Could certain Vatican officials be speaking out of both sides of their mouth?
Bishop Fellay seems to be saying that. If true, it's scandalous.
Bishop Fellay isn't helping matters much either as he reiterates SSPX policy statements such as these:
Apparently speaking without a text, he also called the Jewish people "enemies of the church," saying Jewish leaders' support of the Second Vatican Council "shows that Vatican II is their thing, not the church's."Bishop Fellay isn't all that different from Bishop Willimason then, is he.
Bishop Fellay said he repeatedly told the Vatican that the contents of the preamble -- particularly acceptance of the modern Mass and the council as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church -- were unacceptable.
Bishop Fellay said Pope Benedict wrote to him, emphasizing that full recognition required the society accept the magisterium as the judge of what is tradition, accept the council as an integral part of tradition and accept that the modern Mass is valid and licit.
Bishop Fellay said, "Even in the council there are some things we accept," as well as reject, however, the group wishes to be free to say, "there are errors in the council" and that "the new Mass is evil." - CNS
The smoke of Satan indeed.
I'll stick with the Pope.
Amen, Amen and Amen!! I am getting very tired of hearing the constant criticism of the Pope and the Magesterium from those who call themselves "Traditional." I most definitely consider myself Traditional, and to me, right at the top of the list is full and unswerving allegiance to the Magesterium, which was put in place by Jesus Christ Himself.
ReplyDeleteThe SSPX, along with all other Catholics, must accept the authority of the Magesterium, which means accepting all of Vatican II, or they are just as much Cafeteria Catholics as the liberals they are constantly condemning.
God Bless our Holy Father. I am beginning to think his is the only voice of sanity in our entire world.
Catholic in Brooklyn writes : "which means accepting all of Vatican II, or they are just as much Cafeteria Catholics"
ReplyDeleteNow go take that statement an square Vatican II with previous teaching of the Church that doesn't stretch those previous teachings beyond recognition except to the most flexible of Catholics.
My position is to simply ignore it all, because my Faith is more important to me than explaining the unexplainable. Others like Fellay want answers. But they won't get them because the mess isn't going to be sorted out until long after we and out children's children are dead.
Catholics were far better off in ignorance, than the scandals that constantly bombard them.
@love the girls - just curious. Have you read any of the Vatican II documents, or are you just listening to what others have said about them? Do you think our Lord thinks we are "better off in ignorance"? We are to told to " Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness." II Tim. 2:15-16
DeleteRemaining in ignorance will not help us through any scandal.
Joseph Ratzinger read the documents enough to criticize one of them as downright "neo-Pelagian". And yes there are plenty of ambiguities there. How could there not be when heretic theologians like Küng were involved? So yes, the Council documents are open to discussion and even critique.
Delete