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. Its 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 Godwe 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.
Thanks NYer.
I can make it a “Catholic/SSPX Caucus” but the “Catholic Caucus” label excludes SSPX and Orthodox.
By the way, the caucus designations on this Religion Forum have to do with maintaining peace on the threads, e.g. limiting discussion. It is not a theological statement.
The SSPX is Catholic, just not very obedient and not very politic. But clearly validly ordained Catholic clergy. And yes, for many years an arguable ex-communication was in place, but that has been lifted.
Interesting but it doesn’t matter to the problem at hand. There are still Freepers who wish to call a Catholic Caucus that excludes SSPX (and Orthodox.)
How? I mean the SSPX is an organization of priests, I don’t think even one of them posts here. How would excluding people who do not post here mean anything?
By excluding SSPX I mean that the “Catholic Caucus” designation excludes anyone who does not recognize the present Pope and Papal Infallibility.
The SSPX explicitly recognizes both the Pope and all Dogmas of the Church, including the Vatican I declaration regards Papal Infallibility.
See http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/07/19/sspx-we-recognise-the-authority-of-the-pope/
I have to agree with narses and with anyone else who thinks that the SSPX is, at least for now, Catholic.
Their status is irregular, but their excommunications were lifted a few years back, and they recognize the pope as the Vicar of Christ.
Not sure what else would make them qualify.
sitetest
Those who want to have the Catholic Caucus include sedevacantists must use the term "Catholic/SSPX Caucus." And if they wish to include Orthodox as well, they must stipulate "Catholic/SSPX/Orthodox Caucus" or "Catholic/Orthodox Caucus" as the case may be.
“Those who want to have the Catholic Caucus include sedevacantists must use the term “Catholic/SSPX Caucus.”
Sedevacantists are not Catholic, the SSPX is NOT sedevacantist.
Please see RM’s comment at #50.
Be sure to include in the discussion whether to continue to exclude Orthodox and those who were baptized Catholic but do not currently consider themselves to be Catholic - both groups were considered in the original discussion and excluded to avoid disruptions and disagreements.
Be sure to include in the discussion whether to continue to exclude Orthodox and those who were baptized Catholic but do not currently consider themselves to be Catholic - both groups were considered in the original discussion and excluded to avoid disruptions and disagreements.
1 - The Orthodox are NOT Catholic,
2 - Those who no longer consider themselves to be Catholic are apostate and not Catholic,
3 - The SSPX is not apostate, not sedevacantist, not Orthodox and absolutely Catholic, validly ordained Catholic priests and Bishops.
It doesn’t matter to me how the caucus wants to label the cuts to include/exclude those who do/do not recognize the Pope and accept Papal Infallibility. It only needs to be consistent.
There is zero question that the SSPX recognizes the Pope, ditto Papal Infallibility. They are Catholic.
I’m wondering if it matters whether my wife and I (non-denominational 5 minute ceremony) are
“Catholic-married” or not — chaste well over 20 years — neither of us is going anywhere or will ever stray. Latin Mass attendees but so far abstain from Holy Communion. Maybe that isn’t necessary.
Have never seen a paragraph break like that when I didn’t put in html to cause it.
The definition, if you have described it with accuracy, is clear and the SSPX is Catholic.
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.