Is it possible to recognize a Council and not recognize its reforms. And do they mean all reforms or selective ones, like the liturgy?
more blustery hullabaloo from SSPX.
They’re too stubborn to admit anything about anything.
Well, it’s a confused issue, as Pope Benedict has pointed many times since the early 1980s. There never was, or briefly was, a liturgy of Vatican II, since the 1969/70 Mass, went against most of the recommendations of the Council. Can one be a true Catholic and go against “the Spirit” of Vatican II?
But what are the reforms of VII?
Pope JXXIII said that VII was a pastoral council.
What doctrine requiring assent was formally defined?
I’m getting tired of this Fellay. He seems to think he is the pope. Everyone is much closer that they realize, unity could be achieved if he would only adopt a cooperative attitude, and perhaps some humility. I think what SSPX (and so many of us regular Catholics!) really objects to is not Vatican II per se, but the “Spirit of” Vatican II, the nutty, out-of-control “reforms” that were in no way meant to be part of the Council, but in the 1970’s zeitgeist took hold as they never should have (and some radicals in the Church had been planning this all along since the 1950’s). Pope Benedict himself has spoken eloquently and firmly on the fact that there is “no such thing” as the SOV2, and the meaning of the Council is entirely contained in the documents of the Council.
Benedict has virtually laid out the red carpet for SSPX, if they persist in defiance, they may never have another chance. Can you imagine any other potential Pope, with the finesse, intelligence and will to make this happen? Benedict is almost 82, SSPX better grab this opportunity and Fellay is responsible for many lost souls if he refuses.
Matters of discipline like the liturgy are malleable. Matters of teaching fall into several categories. Dogmas defined infallibly must be held.
The documents of Vatican II are actually very orthodox:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V2ALL.HTM