Posted on 10/16/2013 8:48:30 AM PDT by NYer
The head of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has denounced Vatican II, described the post-conciliar liturgy as “evil,” and said that he is grateful the group never reached an accommodation with the Holy See.
In a provocative address to the Kansas City audience, Bishop Bernard Fellay said: “It is has never been our intention to pretend either that the Council would be considered as good, or the New Mass would be ‘legitimate.’” He said that although the Novus Ordo Mass introduced after Vatican II may be valid, “The New Mass is bad, it is evil.”
Bishop Fellay told SSPX supporters that talks with the Vatican, designed to regularize the status of the breakaway traditionalist group, collapsed last June because the Vatican insisted on acceptance of the teachings of Vatican II. The SSPX leader flatly rejected the teaching of Pope Benedict XVI that Vatican II statements should be read in the light of consistent Catholic teaching. “The Council is not in continuity with tradition,” he said. “It’s not.”
While the SSPX leader said that the “hermeutic of continuity” preached by Benedict XVI was unrealistic, he acknowledged that the former Pontiff was somewhat sympathetic to the concerns of traditionalists. Under Pope Francis, he said, the gap between the SSPX and the Holy See is widening.
“When we see what is happening now,” Bishop Fellay said, “we thank God—we thank God!—we have been preserved from any kind of agreement” with the Vatican.
The harsh words from the SSPX leader appear to signal an end to any realistic hope for a reconciliation between the traditionalist group and the Holy See, and an indefinite continuation of the schism that began in 1988 when the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ordained Fellay and three other bishops in defiance of orders from Pope John Paul II.
Additional sources for this story
Some links will take you to other sites, in a new window.
Anyone who is pro-choice or pro-Gay marriage is a troll to Free Republic and will be banned as soon as discovered.
And yes, it is all "about" crowd control. There would be no need for moderators or thread tags if every poster was considerate and diplomatic.
No doubt some posters will be offended by having to be specifically included in a caucus. The Orthodox posters were quite offended and several of them left in a huff. But the distinction would not have been necessary in the first place if ordinary Catholic Caucus threads back then didn't end up in repetitious bitter disputes.
I'm still leaning towards keeping SSPX separate until they accept the olive branch. But I'm not through reading and considering all the comments here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council
Traditionalist Catholics, who claim that the modernising reforms that resulted both directly or indirectly from the council consequently brought detrimental effects and indifference to the customs, beliefs, and pious practices of the Church before 1962. In addition, they point out the doctrinal contradiction of the council in comparison to earlier papal statements regarding faith, morals and doctrine declared prior to the council itself. [6] They assert that since there are no dogmatic definitions in the documents of the council, such documents are not infallible, hence not canonically binding for faithful Roman Catholics, most notably when such concilliar documents give way to the loose implementation of longstanding upheld Catholic doctrine previously sanctioned by former Popes prior to 1962. [7]
Sedevacantists go beyond this in asserting that after breaking with Catholic tradition, the present Popes cannot really claim the Papacy which therefore is vacant.
I'm sure you realized that my labeling of the “social justice” crowd as “Catholic Caucus (Marxist)” was tongue in cheek. I've known many “social justice” Catholics over the years. Not all are outright socialists.
sitetest
Catholics who prefer pre-Vatican II liturgy but recognize the Pope and Papal Infallibility are still Catholic for the purposes of a caucus.
I figured you were speaking tongue-in-cheek but the issue needed to be addressed anyway for the record.
Caucus Designations, Generally
A reply post may be removed from a caucus thread if the moderator recognizes the poster as a non-member.
If you believe a poster is not a member of the caucus, or if you believe the article or reply posts are mentioning of the beliefs of non-members of the caucus then let me know by Freepmail and I will follow-up as soon as possible.
Do not disturb the caucus.
Any of the excluded groups may be included on a particular thread by extending the label, e.g. “Catholic/Orthodox Caucus” or “Cath/SV/SSPX Caucus”
Additionally, the label “All Catholic Caucus” may be used to include any Freeper who self identifies as a Catholic regardless of his attitude about the Pope, Papal Infallibility, Vatican II or Schisms or Sects.
The SSPX will be included by default in a Catholic Caucus when (and if) Bishop Fellay accepts the olive branch offered.
Sounds good to me; just a natural evolution of what was started 500 years ago.
This is fair, especially the part about not posting articles/opinions, etc. about a group where they are not allowed to defend themselves/speak out. Otherwise it’s like gossiping about others behind their back, but not really.
Makes sense. I used “Cath/Orth Caucus” designation in the past; I hope the abbreviation is clear.
The abbreviation should be clear to most any Freeper.
sorry for all that.
But what else would you expect from someone raised by wolves.
But I plan on honoring that request, sincerely.
I dont want to go back and forth with you. I will honor.
But first I wanted you to understand something that I did not write to you initially in that PM. This is essentially your fault and taking responsibility for your actions, its not me, its your statements and your ignorance of how things work here.
The Catholic Caucus is for Catholics but the R.M. has defined it as someone who accepts papal infallibility.
This was defined years ago...it is not new.
Your statements could not be clearer against Pope Francis and papal infallibility.I am sure you were not aware of the requirements of the ‘Catholic Caucus’, now you most certainly are.
So me asking you what you were(country/rock roll) was not a strategy it was just a question, as you now have a caucus to belong to.
>By the way, in case you didn’t know it, the RM also >removed “Catholic Caucus” from your thread attacking >Sedevacantism.
Yes. and he has configured a Caucus(SSPX or SV) for you also. A rejiggering of the Caucus definitions which there was only Orthodox available to you before.
I dont hate you. I just wanted a non-papist out of my Catholic Caucus thread, and you did trespass...albeit probably unknowingly, thinking you were a FR defined Catholic.
Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and Sedevacantist Catholic sects like them are a bunch of heretics, not in communion with Rome. Hundreds of nuns and other clergy have came back to the Catholic Church because they were kept in the dark about THE REAL TEACHINGS of Vatican II. They were not allowed to watch any TV, or have any communication with the outside world. At St. Michael’s Traditional Catholic Church outside Spokane a whole group of nuns left after watching Mother Angelica on EWTN, and the daily Mass. They said they could not believe that the Mass was so much like what they had been doing at St. Michael’s for years. They said they were lied to for years and praised God for allowing them to finally get up the courage to leave St. Michael’s.
Yes, I did not know about the caucuses, so I was wrong to post in your thread originally. However, you also broke the rules by writing a thread against another group and calling it Catholic Caucus (and you supposedly KNEW the rules). I have every right to respond to your attacks against SV or the SSPX or any other group you post against.
As for future posts in other threads, I will continue to point out the truth whether others like it or not. There is nothing wrong with my posts. You just don't like them/agree with them.
As for your sincerity, it's hard to believe when you write a sarcastic jab such as "But what else would you expect from someone raised by wolves". If you haven't noticed that despite how you have been treating me I've remained charitable.
I took issue with your being the one to inform me via PM and the moderator knows that. Moderating should be done by the moderator. Your PM informing me that I am not Catholic for the purposes of this forum (not thread, mind you) was a personal attack on me. Your PM was not just a "hey, my thread is a Catholic Caucus and in case you didn't realize the rules anyone who prescribes to SV or SSPX, etc is not allowed to per the forum rules". You also informed me that I have no home here. Let's face it. You didn't want me there, you wanted to make me feel ostracized, and that was your main purpose in your PM. It wasn't a very nice PM to receive at all.
From now on I do hope that no one else has to get a "I gotcha and btw you don't belong" PM from another poster. The RM really should be the one reminding/telling others what the rules are because they can remain neutral.
It's ironic though. I've never been reported by any other poster as far as I know and it's my fellow Catholics who have done so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.