SSPX and Rome: Reconciliation At Hand?

Whispers in the Loggia ^ | January 30, 2006 | Rocco Palmo

[sitetest]

Dear murphE,

I didn't rip it from any context. I just quoted anti-semitic garbage from the SSPX website.

The text says nothing about moving from "natural goodness" to "supernatural goodness." If I'd have seen that, it would have been less problematic.

It merely says that Jews refuse to live a moral life.

Further, it identifies this uniquely as the curse of the JOOS!! Not the curse of all the children of Adam, which, if we were talking about the distinction between natural goodness and supernatural, would apply to all. Nope, it's the curse of the big, bad JOOS!!

Certainly God is the source of all goodness, and only through Christ Jesus can we come to that goodness. Nonetheless, we don't say that folks who aren't Catholic are "deaf to the call of conscience." We readily acknowledge that the call of conscience rises naturally, from the unwritten law written on every human heart. Except, according to the SSPX, on the hearts of Jews.

"...deaf to... the love of good and hatred of evil which is the basis of all moral life..."

Again, so Jews don't love good, nor hate evil, ay? In spite of the moral law that is written on every human heart, that is largely knowable without supernatural grace.

If you want to say that without the grace of God uniquely available through Jesus Christ, no one will be able to DO what is SUPERNATURALLY good, that's another thing entirely.

But again, that isn't the curse of the JOOS. It's the curse of all who are the children of Adam. Even if the SSPX were actually saying that (which they're clearly not), by saying it is uniquely the curse of Jews, those who authored this cr@p show themselves for what they are.

I wonder about those who can't see the distinctions for themselves.


sitetest

[TradicalRC]

I don't think that terms such as "liberal" and "conservative," which denote political ideology, should be applied to Catholics.,p> The terms denote philosophical world-views as well. Just because you're uncomfortable with the labels doesn't mean they are meaningless in a religious context. Otherwise there is no such thing as a liberal or conservative Catholic or for that matter, an ultra-trad.

[murphE]

The text says nothing about moving from "natural goodness" to "supernatural goodness."

They are speaking as Catholics to other Catholics. As Catholics we know natural goodness does not get you into heaven. What other kind of goodness should a Catholic be concerned with other than supernatural goodness?

They see the distinctions quite clearly between natural goodness and supernatural goodness, that there is only salvation through Our Lord Jesus Christ (unlike the Jews don't need to convert stuff preached today) and they have no problem stating it plainly because they actually want Jews to convert and go to heaven. Most of the world finds this very offensive, most of the world at the time Christ first preached it did too, that's why they crucified Him, and most of the world found it offensive when the apostles preached it as well, which is why all but one were martyred.

Again, so Jews don't love good, nor hate evil, ay?

Do they recognize, love, worship and adore Our Lord Jesus Christ who not only is "good", but is Goodness itself? Do you know what evil is, the absence or lack of a good that should be there. What is it when someone lacks love for Our Lord Jesus Christ?

But again, that isn't the curse of the JOOS.

Oh so you would call it a "blessing" for a people as a race to reject Our Lord Jesus Christ? The only name under which anyone can be saved. That as a people they have continued to reject Him for centuries, that generations and generations of Jewish people have continued to reject the only source of sanctifying grace and salvation, this you would call a blessing?

You got nothing- but go hurling the antisemitic accusations and I'm sure the gang will all come running with additional condemnations and accusations. Have at it. Nice chatting with you.

[sitetest]

Dear murphE,

"They are speaking as Catholics to other Catholics. As Catholics we know natural goodness does not get you into heaven. What other kind of goodness should a Catholic be concerned with other than supernatural goodness?"

Catholics should very much be concerned with natural goodness, and should always recognize it and encourage it in all men, as "grace builds on nature."

However, the actual document gives no hint that it is not a denial of natural goodness. It's you who are inserting a context that just isn't there. Go ahead, read it. I was just quoting from the SSPX document found at bornacatholic's link.

"Do they recognize, love, worship and adore Our Lord Jesus Christ who not only is 'good', but is Goodness itself? Do you know what evil is, the absence or lack of a good that should be there. What is it when someone lacks love for Our Lord Jesus Christ?"

The Church teaches that those to whom the Gospel has not been proclaimed, or even proclaimed adequately, can nontheless be touched by the supernatural and saving grace of God. The SSPX seems to teach that this doesn't apply to the JOOS.

"Oh so you would call it a 'blessing' for a people as a race to reject Our Lord Jesus Christ? The only name under which anyone can be saved. That as a people they have continued to reject Him for centuries, that generations and generations of Jewish people have continued to reject the only source of sanctifying grace and salvation, this you would call a blessing?"

I don't think you'll find that I called it a blessing.

Nonetheless, many billions of human beings have not embraced the Gospel over the past 2000 years, and about four billion people currently alive do not embrace the Gospel. This is not the "curse of the Jews" but rather, the problem of all children of Adam.



sitetest

[bornacatholic]

It is not argueable the SSPX is antisemitic. I might be persuaded to post even more of their stuff from The Angelus

What is tragic is that there are so many who support this evil soul-destroying virus. It is an anchor dragging their souls to perdition

[bornacatholic]

Robert Sungenesis, who was caught using Nazi sources to defend his antisemitism at "Catholic Apologetics International, had this to say about Fr. Fahey. The SSPX uses Fr. Fahey as a "Traditional" interpreter of Catholic - Jewish relations.

From William Cork..

Fr. Denis Fahey, Irish Spiritan

Sungenis referred often to Fr. Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp. (1883-1954), whom he dubbed "the expert on Catholic/Jewish relations." He was particularly indebted to Fahey's book, The Kingship of Christ and Conversion of the Jewish Nation. Fr. Fahey was one of the key sources of inspiration for Fr. Charles E. Coughlin (1891-1979). Both priests had a conspiratorial view of Jewish involvement in world history, a perspective based on the notorious forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. While Sungenis did not himself cite The Protocols, it is nonetheless a remote source of his beliefs, because of its importance to Fahey. A British extremist, Ivan Fraser, quotes Fahey in an article defending their authenticity: "It was natural that the Jews should try to discredit the Protocols, for their growing fame was focussing [sic] more public attention on other revealing utterances" [Waters Flowing Eastward]. MO< Of Fahey's antisemitism, the fringe publication Seattle Catholic said,

...the Christian anti-Semite has for his dream the restoration of the state which "had its foundations in theological principles." If such is the case — as both history and logic demonstrate even to this very day — may we all then have the courage to respond with the words of Fr. Fahey: "In that sense...every sane thinker must be an anti-Semite."

Today, Fr. Fahey is of great interest to extremists around the world, quoted and sold by such organizations as the SSPX, Stormfront, the National Alliance, and Radio Islam.

*I've got an idea those groups do not quote Nostra Aetate

[bornacatholic]

You haven't struck me so far as a neo-con, but then, you haven't struck me as a steadfast conservative either.

*Maybe you have to be struck harder. Shall I call Jack Bauer? :)

[bornacatholic]

http://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/2003_June/Judaism.htm

[murphE]

The Church teaches that those to whom the Gospel has not been proclaimed, or even proclaimed adequately, can nontheless be touched by the supernatural and saving grace of God.

If you're talking about actual grace yes, which is not sanctifying grace. Sanctifying grace is the grace necessary to get into heaven, which of course only comes through the sacraments of the Church.

The Church teaches that those to whom the Gospel has not been proclaimed, or even proclaimed adequately, can nontheless be touched by the supernatural and saving grace of God.

huh? Got a link?

This is an actual infallible dogmatic pronouncement of the the Church:

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

Here you may find this interesting from Fr. Echert of EWTN

Previous Question

Next Question

no salvation outside the Church
Question from on 01-01-2004:

I must say Father that I am dismayed that readers of this forum would take issue with your stance on this dogma. If they took issue with you giving the most restrictive interpretation of this dogma compatible with Catholic orthodoxy their reaction would be understandable, if perhaps overly sentimental. However it seems that your interpretation is the least restrictive interpretation of this dogma that is compatible with orthodoxy.

Given this I though I would add the following quote from Pope Eugene IV's dogmatic bull Cantate Domino:

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, EVEN IF HE POUR OUT HIS BLOOD FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

This teaching can be reconciled with baptism of desire and baptism of blood if this teaching is applied to those who give their blood for Christ while rejecting the Catholic faith as opposed to those who intend to enter the Catholic Church but have been killed for this intention before being able to do so. Regardless of such theological points such as baptism of desire and baptism of blood it is clear that those who know the Church exists and refuse to recognize its teaching as true cannot be saved.

On the subject on invincible ignorance Father Michael Muller wrote "Inculpable or invincible ignorance has never been and will never be a means of salvation. The be saved it is necessary to be justified, or to be in the state of sanctifying grace."

It is also necessary to understand the word invincible. This is an ignorance which cannot be overcome by the ignorant person by their own effort. If a person lives on a island in middle of an ocean which civilization has never had contact with that person has no way to overcome their ignorance of the Catholic faith (though reason could lead them to know basic natural truths such as the existence of God, the sinfulness of idolatry and sodomy, etc.).

However a person in the United States does have the means to overcome his ignorance of the truth of the Catholic faith. Given the misinformation usually available to the general public it may be exceptionally hard for this person to find true Catholic teaching, their firm convications may disincline them to even try to learn about the faith, but whatever may be the case such a person has the means of learning about the truth of the Catholic faith. If he remains ignorant of the truth of Catholicism such ignorance is culpable, not invinvible. Could such a person in the moment before death recognize Catholicism as true and intend to enter the Church and nobody ever know of this? Of course this could happen. But if a person in the US dies believing some other religion to be true that person cannot obtain salvation.

God bless you Father fo

Answer by Fr. John Echert on 01-02-2004:

This dogmatic declaration of the Pope will come as a shock to many Catholics, no doubt, but it remains the truth, nevertheless. And while we may continue to hold out the possibility that God may act in some mysterious and unknown manner with an individual whom He intends to save, to bring that person into the Church prior to death, we cannot be certain about this and neither should we presume this. The zeal of the missionaries and martyrs of the past has been fired by charity of the heart, with the knowledge that those who die outside of the Church are lost in eternity. This is a most serious matter and teaching of the Church, which is unknown or rejected by many today, with terrible consequences for evangelization and the salvation of souls outside of the Catholic Church.

Thanks, James

Father Echert

I don't think you'll find that I called it a blessing. Nonetheless, many billions of human beings have not embraced the Gospel over the past 2000 years, and about four billion people currently alive do not embrace the Gospel. This is not the "curse of the Jews" but rather, the problem of all children of Adam.

The sin of Adam was redeemed by Christ. The Jews were the chosen people of God to whom Christ the Redeemer was promised, through the prophets and holy scripture, to whom Christ was first revealed. They rejected Him as the One who was promised to them, and as a people they continue to reject Him, generation, after generation after generation. Their continued blindness in not recognizing Christ as their promised Redeemer, century after century is what is called a curse.

[narses]

Maybe taking this in small bites will help. How do you define 'anti-semitism'?

[TradicalRC]

Shall I call Jack Bauer? :)

My Tv's been unplugged for about 5-6 years, except for DVD's. I had to google your reference to find out who he was. Is it a good show?

[bornacatholic]

I think it is the best show ever. One show has more packed into it than most movies.

[bornacatholic]

Nostra Aetate, signed by Lefevbre, taught differently. I assume you consider the father of the sspx a heretic

[bornacatholic]

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

337 LG 16; cf. DS 3866-3872

So, we have the Universal Catechism, we have an Ecumencial Council, and we have the Denzinger-Schonmetzer ref (the Enchiridion Symbolorum) all teaching there is salvation outside the church.

[bornacatholic]

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

The Catholic Church makes claims about herself that are easily misunderstood, especially in the modern atmosphere of pluralism and ecumenism. Among these claims, the most fundamental is the doctrine of the Church's necessity for salvation. Not unlike other dogmas of the faith, this one has seen some remarkable development, and the dogmatic progress has been especially marked since the definition of papal infallibility. It seems that as the Church further clarified her own identity as regards the papacy and collegiality, she also deepened (without changing) her self-understanding as the mediator of salvation to mankind.

The New Testament makes it plain that Christ founded the Church to be a society for the salvation of all men. The ancient Fathers held the unanimous conviction that salvation cannot be achieved outside the Church. St. Ireneus taught that "where the Church is, there is the spirit of God, and where the spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace." (35 ) Origen simply declared, "Outside the Church nobody will be saved." (36) And the favorite simile in patristic literature for the Church's absolute need to be saved is the Ark of Noah, outside of which there is no prospect of deliverance from the deluge of sin.

Alongside this strong insistence on the need for belonging to the Church was another Tradition from the earliest times that is less well known. It was understandable that the early Christian writers would emphasize what is part of revelation, that Christ founded "the Catholic Church which alone retains true worship. This is the fountain of truth; this, the home of faith; this, the temple of God." (37) They were combating defections from Catholic unity and refuting the heresies that divided Christianity in the Mediterranean world and paved the way for the rise of Islam in the seventh century.

But they also had the biblical narrative of the "pagan" Cornelius who, the Acts tell us, was "an upright and God-fearing man" even before baptism. Gradually, therefore, as it became clear that there were "God-fearing" people outside the Christian fold, and that some were deprived of their Catholic heritage without fault on their part, the parallel Tradition arose of considering such people open to salvation, although they were not professed Catholics or even necessarily baptized. Ambrose and Augustine paved the way for making these distinctions. By the twelfth century, it was widely assumed that a person can be saved if some "invincible obstacle stands in the way" of his baptism and entrance into the Church.

Thomas Aquinas restated the constant teaching about the general necessity of the Church. But he also conceded that a person may be saved extra sacramentally by a baptism of desire and therefore without actual membership by reason of his at least implicit desire to belong to the Church.

It would be inaccurate, however, to look upon these two traditions as in opposition. They represent the single mystery of the Church as universal sacrament of salvation, which the Church's magisterium has explained in such a way that what seems to be a contradiction is really a paradox.

Since the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 defined that "The universal Church of the faithful is one, outside of which no one is saved," there have been two solemn definitions of the same doctrine, by Pope Boniface VIII in 1302 and at the Council of Florence in 1442. At the Council of Trent, which is commonly looked upon as a symbol of Catholic unwillingness to compromise, the now familiar dogma of baptism by desire was solemnly defined; and it was this Tridentine teaching that supported all subsequent recognition that actual membership in the Church is not required to reach one's eternal destiny.

At the Second Council of the Vatican, both streams of doctrine were delicately welded into a composite whole:

[The Council] relies on sacred Scripture and Tradition in teaching that this pilgrim Church is necessary for salvation. Christ alone is the mediator of salvation and the way of salvation. He presents himself to us in his Body, which is the Church. When he insisted expressly on the necessity for faith and baptism, he asserted at the same time the necessity for the Church which men would enter by the gateway of baptism. This means that it would be impossible for men to be saved if they refused to enter or to remain in the Catholic Church, unless they were unaware that her foundation by God through Jesus Christ made it a necessity.

Full incorporation in the society of the Church belongs to those who are in possession of the Holy Spirit, accept its order in its entirety with all its established means of salvation, and are united to Christ, who rules it by the agency of the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops, within its visible framework. The bonds of their union are the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government and fellowship. Despite incorporation in the Church, that man is not saved who fails to persevere in charity, and remains in the bosom of the Church "with his body" but not "with his heart." All the Church's children must be sure to ascribe their distinguished rank to Christ's special grace and not to their own deserts. If they fail to correspond with that grace in thought, word and deed, so far from being saved, their judgment will be the more severe. (38)

Using this conciliar doctrine as guide, we see that the Church is (in its way) as indispensable as Christ for man's salvation. The reason is that, since his ascension and the descent of the Spirit, the Church is Christ active on earth performing the salvific work for which he was sent into the world by the Father. Accordingly, the Church is necessary not only as a matter of precept but as a divinely instituted means, provided a person knows that he must use this means to be saved.

Actual incorporation into the Church takes place by baptism of water. Those who are not actually baptized may, nevertheless, be saved through the Church according to their faith in whatever historical revelation they come to know and in their adequate cooperation with the internal graces of the Spirit they receive.

On both counts, however, whoever is saved owes his salvation to the one Catholic Church founded by Christ. It is to this Church alone that Christ entrusted the truths of revelation which have by now, though often dimly, penetrated all the cultures of mankind. It is this Church alone that communicates the merits won for the whole world on the cross.

Those who are privileged to share in the fullness of the Church's riches of revealed wisdom, sacramental power, divinely assured guidance, and blessings of community life cannot pride themselves on having deserved what they possess. Rather they should humbly recognize their chosen position and gratefully live up to the covenant to which they have been called. Otherwise what began as a sign of God's special favor on earth may end as a witness to his justice in the life to come.

*****

[Footnotes]

35. St. Ireneus, Adversus Haereses, II, 24, 1.

36. Origen, Homilia In Jesu Nave, 3, 5.

37. Lactantius, Divinae Institutiones, IV, 30, 1.

38. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, II, 14.

*It is tragically ironic that those most insistent on their personal interpretations of EENS - that all those outside the Church are going to Hell - are the very ones who have severed the Bonds of Unity and are themselves outside the Church.

They never even seem to notice. Do they?

Their extreme Feenyism has already been condemned in the letter to the Archbishop of Boston

[bornacatholic]

THE HOLY OFFICE

From the Headquarters of the Holy Office, Aug. 8, 1949.

Your Excellency:

This Supreme Sacred Congregation has followed very attentively the rise and the course of the grave controversy stirred up by certain associates of "St. Benedict Center" and "Boston College" in regard to the interpretation of that axiom: "Outside the Church there is no salvation."

After having examined all the documents that are necessary or useful in this matter, among them information from your Chancery, as well as appeals and reports in which the associates of "St. Benedict Center" explain their opinions and complaints, and also many other documents pertinent to the controversy, officially collected, the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from the fact that the axiom, "outside the Church there is no salvation," was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities.

Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given:

We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (, n. 1792).

Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.

Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20).

Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.

Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.

In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.

Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."

Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, , in , n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, , in , n. 1677).

But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): "Faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children" (Denzinger, n. 801).

From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical , fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.

From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound' of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church" (Acts 20:28).

Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.

Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.

Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the "" which is prescribed by the sacred canons.

Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation. In sending this letter, I declare my profound esteem, and remain,

Your Excellency's most devoted,

F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.

A. Ottaviani, Assessor. (Private); Holy Office, 8 Aug., 1949.

Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.

MurphE you and other Feeneyites must repent and return to the Church or you will go to Hell

[murphE]

MurphE you and other Feeneyites must repent and return to the Church or you will go to Hell

Yes I know, according to you everyone goes to heaven except us.

[bornacatholic]

I am merely assenting to the decisions taken and promulgated by the Holy Office and an Ecumenical Council, among other aspects of the Living Magisterium

I know I deserve immense amount of credit in many areas. But when it comes to the matter under consideration, it is all the work of Holy Mother Chuch and not me.

[steadfastconservative]

I will put it another way. Why should the so-called "traditionalists" be allowed to make themselves the real guarantors of the Church's Tradition? Who are they to decide that they are the only ones who are really faithful to Tradition? It is for this reason that they slap other Catholics with labels such as "neo-con" or "concilar" or "conservative." "Conciliar Catholic," by the way, is SSPX lingo for someone who accepts the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. By that definition, Pope Benedict XVI would be a "conciliar" Catholic instead of a true Catholic since he affirms the legitimacy of Vatican II.

Frankly, unless the leaders of the SSPX cover themselves in sackcloth and ashes and beg the pope's forgiveness for their many years of obdurate schism, no reconciliation of this goof-ball group with the Catholic Church is possible.

[TradicalRC]

Frankly, unless the leaders of the SSPX cover themselves in sackcloth and ashes and beg the pope's forgiveness for their many years of obdurate schism, no reconciliation of this goof-ball group with the Catholic Church is possible.

Unless of course, the Pope deems otherwise. With God, anything is possible.

"Conciliar Catholic," by the way, is SSPX lingo for someone who accepts the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.

It has been my experience that "Conciliar Catholic" refers to someone who looks at tradition through the lens of Vatican II, while a Traditionalist will look at Vatican II through the lens of Tradition.