Agreement Between SSPX and Vatican Dead

Agreement Between SSPX and Vatican Dead

en.news
7/3/17

In May, Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, the now fired Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, provided the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) with conditions for an agreement with Rome. These conditions were approved by Pope Francis on May 20th. The headquarters of the SSPX sent Müller’s letter to its priest, writes Medias-Catholique.

The conditions ask for an “explicit acceptance of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and those of the period after the Council” according to their required degrees of adherence.

Further, the SSPX has to recognize not only the validity but also the “legitimacy” of the New Rite of the Mass and the Sacraments.

This means, Francis and Müller have halted an agreement because they know that the SSPX cannot fulfill these conditions.

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2017/07/03/agreement-between-sspx-and-vatican-dead/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

16 comments on “Agreement Between SSPX and Vatican Dead

  1. If the Pope approved the conditions then there is no doubt that there will be no further progress. I have been asking for years what particular new teachings a Catholic has to believe now that he didn’t have to believe in 1961 as a result of the Second Vatican Council. The answer, as far as I am aware, is nothing, zilch, not a sausage! So what on earth do the curia mean when they talk about acceptance of Vatican II? Acceptance of VII as an historical event? It is long past time for the SSPX to make a statement or issue a document setting out their position regarding the Council and the liturgical revolution which accompanied it. It would save a lot of time instead of parlaying with curial officials who, when they are not indulging in drug fueled homosexual orgies, are protecting clerical sex abusers and overseeing the destruction of the Catholic Faith.

  2. There are a few vague notions that modernists pushing the Spirit of Vatican II claim are binding upon Catholics by conciliar declaration from the council. The first is a very fuzzy one – that Catholics are to adjust themselves to and accommodate the modern world and modernity (from their modernist interpretation of Gaudium et spes – the “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World“). The Church will be updated to modernity and the ideology of progress, particularly in the realm of liturgical music and sacred architecture, as transmitted by progressive modernist publications like Commonweal and The National Catholic Reporter. The second is that the message of the Church primarily concerns economics and progressive social policy in the immanent, secular order. We’re not primarily in the business of saving souls or spiritual matters of the hereafter, but in the business of pushing secular socialism, global warming hysteria, class politics, women’s rights, multiculturalism, inculturation, ecumenical dialogue with Gandhi and Nelson Mandela followers, etc.
    The third is that the Mass is no longer to be a solemn occasion of prayer and Communion focused on supernatural salvation but a “gathering” or pep rally of the people assembled in the mode of ecclesial participatory democracy for consciousness raising on social justice issues and whatever progressive opinions the liberal social activist gay man pretending to be the priest decides are relevant that Sunday. Altar rails are removed, tabernacles are relocated, traditional art discouraged (i.e., iconoclastic wreckovation). This vulgar iconoclastic Puritanism replaces the traditional Catholic faith. Wherever Vatican II is in full force these three propositions of the modernist neo-Gnostic heresy are presented as if they were mandated by the Gospel. It gets a little unclear where or when the opinions of conciliar periti and modernist Vatican bureaucrats became the Gospel, but modernists never think very clearly and there is plenty of room left to make things up as they are going along with the new modernist clericalism. Hence, the confusion about modernist opinions now being articles of faith.

  3. I am an atheist, and I hope that the SSPX does NOT “reconcile” with Rome. Post Vatican II Catholicism makes no sense, is full of contradictions, and if there is a God, he cannot possibly be behind anything in the Papacy of Francis. A Perfect Being, if there is one, would never contradict himself or his so-called “revealed truths”. The natural law, if it exists, must be immutable, and, hence, unchangeable. I would say of Francis’ theology that it is so bad that it is “not even wrong”.

  4. In the above article,it says that that Pope “approved” what Cardinal Muller wrote. Muller wrote it. The Pope passively went along with it, accepting his word as to what is doctrine, since Muller is the “Doctrinal Chief” and is more specialized in this subject matter. But we all know that Mueller is a hard-headed mule. It doesn’t Pope Francis won’t go along with a different interpretation under Cardinal Ladria, new head of the CDF.

  5. Küng Fu: Modernism the Legend Continues





    Master Po: Ah, Grasshopper, if an Enneagram counselor figures out Bergoglio’s Enneagram number and proclaims it in the middle of a forest and no modernist or phenomenologist is around, does it make a sound?





    Kwai Chang: I cannot be certain of this, Master. For I have not yet ascended to ontological certitude and the enlightenment of a Buddhist master. If you must persist in this passive-aggressive posture of presenting annoying and puzzling Zen kōans, is this because you are hiding your joy?



    Master Po: The cycle of Samsāra, dharma, karma, and enlightenment takes many forms, Grasshopper. In time, after meditating and reflecting on these mysteries, including the enigma of the Enneagram, you will snatch the pebble from my hand and wander among the deserts, saloons, and mining towns of the American West, using your passive-aggressive Taoist and Zen skills on vulgar ruffians of the Kali Yuga, whose limited reason is challenged by too much whiskey and the crass materialism of late modernity, as imagined by liberal script writers. Until then, we shall have much to learn….



    Hans Küng: I would like to address that…



    Father Mulcahy, S.J.: Oh, yes, very good. I was wondering when we would hear from Father Küng. It is after all, Küng Fu….



    Spicoli: Whoa, what’s an Enneagram, dude?



  6. “It Ain’t Necessarily So”


    www.youtube.com/embed/lBOgH5f36cQ

    and …

    null

    If as Hilary White’s friend at the Gregorian University in Rome says, Archbishop Ladaria is “apparently fairly open to the SSPX,” His Excellency could scuttle this arrangement which would scuttle any possible agreement between the Vatican and the SSPX.

    Cardinal Muller as CDF Prefect has been the “fly in the ointment” who at the last moment has “gummed up the works” of any agreement by his adding V2-acceptance conditions, as he in 2012 when the Vatican and the SSPX were negotiating a similar agreement, which Bishop Fellay rejected because of such last-moment additions by the Ecclesia Dei Commission (chaired by then-Archbishop Muller) and accepted by B16.


      • www.youtube.com/embed/jDK7sRLn-3E

        Hi de Ho Man

        Cab Calloway

        The hi-de-ho man, that’s me
        How’d you like to blow your top
        Dig yourself some fine ree-bop
        Hi-de-hi, he-de-he
        Oh, the hi-de-ho man, that’s me
        Hi-de hi-de hi-de-hi (Hi-de hi-de hi-de-hi)
        Hey-de hey-de hey-de hey (Hey-de hey-de hey-de hey)
        He-de he-de he-de he (He-de he-de he-de he)
        Hi-de hi-de hi-de-hi (Hi-de hi-de hi-de-hi)
        Say I hepped’em in London,
        I hepped’em in Holland
        I hepped’em in gay Paris
        Yes sirree, yes sirree
        Oh the hi-de-ho man, that’s me
        Hi-de hi-de hi-de-hi (Hi-de hi-de hi-de-hi)
        Hey-hey de hey-de (Hey-hey)
        He-he-de he-de he (He-de he-de he)
        Hi-de hi-de hi-de-hi (Hi-de hi-de hi-de-hi)
        Say, Jack, ain’t you glad you dug my jive
        Looky here, Mitch hand me over that ripe, greasy five
        Hi-de-ho, he-de-he
        Oh the hi-de-ho man, that’s me
        Hi-de hi-de hi-de-hi (Hi-de hi-de hi-de-hi)
        Hey-hey de hey-de (Hey-hey de hey-de)
        He-he-de he-de he (He-he-de he-de he)
        Hi-de hi-de hi-de-hi ((Hi-de hi-de hi-de-hi)
        Say, Jack, be solid and mellow, be a real groovy fella
        And your gonna be just about as sharp as me
        Yes sirree, yes sirree
        Oh the hi-de-ho man, that’s me
        Hi-de-hi (Hi-de-hi)
        Hey-de-hey (Hey-de-hey)
        Oh-ho-de-ho-de (Ho-de-ho-de)
        Hi-de hi-de hi-de-hi (Hi-de hi-de hi-de-hi)
        The hi-de-ho man, that’s me

  7. Naive Bishop Fellay Disappointed

    en.news
    7/5/17

    During lunch, after the priestly ordinations in Ecône, Switzerland, on June 29 naive Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, expressed his disappointment about the conditions Rome suddenly set for a reconciliation.

    According to Medias-Presse, he spoke about a “heavy blow” adding, “It is like in the Game of the Goose. We had almost reached the goal, and then we fell back to square one. Now everything is on the ground, we have to start all over again.”

    • Why should Bishop Fellay not start over again?

      After the collapse of the 2012 talks, His Excellency started again when the head of the Church changed from B16 to Francis.

      Now that the head of the CDF has changed to someone who is “apparently fairly open to the SSPX,”
      the bishop may have better luck this time.

  8. We support peaceful debate and the protection of all human souls according to natural law and the Golden Rule.

    The invocations of Jeff Spicoli and Kwai Chang Caine are based on the greatest respect for the dramatic and comedic skills of Mr. Penn and Mr. Carradine. All parodies and satirical narratives are for humorous and educational purposes only, in the tradition of mimesis along Aristotelian lines and the hermeneutics of Erich Auerbach, Northrop Frye, J.R. R. Tolkien, et. al. We respect and observe free speech and the freedom of the press within the libertarian guidelines of the Constitution in the pursuit of truth. When in doubt Hans Küng and Father Mulcahy, S.J., keep us in line bouncing back and forth between Gaudium et spes and Aristotelian-Thomistic natural law. Boris and Natasha, of course, will claim diplomatic immunity.

    Or as Walter Lippmann might have asked Gilligan, Ginger, Mr. Spock, and Maxwell Smart in The Public Philosophy, “who guards the guardians?”

  9. SSPX: Back To Normal (Hopefully) And Two Words About The Future

    JUL 7, 2017
    Posted by Mundabor

    It’s time…

    As it is now known, the CDF has recently (that is: when still badly led by Cardinal Müller) sent a letter to the SSPX in which the Vatican states exactly the same conditions for the reconciliation with the SSPX that caused the last attempt to fail. Besides secundary matters, the crux of the question was the acceptance of V II from the part of the SSPX, an acceptance on which the Vatican now officially still insists.

    Predictably, the SSPX has refused, and this is the end of that.

    One would be tempted to think that the Vatican had no intention to allow an unconditioned reconciliation with the SSPX in the first place, and Francis may well have had this intention from day one. However, it would be naive to think that the SSPX embarked in the new negotiations without a reasonable hope of success.

    What I think gas happened is that a not irrelevant franction of Vatican functionaries and dignitaries has been pushing for an unconditioned reconciliation with the SSPX, prospecting to the Unholy Father its advantages in terms of “diversity acceptance” and with the possible further benefit of the now “reconciled” SSPX avoiding calling Francis “Modernist through and through”. Francis has either weighted his options during this time or, more probably, told his people that he was doing so in order to enjoy a more prudent SSPX for as long as practicable. This is a Jesuit, which in modern parlance is synonymous with “atheist, possibly homosexual, church-hating devious liar”. It is, therefore, more reasonable to assume that Francis was lying all the time rather than to charitably imagine that he really gave the thought of unconditioned reconciliation a honest chance and the benefit of a long reflection.

    So: what changes now? I don’t know because I don’t know to what extent the upper caeli said of the SSPX believe – at this point naively, if you ask me – that some small door could still be open.

    In my eyes, however, something very important should change.

    1) The SSPX should stop focusing on a reconciliation that will clearly not happen during this pontificate at the very least, and start firing from all cannons at the heretical work of subversion we are witnessing every day.

    2) In a less immediate perspective, the SSPX should wonder whether the times do not call for a more aggressive leadership than the one of Bishop Fellay. I am not doubting the personal integrity of the Bishop, but one who states that a reconciled SSPX would avoid criticising too loud or too harshly (I have written about it) is just too much on the soft side, and in my eyes not good enough for the present time.

    There is a time for peace and a time for war. This is a time for war.

    I am not sure Bishop Fellay is the best man to lead it.

Leave a Reply