Tridentine rite and then went on to attack some of the very documents he had signed himself at Vatican II. The whole thing was more about the Archbishop’s ego then any consideration for the Church.
Jeff, in normal times, you are right – obedience is essential. But in the aftermath of Vat II, when the “interpretation” and implementation of the reforms went haywire, Lefebvre did what St Athanasius did to defend the truth (even the pope in his day (I think it was Honorius) was against him and allowed Arianism to spread ! St. Athanasius was exiled 5 times and 3 attempts were made against his life. He was hounded and persecuted by bishops and papal authorities, BUT he perservered and was finally vindicated, and made a Saint. Also: Archbishop Levebvfe was a holy, humble man – he had NO ego trip. I knew him when he would come to Ridgefild Ct. (I was on yearly retreats there). When I went into the Chapel at 6am to say some prayers, Lefebvre was already there, on his knees, alone, praying his breviary.
Jeff, in normal times, you are right – obedience is essential. But in the aftermath of Vat II, when the “interpretation” and implementation of the reforms went haywire, Lefebvre did what St Athanasius did to defend the truth (even the pope in his day (I think it was Honorius) was against him and allowed Arianism to spread ! St. Athanasius was exiled 5 times and 3 attempts were made against his life. He was hounded and persecuted by bishops and papal authorities, BUT he perservered and was finally vindicated, and made a Saint. Also: Archbishop Levebvfe was a holy, humble man – he had NO ego trip. I knew him when he would come to Ridgefild Ct. (I was on yearly retreats there). When I went into the Chapel at 6am to say some prayers, Lefebvre was already there, on his knees, alone, praying his breviary.
Mike,
Exactly how did his example eliminate the excesses that happened after Vatican II? Because of his action there was no society that Tridentine loving Catholics could faithfully go to for a long period of time. If he would have been obedient his order would have grown and provided counter-examples of how the Mass can be celebrated beautifully. Instead we have some SSPX chapels across the country, instead of the large number there could have been that would have had the advantage of not being schismatic. Just as orders faithful to the Church have grown we see the opposite with the SSPX. It is not growing only creating more branches of schismatics and Sedevacantists (which is the natural progression of disobedience to the Pope)
While there were some good things about the Bishop the fact is that his actions were just plain wrong and should never be justified. He totally lied when he later said that the did not sign Dignitatis Humanae. Later when it was shown that he did indeed sign it he vigorously denied the fact.
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=857
The truth is that faithful Catholics working from within to help stem liturgical abuses and other mistakes is much more effective then working from without when you will have zero influence on the Church.
I also think comparing him to St Athanasius is mistaken. St Athanasius defended against a heresy and risked his life denouncing it. What heresy did the Archbishop defend and exactly how did he risk his life doing it? The thing is even progressives have tried to use the example of St Athanasius to defend their actions.
Can someone explain or point me to a resource that explains this SSPX controversy. I finally looked up the word indult just now and see it means permitted by the Holy See for a length of time. And here I thought indult mass was native american mass. (I don’t know how I got this idea, except that people seem to drive to far away places like indian reservations to attend this mass). But now I have more questions, like when was the tridentine mass outlawed? Sorry to be confused, but this is something no one bothers to explain anywhere.
Jeff, I want to answer your question as to what the Archbishop tried to defend the Church against:
1) A liturgical “reform” which Protestantized the Liturgy, put the faithful’s faith at serious risk (lex orandi, lex credendi), and resulted in the virtual destruction of the priesthood and people’s proper understanding of it
2) Modernism, the very Modernism condemned many times already by the Church’s Magisterium
3) A brand of Ecumenism which, rather than seeking the return from error of heretics and schismatic sects to the one true Church of Christ, considers them authentic churches
4) A “Religious Liberty” which grants nonexistent “rights” to error, and which results in practice in putting truth alongside error, evil alongside good…
5) A dangerous “collegiality” which seeks to democratize the Church
6) A revolution of dissent and disobedience which goes even further than (though brought to triumph by and flowing from in some ways) the Vatican II Council; a revolution which seeks to build a new Church, one which in reality tries to put man (Oh, sorry, I should have said “humans”) on God’s (“His/Her”) throne
Jeff, keep in mind, that all during the SSPX issue (since the 1988 excommunications), there has been rapid growth in the Fraternity of St. Peter, Legionaires of Christ, and other traditional orders). These priests also provided valid trad. Masses. Many of us traditionalists attended those Masses. Now, the point I was making, is that if the reconcilliation with the SSPX occurs, we leep forward to 460 or so more traditional priests and 4 bishops back in communion and serving Catholics all over the world, and leading many back to the traditional faith. Next point – the errors that Lefebvre defended against: Modernism (defined as the synthesis of all heresies by St. Pius X). Pope Paul VI said: “the smoke of satan has crept into the church”; he was referring to those same errors. So, I compared Lefebvre to St. Athanasius because they both defended the faith against prevailing heresies. Believe me, Archbishop Lefebvre felt severely the persecutions he endured at the hands of some quite nasty (but powerful) Vatican officials, in the 1970’s and 80’s. I could name them, but charity precludes. Lefebvre’s was a slow, painful path. Also: he signed the 1988 Protocol, but retracted because the Vatican officials reneged on the date for the consecrations, and, they refused (after he signed) to allow him to name the bishop from the SSPX). He lost his trust for the accord.
Hannah:
Most traditionalists (and some non-traditional theologians as well) will point out that the Traditional Mass was never *really* “outlawed,” although for all practical purposes it was. However, most traditionalists point to Quo Primum of St Pius V, which guarantees in perpetuity the right to celebrate Mass according to the traditional Roman Missal. I would definitely recommend that you read “Quo Primum”. You can probably find it on the Internet somewhere.
I would point out that the term “Tridentine Mass” is really a misnomer. The “Tridentine” Missal of Pius V simply codified the traditional Roman Liturgy. This Liturgy originates with the Apostles, particularly Peter, and did develop over the centuries.
Paul VI promulgated the New Order of Mass in the late 1960s. Traditionalists point out that this missal was created by men (including 6 Protestant observers). The leader of these men who created this missal was Msgr. Bugnini. He was made an Archbishop later for his services. Mysteriously, Paul VI, later, suddenly removed Bugnini from his post and basically “exiled” him to Iran. It is often alleged that Bugnini was a high-ranking Freemason, and that this is the reason Paul exiled him! Without a doubt, he was a humanist. The New Mass that resulted from Bugnini is missing something like 3/4ths of the Traditional Mass. Most everything that was “too Catholic” was cut out. “The Problems with the New Mass” by Rama Coomeraswamy, M.D. says much about this.
John Paul II did grant an indult for the 1962 Missal in 1984. This 1962 Missal (which includes changes promulgated by John XXIII) is the same Missal used by the Society of St Pius X. Some traditionalists (not the SSPX) reject the 1962 Missal as well, simply because they see that in practice, it was a stepping stone (though minor by comparison) toward the New Mass “reform.”
The problems with John Paul’s indult though, are real:
1) In order to obtain the indult, one must accept the New Mass as legitimate, as the official liturgy of the Church, and not criticize it (in many cases, priests must sign statements to this effect). Obviously the SSPX cannot accept this.
2) Although the Holy Father asked bishops to be generous in the application of the indult, some bishops are unwilling to even grant it. In my own diocese, it took over 20 years for the diocese to grant the indult! (One must have the local bishop’s permission for the indult).
3) Priests who celebrate with the indult cannot criticize Vatican II. Again, the SSPX could not, for good reasons described above, accept this.
Hannah: Also, I forgot, the must reading for you is “They Have Uncrowned Him” by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. This is a masterpiece which will no doubt open your eyes as it did mine. It deals with “Dignitatis Humanae” and religious liberty moreso than the New Mass, though.
Hannah: Another good book is “The Mouth of The Lion” which is about the Brazilian bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer. It is very interesting, and deals with the struggles that occurred in one Brazilian diocese when the “changes” were forced upon them. Bishop de Castro Mayer was present at the consecrations of bishops by Archbishop Lefebvre.
Any more questions? 🙂
Thank you, DokkenDave, this is more than enough and now I can finally figure out what all the fuss is about!
🙂
This all gets very confusing for those of us born post-Vatican II. For instance, I didn’t know that there was a difference between the Tridentine Mass (the order of Mass established after the Council of Trent to address liturgical abuses and in response to the Protestant reformation running afoot), and a “Pope Pius V” (is that the right number, or is it VI?), which is Mass that uses both Latin and common vernacular, (I believe it’s the Mass you see commonly on EWTN).
Personally, I like Latin in Mass, but it seems to me that an awful lot of folks who are for the Tridentine Mass also reject every pope from John XXIII onward and have no desire to be united with the Catholic Church (which they would argue is not really the Catholic Church).
Teresa:
Those traditionalists who hold to the opinion that Paul VI (or John XXIII) and his successors are not valid popes are a minority of traditionalists.
The problem is not one so much of language (although, I too, love Latin in the Mass…and it was a tragedy to remove Latin altogether, as has happened in most places, despite Vatican II’s clear directive to retain Latin).
But, again, the problem is not primarily the language. The problem is that a group of men invented a “new liturgy.” They drastically butchered the prayers and ceremonies of the Traditional Mass! Most of the elements that were “too Catholic” were removed or made optional. (In fact, if it were up to Bugnini, “Eucharistic Prayer I” [based on the Roman Canon] would have been removed entirely… we would only have prayers “II”, “III”, and “IV”… but Paul VI ordered that #1 be included, although in practice it is rarely used.)
When the New Mass was created, it was done to make the Mass ecumenical and similar to the Protestant services, i.e. acceptable to the Protestants.
I am not inventing this out of thin air. Jean Guitton, a close friend of Paul VI, said that with Paul VI there was an intention in the liturgical reform to “correct,” or at least to diminish, obstacles to “Christian unity.”
The post-Vatican II liturgical reform not only frighteningly copies the reforms of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Cramner, but in many instances it even goes further.
The problem with all this is that it undermines the Faith. When the Protestant reformers wanted to change the faith of the people, they changed the liturgy. When beliefs are no longer expressed, they are forgotten by the people.
This is what has happened since Vatican II in the Catholic Church.
Archbishop Lefebvre always acknowledged the authority of the pope. He refused the New Mass as poisonous to the Faith… but the Vatican kept insisting he accept and celebrate the New Mass.
But Teresa, my main point, the differences between the Novus Ordo and the Traditional Mass are MAJOR. If you get an old missal, and compare it to the new carefully, you will see what I’m talking about. Yes, the new missal is “loosely” based on the traditional. But so are the Protestant services.
DokkenDave: I heard something similar to what you are saying from a priest. He expressed to me that the liturgical abuse comes in the form of the translation from Latin to English, and that there were quite a few liberties taken. (i.e., “Peace be with you” “and with your spirit” I believe is one example). I think the agency ICEL is/was responsible for these faulty translations. I understand that soon, per crack down by the Vatican, a new literal translation will be coming out. Am I correct on this?
I would also add, Teresa, that I was one of us who was born after Vatican II.
I myself grew up with the “New Mass.” In my youth, I had a deep faith, but found myself arguing with my religion teachers, fellow parishoners, and priests. I was deeply attached to the Holy Father. I think EWTN had a role in all of that later on too.
I had never been to a Traditional Mass until 10 years ago, at an SSPX chapel.
Only in the past year have I begun attending the Traditional Mass exclusively (I’m 30 years old). As I’ve read more about the issues, from “both sides,” I become more solidified in my position that the Church must return to her Traditional liturgy.
Teresa:
You are correct that ICEL has grossly mistranslated the new missal from Latin to English. But, in fairness, it was done with Vatican approval.
Now, the Vatican is asking for a different transalation, yes.
But, please bear in mind, even when celebrated in Latin, the “New Mass” bears a poison which is harmful to the Faith. Even when celebrated entirely in Latin, the “New Mass” is NOT the “Traditional Latin Mass.” It is a Protestantized Liturgy.
(Please see my comments above).
Latin is no guarantee of Catholicity. A pagan ritual could be celebrated in Latin.
Also, a good translation of the New Mass is not the solution. Because the New Mass is tainted (to say the least) in the first place. Archbishop Lefebvre called it a “bastard Mass” (meaning the “child” of trying to wed Catholicism with humanism/Modernism/liberalism/Protestantism/etc)
Teresa,
Also to clear up something from your very first question above:
The “Tridentine” Mass was promulgated by Pope St Pius V in the 1500’s. It is entirely in Latin.
This is the True Roman Mass, originating with the Apostles and developing over centuries.
The “New Mass” was promulgated by Paul VI in the 1960’s. It is now almost always done entirely in the vernacular, although, yes, EWTN uses Latin for it.
Sorry to ramble on, just wanted to clear that up.
A few examples of “Tridentine Mass” prayers missing from the “New Mass”, that is, examples of how the New missal butchers the old:
In the new missal:
1) Gone are the prayers before ascending to the altar… Judica Me, etc.
2) Gone is the traditional Confiteor, replaced with a modified (more ecumenical?) version
3) Gone are almost all the offertory prayers…replaced by a “preparation of the gifts”
4) Gone is the traditional Roman Canon. A modified version is “Eucharistic Prayer No.1”, (which in most parishes is almost never, if ever, used anyway)
5) Gone are most of the prayers that were said after the Canon, before Communion
6) Gone is the Last Gospel
7) The consecration form has been tampered with.
“Which will be given up for you” was added after the consecration of the host (Luther did the same thing). “Mysterium Fidei” was removed from the consecration of the wine. In most translations, “for you and for many” is mistranslated “for you and for all.”
If the SSPX and its followers cannot accept the teachings of an ecumenical council (Vatican II), then the schism will never end. It turns out to be a lot of discussion about something that will never be. To claim that a “pastoral” council is somehow not to be received in the same way as any other ecumenical council is just plain non-Catholic, in my humble opinion. It’s to misunderstand what is meant by a “pastoral” council. I guess the SSPX reads “pastoral” as “uninspired, non-Catholic” or some such thing. It shows where the SSPX is really coming from. Catholics say Vatican II was an ecumenical council. The SSPX says it was not. If the SSPX thinks that the Catholic Church is going to reject the teachings of one of its own ecumenical councils, then I have some swamp land for sale.
Dear Br. Clare-Vincent:
What about the “robber” Council of Ephesus?
Not all the councils in the history of the Church have had a wonderful effect. I personally think Vatican II would come in “first place” among those which have not.
I’m not saying that Vatican II wasn’t an ecumenical Council. I am saying that because it claimed to be pastoral, it must not be viewed in the same way as, say, Trent.
Also, if even the General Secretary of the Council said that teachings of a novel character must be taken with reservations, is the SSPX’s position really that unfounded?
I make these points to you in all sincerity and charity.
The fact that Dignitatis Humanae contradicts the previous papal teachings is a cause for alarm, to say the least. Can we accept two teachings which contradict each other?
This thread is getting way longer than it needs to be, but I’ll toss my 2 cents in anyways.
How many here have read Ratzinger’s Spirit of the Liturgy? I bought it the day of his election, and it has proved fascinating reading. He discusses some of what he considered the beneficial aspects of the Pauline Missal. And if you read some of his other books, he strongly indicates that the problem with V-2 is that it was not properly and fully implemented–it was a valid council and must be implemented in the light of tradition: one cannot accept V-2 and reject Trent or V-1,and one cannot accept Trent and V-1 while rejecting V-2. One could say Ratzinger’s case is a take-off on what Chesterton said about Christianity being found difficult and left untried “The council was not implemented and found in error–the council was simply not implemented properly.”
Now that Ratzinger, who negotiated the SSPX protocol, is Pope, what do those who talk endlessly about the “Protestant” nature of the Pauline Missal say in response?
Who needs a so-called “universal indult” or any indult from any prelate to celebrate the REAL EUCHARIST, the Mass codified at the Great Council of Trent and grown organically over a period of 1500 years, from approx 400 B.C./C.E. Quo Primum gives every latin rite priest the right to celebrate according to the so-called Tridentine Rite. No Pope has dared abrogate that or outlaw the Latin Liturgy eventhough the stormtrooper Pope Paul 6 implied it with his dictatorial insistance on the use of the (suspected Freemason) Bugnini mass of the late 60’s the mistakenly referred to “normative mass”. The not so great Pope JP2 attacked the SSPX and attempted to anathemize that Orthodox Society of Priest, they did not rebel and leave the eternal church, the post vat 2 liberal church left them???? Orthodox (Traditionalist churches, monasteries, and seminaries are full to overflowing around the world (mainly with people born after the pastoral council Vat2, (the youth of the church). The normative-bugnini/Paul 6 churches are half empty or half full depending on your perspective.If we had more Prelates like Bishops Felley and Williamson and fewer prelates like the Ayatollah’s Mahoney & Lustiger of Paris the Orthodox new Spring of the church would begin and the post Vat 2 heterodox errors would be a fading memory. Shalom
Comments are closed.