“Return to past” is SSPX motto for doctrinal talks with Vatican

October 13, 2009

fellay-alps1As planned negotiations between the Vatican and the ultra-traditionalist Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) near, the group’s Swiss leader, Bishop Bernard Fellay, has spelled out his view of what the Roman Catholic Church must do to resolve the crisis he believes it is in. “The solution to the crisis is a return to the past,” he has told a magazine published by the SSPX in South Africa.

(Photo: Bishop Fellay in Ecône, Switzerland, 29 June 2009/Denis Balibouse)

Fellay said Pope Benedict agrees with the SSPX on the need to maintain the Church’s links to the past, but still wants to keep some reforms of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). “This is one of the most sensitive problems,” he said. “We hope the discussions will allow us to dispel the grave ambiguities that have spread through the Catholic Church since (the Council), as John Paul II himself recognised.”

Benedict has, in fact, listed SSPX acceptance of Vatican II reforms was a Vatican conditions in the talks.

In the same interview with the magazine Tradition, he also indicated the SSPX was ready to add several new issues to the agenda of the talks that could drag on the sessions for years. The talks are due to start later this month.

Fellay, who was readmitted into the Roman Catholic Church in January with three other bishops after two decades of excommunication, said the Church was in such a crisis that it would take more than one generation of “constant efforts in the right direction” and possibly as long as a century to overcome it.

He said he had no idea how long the SSPX’s doctrinal discussions with the Vatican would take.  “This will certainly also depend on what Rome expects. They could take quite a long time.”

St Peter's Basilica, Vatican City, 24 Dec. 2007/Max Rossi

Fellay then indicated the SSPX could also contribute to dragging out these talks as much as possible. “The issues are vast,” he told the magazine. “Our principle objections to the Council, such as religious liberty, ecumenism and collegiality are well known. But other objections could be posed, such as the influence of modern philosophy, the liturgical novelties, the spirit of the world and its influence on the modern thought that holds sway in the Church.”

(Photo: St Peter’s Basilica, Vatican City, 24 Dec. 2007/Max Rossi)

Vast is certainly the way to describe that agenda. The questions are so broad they could take years of debate before agreement is reached, if at all. And the SSPX would presumably want to have these issues discussed and agreed on before negotiations about the Vatican II reforms could start. Does this amount to what is known in their beloved Latin as putting off something ad kalendas graecas (to the Greek calends), i.e. forever?

Follow FaithWorld on Twitter at RTRFaithWorld

33 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

One item not mentioned by Bishop Fellay but addressed in Archbishop Lefebvre’s powerful work, They Have Uncrowned Him, is the elevation by the Church of the secular state, and democracy as the only ‘right’ form of political organization, to the place of preference, contrary to tradition and the explicit warnings of past popes, especially in the nineteenth century when capitalism was beginning to show its fangs. It has caused much mischief. It is the reason that pro-abort Catholics like Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, et al, give for their apparent betrayal of Catholic teaching about the sanctity of human life: that a vote otherwise in a secular state in which all faiths are deemed equal would be to come between “a woman and her god,” as Pelosi put it in one interview on the topic.It’s not that Bishop Fellay skipped the subject–it is actually part of the larger topic of “ecumenism” since, if all faiths are deemed equal, a secular state is a necessity, the organ that will mediate–will find Obama’s “common ground”–between them. Previous popes warned that such a state would become more and more atheistic and even criminal, and we have seen that to be the case. We have a president now who does not even attend any church service at all except as a political visitor, and yet we have a Church which has elevated the secular state to such a degree that Benedict could suggest the necessity of a world-wide state infused by a nebulous ‘Christian humanism’ as the solution to global economic and social problems, even as the US secular state, the model upon which Vatican II based its euphoric apostacy from Catholic teaching, stumbles and apparently is on the verge of collapse, from our very failure, our complete inability, in fact, to find common ground between the two extremes of life or death for the unborn child (and soon,the overwhelming fear is, for the needy, expensive seniors, as new children are not born to support them, and the seductive thought of euthanasia enters the national consciousness).The topics to be covered in these momentous talks between SSPX and the Vatican are so great, so profoundly impactive on the problems facing the world, that one must urge sincere Catholics from every nation to fall on our knees and beg the Creator to give these men the support of the Holy Spirit as they begin this undertaking. The issues on the table affect us in a thousand intimate ways, but we have been largely unaware and asleep, at most aware of the unsuitability of the new liturgy, but hardly at all of the import of the new doctrines. Please pray the rosary as we prepare.

Bishop Fellay is only reiterated what has already been taught by Blessed Pius IX in his encyclical letter Quanta Cura & The Syllabus of Errors dated December 8, 1864 which is a list of 80 errors of modern times infallibly condemned. Two articles,which are relevant to to the discussion here, are cited. N.B. the statements or propositions have been condemned:#ll The Church not only ought never to pass judgment on philosophy, but ought to tolerate the errors of philosophy, leaving it to correct itself. (condemned)#80 The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms wtih progress, liberalism and modern civilization. (condemned)

Posted by Paulus | Report as abusive

Let us hope and pray that the FSSPX will soon recieve faculties to hear confessions and witness marriages, for the salvation of souls.Mother of God, Ora Pro Nobis!

Posted by Daniel Hunter | Report as abusive

Daniel, the SSPX has never been limited in providing the Sacraments (of which Confession and Matrimony). In fact, Rome has repeatedly made it clear that all the Sacraments provided by the SSPX are valid and always have been valid.It would be good, however, if the SSPX is no longer discriminated against and allowed use of local Diocese facilities for their missions to offer the Sacraments.

Posted by Dr. John Smythe | Report as abusive

John, I am from India and here the church authorities never accept SSPX mass or other sacraments. Infact they are ready to excommunicate those who attend SSPX mass.

Posted by christopher | Report as abusive

And what does this so-called ultra-traditionalist Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) really mean when they say “return to past”? Does this mean a return to the Catholic history and practices, such as the Spanish Inquisition?

Posted by Anonymous | Report as abusive

Anonymous – Study unbiased history concerning the Inquisition before you come to a conclusion. Most history that people study in school or read on their own has a very secular bias. Read good history that gets down to the nitty-gritty, understand the culture of the time, get to know the relationship of Church and state at the time. Atrocities committed by man have happened all through history by men of every race and creed – those individual men did not and do not speak for the whole.

Posted by Jeannie | Report as abusive

The Inquistion was initiated at the request of the civil governments at the time for a theologically competent court to review the cases of those accused of heresy. The Inquisition concerned itself with discovering heresy within the Church and not with “persecuting” non-believers outside its fold. The heresies it sought to uncover were politically seditious and posed a very real threat to civil governments and to the social order as a whole, as with the Albigensian Heresy. The Inquistion, in fact, was designed to protect the person of the accused, using just & accepted mehods of inquiry and exonerating the vast majority of those it investigated, without even bringing them to trial.

Posted by Paulus | Report as abusive

Excellent posts by Jan, Paulus, Dr. Smythe, et al. Very eloquent by Jan Baker and I could never have said it better myself. Interesting the term used in the article: “ultra-traditionalist” whatever that means. There is tradition and then there is tradition. There was never a licit excommunication and the sacraments of the SSPX have been valid all along by reason of necessity. Most all of the modern Popes have condemned the “conciliar” trends.

Posted by Josephus | Report as abusive

If the Traditional Latin Mass is the mainstream again and everything that goes along with it, things will be better. There has been far too much of everyone doing whatever they please.

Posted by Jack | Report as abusive

When SSPX says ‘return to the past” they mean return to the Church’s teaching regarding salvation via Christ, ecumenism, the secular state, and democracy, among others. May I recommend Iota Unum, a very detailed study of Vatican II by historian Romano Amerio, and any work of Archbishop Lefebvre’s, but I benefitted very much from They Have Uncrowned Him, which besides explaining the traditional (and useful!!) teaching regarding secularism, exposes the particular linguistic strategy used in the constitutions of the Council, which was simply to say contradictory things, realizing that the liberal momentum of the time would carry the day, yet the existence of the contrary could be used to stifle dissent. An example is, ‘Keep the Latin,’ but ‘Allow the Vernacular.’ Once you become aware of this tactic, you can see it throughout the documents. These works can be gotten reasonably at Amazon. When you appreciate how profound the changes wrought by Vatican II are, it is easier to understand why Fellay says the discussions will take time. The National Catholic Register says SSPX plans to ‘drag them out,’ but I hope and pray that the discussions are thorough, because as a politically active pro-life person,I want to say that these topics are not abstract at all, but have given us exactly what we see all around us, abortion voted for by pro-choice Catholics under the umbrella of religious freedom advanced by the Council, and the substitution of some kind of religious amalgamation rather than the teachings of the Catholic church. You will read Caritas in Veritate in a completely different (and horrified) light. The Holy Father is actually calling for a world-wide secular state with religious infusion–but the religion is not Catholicism! And we get that from the Council!

To those asking about “ultra-traditionalist” — no, there is not just tradition and tradition. There is also a way to defend and continue it. The SSPX has defended tradition by keeping the Tridentine Mass, but other groups within the Church did that too. But to do that, it went so far as to defy the pope and illicitly ordain bishops who were excommunicated for two decades. To uphold its version of tradition, it also rejected key reforms of the Second Vatican Council and subsequent papal teaching based on those reforms. So the SSPX has not just defended tradition as other traditionalists have done, but gone much further, to the point of bringing excommunication down on its four bishops. To go that far deserves some further description, to differentiate the SSPX from the others. If there was no need to differentiate, there would have been no need to have different groups all claiming to defend tradition.Josephus, if there never was a licit excommunication, why did Pope Benedict have to lift the excommunications in January? And your comment that most all of the modern popes have condemned the “conciliar’ trends is only half true. They have condemned what they consider to be excesses in post-conciliar reforms, but they stand firm on key points like Nostra Aetate that the SSPX rejects. It will be interesting to see what comes of these negotiations at the Vatican.

TOM——THE POPE MUST HOLD TO THE MAGESTERIUM -THE ONE AND ONLY MAGESTERIUM (TEACHING OF THE WHOLE OF THE CHURCH) TRUTH DOSE NOT CHANGE IN TIME TRUTH IS FOREVER.NO COUNCIL AND NO POPE CAN CHANGE THE MAGESTERIUM -THEY MAY ADD TO IT-BUT MAY NOT CHANGE IT.TRUTH DOSE NOT EVOLVE THIS WAS CONDEMED BY ST. PIUS X IN HIS ENCYCLICAL PACINDI.THE SSPX HAS HELT TO THE TRUTH THROUGH TIME WHILE BEING ATTACKED FROM ALL SIDES EVEN THOSE IN THE CHURCH UNJUSTLY.-THE SSPX IS RIGHT.

Posted by JOE | Report as abusive

[...] and resolution will apparently be a long time in coming. Bishop Bernard Fellay, head of SSPX, reiterated a list of objections to the Second Vatican Council and said in an interview this week he hoped the [...]

Joe:The Magisterium (from the Latin “Magister”) is the teaching function of the Church. It belongs to the Pope (Luke 22,32) and the bishops who are in communion with him. The Pope “is” the Magisterium… What is above the Pope and the Magisterium is the Scriptures.

Posted by Elise B. | Report as abusive

Tom – Benedict might have had a mental reservation, like “If there was a valid/licit excommunication,” when he lifted the “excommunication.” But he had to lift it, to make possible the next move: the discussion (and negotiation?).It is a good point that there are many other traditionalist groups, small and large, and the SSPX is only the tip of the iceberg. But a very important and potent tip, that may, hopefully, sink the modernist ship. The Holy Spirit gave us almost a half century to see the dead end that the liberal interpretation leads to.I hope there will be a compromise: the council did not teach heresy, but did use ambiguous language that the liberals twisted out of its traditional meaning. If they can agree on that, the next step will be to close the little doors: in an infallible document the Holy Father has to spell out and correct the ambiguous parts, and close all loopholes for the liberal interpretation and implementation.It would be much more difficult to come to an agreement if the SSPX would claim that the council DID promote outright heresy.Finally, as Jan Baker suggested, let us pry the Rosary for the help of he Holy Spirit and the success of these negotiations.Dr. Sandor Balogh

Posted by Dr. Sandor Balogh | Report as abusive

Dear Readers, we’re having some software problem and a small number of comments that get approved seem to be disappearing from our system and not appearing here. We’re trying to fix this. If you made a comment in the past day or so that did not get posted and you want to resend it, please feel free to do so. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Dr Sandor Balogh, could it be wishful thinking to base your view on what you think the pope might have thought but didn’t say (“Benedict might have had a mental reservation”) rather than by his actual words and deeds? Maybe with hindsight, once all this is over and we have enough information to assess it, one might still be confronted with something inexplicable and have to theorise something like a mental reservation. But to say it from the start strikes me as an effort to bend the pope’s thinking to one’s own hopes, rather than trying to understand the pope himself.

Great article Tom! Regarding the epithet “ultratraditionalist” I wonder would there even be any traditionalists at all without Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX? Other than the English Latin Mass Society was anyone clinging to the Tridentine Mass and pre-vatican 2 discipline? The SSPX claimed a de facto right to the Tridentine Mass and did the bulk of the work to esablish a de jure right to the Tridentine Mass. Wouldn’t it be more honest to call other traditionalists “quasi-traditionalists” than to call the SSPX “ultratraditionalists”? On the Vatican 2 topic: it was said that the kindom of heavean is like mustard seed (but that it grows into something that has no earthly resemblance to a mustard seed). Thus there was a day when the Church was only about a dozen men in an upper room, nay even smaller a few women and an apostle at the foot of a cross. And it “hatched out organically” from the mustard seed into a 1962 or so year old mustard plant. The gimmick of Vatican 2 was to complain that the mustard plant didn’t resemble the mustard seed and to articially try to imaginatively return the church to an undeveloped seed state. Godspeed to the return to sanity.

Posted by Joe Tucker | Report as abusive

Reuters means that the SSPX must accept Vatican Council II as interpreted by the Jewish Left and their Catholic supporters.The ADL says Nostra Aetate indicates that Jews do not have to convert.There is no such reference in Nostra Aetate.The Southern Poverty Law Center says Church teaching has been changed after Vatican Council II. They are unable ever to give any reference from Vatican Council II.On Sept.22,2009 Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, President of the Catholic’s Conference of Bishops announced in the presence of two Rabbis that the church will no more actively convert Jews and that the Church will maintain relations with the Jews ACCORDING TO VATICAN COUNCIL II.He means Vatican Council II as interpreted by the Rabbis before him.So when Reuters says that SSPX must accept Vatican Council II, whose Vatican Council II interpretation are they referring to?Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II says ALL PEOPLE need to enter the Catholic Church through Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water for salvation. This is what SSPX also says.The Vatican(Holy Office) said in a Letter to the Archbishop of Boston (1949) that extra ecclesiam nulla salus was an ‘infallible teaching’ and a ‘dogma’. It means de facto all people need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. De jure (in principle) there can be exceptions (invincible ignorance etc) known only to God. This is SSPX.

Posted by Lionel Andrades | Report as abusive

The Archdiocese of Boston, USA has made available information on its official website which is not in agreement with the teachings of the Catholic Church. The Ecumenical / Interreligious Affairs Section of the diocese website has the text of Nostra Aetate , Vatican Council II but it comes with a Jewish Left interpretation of Vatican Council IL. Judaism is the ordinary way of salvation for Jews is the clear-false message. This is contrary to the Catholic Magisterium, the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit.Also the dialogue is being conducted with only one group of Jews, those who are pro abortion and homosexuality and teach syncretism. They do not represent all Jews. The website only refers to ADL, Boston College Center for Jewish Christian Learning, SIDIC and Rabbis who share their ideology.The articles suggest Catholics should not convert Jews and that Judaism is an equal path to salvation as the Catholic Faith.There are Jewish Rabbis who have publicly criticized the ADL and have said that they do no object to Catholic Mission and Catholics converting Jews, since they also pray for the conversion of Christians. They also oppose the ADL on the subject of homosexuality and abortion.(Click on Ecumenical and Inter Religious Affairs of the Archdiocese of Boston website.Then click onADL online guide: Nostra Aetate: Transforming the Catholic-Jewish Relationship.(http://www.adl.org/main_In terfaith/nostra_aetate.htm) includes essays by some of the world’s leading Jewish-Catholic interfaith experts who analyze the history and significance of Nostra Aetate, (http://www.adl.org/main_Interfaith/nost ra_aetate_whatisit.htm) as well as a practical “how-to” guide on teaching the lessons of Nostra Aetate to new generations of Catholics and Jews.This “Catholic” website mentions that the Jewish Anti-Defamation League‘(ADL) has announced the creation of a new online guide that explains the historic changes in Church theology and provides educational resources in order to teach them. The Archdiocese encourages it. The resources no where mentions that Nostra Aetate does not say that Judaism is a path of salvation. Neither does Nostra Aetate say that Jews in general are saved in Judaism or that Jews do not have to convert. So the educational resources are in error.The Catholic Church sees salvation among the Jews and Muslims as the extraordinary, exceptional way. This is how Nostra Aetate and Vatican Council II are officially interpreted by the Catholic Church.The website puts aside Vatican Council II as interpreted by the Church and only what is liked and comfortable is chosen. Nostra Aetate is served without Vatican Council II’s Ad Gentes, the Church’s teaching on Missionary Activity.Ad Gentes 7 says all people need to enter the Catholic Church.Lumen Gentium 14 says Catholic Faith and Baptism are needed for all. The website holds that non Catholic religions are the ordinary way of salvation.Ad Gentes 7 Vatican Council II: that all people need to enter the Catholic Church.Lumen Gentium 14 Vatican Council: Catholic Faith and Baptism are needed for all.The Decree on Ecumenism ( UR ) 3, Vatican Council II: Catholic Church is the true faith.The Catechism of the Catholic Church 845: God the Father wants all people to worship Him and to enter the Catholic Church. God the Father wants all people to be united into the Catholic Church.Notification,N.7, Fr. Jacques Dupuis S.J, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican Prefect: Cardinal Ratzinger: All people need to be oriented into the Catholic Church and to be a part of her .THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE EUCHARISTDo the priests who maintain the website have the right to celebrate Holy Mass and/or receive the Holy Eucharist?A Catholic Religious needs to believe in the teaching outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation, since it is linked to the Creed (Nicene and Apostles) and the First Commandment. Otherwise the religious has no right canonically to call himself a Catholic. If he is a priest he is not to celebrate Holy Mass or to receive the Holy Eucharist. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus is a dogma of the Catholic Church. To reject a dogma is a mortal sin.ECCLESIA DEI INDULTThe website is a negative proclamation of the religious in Boston .Cardinal Castrillion Hoyes former Prefect of the Vatican Ecclesia Dei required all priests who celebrate Holy Mass according to the Tridentine Rite to sign an indult stating that they accept the Catholic Church’s interpretation of Vatican Council II. What about the priests who support the Boston Archdiocese Website and work at the Office for Ecumenism and Interreligious Dialogue. Do they not have to sign an indult?So who’s Vatican II?

Posted by Lionel Andrades | Report as abusive

Vatican Council II actually says that Judaism, Islam and the other religions are not paths to salvation. (Ad Gentes 7) Their followers need Catholic Faith and Baptism in general, to avoid Hell (Lumen Gentium 14).The Holy Office in a Letter (1949) on Father Leonard Feeney said that Baptism was needed for all in general–with exceptions. Jews convert! (Jn: 3:5, Mk.16:15-16, CCC1257, Dominus Iesus 3, 20). It affirmed the ‘dogma’, the ‘infallible’ teaching.Vatican Council II acknowledged the exceptions to the general rule (Lumen Gentium 16).The ordinary means of salvation is the Catholic Church (Redemptoris Mission 55).Though Hindus and Buddhists could be saved in the extraordinary way, the exceptions to the rule. The ordinary way of salvation is not non-Catholic religions as Fr. Jacques Dupuis S.J believed. (Notification, Dupuis, CDF, Vatican 2001).’Therefore, all must be converted to Him as He is made known by the Church’s preaching. All must be incorporated into Him by baptism, and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself explicit terms affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism (cf.Mk.16:16; Jn.3:5) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by God through Jesus Christ would refuse to enter her or to remain in her could not be saved. – Decree on the Missionary activity of the Church, Ad Gentes # 7, Vatican Council II‘This sacred Synod turns its attention first to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon sacred Scripture and tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. For Christ, made present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique Way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism (cf.Mk.16:16; Jn.3:5) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by God through Jesus Christ, would refuse to enter her or to remain in her could not be saved.’- Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium #1Vatican Council II.

Posted by Lionel Andrades | Report as abusive

Dear Tom:I didn’t try to “bend the pope’s thinking,” only tried to find a middle ground between your and Josephus’ views:”Josephus, if there never was a licit excommunication, why did Pope Benedict have to lift the excommunications in January?”Any way, I do not have the ability to bend anyone’s thinking retroactively. I wrote in past tense, as a possibility, doing exactly what you propose: “try to understand the pope himself.”

Posted by Sandor Balogh | Report as abusive

What part of the word Protestant do these folk not understand? What I do not understand is the reversal of their excommunications, what could it possibly mean to SSPX?And on the point of that name… Why should they have picked on that gentle peace loving saint who codified Catholic doctrines to inspire conformity in the church and who, though he may have rejected modernism and whose encyclical Ad Diem Illum expresses his desire through Mary to renew all things in Christ.These folk must decide conclusively whether or not they are Catholics, and if not then they must not lay claim to any part of that word in naming their collective and accept their protestant status.

Posted by Marius V | Report as abusive

Well I am a new convert. I have been hearing the term “Old Latin Mass”. Does that mean the mass is said in Latin? If so why would I go to mass to listen to a foreign language that I don’t even understand a word of? It would be like sitting in a lecture that is done in a foreign language and then going to do a test in English on the matter that was covered in that Lecture. I hope I am wrong. I think I better go and do some research on “Old Latin Mass” before I shoot myself in the foot.

Posted by Winston Fletcher | Report as abusive

Part of a scheme to create a disturbance/break within SSPX, Mr. Henegan? Readmitted? Some precision please!

Posted by sixupman | Report as abusive

I thank God for the SSPX and hope they hold steadfast to their convictions. I do pray that the Roman Catholic Church and the SSPX have successful talks but I think we are a long way from resolving the Vatican II issues. They only way to peace is to pray the rosary for the converstion of Russia. I must say now that I have found the Traditional Mass and the SSPX I will never go back – my family and I are privilaged to hear such good and holy priests preaching the word of God every Sunday. Sadly the modern Catholic Church and the Traditional Catholic Church I like two seperate religions. The SSPX was started so that Tradition could be saved, so that the Catholic Faith would be preserved – the SSPX had no choice in the actions they took to preserve the faith – which was the resonsibility of Pope John XXIII and subsequent Popes who have failed in their duty to keep the faith but instead generatons of the faithful have been robbed of the true Catholic Faith – Its about time Pope Benedict XVI fully restored the Catholic Faith before it is too late – he has come a long way so far but has a lot further to go and I don’t think he has much time left before the chastisments of Fatima come to fruition.

Posted by Patricia | Report as abusive

Winston– Good observations– just take it slow. Get a copy of ” They Have Un Crowned Him ” and ” I accuse the Council “, both by Abp Lefebvre. They provide excellent background– without which you will be lost. Also, Fr Wathens excellent book on the changes detroying the Mass– you should find it on the internet and get it quick. Destroys the arguments these changes were just for greater participation–they attacked the reality of the Mass !The essential problem in Rome has not changed. The Freemasons vowed to destroy the Catholic Church back in 1700′s. They spawned the French Revolution , primarily, because the Monarchy’s were protecting the altars of Christ !That falied to destroy the Church. The Masonic order then vowed, in the Alta Vendita, of which the Arbp spoke often, to work tirelessly within the church until they had finally assembled a Council that would give them a Pope that they could control. Angelo Rancali, Annable Bugnini, and Montini were all leftists and members of the Free masonic orders, totally contrary to 200 years condemnation by 8 different popes ! Montini had been ” banished ” to Milan,and denied the red hat because of his heresies. Rancalli, the very first act he did after installation, was bring the leftist Montini in as a Cardinal. ( he had been banished after working secretly for the Communists over throw of European Countries ) These men hated the Catholic Church.The Mass is the center of the Church, it is the primary public adoration to Almighty God– It had to be destroyed, to pave the way for the hedonistic, protestantistic, humanistic new religion. Until the trus beliefs change, and the hearts of the romans are converted again, the talks are minefields– designed to draw in the unsuspecting sheep. dol659 at hotmail.com

Posted by Hugh | Report as abusive

When Our Lady said ” Russia will spread it’s errors “, She was not talking about the faithful, God-fearing Russian people ! She knew, being the Mother of God, that the Bolshevics had been financed by ruthless anti-christian businessmen in New York and London, and these men wanted complete and total domination of the world. Russia was their playground. The murders of 60 millions of Christians, the obliteration of Christian decency, the destruction of the Mass, the Murder and violating of thousands of holy, edicated priests and nuns throughout the world,the manipulation of inventories, economies, and lives all over the world, are the errors Our Lady warned us against. The answer was sooooo simple— Consecrate Russia, the Pope with all the Bishops of the world, sacrifice, and pray the Rosary. John XXIII ignored the message, Paul shut it away, and now they just poo poo it ! Pray the Rosary, friends Hugh

Posted by Hugh | Report as abusive

To Winston especially: I used to also think that it was off-putting to have the mass in Latin, since understanding is key to everything–I thought. In fact, I wrote a nice piece on it that was bought and published by the Pittsburgh diocesan paper, which I would give anything to take back now. Because, that’s a wrong understanding of the mass. It is not there for our ‘understanding,’ and our ‘understanding’ is not the key to either our spirituality or to worship. Those are modern ideas in which man is the center of the act of worship. Mass is for God. If it were in gibberish, it would be fine, as long as that’s what He wanted. And Latin is what God wants–so many popes, so many saints have attested to it. And even Vatican II recognizes it.That said, given that every missal has a translation, given that having the mass in Latin in common does away with the ghettos we’ve made of every language community given that the mass isn’t very long, given that the sermon and the readings are done in the vernacular (if you don’t speak that particular vernacular, you can easily have a missal in your language that gives the readings and other propers, so all you miss is the sermon until you learn the lingua franca of your region), what’s not to understand? And the music that was composed for the Latin is — one has no words to describe it. You must experience it. And besides all that, it’s just fun to pray in an ancient language, a language free from all the garbage we hang on to words and phrases. All that is not to mention the benefits to many, many generations of students having familiarity with Latin, and thus a key to so many of the world’s languages, and not to mention, either, the benefit of keeping our faith in a language ‘bank’ given the very rapid changes languages currently undergo. But none of these benefits should overshadow the one truth: the mass is not for us. The mass is for God. We do not go there to make friends or to grow in understanding in the human sense.To Mr. Andrades: you may quote sections of Vatican II that say one thing, and someone else may quote sections of Vatican II that say something else. That’s the way it was written,to say one thing in one section, another in another, with some diabolical purpose to keep us from expelling the new liberal, teaching. You simply cannot deny that the Council did away with genuine missionary work (substituting social service activities for teaching the faith) and in its place put overdone and false “respect” for other faiths and “dialogue” with other faiths (ad nauseum!!)as if we do not possess the Truth, the whole Truth, the only Truth. Oh how it plagues us today, with witchcraft on the dangerous rise throughout Africa, with ‘dialogue’ with Protestantism resolving down to their further distance from the Faith, with their destruction, through support for abortion and homosexuality, of society. It is this that must be purged, and pray God, it will be purged, and only the original understanding of the role of the Church remains.

There’s a contradiction in this article, call it hypocrisy or carelessness. How, on the one hand, can the Vatican make a “condition” that the SSPX accept the reforms of Vatican II, while on the other hand, the reforms in question be “so broad” that they potentially have no resolution? I don’t think the Vatican intends anything like what Heneghan claims, but Mr. Heneghan’s wishful thinking leads him to say that the Vatican will demand that the SSPX abide by unexpressed reforms and swear obedience to unuttered questions.

Posted by Charlotte | Report as abusive

I wrote this 2 yers ago, and hope this is the door opening:Some Thoughts on Benedict XVI’s motu propio: Summorum Pontificum, The Chinese, and the SSPX

[...] vilja ändra sig, Bernard Fellay superior för SSPX sade nyligen i en intervju att SSPX vill återgå till som det var tidigare, något som inte stämmer med de grundvillkor för samtalen som Vatikanen [...]

I did some thinkng on the upcoming tyalks and Vatican II, and came up with an idea.Fortunately, calling for a synod, or opening windows, does not fall under the infallibility of the pope. And Vatican II was supposed to be a pastoral exercise, so again, it did not propose infallible teaching.The problem is that the wind blew through the open windows and blew off not only the curtains, but destroyed most of the furniture!True, the newly refurnished building will be, must be different, than the old one. But the work of the synod hasn’t been completed! There is still an important loose end: the interpretation of the deliberately ambiguously worded texts. It will be done when the discussion with the SSPX will be concluded and the Holy Father will say the final word on the interpretation.John XXIII was influenced by the modernist faction in the Church, hoping, that they will decisevely defeat the conservatives and turn the Church inside out, or, if you prefer, upside down.. But the cons stood their ground, and forced a compromise: ambiguous statements. The confrontation still continues, See the comments on this web. Benedict, it seems, finally forces the two sides to come to a reasonable, and acceptable compromise and implement the changes in the traditional Catholic spirit, according to the old maxim, Catolice dicitur, Catolice intelligitur. This assumes, of course, that it was Catolice dicitur.Both sides might be surprised, and partially vindicated, by the final outcome.Sandor

Posted by sandor balogh | Report as abusive

[...] is a fuller report on the interview, with some interesting comments attached [...]

The “SSPX” isn’t “returning to the past” because they are a heretic cult who has been rejecting Catholic Dogma since the day they were founded in 1970.

The “SSPX” is in heresy against the:
Water Baptism Dogma > Section 7.2 of Immaculata-one.com
Salvation Dogma > Section 1 of Immaculata-one.com
Automatic Excommuncation for heresy Dogma > Section 13.2

The “SSPX” are in “negotiations” with another notorious heretic cult — the Vatican-2 cult (founded on 8 Dec 1965 at the Vatican).

The over 200 heresies in the “vatican-2 council” documents against prior defined Catholic Ex-Cathedra Dogma are not “ambiguities”.

Fifty of the heresies of the Vatican-2 heretic cult … from their founding documents (the V-2 “council” docs) are listed in Section 12 of Immaculata-one.com followed by Sources of Dogma from the Catholic Church in correction of these heresies. These heresies place the Vatican-2 sect outside of the Catholic Church even though this sect is in physical control of our formerly Catholic properties.

The Dogma on Automatic Excommunication from Christianity for physical participation in heretic cults such as the “SSPX” or Vatican-2 is listed on Section 13.2 of the site.

Mike

Posted by Mike444 | Report as abusive