This is a bombshell! But a stale one:
SSPX could be reconciled with Rome without accepting all of Vatican II
August 10, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — The Vatican has offered the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) a personal prelature and confirmed that certain documents from the Second Vatican Council are not doctrinal in nature, according to an Italian archbishop tasked with overseeing the canonically irregular group’s return to full Communion with Rome.
Archbishop Guido Pozzo, the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, told a German newspaper that Pope Francis has offered the SSPX a return to full Communion via a personal prelature within the Church. A personal prelature is a hierarchically-structured group of Catholic faithful not bound by a geographic location — essentially, a diocese without a territory that complements the work of local dioceses “to which the faithful who form part of a personal prelature continue to belong.”
Opus Dei is the Catholic Church’s most well-known — and indeed, only — personal prelature.
Pozzo’s remarks, which Dr. Maike Hickson translated at OnePeterFive, indicate that the SSPX could be fully reunited with Rome despite the society’s rejection of certain Vatican II documents because the documents it rejects “are not about doctrines or definitive statements, but, rather, about instructions and orienting guides for pastoral practice.” The Second Vatican Council’s documents themselves indicate that only the Council’s teachings explicitly related to faith and morals are binding to Catholics, Pozzo explained.
“It was already clear at the time of the Council” that different Council documents carried different dogmatic weights, Pozzo said. “The General Secretary of the Council, Cardinal Pericle Felici, declared on November 16, 1964: ‘This holy synod defines only that as being binding for the Church what it declares explicitly to be such with regard to Faith and Morals.’ Only those texts assessed by the Council Fathers as being binding are to be accepted as such.”
The SSPX was founded by French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The group supports traditional liturgy and seeks to share the truth of the Catholic faith in the modern world, a task they view as “especially necessary considering the spread of atheism, agnosticism, and religious indifference.”
Lefebvre was eventually excommunicated for validly but illicitly ordaining other bishops. In other words, the men he ordained did become bishops, but Lefebvre was acting against the Church’s rules by ordaining them without proper permission.
However, the SSPX is not currently “in schism,” or “excommunicated,” as is sometimes reported. Their canonical status is irregular; certain Vatican II documents are points of contention between the Vatican and the SSPX .
In recent years, the SSPX has inched closer to canonical regularization. Pope Francis has continued negotiations with the Society that began during Pope Benedict XVI’s pontificate. Pope Francis granted SSPX priests faculties to hear Confessions during the Year of Mercy — a faculty that will reportedly continue after the year.
One particular Council document with which the SSPX takes issue is Nostra Aetate (“In Our Time”), a declaration on the Church’s relationship with other religions. Some interpret it as inconsistent with or at the very least muddying the Catholic Church’s teaching that it alone is the one true religion.
Pozzo said Nostra Aetate is not dogmatic and therefore no Catholic is bound to accept it as such.
“Nostra Aetate does not have any dogmatic authority, and thus one cannot demand from anyone to recognize this declaration as being dogmatic,” Pozzo said. “This declaration can only be understood in the light of tradition and of the continuous Magisterium. For example, there exists today, unfortunately, the view — contrary to the Catholic Faith — that there is a salvific path independent of Christ and His Church. That has also been officially confirmed last of all by the Congregation for the Faith itself in its declaration, Dominus Iesus. Therefore, any interpretation of Nostra Aetate which goes into this [erroneous] direction is fully unfounded and has to be rejected.”
The leader of the SSPX has not been shy in his criticisms of Pope Francis, but he has also expressed hope and deep gratitude toward the pontiff for his welcoming attitude toward Rome’s reunification with the Society.
After the release of Amoris Laetitia, SSPX Superior General Bishop Bernard Fellay decried the “great and painful confusion that currently reigns in the Church” and the promotion of doctrinal errors “by a large number of pastors, including the Pope himself.”
“A deep division [over Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried] is forming within the episcopate and the Sacred College of Cardinals,” Fellay said. “The faithful are bewildered; the whole Church is suffering from this rift. … It is enough to make one weep.”
25 comments:
SSPX was wise to have rejected that Faith killing enterprise otherwise known as Vatican II. The Church is far weaker today than at any time since the Protestant Revolt or the French Revolution. And we did it to ourselves!!
I believe that the Archbishop Pozzo interview was published at least two weeks (about) ago in a German Newspaper.
For what it's worth, Rorate Caeli declared that the interview was worthless in that the interview did not contain anything that was new and important.
Archbishop Pozzo offered "news" that was at least two years old, according to Rorate Caeli. Therefore, do not get your hopes up in regard to the interview, according to Rorate Caeli (if Rorate Caeli is to be believed).
Pax.
Mark Thomas
'Pozzo said. “The General Secretary of the Council, Cardinal Pericle Felici, declared on November 16, 1964: ‘This holy synod defines only that as being binding for the Church what it declares explicitly to be such with regard to Faith and Morals.’'
Do any of the texts from the Council declare 'explicitly' that a particular text issued on its behalf is binding with regard to faith and morals (rather than a guide to meet a perceived/ notional pastoral need - of those now far off times)?
There are parts that reaffirm doctrines already dogmatically defined or set out with due magisterial requirements (to make them binding in faith and on morals), but these are frequently accompanied by a vague pastoral gloss (which all too often tended to raise something like an obscuring smokescreen around it).
So, in effect, unless stated otherwise, nothing (or at least relatively little) issued as signed-off texts issued by the Second Vatican Council Fathers are to be considered as doctrinally binding in faith and morals (in any way, other than as vague pastoral guidelines) - the real problem is, of course, that no one is listening to this (just as many interested parties simply did not want to listen to this way back when, and so went on doing what they wanted .. but now with episcopal approval and encouragement).
The irony here is that the SSPXers probably agree with more paragraphs in the VCII documents than does the average European or N. American Catholic.
I have to admit I never really understood SSPX and always had a fear of attending their liturgy, even though I do want to attend an all out TLM and that is their specialty. The good news of the day was something Fr. Blake had on his blog about a possible fourth addition of the missal, and that missal sounds very similar to one you had discussed not to long ago. I don't know if my comment really applies to your post, but is an abstract way it does.
Brace yourself! Is Rome about to regularize the SSPX?
Official SSPX web site...DICI
August 6:
-- Interview with Bishop Bernard Fellay on relations with Rome
DICI: Most of those who are opposed to the Society’s acceptance of a possible canonical recognition allege that the doctrinal discussions could have led to this acceptance only if they had concluded with a doctrinal solution, in other words, a “conversion” by Rome. Has your position on this point changed?
Bishop Fellay: "It must be acknowledged that these discussions have allowed us to present clearly the various problems that we experience with regard to Vatican II.
"What has changed is the fact that Rome no longer makes total acceptance of Vatican II a prerequisite for the canonical solution. Today, in Rome, some people regard a different understanding of the Council as something that is not decisive for the future of the Church, since the Church is more than the Council.
"So the attitude of the official Church is what changed; we did not. We were not the ones who asked for an agreement; the pope is the one who wants to recognize us. You may ask: why this change?
"We are still not in agreement doctrinally, and yet the pope wants to recognize us! Why? The answer is right in front of us: there are terribly important problems in the Church today. These problems must be addressed. We must set aside the secondary problems and deal with the major problems. This is the answer of one or another Roman prelate, although they will never say so openly; you have to read between the lines to understand.
"The official authorities do not want to acknowledge the errors of the Council. They will never say so explicitly. Nevertheless, if you read between the lines, you can see that they hope to remedy some of these errors."
==========================================================================
I noted at the beginning of my comment that the interview with Bishop Fellay was released by the SSPX on August 6...August 6, 2012 A.D.
http://www.dici.org/en/news/interview-with-bishop-bernard-fellay-on-relations-with-rome/
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Regularization...when, when, when?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I think that last comment by Anonymous should be deleted.
Anon @ 6:06 wants to play a game!
As we all know the (Jews/illuminati/Rockefellers/trilateral commission/star chamber/Opus Dei) control (nothing/a lot/everything) of what the (Vatican/Hollywood/banking/EU/Washington/the telephone wires left in my walls) does these days. I mean they have already (determined/forgotten) what (laws/prayers/gunpowder) should or shouldn't be included in the (courts/liturgy/musical) and the (sheeple/Vatican/Supreme Court/Teamsters) obeys. The (Jews/illuminati/Rockefellers/trilateral commission/star chamber/Opus Dei) will never allow this so therefore the (pope/Pope/Kanye West) will (now/bow/???) before them. Who are we (kidding/prattling/trolling) (./!/?)
As a Christian and Roman Catholic with some Jewish blood, what can I say?
Do you need to pray for me and others like me on Good Friday as perfidious?
Is that the right word?
Re the big picture, I believe history in time will prove Father M and his supporters right.
So why not pray tonight for your alleged opponents?!
Left of centre Catholics, Protestants and Jews who do not yet kneel before their Saviour and so on......
Paul, since you are Catholic, you aren't perfidious, are you? Those lacking the Catholic faith are, by definition, perfidious, that is "faithless."
I think that the now-deleted Anonymous had a good point, which has been discussed elsewhere. Interreligious relations do stand in the way of the Vatican's "regularization" of the SSPX. Nostra Aetate is a very meaningful document for certain groups of Jewish leaders who interact with the Vatican. They have been outspoken in their assertions that the document should not be walked back. Yet, that is precisely what would happen if anyone were to take seriously the idea that Vatican II is not doctrinal.
The Vatican is caught between unity with Catholics and the desire for some sort of relationship that Vatican leaders perceive to be positive with their Jewish confreres.
On a completely different topic, but one which I think most here will find interesting.... there's a new defense of Humane Vitae out that our pastors and deacons would be wise to read up on.
If we can't defend our own Church's moral teaching on sexuality what makes us think we can defend our Church's doctrinal teaching on say, Christ's divinity and humanity?
If the Church was wrong on sexuality in marriage for 1900 years, why would it be right about anything else?
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/08/17559/
Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1995) affirm the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/vatican-council-ii-and-catechism-of.html
The next time you hear Bishop Fellay criticize Vatican Council II know it is for the liberal lobby he indirectly supports them : Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake in principle and was not aware of it
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/the-next-time-you-hear-bishop-fellay.html
Paul C., I understand your emotions based on the post by the brainless Anonymous. I, too, have always wondered how that interpretation could be had of that prayer. It is obviously a prayer for the Jews that were or are perfidious, rising to the merit of mention because of their special status before God. If anything it is offering the other cheek to the Jewish people. Not all Jews were or are perfidious, obviously. Yet everyone is perfidious at some point in his life. I believe people miss this based on their own beliefs about Jews and the actual meaning should be taught more clearly.
Considering that the Good Friday prayer for the Jews is a prayer that they will cease being faithless and come to enter the Catholic Church, we can say that those with "Jewish blood" who enter the Catholic Church has, in some sense, reaped the benefit of those prayers for the conversion of the Jews.
As rcg says, we are all faithless at some point, so we all reap the benefit of those prayers for our conversion.
This is true charity, by the way. Those who refuse to pray for conversions or try to bring people to the Truth of Christ and his Church are essentially in cooperation with evil since they deny people the saving truth and the sacraments. True charity involves bringing people into the Church so they can be saved.
Sorry if I was a bit touchy or sensitive on that subject.
But, I and others have known for a very long time that the term "perfidious Jews" means a lot more than "faithless Jews".
Paul.
rcg. Could you be more arrogant. Your poor wife. I bet you are the guy everybody dreads coming over at Christmas dinner. The expert, the LOUD expert who knows everything about everything. Nobody ever told you so I will. Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it's right and doesn't mean you always have to express it. In other words shut up once in awhile. No no don't respond just shut up. Try it for 3 days. Bet you can't do it. Three little days.
Paul C., i can only respect the Jew who puts up with the brainless torment. It is a damn shame, quite literally, for any Catholic to understand that prayer in anyway other than as a cre de coeur for a brother.
Anon at 12:29:
-No
-Yes
-Yes (saves me money each year)
-Yes; Yes
- probably so, but I ignored them, too.
-Maybe; but so far, so good
-Six hours every night
-But isn't compliance a response?
-Blind Hog Alert! You are right!
-3 little no-no-no
I honestly hope ypu are the anonymous whose post I parodied. There are few things more annoying than hitting the wrong target.
"I honestly hope ypu are the anonymous whose post I parodied. There are few things more annoying than hitting the wrong target."
Parody? It's just someone with a lot of time on their hands who doesn't have anything original to say so he has to target others who at least are making an effort at originality. You are boring and you know your boring. So you will just fade away.
I apologise to the Blog Host for extending this exchange with this response; it will be my last to this topic: I thought I was mocking an actual racist opinion posted by an adolescent or some isolated buffoon, not someone trying to be "original" with a racist post. You are a self absorbed git and I am glad you dislike me.
To quote Basil Faulty what I am about to write is not really as difficult as grasping a statement by Wittgenstein but:
Can anyone dispute that the term "perfidious Jews" over many centuries had far more significant specific consequences in historical terms than, for example, the term "perfidious Albion"?
In the context of liturgy, and context some say is everything, I appreciate reading here discussion re the theological significance of that term regarding Jews as used in the Good Friday liturgy.
I better stop now, many years ago I struggled enough to understand Aquinas and Aristotle and all I really know about Wittgenstein was from reading books by and about Bertrand Russell during my often typical agnostic secular university days.........
The history of prayer for the Jews is set out in Wiki:
"The form used before 1955 read as follows:
Let us pray also for the faithless Jews: that Almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts 2 Corinthians 3:13-16; so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord. ('Amen' is not responded, nor is said 'Let us pray', or 'Let us kneel', or 'Arise', but immediately is said:) Almighty and eternal God, who dost not exclude from thy mercy even Jewish faithlessness: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen.[8]
...
As part of his major revision of the Holy Week liturgy in 1955, Pope Pius XII instituted kneeling for this petition as at the other petitions of the litany, so that the prayer read:
Let us pray also for the faithless Jews: that almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts; so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord. Let us pray. Let us kneel. [pause for silent prayer] Arise. Almighty and eternal God, who dost not exclude from thy mercy even Jewish faithlessness: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen.[11]
1960 prayer
On 21 March 1959, Pope John XXIII ordered that the word "faithless" (Latin: perfidis) be removed from the prayer for the conversion of the Jews,[12] actually interrupting the Service and asking the prayer to be repeated without that word.[13]:40 This word had caused much trouble in recent times because of misconceptions that the Latin perfidis was equivalent to "perfidious", giving birth to the view that the prayer accused the Jews of treachery (perfidy), though the word is more correctly translated as "faithless" or "unbelieving".[14] Accordingly, the prayer was revised to read:"
Let us pray also for the Jews: that almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts; so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord. Let us pray. Let us kneel. Arise. Almighty and eternal God, who dost also not exclude from thy mercy the Jews: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen.[15] "
I believe it is quite right to pray for the conversion of the Jews. There may well be many things in liturgical services of other denominations, Jew included, that are no acceptable to Catholics but I am sure that neither the Jews nor other denominations would remove them if we complained.
For example, I am sure that the Jews who still await the coming of a savior would pray for that in their religious services and that could be said to be insulting to Christians and to the memory of Our Lord...
Also, the prayer should be considered in the light of 2 Corinthians 3:13-16, which makes it clear that the Jews are in need of conversion and to me changing the prayer is a denial of Christ:
"2 Corinthians 3:13-16Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
13 And not as Moses put a veil upon his face, that the children of Israel might not steadfastly look on the face of that which is made void.
14 But their senses were made dull. For, until this present day, the selfsame veil, in the reading of the old testament, remaineth not taken away (because in Christ it is made void).
15 But even until this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart.
16 But when they shall be converted to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away."
The last thing SSPX needs to do is come back into full relations with Rome under this Pope an with things as they are now. It would only serve to validate this Pope's nonsense and ultimately compromise SSPX.
Gene, I see it differently. It would inflame the looney left in the Church (think National Anti-Catholic Reporter) and underscore the absolute validity of SSPX's purpose and give the green light to Catholics that it is perfectly fine to be a traditional, faithful Catholic.
Post a Comment