02 April 2012

The Practical Paradox of the SSPX: It Faces Discipline Only because It Respects Disciplinary Authority

I hope the title of this post was provocative enough to get you this far.  Now I ask you to read the post before reacting to the title.

Christopher Ferrara has recently written a thoughtful and thought-provoking piece on the April 15 (maybe) endgame involving the Society of St. Pius X and the Vatican.  It merits a full read, though I will publish excerpts with some of my own commentary here:
Not Sufficient?
The Vatican doesn't seem overly concerned about rifts, ruptures, or recomposition as to the legions of Catholics on every continent, including numerous bishops and priests, who no longer assent to any Church teaching that does not meet with their personal approval.  But the Society of St. Pius X? Now, that's another matter! Why?

Christopher A. Ferrara

On March 16, 2012 an unsigned communiqué from the Vatican Press Office advised that a secret “evaluation” of Bishop Fellay’s secret response to the secret “Doctrinal Preamble,” emanating from the secret proceedings of the Vatican-SSPX conferences, has determined (in secret) that the response is “not sufficient to overcome the doctrinal problems that are at the basis of the rift between the Holy See and the aforesaid Society.” Bishop Fellay was “invited to be so kind as to clarify his position so as to heal the existing rift, as Pope Benedict XVI wished.”

We still don’t know exactly what are the “doctrinal problems” in question or what formula would suffice to “clarify” them. That’s a secret. We do know that on the date the communiqué was issued Bishop Fellay met with Cardinal Levada and other officials of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—in secret, of course—to discuss healing the “rift” between the Society and the Holy See, for the purpose of “avoiding an ecclesial rupture with painful and incalculable consequences...” According to the Italian news agency AGI, during this meeting “a complete rupture was avoided by the Holy See, making it clear that Benedict XVI still expects a recomposition.” But while the rupture was avoided, the rift remains, and according to Vatican Radio “Bp. Fellay is invited to clarify his position, in order to be able to heal the existing rift, as is the desire of Pope Benedict XVI, from now until April 15.”

So, it appears there is a deadline for healing the rift in order to avoid a rupture, by providing a clarification of doctrinal problems so that there can be a recomposition. Notice the curious avoidance of such traditional terminology as “schism,” “heresy,” “profession of faith,” and “return of the dissidents to the one true Church.” Indeed, I have been unable to locate anywhere a Vatican statement to the effect that SSPX espouses any doctrine that is contrary to the Faith or that its individual adherents are not Catholics in good standing (as opposed to the problem of SSPX’s formal “canonical mission” status). The word “schism” likewise no longer appears in Vatican announcements on the SSPX’s current standing.

No, this is simply a matter of providing—in secret—a clarification of the secretly discussed doctrinal problems relating to the Second Vatican Council. Then the rift would be healed, no rupture would occur, and “recomposition” would take place. There is no need for the rest of us to know the details. Actually, there really isn't a need for the rest of us to know the details.  Just as one can assume ill-will on the part of some of the hierarchy, one can also assume good-will on the part of others.  And unless one wishes to accuse the Pope of ill-will (and I don't think Ferrara does) then there may be very good reasons to be discreet about the process so armchair theologians like myself don't poison the well.

My admittedly cursory review of bulletins from the Vatican Press Office does not disclose such strange proceedings concerning any other individual Catholic or group of Catholics among the billion souls who belong to our Church in crisis. [...]

Nor does it appear that the Vatican is concerned about rifts, ruptures, or recomposition as to the legions of Catholics on every continent, including numerous bishops and priests, who no longer assent to any Church teaching that does not meet with their personal approval. We all know the obvious examples, such as the nearly universal disobedience of the infallible teaching on marriage and procreation. But consider also the refusal of the entire hierarchies of Italy and Germany to adopt the mandated corrections to the errant vernacular translations of the Novus Ordo Missae that plagued the Church for forty years before the Vatican finally ordered the corrections. Nuts to you, Pope!

Then there is that movement of priests in Austria, led by Cardinal Schönborn’s one-time vicar general, Helmut Schüller, which, as Sandro Magister reports, “has among its objectives... the abolition of clerical celibacy and the reintegration into priestly ministry of ‘married’ priests and their concubines.” ... The dissidents have issued a “Call to Disobedience,” [...]

[...] that “they will break Church rules by giving communion to Protestants and remarried divorced Catholics or allowing lay people to preach and head parishes without a priest.” Schüller openly declares that “many priests are already quietly breaking the rules anyway, often with the knowledge of their bishops,[...] And schisms of this sort abound today.

...The Vatican does nothing, or next to nothing to punish it. But then, we have all heard the neo-Catholic line: Pope [fill in name] fears any direct confrontation with dissenters in the national hierarchies, lest he provoke schisms. Or is it rifts and ruptures?

As to the Society, however, oddly enough there is no fear of provoking a rift, a rupture, a schism, a whatever. They have been given until April 15 to clarify their doctrinal problems. Or else. Or else what? A re-excommunication of the four bishops? How could that be seen as anything but farcical, even by the mass media that have been agitating for the Society’s permanent ostracization in the name of the Council? A declaration of schism? On what grounds? The Society bishops have not even been accused of a refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff, but only a failure to provide a “sufficient” clarification of unspecified and secretly discussed doctrinal problems. The Society hastens to Rome whenever summoned to discuss the matter. How could its conduct possibly constitute schism?

This suggests a paradox: the Society is facing veiled threats of discipline precisely because it obeys and takes such threats seriously. This targeting of the Society reminds me of the rationale for waging war against Iraq in order to “fight terrorism”: the conquest of Iraq was an “achievable objective” even if there were not actually any Al Qaeda camps there. By crushing a petty dictatorship that would offer little resistance, America could pretend to be fighting “the evildoers.”

Perhaps after April 15 something not very pleasant will happen to the Society. Something secret. A heavy canonical mechanism might go bump in the night. Perhaps some sort of ultra-excommunication is being contemplated, as ludicrous as that would be. More likely, however, is that nothing at all will happen. The Vatican will simply go on deploring the rift that could become a rupture, when everyone knows the Society and its adherents are simply Catholics who are being made to jump through hoops that no one else in the history of the Church has ever had to jump through. [...]

But really: How is it that none of the notorious ringleaders of the now pandemic dissent from faith and morals have been summoned to the Vatican for talks to “clarify” their “doctrinal problems”? Why is it that not one of them has been given a deadline to “clarify his position, in order to be able to heal the existing rift”?

The answer lies in what all the dissidents have in common: they all adore Vatican II. Exactly. None of them has any “doctrinal problems” with the Council. Exactly.  Quite the contrary, the Council gives them transports of joy. They celebrate the Council as the Magna Carta of their liberation from Tradition. Exactly.  Their “doctrinal problems” concern only some aspect of what the Church constantly taught and believed before the Council. You know: defined dogmas, that sort of thing.

Whether the Council can fairly be characterized that way is not the point. The point is that the dissidents swarming all over the Church today perceive it that way and therefore accept it unreservedly. Thus, all of the (true, but beside the point) breath and ink spent on talking about how it isn't the Council itself but rather what the Council has been (mis-) interpreted to be that is the issue is just a colossal waste of energy.  It is the ultimate academic question.  We know what has happened since 1962 and we know what major event began the auto-demolition.  Hence there is no need for urgent invitations to the Vatican. Their response to the Council is quite “sufficient.” But the Society’s response to the Council is “not sufficient.” The Society must clarify its position respecting the unclear conciliar texts according to a “hermeneutic of continuity” to which the Pope constantly refers but which has never been provided.

The Council, the Council, the Council. The Council is all that matters. That is why the Society alone faces a deadline of April 15 to avoid an “ecclesial rupture with painful and incalculable consequences.” Evidently, from the Vatican’s perspective there is nothing painful or incalculable about the social apostasy of the Western world over which bishops and priests have been presiding since—well, since the Council. And now the bishops see that there are few left to go with them to the Colosseum built by the secular governments they aided and abetted for decades.

Permit me to suggest some matters that might more properly belong in the Vatican’s “not sufficient” file. Perhaps the Vatican authorities will establish some deadlines for addressing these matters[...]:

· “Not sufficient”: the faith of many millions of Catholics, including rebellious bishops and priests, who no longer care what the Popes or the Councils have taught perennially regarding matters of faith and morals on which they have made up their own minds to the contrary.

· “Not sufficient”: a Roman liturgy that, as the Pope said when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, has “collapsed” because of a “break in the history of the liturgy” whose “consequences could only be tragic.”

· “Not sufficient”: the Catholic hierarchy’s defense of “hard sayings” in the face of popular rejection of them, and its feeble-to-nonexistent witness against the soft tyranny of the modern nation-state, to which Churchmen have completely surrendered according to the program of “dialogue,” “ecumenism,” “religious liberty” and the “opening to the world” that Vatican II inaugurated—reflecting the “doctrinal problems” the Society has been called upon to “clarify.”

 · “Not sufficient”: the effort to rid the dioceses of homosexuals, heretics, heretical catechisms, and depraved “sex education” programs.

· “Not sufficient”: the absurd attempts to effect the “consecration of Russia” while deliberately failing to mention Russia, because Vatican bureaucrats think it imprudent to honor the request of the Virgin Most Prudent. Now, while I agree the Consecration should be done, this is a matter of private revelation just the same.  The biggest and most important private revelation ever, but private just the same.  I wouldn't put this on the same level as the liturgical destruction, for example.  As an aside, if you think the Consecration has been done, read Antonio Socci's "The Fourth Secret of Fatima".

· “Not sufficient”: an overall condition of the Church in which, after more than forty years of “conciliar renewal,” vast numbers of nominal Catholics exhibit what John Paul II described as “silent apostasy” and much of the hierarchy exhibits what Sister Lucia of Fatima called “diabolical disorientation.”

· “Not sufficient”: the Vatican’s disclosure of the Third Secret in 2000, which lacks the Virgin’s explanation of a vision as ambiguous as the documents of Vatican II. Hee, nicely put. Again, though a matter of private revelation, I agree.

And, finally, there is the Vatican’s entire approach to the Society of Saint Pius X. The Society should be regularized immediately—unilaterally and unconditionally, with permission to operate independently of bishops who are singing the praises of Vatican II as they close schools, suppress parishes, evade or defy Summorum Pontificum, cozy up to “gay Catholic” groups, administer the Blessed Sacrament to public heretics, and grin like fools as they throttle the life out of the Church.

Only a Catholic revival like the one produced by the independent, papally supported monasteries of Cluny can restore the Church now. The Society is poised to take a leading role in such a revival. To deny them that role solely in order to continue dickering over the ambiguities of a Council nobody seems to be able to clarify is not sufficient. I agree with the proposal of instant recognition of the SSPX, but they are not spotless in their conduct throughout this crisis.  A little humility in the face of criticism--even if much is unjust-- would go a long way.  Let us pray that the Pope will bring this ridiculous
spectacle to an end for the good of the Church and the world.  

I do not agree with Ferrara in every respect, nor do I think this is a comprehensive take on the subject.  But I do think it is impossible to deny that he makes some very good points, especially as it concerns disparate treatment and Rome's (so-far) unwillingness to define the boundaries of the "hermeneutic of continuity".  At some point, the line must be drawn between those who are Catholic in reality and those who merely wear the title to better effect the destruction of faith from within.  If Rome can countenance the presence of the majority of its own religious orders and the hierarchy within her bosom, it can countenance the Society.


Karen said...


Roman Catholic said...

It's interesting to see the argument used wherein those in the Church who do not live up to Catholic teaching (or who defy it openly) are brought up to be used as a sort of measurement with which to judge the SSPX. After all, why should Rome be so hard on the SSPX when it should be doing something about those in full communion who disobey Church teaching, right?

Well, if those who disobey Church teaching were to consecrate bishops against papal approval, then yes, Rome would go after them. In addition, if they would pronounce that it is sinful to attend the lawfully promulgated Mass of the Church (OF), or that the Council is not to be accepted, or if they would accuse the Pope of being a Protestant (as Archbishop Lefebvre did) then Rome might react. It is a very serious matter to consecrate bishops illicitly. The SSPX is in serious error, despite what Mr. Ferrara thinks.

It is also a sin of envy to be jealous of those in full communion. The SSPX and its supporters need to come up with another reason for being obstinate than this tired old excuse. There have always been sinners among the clergy and bishops of the Church. Yet, despite Judas' betrayal, the Apostles still stood with Peter after the Resurrection (so great was their faith that no impediment could then shake them from the Church). That the SSPX and its followers and supporters (many of whom want nothing to do with Rome) would have such great faith, then surely mountains would be moved.

Rory said...

I think what Ferrara probably understands but didn't say is that Rome is torn about whether they should be happy about "a Catholic revival like the one produced by the independent, papally supported monasteries of Cluny." It seems to me that for now, that Rome would wish that a beleaguered and weary Society should be reconciled into a position of non-influence within the Church, quietly happy with their "extraordinary form", while the rest of the Church continues with its ordinary liturgical forms toward the "springtime of evangelization" promised by Pope John Paul II.

A "Cluniesque" revival is NOT what Catholics who have been taking their spiritual nourishment from the "ordinary form" want at this time. I am afraid this would have to include the entire hierarchy going right up to the Holy Father. They are still placing their hopes in plans hatched in opposition to the very simple solution to the ills of church and society today proposed according to the private revelation given to Sr. Lucia.

As Bp. Williamson recently observed, Rome is like that King Naaman (4 Kings 5) who called to have Elisha heal him of leprosy and Elisha sent a message saying to jump in the river. Oh...he didn't want to do what the prophet said. He HATED that little remedy. Finally his servants reasoned with him that if the prophet had asked him to do some great thing, he would have gladly done that. He just didn't want to do a little thing!

Rome has been like stubborn Naaman. Let's NOT consecrate Our Lady's Immaculate Heart to Russia in 1960 and do a little ceremony that might take less than half an hour. When East and West were poised to send the world into a nuclear holocaust, when godless Communism was spreading its errors around the world, Rome had two choices: 1) Do the ceremony 2) Do something big.

A message not for our times, said Pope John. Maybe not. (How about now when every government in the West despises Catholic moral principles, as much as Russia did in 1960?) So Pope John calls a big monster Council and makes sure the Russians come by promising not to speak against communism. Nice scheme. It even had a clever name. Ostpolitik. What fun.

Until a pope is so desperate as to be ready like Naaman to do a little, seemingly meaningless act, the Church will continue to reel to and fro like a drunk man, unaware of the spectacle he is making. But the old bones are still placing their hopes in now dim days of euphoria when they imagined that they were the vanguard builders of a New Catholicism. They won't live to see a springtime coming out of that rotten tree and neither will anybody else.

Who knows what will bring Rome to her senses? Sr. Lucia said the consecration would come, but late. I don't have any hope for a reconciliation between Traditionalists and the modern churchmen until the Church has recognized and admits the disaster that has followed as a result of Pope John's big plans. It isn't up to the Society of St. Pius X to reconcile with modern Rome and their grand schemes for modern man with their valid, but defective "ordinary forms". The ordinary form, which is what the pope uses almost exclusively, seems to have the soporific effect of making one numb to the real ills and state of crisis in the Church. It can never be for Tradition to reconcile with the big schemes of Vatican II to reach modern man as the Council perceived him. Its up to Rome to reconcile with what continues to be the most current and "up to date" commentary on 20th and 21st Century events in the Church and in the world, as it relates to modern man: The Message of Our Lady of Fatima.

Rory said...

Roman Catholic says:

"if those who disobey Church teaching were to consecrate bishops against papal approval, then yes, Rome would go after them. In addition, if they would pronounce that it is sinful to attend the lawfully promulgated Mass of the Church (OF), or that the Council is not to be accepted, or if they would accuse the Pope of being a Protestant (as Archbishop Lefebvre did) then Rome might react. It is a very serious matter to consecrate bishops illicitly. The SSPX is in serious error, despite what Mr. Ferrara thinks."

I reply:

You make it sound like the eagerness to persecute Tradition started in 1988 with consecration of bishops. It began in 1970 and suspensions were handed down in 1975, thirteen years before bishops were consecrated while Abp. LeFebvre obediently sped to Rome everytime he was summoned in the times between. It was all because Abp. Lefebvre refused to say one symbolic Mass using your "ordinary form".

He despised it from the beginning and Traditionalists will continue to despise it, driving long, long distances if necessary to avoid it. Yes. Many of us have concluded that it is so poisonous as to be harmful to our faith, and therefore a sin for US personally to attend, knowing the stark contrast. It is just so awful to see the priest turn away from God...That there...alone is enough...never mind the lethargic, de-militarized insipidness of the prayers. Still, nobody I know has ever said that it is a sin for somebody only acquainted with the Novus Ordo.

Rome didn't wait to single out the SSPX until after the consecrations of the bishops. Suspensions of priests came in 1975. By the late 80's Rome was waiting for Abp. Lefebvre to die so that they could strangle out the last bastion of those doubting the crazy promises of Vatican II and its Novus Ordo Mass by denying them a bishop who could ordain their priests.

I want to be united with Rome, I assure you. But it is easy to make my choice when there is a conflict between modern Rome and Eternal Rome. Others prefer to be "up to date". Well, that's why we disagree. Because modern Rome and Eternal Rome are in conflict!

Be assured I am not in the least jealous of your position in "full communion" with modern Rome, and neither do I think you a sinner for being so. I just think you've been put to sleep.

Anonymous said...

@Roman Catholic - you ignore so many important points that Fererra brings up. I would challenge you to put aside your own prejudice and seriously, man, go to the source and read some of the history of the Society from their point of view.

My wife who is a convert from a particularly narrow form of Baptist had always heard what she thought was the truth about Catholicism (naturally from the Baptist perspective) and really did not get the whole (and true) story of the Faith until she went to the source.

It’s easy for folks like you to cast what you think are righteous stones when in fact they are thrown in ignorance. I would challenge you and all readers of this blog that hold the same positions as you do to take a leap of faith yourself and read “Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre” by Michael Davies. You seem to have formulated your opinion one-sidedly; now have the courage to complete your formed opinion by giving these three volumes a read.


Enoch said...

Rory, it was mainly due to the suppression of the SSPX in 1975, and the subsequent suspensions that Pope Paul Vl didn't want any bishops to be consecrated. The SSPX was started on an experimental basis for a period of six years; it was not ever granted perpetuity. Surely you are aware of this, as it's common knowledge.

Also, regarding the idea of a modern Rome, and a supposed 'eternal Rome,' well, there's no such thing as a 'eternal Rome.' There's the Catholic Church and the current Magisterium. That's the Catholic Church - there is no other. Martin Luther also used this idea to justify his position.

Anonymous, I haven't read Michael Davies' biography about the Archbishop. I have, however, read the biography of the Archbishop by Bp. Tissier De Mallerais.

The course that the Archbishop took with the illegal consecrations was the wrong solution to a very real problem.

Long-Skirts said...

Enoch said:

"The course that the Archbishop took with the illegal consecrations was the wrong solution to a very real problem."


Only a Saint
Could preserve so much

Only a Saint
Whom God would touch

Only a Saint
So hated by Hell

Only a Saint
Mere man, Marcel.

Rory said...

Hey Timman.

If I may, I would like to make one important correction.

In my enthusiasm, which occasionally gets the better of me, I used a pretty poor choice of words to describe Abp. LeFebvre's attitude to the New Mass. I Had no business affirming that he "despised" it. He certainly expressed the deepest misgivings about it. He wouldn't celebrate it. But he never experienced it and never said he despised it to my knowledge. I doubt that would be a good description of his attitude. I think I was projecting my own feelings based on my experience and I apologize for having presumed to describe the feelings of one who though I admire, I never knew.

Rory said...

Hi Enoch,

Speaking of 1975, Abp. LeFebvre had been raised to the archbishopric for believing and teaching the same things he taught at Econe. So why was his seminary experiment declared unfit to continue? Nobody ever accuses the Archbishop of changing his beliefs. Why did his beliefs and actions on behalf of Christ's Church win him ecclesiastical honors before Vatican II, but only ignominy, suspension, and suppression after?

Pope John Paul didn't want SSPX bishops either. But Pope John Paul seemed like he was living in a dreamworld. He seemed blithely disconnected to any perception of the Church imploding around him. Without his Assisi prayer meeting for world peace, it is doubtful that Abp. LeFebvre consecrates the bishops. What was gained by Assisi? Four excommunicated bishops? Not world peace, that's for sure! What made it worthwhile? Did a bunch of Hindus and voodoos and witchdoctors convert? It just seems like John Paul was at best terribly insensitive as to how some of his more audacious acts would be received. In the end, he has a big fan club, but his long papacy was a disaster by nearly every standard that a Traditionalist could measure.

I don't mean disrespect, but on what Catholic principle must the living form only positive opinions about popes of their own lifetimes? The Divine Comedy would sure look different if that were the case!

We agree about a "very real problem." Good. But it seems to me like the Traditional groups that have been regularized probably aren't as free to say what they think about the "very real problem" as one might wish. Am I wrong? I suspect silence is probably the price that would buy a ticket to the SSPX being regularized in any case. In my opinion, I think it is necessary that someone in the Church be free to express reservations and doubts about some of the controversial aspects of Vatican II, and misgivings over the liturgy which followed it.

If Vatican II is so perfectly compatible with Tradition, surely it should be demonstrable. Where are the books? Where is the pro-Vatican II intellectual giant that lays to rest the overwrought concerns of those SSPXers? Seldom does anyone but the Traditionalist even try to wrestle with how to make the decrees on ecumenism compatible with many other seemingly sound papal encyclicals of the pre-conciliar era which actually seem to warn against what Vatican II proposes! I suggest there are no books because the modern Catholic doesn't have any interest in what was written and said less than two centuries ago by popes with as much authority as any since 1960.

The irony is that most of what I have ever heard, usually from Novus Ordo conservatives, is an appeal to authority. Vatican II was compatible with Tradition because Vatican II was an ecumenical council. Authority, authority, and nothing but authority when post-conciliar popes can be quoted saying that Vatican II was different than the other councils before and defined no dogma! Crazy. Knowing what we do, SSPX adherents aren't going to be "suppressed" into belief in the infallibility of Vatican II.

Thanks for your post Enoch. I appreciate your concerns about the "wrong solution". However, I don't see 1988 as a solution at all. Only Rome has the solutions. But since Archbishop Lefebvre agonized over the decision to consecrate I don't expect all others who share our sympathies about the "very real problem" to easily agree on the decision.

God bless you.


Enoch said...

Rory wrote:

"Knowing what we do, SSPX adherents aren't going to be "suppressed" into belief in the infallibility of Vatican ll."

But from where has your knowledge come? Has it come from the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which is the only lawful authority that has the ability to determine what a Council is or isn't? Or has your knowledge been filtered through the lens of suspended bishops and priests?

Also, if I recall correctly, ABL had actually decided to reconcile with Rome and had signed a document for it a few months before the 1988 consecrations. But then he suddenly changed his mind, and reneged. Did someone talk him out of the reconciliation? Probably. Could it have been the hardliners associated in the Society who persuaded him against reconciliation? If so, then these same persons are probably trying to influence Bp. Fellay. But Bp. Fellay is doing the right thing in putting the matter in the hands of our Lord through His most Blessed Mother. What will you do, Rory, if the Society regularizes?

I should mention, too, that the first priest who went to the Archbishop with concerns over not being able to attain orthodox teaching (I can't recall his name just now) stayed with the SSPX until the consecrations of 1988. He then left and helped to form the FSSP. That's very telling, isn't it? You mentioned that traditional groups that have been regularized aren't free to say what they think about the very real problem as one might wish. But speaking about the Council or against the Magisterium or Popes isn't what the regularized groups (FSSP, ICK) are all about....no, they are about offering the Mass of all time and providing solid Catholic teaching and the traditional sacraments. They do not have to bash a Council, or the Magisterium or Popes in order to be able to carry out their missions.

Catholic Mission said...

Friday, April 6, 2012
If a Catholic priest, bishop or cardinal denies a teaching of the Church which must be ‘firmly believed’ he is automatically excommunicated.Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Bertone as President and Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith excommunicated a Sri Lankan OMI priest for denying the Immaculate Conception o f Our Lady.

Pope Benedict XVI in Light of the World-Conversations with Peter Seewald says Jews do not have to convert in the present times. Pope Benedict XVI says that he has revised the ancient liturgy (on Good Friday) so that it does not say that Jews need to convert in the present times but that they will convert in a future time (eschatological time).

So he is saying that he has revised the Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews which now says Jews do not have to convert in the present times.(1) This is a rejection of the Nicene Creed in which we pray “I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin”.Jews do need the baptism of water in the present time.

The pope is saying that without the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith, Jews in general, are saved in their religion.

Vatican Council II mentions the possibility of non Catholics being saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience etc. It does not state that they are saved in general in their religion. Since in general the normal means of salvation is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.(AG 7).

The Vatican recieved a threat from the Chief Rabbinate and the Goverment of Israel over the issue of the Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of Jews it was reported in the secular newspapers here.There was the threat of war. The pope diffused the tension with a front page report in the L’Osservatore Romano in which it was said that Jews do not have to convert in the present time.


Catholic Mission said...

This message was repeated in Light of the World-Conversations with Peter Seewald (Ignatius Press). The pope told Seewald that there is only one means of salvation and all who are saved are saved through Jesus.True. However this can also be a partial truth and denial of a defined dogma offensive to the Jewish Left.Offensive to the pro-Sodom and Gomorrah Zionists posing as Jews.Yes all those who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church, Jesus' Mystical Body, however every one needs to enter the Church with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith (Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II, dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus,Dominus Iesus 20 etc).

The pope and his Curia have put away the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which Pope Pius XII called an ‘infallible teaching’.

In the same book the pope mentioned an exception to the prohibited use of condoms, an issue already being supported before by the liberal English bishops.The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) issued a clarification saying that in general the Church has not changed its teaching on condoms. The CDF never issued a clarification to the popes comments on the Jews in that same book.


Catholic Mission said...

1.Do Jews do not need to convert in the present times to avoid Hell?The pope says no. The CDF says nothing.

2.Do all Jews need to enter the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation?(AG 7 etc).The pope says no. The CDF says nothing.

3.Do all Jews need to convert into the Church for salvation ?(Cantate Domino, Council of Florence. Defined dogma).The pope says no. The CDF is silent.

The Bible says Jews need to convert. The pope says...

The Jewish Anti Defamation League(ADL) claims the Church has changed its teaching regarding Jews and Judaism.This claim is made in the ADL Bearing Witness education program for Catholic schools.The CDF ignores it. The USCCB implements the ADL program in Catholic schools.

The secular newspapers imply that those who are saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc are known exceptions to the dogma ( and to Vatican Council II, AG 7). The Magisterium is silent.

Vatican Council II in reality says Jews need to convert for salvation.The Society of St.Pius X in reality accepts this teaching and interpretation of Vatican Council II. The SSPX is condemned.They are condemned for rejecting the Jewish Left interpretation of Vatican Council II. The Magisterium will not state like Vatican Council II,Ad Gentes 7 that Jews need to convert.The Magisterium will not affirm the Catholic Faith.


Catholic Mission said...

Do we pray or do we not pray for the Conversion of the Jews? At the Good Friday Service I attended today afternoon they did not mention that Jews need to convert into the Church. There was a vague mention, a hope, that Jews will know the fullness of Redemption in Jesus Christ.

The popes says they are saved in the present times.Now if the SSPX does not say the same thing they soon could be excommunicated according to the March 16 Vatican statement.

In the name of ecumenism and the one world religion the Catholic Teaching Authority could be told to excommunicate the SSPX if they do not accept the prevailing heresy. Once this is done the enemies of the Church will demand even more. The Vatican could be told to give up devotion to Our Lady and say the Mass is not a Sacrifice.

The pope has already said that in the case of the Brazilian girl there was an exception to abortion.(Cardinal Bertone and Mnsgr.Fisichella said they were instructed by the pope).The CDF issued a general statement saying there was no change in the church’s teaching on abortion.Obviously the Yes and NO position on Limbo was also useful for the media.

In the rejection of a defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus , Vatican Council II and the Nicene Creed the pope and his Curia stand automatically excommunicated according to the teachings of the Church always upheld by them.What would be the credibility in excommunicating the SSPX bishops for denying the Jewish Left version of Vatican Council II when they themself deny in public teachings which merit excommunication?


Catholic Mission said...

How can they excommunicate the SSPX for denying the Jewish Left version of Vatican Council II which claims Jews do not have to convert into the Catholic Church ?

I am not a member of the SSPX and I attend Mass in Italian.The Traditional Latin Mass is not available for me in the area where I live.Neither is it available in the evenings daily in the centre of Rome.I reject Vatican Council II as interpreted by the ADL and its allies.I accept Vatican Council II as a continuation of Tradition and in accord with the literal interpretation of the defined
dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.i.e the Catholic Church says Jews need to convert for salvation (Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II) and Catholics are the Chosen people of God, the ‘new people of God’(Nostra Aetate 4, Vatican Council II).

On Sept 22,2009 Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco,President of the Italian Catholic Bishops Conference (CEI) before two Jewish rabbis gave into pressure by them and issued a CEI directive which said that Jews do not have to convert in the present times.The Cardinal stated that he had the support of the Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Bertone and the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI. There has been no contradiction from the Vatican.


Catholic Mission said...

Cardinal Bertone also had called the attention of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel to a front page article in the L'Osservatore Romano written by Cardinal Walter Kaspar in which he stated Jews do not have to convert in the present time.The cardinal issued the statement on Sept.22,2009 .It was reported in the daily Avvenire, on Sept.23, 2009 the feast day of Padre Pio.

Father Tullio Rotondo an Italian diocesan priest in a an e-mail message to me said that the cardinal’s statement was contary to the Bible in which all Jews are called to conversion.Fr.Rotondo said that Jesus had called all people to convert, especially the Jews. Jesus had sent His Apostles to convert all people.Fr.Rotondo referred to Bible passages Matt.3:2.Matt.4:17,Matt.11:20, Matt.12:41,Matt.13:15,Matt 18:3,Mark 1:15,Marck 4:12, Mark 6:12,Luk 5:32, Luke 10:30,Luke 11:32,Luk 13:3,Luke 13:5,Luke 15:7,Luke 15:10,John 12:40,Acts 3:26,9:35,Acts.20:21,Acts.26:20,Acts.28:27,2 Tim.2:25.

The above Biblical quotations Fr.Tullio Rotondo said help us understand that first and foremost the Jews need to convert and then the others. It makes us understand that we must preach for the conversion of the Jews and we must pray and appeal to the saints for this conversion.

We pray also for the conversion of the cardinals, he said, who say things that appear scandalous and contrary to the Sacred Faith. Don Tullio said that he is praying also that the Holy Father intervenes.Don Tullio said that we must fight also in the Church of God, for the Truth.


Catholic Mission said...

Pope Benedict XVI tells Seewad that he revised the Good Friday Prayer ‘in such a way that it contained our faith, that Christ is salvation for all.’ (This of course does not say that all Jews are on the path to Hell unless they convert as the Church has taught for centuries. This was the one way of salvation) The pope says ‘that there do not exist two ways of salvation’( The pope indicates there is only one way of salvation and Jews are saved in general through this one way; Christ and the Church, and so they do not have to convert. Catholic priests have pointed out that we do not know any case of a non Catholic saved by Jesus and the Church. There is no case of implicit salvation which is explicit for us. The dogma says everyone needs to be an explicit member of the Church. So the pope’s one way of salvation is a strawman) The pope continues ‘and that therefore Christ is also the saviour of the Jews, and not only of the pagans ‘(Christ is the Saviour of the Jews and pagans and they are saved, even if they do not enter the Catholic Church? Pope John Paul II’s Dominus Iesus n.20 says Jesus has died for all but to receive this salvation they need to enter the Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 says that the Church is like a door in which all need to enter, Ad Gentes 7 says all need baptism for salvation).

The front page article (April 10, 2008) in the L’Osservatore Romano was written by Cardinal Walter Kaspar.It was presented to the Chief Rabbinate of Israel by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Vatican Secretary of State. It was approved by the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI.

The article said that Vatican Council II indicated that non Catholics can be saved. So Cardinal Kaspar concluded that Jews do not have to convert in the present times.


Catholic Mission said...

Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for Doctrine and Faith, Vatican never issued a clarification on Sept 22,2009 when Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco quoted Cardinal Bertone saying that the Revised Good Friday Prayer was not for the conversion of the Jews and Jews do not have to convert.

The Revised Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews was not for the conversion of present day Jews the daily newspaper of the Italian Bishops Conference Avvenire reported (' Gironata ebraico-cristiana riprende la celebrazione commune Bagnasco ai rabbinic Laras e Di Segni : diamo nuovo slancio al dialogo di Lorenzo Rosoli p. 8, Chiesa).

1. Pope Benedict approved the article written on the front page of the L’Osservatore Romano by Cardinal Kaspar and sent to the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. The message was Jews do not have to convert in the present times. Also it was alleged that this was taught in Vatican Council II.

2. Pope Benedict approved the meeting of Cardinal Bagnasco with the two Rabbis when Bagnasco issued a directive of the Conference of Catholic Bishops saying that Jews do not have to convert in the present times. Bagnasco claimed that it had the support of the Pope.


Catholic Mission said...

3. The pope approved Cardinal Bertone’s claim to the Chief Rabbinate through a Letter, public, that we Catholics had a belief in Jesus. (That was about all). And that the Chief Rabbinate had read the article by Cardinal Kaspar which said Jews do not have to convert in the present times.

This new teaching was been given to us after protests were made by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the Jewish Left. Dialogue with the Vatican was suspended. The issue was the Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of Jews.

Pope Benedict XVI is my pope and I pray for him. I would not dare to make any comments on his personality or character. I try to restrict myself to theology and doctrine.We need to be united with him during these times.It is possible that he can change the present errors .- Lionel Andrades

I modified it in such a way that… one did not pray directly for the conversion of the Jews…but that the Lord might hasten the historic hour in which we will all be united.-Light of the World-Conversations with Peter Seewald (Ignatius) p.107

Catholic Mission said...

Monday, April 9, 2012

Sunday, April 8, 2012

David Werling said...

Enoch, are you implying that Vatican II did teach a new doctrine infallibly?

Anonymous said...

Let's not forget that all the SSPX have to is recognize the validity and authority of the Second Vatican Council. The SSPX can have the EF mass and their own character. But as it stands, they are no better than the Old Catholic Church or the Priestess movement.

Why would any person fearing Hell go through an invalid marriage, give an invalid confession or attend an illicit Mass? I know that the SSPX says that their sacrements are valid and licit, notwithstanding the Church saying they are not. I also remember that Luther claimed to be adhering to the truth faith. Our evangelical friends seem to think the same as well. These are all just degrees of being unmoored from the barque of Peter. It's not too late for the SSPX to accept the life saver being thrown by B16.

- STL Attorney