cmotherofpirl Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Bishop Fellay Rejects Vatican II Posted by Tom McFeely Friday, February 27, 2009 4:30 PM (CNS/Reuters) Hopes of reconciliation between Rome and the Society of St. Pius X appear to have suffered a serious setback. The Italian news agency ANSA has reported that Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the traditionalist society, told the Swiss daily Le Courier yesterday that the society will not accept the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. Vatican officials have made it clear that, even in the wake of Pope Benedict’s lifting of the excommunications of Bishop Fellay and three other Society of St. Pius X bishops, reconciliation with the society is possible only if it accepts the authority of all of the Council’s documents. But Bishop Fellay told Le Courier that the Second Vatican Council has caused the Church “only damages,” ANSA reported. “The aftermath of the Council has been to empty seminaries, nunneries and churches,” Bishop Fellay said. “Thousands of priests have left their orders and millions of faithful have stopped being practicing Catholics and have joined sects.” Bishop Fellay stressed the SSPX is not prepared to budge on its opposition to the Second Vatican Council before the start of discussions with the Vatican about coming back into full communion with the Church. “The Vatican has acknowledged the need for preliminary talks aimed at dealing with basic issues which stem from the Second Vatican Council,” said Bishop Fellay. “Making the acceptance of the Council a preliminary condition is putting the cart before the horse.” According to the ANSA article, there was no immediate comment from the Vatican about Bishop Fellay’s remarks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Facepalm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 the Pope knew as much when he lifted the excommunications; this is going to be a much more complex issue than that. this piece is designed to begin the talks with ill will with a big sensationalist headline like "Bishop Fellay Rejects Vatican II"... we shall see what exactly the Vatican's request to "accept Vatican II" will entail. +Williamson said it best in his interview with Spiegel lately: "SPIEGEL: The Second Vatican Council counts as one of the great achievements of the Catholic Church. Why do you not fully recognize it? Williamson: It is absolutely unclear what we are supposed to recognize. An important document is called "Gaudium et spes," or Joy and Hope. In it, the writers rhapsodize about the ability of mass tourism to bring people together. But one can hardly expect a conservative society to embrace package tours. It discusses fears and hardships. And then a nuclear war between the superpowers is mentioned. You see, much of this is already outdated. These Council documents are always ambiguous. Because no one knew what exactly this was supposed to mean, everyone started doing as he wished shortly after the Council. This has resulted in this theological chaos we have today. What are we supposed to recognize, the ambiguity or the chaos? " I trust that the discussions between the society and Rome will be fruitful, and prefer to ignore the polemics put out there mainly by people afraid that their understanding of the Council is going to be thrown out the window... the society often repeats the words of Ratzinger himself saying that the Council is not meant as a superdogma... Cardinal Ratzinger himself has accused Gaudiem et Spes of using "downright Pelagian terminology"... these discussions will be important, and no matter what it is clear that the society is not going to see itself as altering its position on Vatican II. I trust that the Pope will have more sense than all those running scared over the legacy of the council. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Speaking of the "downright Pelagian terminology", what exactly has that always referred to? I can't say I've read Gaudium et Spes... and even if I had, I don't have much of a hope to identify anything 'wrong' with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 [quote name='Aloysius' post='1793152' date='Feb 28 2009, 12:17 AM']the Pope knew as much when he lifted the excommunications;[/quote] Indeed. I said it before and I will say it again, we should trust the Pope and not join the world and its love for this largely made up controversy. We should again take example from the Holy Pontiff and see and pray for the unity we do have and not fret on what divides us. The satanic powers of this world want us to focus on the negative, they want Catholics to get caught up in this and other false controversies so that the Pontiff's authority and office is ultimately questioned, and dishonored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle_eye222001 Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 I'm sure pope Benny knew this wouldn't be easy. Will be keeping the situation in prayers. ---------------- Listening to: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/matt+maher/track/adoration"]Matt Maher - Adoration[/url] via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 (edited) [quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1793099' date='Feb 27 2009, 10:04 PM']Bishop Fellay Rejects Vatican II Posted by Tom McFeely Friday, February 27, 2009 4:30 PM (CNS/Reuters) Hopes of reconciliation between Rome and the Society of St. Pius X appear to have suffered a serious setback. The Italian news agency ANSA has reported that Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the traditionalist society, told the Swiss daily Le Courier yesterday that the society will not accept the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. Vatican officials have made it clear that, even in the wake of Pope Benedict’s lifting of the excommunications of Bishop Fellay and three other Society of St. Pius X bishops, reconciliation with the society is possible only if it accepts the authority of all of the Council’s documents. But Bishop Fellay told Le Courier that the Second Vatican Council has caused the Church “only damages,” ANSA reported. “The aftermath of the Council has been to empty seminaries, nunneries and churches,” Bishop Fellay said. “Thousands of priests have left their orders and millions of faithful have stopped being practicing Catholics and have joined sects.” Bishop Fellay stressed the SSPX is not prepared to budge on its opposition to the Second Vatican Council before the start of discussions with the Vatican about coming back into full communion with the Church. “The Vatican has acknowledged the need for preliminary talks aimed at dealing with basic issues which stem from the Second Vatican Council,” said Bishop Fellay. “Making the acceptance of the Council a preliminary condition is putting the cart before the horse.” According to the ANSA article, there was no immediate comment from the Vatican about Bishop Fellay’s remarks.[/quote] my theory regarding the future of the Church remains viable. Edited February 28, 2009 by goldenchild17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curtins Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 [quote]“The aftermath of the Council has been to empty seminaries, nunneries and churches,” Bishop Fellay said. “Thousands of priests have left their orders and millions of faithful have stopped being practicing Catholics and have joined sects.”[/quote] See this is what bothers me. All this guy seems to care about is numbers. Its all about how many priests and religious we have. If there's a lot, that must mean things are good (there were a lot of priests and religious in the middle ages, yet there were many things wrong with the Church at that time too). Clearly anyone that left the priesthood and religious life after Vat II we don't want anyways- they're dead wood. Maybe God is focusing more on QUALITY not QUANTITY. Plus, there are other easily identifiable reasons that there are less people going into religious life- how about a general decline in religious practice and values over the last 40 years- that's the culture, not Vatican II. I feel like this guy would be the kind of guy to guilt me ( an 18 year old guy who practices his faith) for not wanting to be a priest.... and then blame the whole thing on Vatican II at the same time. If this guy had a legitimate argument he would directly address the language of the documents from Vat II, i.e. what the council actually said- the council never said "There will be a decrease in the number of religious". [/rant] And whats the problem with Gaudium et spes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 it is man-centered rather than God-centered... which is why Ratzinger believes it to at times fall into "downright pelagian terminology"... the post Vatican II emptying of seminaries had a lot to do with the hijacking of the council and the destruction of the liturgy. High officials in the Vatican have, in recent years, said that the state of the Church was a liturgical CRISIS. as to those who pressure... well, it is important to have clerics who pressure a little bit so that those who are trying to ignore their call from God are forced to confront it. if you really feel you don't have a call from God, the pressuring shouldn't bother you. but that charecterization of +Fellay is unfair... his analysis of the post-Vatican II emptying of seminaries and convents (and make note that many of the priests that have remained do not seem to be an improvement in quality either, as they refuse to enforce simple doctrines such as Humanae Vitae... it is only now, forty years after the end of the council, that the tide is turning on things like this... but then again, the tide is also turning in favor of the traditional liturgy... coorelation? causation? a little bit of both, IMO) is spot on. he blames those who pounced upon the ambiguous language of the documents to make it a free-for-all for destroying the fabric which kept these institutions together. and he's right about that. I think he, along with the rest of the SSPX, mostly blames the ambiguity of the documents for things like that. and +Fellay is certainly not concerned about quantity over quality... he thinks there was a decline in both in the aftermath of the council and I don't disagree with him. do you realize just how many priests went in open defiance of Paul VI's humanae vitae? they were priests who had become enamoured with the "spirit" of the council, which is to say they pounced upon the ambiguity to think that the Church could radically change its doctrines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 If the quotations from Cardinal Ratzinger supplied by Aloysius in connection with [i]Gaudium et Spes[/i] are accurate, I see no reason why a Roman Catholic should have to accept that particular document as binding in faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 It [i]is[/i] a document of an Ecumenical Council, but, I would imagine that, in the history of the Church, it will probably be seen about as important as what Lateran I said about benefices. Much more important are the Second Vatican Council's dogmatic constitutions, Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortify Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 The obvious problem is that pastoral, and perhaps doctrinal, reforms were introduced that break from tradition. I don't see anything wrong with Bishop Fellay wishing to review the Council's reforms, perhaps some of them were harmful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 How can one reject Vatican II and remain in good standing with the Church? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortify Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 [quote name='HisChildForever' post='1794541' date='Mar 1 2009, 08:30 PM']How can one reject Vatican II and remain in good standing with the Church?[/quote] I'm not sure what the SSPX position is, but I get the impression they accept Vatican II as a valid council but reject some of its reforms because they consider them harmful to faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 One can certainly question the prudence regarding pastoral decisions of the Council (e.g. the reforms proposed for the liturgy in Sacrosanctum Concilium) and remain in good standing with the Church, however, one does need to accept doctrinal decisions of the Council (e.g. the explanation of the Magisterium of the Church in Lumen Gentium) if he wishes to remain good standing with the her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now