The secretary of the Ecclesia Dei commission has confirmed that the Vatican is close to an agreement with the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) that would regularize the status of the traditionalist group.
Archbishop Guido Pozzo told the German newspaper Die Tagespost that the Vatican will ask the SSPX to endorse a formal declaration, resolving some remaining doctrinal issues. However, confirming what SSPX leaders have said, Archbishop Pozzo acknowledged that the SSPX would be allowed to continue raising questions about some teachings of Vatican II. Over the years, the archbishop observed, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has answered a number of questions about conciliar documents, and “I do not see why this work of clarification and answers to doubts and reservations… could not be carried forward.”
Archbishop Pozzo said that, in interpreting the documents of Vatican II, one clear principle would be continuity: that if an understanding of the Council’s message involves a break with the constant teaching of the Church, “this intepretation must be rejected as false or inadequate.”
The archbishop suggested that the cause of reconciliation for the SSPX should be confided to the care of Our Lady of Fatima, as the Church approaches the 100th anniversary of the apparitions.
Story from Catholic Culture.
Comments are closed as of 3/24/2017.
There appears to be an important typo. The Catholic Culture piece states, “SSPX would be allowed to continue raising questions about some teachings of Vatican II.” The Cal Catholic article reversed the meaning by using the word “not.”
Thank you. It appears that the Catholic Culture article has been updated. The sentence is now fixed.
If it is true that SSPX would not be allowed to continue raising questions about Vatican II, we can expect many, if not the majority of SSPX to peel off from it, and form their own separate protestant grouping.
….and here we go again, implying that merely raising legitimate questions would somehow render someone Protestant. Typical.
Ann,
The Church has no problem with people merely raising questions and quietly maintaining personal doubt while affirm the truth of Catholic teaching.
The problem with SSPX is that its members don’t merely question but, instead, assert that the church is wrong. At least, this is what I’ve been observing here in the message area of Cal Catholic.
Steve, it “is” wrong to float ambiguity and virtually allow the chips to fall where they may. That’s not just my opinion. The problem here is that many confuse asking the legitimate authority for clarity as some form of rebellion. Nothing could be further from the truth, especially now when the spiritual fallout of confusion and apostasy is not only hanging on the tree but rotting beneath it.
Ann,
Based on your words, it sounds like you agree with my statement that SSPX asserts that Vatican II contains error in the form of ambiguity.
I don’t recall reading any ambiguity in the documents. But if there were ambiguity, then this was certainly intended by the Holt Spirit working through the Magisterium. And it wouldn’t be the first time that two versions of a single truth have been allowed.
No one has said that raising legitimate questions is rebellion. This is a straw man argument of AM’s. What is rebellion is denigrating the OF, calling the legitimate sacraments of the Church invalid, and casting doubt as to their efficacy. THAT is heretical and indeed rebellion.
Ahhh, the Vatican is already posturing about questions “that can not be raised” about Vatican II. In reality, these questions are likely the meat of what the SSPX, and all faithful Catholics, continue to raise about the dopey implementation of VII (and of the Council itself). If this article is accurate, then the SSPX should be very afraid of agreeing with the Vatican.
Of course, the true test here is whether the SSPX has protected its assets beyond question. They have to be able to pick up and leave, as Abp. Schneider recently suggested, if the Vatican — as it will — starts to crowd in, demand “respect” for the NO (as in all the SSPX must say it), and the like. One hopes that the SSPX has very fine lawyers here.
Respect for all of the Sacraments of the Church, especially in its Ordinary Form, is a MUST, SC. It’s not an optional extra. It’s what defines faithfulness to the Church, or dissent and disobedience.
“especially in the ordinary form” — what does this mean, “jon”? The Church foisted the new version of the sacraments and Mass on all Catholics after Vatican II out of the hubris of those “formed” in the intellectual and spiritual graveyards of the 1960’s. (Of course, all of you George Soros clones find this the best of times, even though they are clearly not.)
Due to the doctrine of indefectibility, we can believe that what the Church holds as available, and necessary, for salvation, is valid for that purpose. Thus, we can attend the NO, and “trust” the validity of the sacraments, even with their questionable origins and obvious defects. But they are never “especially” sacred or valuable.
No, jon. You’re wrong. Respect for the Sacraments is precisely what leads to the just critique of the Novus Ordo Missae, and the dispassionate examination of it.
Your fixation on attempting to define faithfulness to be in accordance with “your” misconceptions is problematic. That tendency is often associated with hubris and delusion about one’s true condition.
Peoples, especially SC, AM, and LM: let me put it to you people bluntly. By not respecting the sacraments–by doubting its efficacy, sacredness, and validity—including especially those celebrated in the Ordinary Form, you have fallen into HERESY as judged by the Lateran Council.
Read folks, especially SC and AM, and beware:
Canon 23 (Second Lateran Council): “Those who, simulating a kind of religiosity, condemn the sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord…we expel from the church of God and condemn as heretics, and prescribe that they be constrained by the secular powers. We also bind up their defenders in the fetter of the same condemnation.”
Canon 1 (Council of Trent): “If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord…. or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament; let him be anathema.”
You have been warned for the awful Day of Judgment!
Nobody here has denied the efficacy or sacredness of the Eucharist, even when presented in the context of the NO. To the extent that you say that’s the case, it’s you who who spread the calumny.
Further, the passage you present speaks of the sacraments, and the sacraments only, not the manner in which the Mass is presented. By your interpretation, that passage would prohibit criticism of any and all celebrations of the Mass, even clown masses. Once and for all, and its been said a thousand times, the NO is inferior to the TLM in terms of its representation of the Catholic faith (not the Eucharist). That’s it. Time to grow up.
No calumny is being spread by me, Ralph. I was responding to St. Christopher’s own words fearing that the beloved SSPX may have to be “demanded to ‘respect’ the NO.” You can read his comment up there. If that statement of fear is not an indication of interior disrespect, apprehension, and indeed denigration of the OF, I don’t know what is.
Of course, that canon referred to the Eucharist as it was celebrated prior to Vatican II.
Trent was not condemning people who see problems with the celebration of the new Mass because the new Mass was centuries in the future.
Actually, Disgusted, the Canons of the Church, regardless of when they were promulgated, are applied into whatever time and era the Church finds herself. The Canons of the Church are PERENNIAL!
How full of it, you are, jon, to simulate condemnations of other Catholics because you cant competently respond to their assertions.
You are just like one of those proudly self-assured who condemned St. Athanasius, pronounced Joan of Arc heretic and apostate, and like the Papal Nuncio of Spain, excommunicated St John of the Cross.
You should be ashamed of your venomous self-righteousness. THAT wont save you on the day of judgment (Mt. 25: 31-46)
I think both sides want the regularization of the SSPX. I also think the SSX will be very careful. There is respect on both sides. I think Our Lady of Fatima is helping this situation! My prayers are always for the very best, for the SSPX, for whatever is God’s true Divine Will!
Regarding the Pope allowing dissent from the Magisterium/VII, I give the following idea.
I heard a few years ago that John Paul II had asked Cdl. Ratzinger whether it was possible if a pope could retire. After giving the issue some thought, Ratzinger gave the opinion that this couldn’t happen. Then, years later when Ratzinger was Pope, he changed his mind and decided that it was possible.
Given that Pope Francis continues to act more like the Bishop of Buenos Aires than the Bishop of Rome through his incoherent leadership and questionable statements, one can’t rule out the possibility that Cdl. Ratzinger’s original opinion was correct and that the current pope remains Benedict XVI.
Yes, one can safely rule that out. The Pope is Francis. Please stop spreading doubt among the faithful.
YFC,
For the record, I’m not asserting that Francis is not the Pope. I merely raise a real question: Can a pope reject the office of St. Peter and its associated charism of having primacy in faith and morals?
This is uncharted territory that worries me. As long as Francis doesn’t do anything stupid and both popes die, we have averted a massive, potential crisis.
Adding to my argument, by the way, is my understanding that Jesuits reject the notion of ever becoming the pope.
What is your evidence that Benedict, as a man, can reject the office?
“Please stop spreading doubt among the faithful.” This, coming from the resident sodomite and fake Catholic darling of CCD, who relentlessly tries to lead the “faithful” into error on a daily basis.
Sede vacante? My understanding of the common explanation of Benedict’s retirement was that he felt he was no longer physically capable of the arduous task of the Papacy. Perhaps a wise retirement is better than a frail and feeble old man under the control of an [unelected] person.
As to the assets. all groups need to be careful. Witness the older nuns and the ‘contested’ property in Los Angeles.
Mikem,
If you were responding to my message, there is no question that Pope Benedict wished to retire. The question is whether he could retire.
The closest parallel to this in church history was the abdication of an anti-pope during, I believe, the Great Western Schism. In that case, there were two remaining claimants to the Chair, and it was impossible to decipher which one was the real pope. It was assumed that the one who abdicated was an anti-pope.
This would be a redeeming moment for this Papacy. FSSPX has over 600 priests and we need them more than ever as the Catholic Church decreases in size.
Too little and too late for many.
Does anyone know how Kenneth M. Fisher of Concerned Roman Catholics of America is?
Pope Francis should proceed very cautiously with SSPX. Once admitted back into the fold of the Holy Church, they may operate like the Greeks did with their gift of a Trojan Horse only to engage in subterfuge and skirmishes…they might also attempt to steal the Holy Father’s zucchetto.
And don’t try to silence me with “Oh, Vatican II is sacred doctrine”: it cannot comply with prior tradition and teaching. It was intended to break with past teaching, such as Mortalium Animos (1928). None other than Leo Cardinal Suenens approvingly declared in a famous interview, “Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church.” Suenens predicted a “New Pentecost” for the Church as a result of V2 (title of his famous book): and we got the tail of the dragon.
Yes, Card. Suenens, your childhood neighborhood of Mollenbeek in Brussels is now a Sharia no-go zone for the police, the Catholic Fatih obliterated by your wonderful Vatican II.
You should take note of what Pozzo himself has said in this article: in interpreting the documents of Vatican II, one clear principle would be continuity: that if an understanding of the Council’s message involves a break with the constant teaching of the Church, “this intepretation must be rejected as false or inadequate.” It is not the intention of the Counciliar Fathers—as you have stated above—to break with past teachings. Pozzo himself has said it ups there. Plus, no respectable prelate in the Church today says that the Conciliar Fathers intended to break. NONE!
SP: the only constant in life is change…except in Saudi Arabia where no Christian Churches are permitted!
Comments are now closed.