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.
If they don't have a problem with Nazis then why should they have a problem with Kennedy?
What you think?I think neither.
Was not NO really an effort by the Church to go back to its early Christian centuries roots?
I consider the TLM to be a “rite” in the Church just like the other rites.
There is no such thing as “the modernists”.
In reality the Church has conservatives, moderates, liberals.
FWIU, the priest officiating at the funeral was also expelled from the sspx. I read something to that effect on this or another thread. Hopefully, someone will be able to clarify with more specifics.
Is this him?
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/02/news-agencies-sspx-expels-father.html
After repeated ambiguous declarations in the last few weeks about the Holocaust and other issues, several Italian sources report that the Italian District of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) has announced the expulsion of Father Floriano Abrahamowicz, the priest responsible for Northeast Italy.
Also
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/10/sspx-funeral-for-nazi-war-criminal/
mark says:
16 October 2013 at 4:51 am
Far from confessing his sins, Priebke gave instructions to his lawyer to release, after his death, his ‘testimony’, which makes clear that he had NOT repented of his war crimes (or sins). In his ‘testimony’, Priebke also takes the opportunity to re-state his denial of the holocaust.
But a Fr Abrahamowicz seems to be claiming to have given absolution to Priebke. Of course, he may be inventing this detail; but, even if he is not, I wonder if he the necessary authority to hear confessions? Some years ago it was reported that the SSPX had expelled him, for his holocaust denial.
Many modernists may consider TLM and it’s insinuated tenets to be a rite, but unfortunately it and the discarded tenets are not rights. This is according to the corrupt Vatican and it’s halls clogged with ecclesiastical politicians.
Vatican II was the death knell for Christ’s Church and the welcoming din for the newly created religion of secularism.
The caucus label has to do with controlling debate on a caucus RF thread, i.e. to avoid unwanted disruptions. The terms must be understandable but not necessarily precise concerning Canon Law, theology, dictionary, etc.
So far it appears that the "Catholic Caucus" designation should exclude Sedevacantists, Orthodox, SSPX and Inactive Catholics unless specifically invited by extending the label (abbreviations can be used.)
This means that the SSPX and Sedevacantists would not be lumped together but neither would the SSPX be considered non-disruptive to a Catholic Caucus. The SSPX would not be included by default in a Catholic Caucus until Bishop Fellay accepts the olive branch offered
I'll continue to read the discussion on this thread before arriving at a final consensus.
That's a defensible position, I guess. Of course, if FR were to ever acquire a significant “social justice” Catholic crowd, using the same logic, you might have to recognize a “Catholic Caucus (Catholic)” label and a “Catholic Caucus (Marxist)” label.
But if the primary purpose of the caucus label is essentially for “crowd control,” then I suppose the current delineation is one way to go about it.
Conversely, I'd thought that the caucus label was just as much to permit internecine... "discussions"... within groups (like the Catholic contingent at FR) but with the ability to avoid interference from outside groups.
Then, requiring a caucus label of "Catholic/SSPX" starts the discussion off on a hostile footing, as those who have affinity for the SSPX or its positions are going to come to the discussion pre-insulted, as it were.
sitetest
” So far it appears that the “Catholic Caucus” designation should exclude Sedevacantists, Orthodox, SSPX and Inactive Catholics unless specifically invited by extending the label (abbreviations can be used.)”
If that’s your ruling, then that’s your ruling. While I would not want SSPX lumped in with groups like SSPV, I guess I can appreciate the perspective of limiting possibilities for contention.
I would request that you make clear on your profile page the rationale on why you’ve made that distinction (not canonical, not sacramental, but just to limit contention)
I see some difficult times ahead for you in moderating this new distinction, though. Unless somebody actually comes out and declares that he/she is a member of SSPX, it will not be easy...
I’m still wondering where the pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-artificial birth control, etc type Catholics fit in then. They most certainly would cause “contention” in a so-called Catholic Caucus thread, but it seems to me that they are welcome. I think it’s ironic when a Catholic who leans sedevacantist who agrees with ALL traditional Catholic teachings but questions the validity of the current claimant (with good cause)is banned from a Catholic discussion, but a pro-choice Catholic would be welcomed with open arms.
I see you are new,this forum is Pro-Life.Pro-Death people are kicked off don’t matter what section you post in,ask the owner.
I just reported you.
Why?
This means that the SSPX and Sedevacantists would not be lumped together but neither would the SSPX be considered non-disruptive to a Catholic Caucus. The SSPX would not be included by default in a Catholic Caucus until Bishop Fellay accepts the olive branch offered
I would include SSPX by default, if my opinion means anything. They are, by the definition of the Catechism, to my understanding, to be Catholic. They may be shading it in some ways, but I would consider them to be Catholic. I think that the Orthodox were treated shabbily (to my discredit, I have contributed to that shabbiness). That's why they left en masse.
Read what you wrote again.
Leaning SV doesn’t mean = SV. I go back and forth. I struggle with it.
God bless You :)This is what your wrote”I’m still wondering where the pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-artificial birth control, etc type Catholics fit in then. They most certainly would cause “contention” in a so-called Catholic Caucus thread, but it seems to me that they are welcome. I think it’s ironic when a Catholic who leans sedevacantist who agrees with ALL traditional Catholic teachings but questions the validity of the current claimant (with good cause)is banned from a Catholic discussion, but a pro-choice Catholic would be welcomed with open arms.”You really want me to explain what’s wrong with this statement.
God Bless me..but you’ve reported me? Really?
I would like to know the purpose of this “Catholic Caucus” thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3076541/posts
The topic is a shot at sedevacantists, but sedevacantists can’t respond...because it’s “Catholic Caucus”. Do we allow anti- Protestant or anti-Orthodox threads around here (and not allow those groups to respond)?
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.