Friday, August 26, 2011

SSPX Superior Warns Against Speculation About Meeting in Vatican

Edit: More news from kath.net. Not the most friendly to the Society of St. Pius X, but they have reported this from the French District

Previously circulating rumors about the possibility of the formal recognition of the Society of St. Pius X


Paris (kath.net/KAP)The General Superior of the Society of St. Pius X, [Bishop] Bernard Fellay, is warning against speculation about the meeting in Rome in the middle of September. He knows only that it is only to discuss the doctrinal talks, which the Society had held with the Holy See, says French District Superior of the Society, [Father] Regis de Cacqueray, on the internet from a speech of +Fellay. The General Superior continued on this with the following: "Everything else is only speculation." +Fellay also pled on this, "not to run after rumors".

+Fellay and his assistants, Niklaus Pfluger and Alain-Marc Nely are going to meet with the Prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal William Joseph Levada. This was previously released by the German District Superior, Father Franz Schmidberger. Father Schmidberger explained that "it is generally assumed that this meeting will turn to the Society's position with respect to canon law."

According to reports given by Vatican observers and their speculation, that the Holy See plans on offering the Society its own canonical status. Informed circles also think it possible that it will be similar structure to the arrangement which united incoming the Anglicans to the Catholic Church.

The previous doctrinal discussions between the Vatican and the Society of Pius X [they say Lefebvrists] to various contested contents of the Catholic Magisterium [sic]. This will revolve, above all, on the central questions of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). At first, when this problem is clarified, the Vatican will hold a briefing about the theme of the canonical regularization of the Society.
Observers agree that it will be the next step to a formal recognition of the agreement on the side of the Society.

The Society of Saint Pius X was founded in 1969 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, refused the central Church reforms of the 20th Century. It is not recognized by the Vatican. Pope Benedict XVI. lifted the excommunications in January of 2009 in order to begin a dialog with the group.

Copyright 2011 Katholische Presseagentur, Wien, Österreich

13 comments:

sspx just say no said...

Sure, Pope Benedict can let the SSPX back in. He should also disband the SSPX, remove episcopal faculties from the bishops (and hopefully pack them off to contemplative monasteries where they won't have the ability to preach hatred to the public), and make every single reconciled priest sign affirmations of Vatican II documents. Separate signatures will be required for Nostra Aetate and Dignitatis Humanae.

Make every reconciled priest make a tour of Auschwitz, Buchenwald, or another death camp as a penance and warning against SSPX anti-semitism.

Hopefully, all of these conditions will keep the SSPX and their hatred out of the Church. They'll never agree to those conditions.

Inclusion of the SSPX in the Church without condition and repentance is akin to injecting a malignant cancer into Christ's Church.

Romanitas Press said...

This news report is actually from sspx.org, the SSPX's USA District (the French District copied it).

Tancred said...

The exhibition of "sspx say no's" rabid Cultural Marxism is exactly why I think it's ridiculous to make any concessions to these people.

It doesn't matter that the SSPX has been purging its ranks of committed and articulate priests or muzzling Brilliant and charismatic Bishops to mollify you know who.

These people simply view us as the reaction and as such, we're to be ignored, discredited or simply liquidated.

The only room for those of us who hold the Legitimist position is the Gulag [insane aslums] as far as they're concerned.

Dan said...

My Dear "sspx just say no":

I, for one, would be very interested in taking a tour of Auschwitz - with you as my guide. After we've done that you and I can then fly over to the Holy Land and take a tour of occupied Palestine.

We can then sit down and compare the Nazi atrocities of the past with the Israeli atrocities of the present.

Interested?

sspx just say no said...

@Tancred:

I don't see how opposition to the SSPX is "cultural Marxism". It's true that Auschwitz was later handed over to communist Poland after the war (the town that the murder camp is in is now "Oświęcim"). Buchenwald was in the DDR. It's less than 10 km from Weimar.

I don't think that's what you mean, however. Yeah, I know: Vatican II was convened by Marxists, Jews, and Freemasons to convince Catholics that "the Jew" was no longer our eternal enemy (/sarcasm, irony, anger, frustration at rad-trads)

Rather, this is what happened: the Church realized through historical-critical scholarship that patristic, medieval, and early modern anti-Semitic tropes were really distortions of the historical reality behind certain texts such as St. John's Passion. The Church did not need to "absolve" Jewish people of deicide. The Church's charge of deicide was a lie all along.

So, are we mainstream Catholics "Marxists" if we declare that the Jewish people are no longer our eternal enemies, but our friends? Are we "Marxists" if we embrace the "Other"? The SSPX's failure is the sin of pride and hate as well as a failure of charity. No one but God the Father may judge souls. By judging Jews to be eternal enemies, the SSPX has elevated itself above the LORD!

BTW: I attend the EF often (save Holy Week). Our parish is bleeding-edge liberal for embracing the documents of Vatican II while celebrating the ancient liturgy. We're moving forward through the past, all the time changing for the better. What's the SSPX scared of?

@Dan:

SSPX anti-Semitism and the Palestinian occupation are entirely separate issues. SSPX anti-Semitism is predicated on a distorted reading of the Gospels (especially St. John's Passion) and purposefully distorted, non-contextual readings of patristics and medieval history. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion has been debunked eleventy-two ways to Sunday, and there are still rad-trads who quote from it!

The distortions of Christian anti-Semites led, in part to the Shoah. Clergy who have participated in an organization that explicitly supports anti-Semitism must see the result of centuries of hate before reconciliation with the Church.

As for Palestine -- neither side is faultless. However, the Palestinians have repeatedly rejected overtures by successive Israeli governments to roll back settlements and borders. Israel is a developed country with a rule of law. Palestine is a failed state run by a terrorist junta. Yes, the Israelis have acted unjustly at times. However, they're dealing with a regime that will not negotiate at all.

Dan said...

Dear "sspxjustsayno":

One really does grow increasingly tired of trying to debate with people who are insatiable consumers of propaganda, but since you are a fellow Catholic, and one who apparently likes the ancient Rite, I will do my best to try to answer you as one Catholic to another.

If you sriously believe that the Roman Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ Himself while He lived on earth, was all wrong in its teachings about the Jews for 2,000 years and that, suddenly, in 1962 a Great Shaft of Light appeared and fell upon the Vatican II delegations and corrected these past errors, then I scarcely know how to begin with you. It is an absurd position to take and grotesquely unhistorical. I'm very much afraid that your comments show that you have a very poor understanding of the Church, Judaism and history. And may I be frank with you?: I am awfully weary of hearing the tiresome canard "Christian anti-semitism".

But let's dissect that for a moment. If by "anitsemitism" you mean "anti Jewish" then we must begin with the fundamental fact that Arabs are semites, Lebanese are semites and many other peoples are of the semitic race. But if you are trapped in the usual illogical mode that posits antisemitism as the equivalent of hatred toward the Jews then you need some info on the point. If you are implying that Catholics hate Jews AS Jews then you are mistaken. It is a sin for Catholics to hate Jews in a racial sense for numerous reasons, including the obvious one that Our Lord Himself was a member of that race.

On the other hand if you are implying by your use of the word antisemitism that Catholics are against Jewish messianism then any Catholic who truly believes in the religion of Christ must agree. As Catholics we MUST fight Jewish messianism, Zionism, and the outrageous antiCatholic bigotry of these tragic people. If that is what you mean by "antisemitism" then Catholics are guilty as charged. But don't try to throw the tiresome race hatred canard at us, my good friend, because it won't fly. [to be continued]

Dan said...

[Continued from above]

You do indeed need to learn about these things before pontificating on them in public. You might begin your journey of discovery by reading Chesterton, Fr Fahey, William Thomas Walsh, Msgr Dillon, Belloc, Wyndham-Lewis, Pope Innocent III, St Padre Pio, among others, to learn the true manner in which the Church views the Jews.

Your comments about the situation in the Holy Land are on a par with your comments on these other matters: they display a woeful ignorance of what is going on over there. Another quick history lesson for you: prior to 1948 a relative peace favored the Holy Land. Christians, Muslims and Jews lived in peace with each other. Did you know that? As background you may want to google the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Balfour Declaration for the historical context needed to understand what happened in 1948 that turned a peaceful country into chaos. What happened then was the juggernaut known as Zionism whereby Jews who lived in Eastern Europe, the US, indeed anywhere came to that land, kicked out the historical inhabitants (Musilim AND Christian) whose ancestors had been living there for five millenia and simply claimed it as their own - with the sickening backing of Washington DC among others. That historic injustice, and the shameful one-sided approach being taken to it by the US is the cause of that misery and bloodshed that has cursed that land ever since. And it is that which has brought retaliatory terrorism to the US.

As to who is the greater villain in that current conflict it is clearly the Israelis, as you can easily research by a simple google check. Start with the website "If Americans Knew", and then go on from there. Your comment that the Israelis are "dealing with a regime that will not negotiate at all" is, forgive me, laughable. Just exactly the opposite is the truth.

I want to tell you, too, that it is only the coward who throws around the "racist" or the "antisemitic" slur at people. This is not to imply that you are cowardly but you may want to rein in your use of those cliches. Perhaps you are what some term a "Christian Zionist", like the Bible-thumpers who are so ubiquitous these days. If so, and reminding you of our description of antisemitism above, then you are living a contradiction. One cannot cannot be a Zionist and a Catholic at the same time. To be a Zionist would be a betrayal of the Faith, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation. You write: "The distortions of Christian anti-semites led, in part, to the Shoah". One expects to hear that libel from the usual sources; one doesn't expect to hear it from a Catholic - at least one who is acquainted with the glorious history of the Church.


Obviously you have a bee in your bonnet about the SSPX. Your moniker tells us such. But if you wish to criticize that organization, please do so constructively. There is some room for criticism with them, as with the Institute of Christ the King and several other traditional religious orders. But uninformed name-calling and slurs is hardly the way to engage in thoughtful discourse. And one more thought on that: if you are going to debate with them like a gentleman please avoid the anti-semitic accusations. They do get a bit boring.

Tancred said...

[Continued from above]

You do indeed need to learn about these things before pontificating on them in public. You might begin your journey of discovery by reading Chesterton, Fr Fahey, William Thomas Walsh, Msgr Dillon, Belloc, Wyndham-Lewis, Pope Innocent III, St Padre Pio, among others, to learn the true manner in which the Church views the Jews.

Your comments about the situation in the Holy Land are on a par with your comments on these other matters: they display a woeful ignorance of what is going on over there. Another quick history lesson for you: prior to 1948 a relative peace favored the Holy Land. Christians, Muslims and Jews lived in peace with each other. Did you know that? As background you may want to google the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Balfour Declaration for the historical context needed to understand what happened in 1948 that turned a peaceful country into chaos. What happened then was the juggernaut known as Zionism whereby Jews who lived in Eastern Europe, the US, indeed anywhere came to that land, kicked out the historical inhabitants (Musilim AND Christian) whose ancestors had been living there for five millenia and simply claimed it as their own - with the sickening backing of Washington DC among others. That historic injustice, and the shameful one-sided approach being taken to it by the US is the cause of that misery and bloodshed that has cursed that land ever since. And it is that which has brought retaliatory terrorism to the US.

As to who is the greater villain in that current conflict it is clearly the Israelis, as you can easily research by a simple google check. Start with the website "If Americans Knew", and then go on from there. Your comment that the Israelis are "dealing with a regime that will not negotiate at all" is, forgive me, laughable. Just exactly the opposite is the truth.

I want to tell you, too, that it is only the coward who throws around the "racist" or the "antisemitic" slur at people. This is not to imply that you are cowardly but you may want to rein in your use of those cliches. Perhaps you are what some term a "Christian Zionist", like the Bible-thumpers who are so ubiquitous these days. If so, and reminding you of our description of antisemitism above, then you are living a contradiction. One cannot cannot be a Zionist and a Catholic at the same time. To be a Zionist would be a betrayal of the Faith, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation. You write: "The distortions of Christian anti-semites led, in part, to the Shoah". One expects to hear that libel from the usual sources; one doesn't expect to hear it from a Catholic - at least one who is acquainted with the glorious history of the Church.


Obviously you have a bee in your bonnet about the SSPX. Your moniker tells us such. But if you wish to criticize that organization, please do so constructively. There is some room for criticism with them, as with the Institute of Christ the King and several other traditional religious orders. But uninformed name-calling and slurs is hardly the way to engage in thoughtful discourse. And one more thought on that: if you are going to debate with them like a gentleman please avoid the anti-semitic accusations. They do get a bit boring.

sspx just say no said...

@tancred in itals

I don't understand what you mean by the following points.

To be a Zionist would be a betrayal of the Faith, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation.

I am no dispensationalist. I am agnostic/apathetic about Jewish messianic claims, Zionism, and evangelical Christian eschatology of modern Israel. I support a two-state solution only because I wish for an end to human suffering on both sides of the barriers.

Concerning salvation: Yes, all are to be saved through Christ and his Church. but there is also baptism by blood and desire. It's important to not fall into the Feeneyite heresy (EENS). Human beings cannot judge the salvation of others.

You write: "The distortions of Christian anti-semites led, in part, to the Shoah". One expects to hear that libel from the usual sources; one doesn't expect to hear it from a Catholic - at least one who is acquainted with the glorious history of the Church.

Tancred, Al-Analdus and the fiefdoms of Muslim Spain generally permitted freedom of worship and expression for all the Abrahamic faiths. Was the relationship between Jews, Christians, and Muslims always positive in Muslim Spain? No, but all faiths and peoples were in many cases able to flourish in the perpetuation of their respective artistic, literary, and religious culture.

The reconquista and inquisition, although just as political as it was religious, not only nearly destroyed Jewish and Muslim culture, but also forced conversion and tried (unsuccessfully) to absolutely destroy Judaica (talmuds, commentaries, Torah scrolls etc.) Side note -- yes, I have studied the Talmud in translation and written papers on it. It won't bite. It's just religious commentary.

Forced conversions were not unique to Catholicism in the pre-modern era. However, could it be said that forced baptism is not a choice to die with Christ and be reborn in Him, but rather a perversion of the sacraments for political gain? Violence is often not physical -- the destruction of Jewish holy articles is an act of deliberate erasure of another faith. You may defend forced conversion and the destruction of Judaica as just, perhaps because you hold that Judaism is inferior or even worthy of destruction. I cannot assent to any such notions, as I find them morally and ethically repugnant to the utmost degree.

Centuries of attempts to erase Jews and Judaism in Europe, as well as the writings of Luther among other theologians, did in part fuel the willingness of the German people to consent to and participate in the Nazi attempt to murder all the Jews of Europe.

If you think that the Inquisition and Shoah, attempts to erase Jews and Judaism, were just, please provide a counter-argument.

Tancred said...

Are you aware that what you describe as "Feeneyism" is actually permitted by legitimate Church authority and is not a heresy?

In any event, you weren't responding to me, you were responding to Dan, but I'll point out that you don't [i]seem[/i] to understand the SSPX any better than you understand the Inquisition. Its aim was not to "erase Jews and Judaism" as it wasn't aimed at practicing Jews.

Dan said...

In discussions such as these it is often necessary to go back to basics. Without this foundational understanding it is difficult if not impossible to carry on a constructive conversation. Let's begin, therefore, with the doctrine of Infallibility as it was always believed by the Church and as it was formally promulgated at Vatican I.

When a Pope, using his supreme office as head of the Church and teacher of the Faith, defines a doctrine touching upon faith and/or morals only, and speaks "ex cathedra", then his declaration becomes infallible because it is in those cases that his teachings are protected from error by the Holy Ghost.

Now, on three occasions three Popes have defined infallibly that outside the Church there is no salvation whatsoever, nor is there salvation for anyone who is not subject to the Roman Pontiff, nor will Jews (indeed any unbatzied individual), heretics or schismatics enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless before their death they are received into the bosom of the Catholic Church. I am not sure how much clearer it could be made than that. A hard doctine? Yes and no. There is such a thing, we know, as "tough love". Christ founded the Catholic Church while He lived on earth and placed Peter at its head, giving him the power to bind and to loose.

The theories of Baptism by blood or desire are just that: theories. Even though some Saints have believed in them does not alter the fact that they have not been defined infallibly. We can discuss these speculations, we can study them with great care but we cannot make them infallible, and, so, we cannot teach them as fact. Only baptism by water and the Holy Ghost is a true Sacrament, infallibly defined. It is not very helpful to engage in ad hominem attacks on persons if one doesn't like the taste of a particular Church teaching. Some people think in terms of "Feeneyites" and "Lefebvrists", in other words, in black and white, never bothering to understand why these people chose the battles they did and how they engaged in them. No, for some, name-calling is enough. [By the way, can there also be "Rahnerites", "Kungists" and "Mahonyites"?]

To be continued.

Dan said...

Continued from above...

So, no, Father Feeney was not in "heresy" for teaching a thrice-defined infallible dogma. You can argue, if you really want to, that he may or may not have made the occasional error in judgment when dealing with his superiors in Rome but to attempt to label his teachings as heretical is patently ridiculous.

It is interesting to me that you believe that Catholics, Moslems and Jews lived in relative peace togther in medeival Spain. While that was indeed true in modern times under a Saddam Hussein in Iraq, for example, it was hardly the general case in the Spain of Ferdinand and Isabella. And, to no one's surprise, you bring up the Inquisition and, by a corollary, "forced" conversions. Here is a case where a little research can be helpful. I will try, as briefly as I possibly can, to discuss a few points about the Spanish Inquisition and Isabella's reconquest of those parts of her country that were under Saracen subjugation. I say I will try, because the Black Legend against Spain has been one of the undying fables promulgated by Protestants and Jews for centuries and it is sometimes impossible to even get people to sit down to hear the other side of the story.

Remember this, too: in Catholic countries during the Ages of Faith a false conversion to the Faith was looked upon as treason (It is important that we not view the past through the prejudices of today. And, on that score, do not forget that the first great Inquisitor was not Torquemada, but Moses himself). Those Jews who remained Jews were allowed to live their lives without obstruction in medieval Spain and they were protected by the Queen. Indeed several of her ministers were Jews. Now in those days there were some Jews who falsely converted to the Faith for rather sinister purposes, and they came to be known as Conversos. Time and again they were caught out in some chicanery or another, involving treachery to the State, religious persecutions and/or financial misdeeds. When these crimes became too much for the citizens, sometimes violent reactions occurred and it took the interventions of Isabella to protect these Jews from those who had been wronged by them. She tolerated them as long as she possibly could. But when the terrible facts of the infamous Host of LaGuardia case became known (wherein a group of Jewish fanatics crucified a young Spanish child to death and performed terrible desecrations on the Host) that became the final straw for her and she expelled the Jews from Spain. It was the Spanish Inquisition, conducted with a fairness and a regard for human persons that would shame any modern court in the USA, that made the findings in this as in other cases (This whole situation is brilliantly dissected by the great historian William Thomas Walsh in his ISABELLA OF SPAIN, using amazing sources, both Catholic and Jewish).

The Jews were given a choice: either convert seriously of their own free will, or leave Spain. Tough justice? Yes. And very sad, too. But only those seriously uninformed would term these "forced conversions". And if some over-zealous Catholic tried to convert some hapless soul to the Faith by the sword, just as some over-zealous Moslem would bring out a scimitar to convince someone to bow down to Allah, we must recognize the difference between what the Catholic Church taught on this very matter and what the followers of Mohammed (at that time) taught on the matter. But one must look beyond propaganda and slogans and black legends to understand what was at stake. The Walsh book is very well worth a read. His ISABELLA was followed by another astounding historical work, PHILIP II. When you read books like this the scales fall from one's eyes.

To be continued...

Dan said...

Continued from above...

You state that you have read the Talmud. Really? You have read it and all you can say about it is some rather flip remark about it being merely inconsequential or just "religious commentary"? That's really quite amazing. But frankly, sspxjustsayno, I don't really believe you've read it at all. I hope you don't mind my skepticism on that point. Saints, scholars and Popes have looked upon that book with horror and revulsion, but "sspxjustsayno" merely pooh-poohs it out of hand as something rather mundane. Even some Jews are sickened by it. If I am wrong and you have indeed read it, and have come to the conclusion you state, then I would say that your Catholic faith is a tad on the superficial side.

You suggest that I hold Judaism as inferior to Catholicism. Well, of course I do, sspxjustsayno. It is inferior just as Buddhism, Mohammedism, Shintoism and Mormonism is inferior to the true Faith. When Christ came that was the end of Judaism. The Old was superseded by the New, at Christ's command. Yes, superseded, as indelicate as that word is for some pathetically cowardly Catholic prelates and the other usual suspects these days. We now live under a New Covenant because Christ swept away the Old. To tragically hang on to the Old when Christ Himself commanded otherwise is spiritual suicide. Indeed to try to hang on to BOTH Covenants, as some misguided people do, is as good an example of schizophrenia as I have ever seen, since the New one so obviously completes the Old one. Indeed, what else was the Old Covenant but the record of the expectation of the New?

Your second last paragraph once again states the libel that the actions of the Church (of which you seem to know very little) somehow paved the way for the persecutions of Jews in World War II Germany. If you wish to wallow in that kind of ignorance and believe these fables you show yourself to be among those who would willingly persecute the Church if and when the time comes. I will spend no more time on such rubbish, which is both hateful and laughable at the same time.

Which brings me to your last paragraph, one of Junior High Schoolesque calibre. Your attempt to equate the Inquisition with Jewish suffering during the War is as obvious as it is hilariously unhistorical and, sorry, I won't bite at that rather pitiful excuse for an argument. You are clearly obsessed with Jewish sufferings of the past. Fine. Good for you. But I am interested in ALL suffering peoples, even those sufferings inflicted upon the innocent by those very same people whose past sufferings you are obsessed with.

I would encourage you to start reading and studying the other side of the story because you do seem rather blind to the facts. Hopefully the ancient Mass, which you have stated you attend, will continue to shower upon you those graces which it is known for. Attending that beautiful Rite has certainly helped me.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...