SSPX resisting acceptance of Vatican II
September 08, 2011
The head of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has indicated that the group will not accept a Vatican requirement that they accept the authority of Vatican II teachings.
Bishop Bernard Fellay—who has been called to Rome for meetings to discuss the results of a series of meetings between Vatican and SSPX theologians—assured supporters: “If their aim is still to force us to accept the second Vatican Council, the discussions have been clear enough in showing that we have no intention of doing any such thing.”
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: koinonia -
Sep. 08, 2011 10:08 PM ET USA
After Trent, Protestants were not lauding its accomplishments and Catholics citing Trent in imitating Protestant practices and beliefs. This phenomenon is not simply an isolated blip, but it has been nearly universal since the 1960s. Why are so many Catholics and non-Catholics- including secular and agnostic scholars- in such uniform agreement that Vatican II was not simply novel, but revolutionary? If 25 people are unclear, I get it. If 25 million, perhaps there is something else going on.
Posted by: pdhow5802 -
Sep. 08, 2011 7:22 PM ET USA
jeremiahjj it is difficult to look objectively at the trajectory of the Church since Vatican II and feel good about it. Its legacy is just not consonant with prior historical examples of conciliar renewal. This is ignoring recent history -- The present Pope places Vatican II in its rightful place "I am convinced that the damage that we have incurred in these twenty years is due, not to the 'true' Council, but to the unleashing within the Church of latent polemical and centrifugal forces; and outside the Church it is due to the confrontation with a cultural revolution in the West: the success of the upper middle class, the new 'tertiary bourgeoisie', with its liberal-radical ideology of individualistic, rationalistic and hedonistic stamp. The cardinal exhorts all Catholics who wish to remain such "to return to the authentic texts of the original Vatican II." [The Ratzinger Report, Vittorio Messori, Ignatius, 1985, p 28-31].
Posted by: Anselm -
Sep. 08, 2011 6:27 PM ET USA
To paraphrase a comment made while he was Cardinal Ratzinger: "To deny a Council Document, you reject the whole Council, to reject a Council is a rejection of them all." My bit: to reject all the councils means you are protesting against the Church. Add in names here -> Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, SSPX...
Posted by: jeremiahjj -
Sep. 08, 2011 6:25 PM ET USA
A bishop ordained by a monsignor who says the order is moving on? Moving on from what? Rome? The Holy Father? The Chair of Peter? The Table of Our Lord? Martin Luther couldn't have put it any better. The Holy Father reached out to these separatists in fraternal love and go a poke in the eye for his efforts. They want to move on? Let them go. The church will move on too -- without them.
Posted by: Mike in Toronto -
Sep. 08, 2011 5:17 PM ET USA
The solution is utter simplicity. The SSPX, leaders and membership, must do two things: (1) Repent. (2) Obey. Full stop.
Posted by: koinonia -
Sep. 08, 2011 5:11 PM ET USA
It remains to be seen what will happen. No matter how fond of the Council one is, it is difficult to look objectively at the trajectory of the Church since Vatican II and feel good about it. Its legacy is just not consonant with prior historical examples of conciliar renewal. Even if one praises the Council per se, the track record after Vatican II must be at least minimally disturbing. It is a mystery of faith. Pope Benedict must have a plan; he's been a remarkable pontiff in remarkable times.
Posted by: -
Sep. 08, 2011 4:08 PM ET USA
It will be interesting to see how the Austrian dissident priest are handled...
Posted by: AgnesDay -
Sep. 08, 2011 3:08 PM ET USA
Well, maybe we can reinvent the Filioque Clause and allow them to remain silent but not be free to deny the authority of the Council. Well...it's a thought...