SSPX Bp. Fellay speaks about their General Chapter, the new CDF Prefect, unity with Rome (unresolved)

At the site of the SSPX DICI, there is an interview with the SSPX Superior Bp. Bernard Fellay about the recently concluded General Chapter (which is a gathering in which the participants discuss policies, internal matters, etc.).

Read it all, but here are some highlights. First, Fellay said that they were able to get through their agenda and that they dealt with hard questions and clear up misunderstandings. He distanced the Society from “all those who have tried to take advantage of the situation in order to drive a wedge turning Society members against each other.”. Also, he said they will be able to communicate a response to Rome “very soon”.

Interview with Bishop Bernard Fellay on the occasion of the General Chapter (July 16, 2012)

[...]

DICI : What are your thoughts on the appointment of Archbishop Mueller as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?

Bishop Fellay : It is nobody’s secret that the former bishop of Regensburg, where our seminary of Zaitzkofen is located, does not like us. After the courageous action of Benedict XVI on our behalf, in 2009, he refused to cooperate and treated us like if we were lepers! He is the one who stated that our seminary should be closed and that our students should go to the seminaries of their dioceses of origin, adding bluntly that “the four bishops of the SSPX should resign”! (cf. interview with Zeit Online, 8 May 2009).  [While clearly the Prefect of the CDF has a great deal of influence in the dealings of the Congregation, it is also the role of the Prefect to snap to attention when the Roman Pontiff tells him to do something.  At that point, the Prefect of any Congregation puts aside his personal positions and does what the Pope says.  The role of the Prefect in the CDF is not to function so much as a theologian, but rather to make the trains run on time.  Moreover, much of the work will have to be done by the newly appointed VP of the Pont. Comm. "Ecclesia Dei".]

For us what is more important and more alarming is his leading role at the head of the Congregation for the Faith, which must defend the Faith with the proper mission of fighting doctrinal errors and heresy. Numerous writings of Bishop Mueller on the real transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, on the dogma of Our Lady’s virginity, on the need of conversion of non-Catholics to the Catholic Church… are questionable, to say the least!  [I don't buy that.] There is no doubt that these texts would have been in the past the object of an intervention of the Holy Office, [I wonder.  And this is entirely hypothetical.] which now is the very Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith presided by him.

DICI : How do you see the future of the SSPX? In the midst of its fight for the Church’s Tradition, will the SSPX keep to the same knife’s edge?

Bishop Fellay : More than ever we must maintain the knife’s edge traced by our venerated founder. [But, dear Bishop Fellay, will the SSPX do that in clear unity with the Roman Pontiff or from the margin?] It is not easy to keep, yet absolutely vital for the Church and the treasure of its Tradition. We are Catholic, we recognise the pope and the bishops, [Recognize, but don't submit to.] but above all else we must keep intact the Faith, source of God’s grace. Therefore we must avoid all that may endanger the Faith, without trying to become a replacement for the Church, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman. Far from us the idea of establishing a parallel Church, of exercising a parallel magisterium!  [Tell that to the Magisterium of Nuns!]

This was well explained by Archbishop Lefebvre more than thirty years ago: he did not wish to hand down anything else but what he himself had received from the Church of two millennia. This is what we want also, following his lead, so that we may effectively help “to restore all things in Christ.” [The motto of St. Pius X.]It is not us who will break with Rome, the Eternal Rome, [Sigh. "Eternal Rome".  There's your "hermeneutic of rupture and discontinuity" in another guise.] mistress of wisdom and truth. Nevertheless, it would be unrealistic to deny that there is a modernist and liberal influence in the Church since the Second Vatican Council and its subsequent reforms. In a word, we maintain the faith in the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and in the Church founded upon Peter, but we refuse all which contributes to the “self-demolition of the Church” acknowledged by Paul VI himself since 1968. May Our Lady, Mother of the Church, hasten the day of its authentic restoration! [May she hasten your submission so that you can raise the roof and do your work within clear unity!]

I was struck by his affirmation of the Church, and the Roman Pontiff, though his “Eternal Rome” smacks of a distinction that suggests they are in their own rupture and discontinuity with the very “Eternal Rome” they profess.  You can go off the road and into the ditch on either side of the road, after all.

But what really struck me in that was yesterday’s Gospel for Mass, which all of the members of the SSPX would have heard or read.

(Jesus said,) “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father in heaven shall enter the kingdom of heaven.”  Matthew 7:21.

They say again and again, “Your Holiness, Your Holiness… Rome… Rome… ” but they also need to act on what they say.  They need to come into clear unity with the Vicar of Christ… the one who stands in Christ’s place … vicarius… in this world in our Church.

I have been hopeful that the whole or most of the SSPX will come in.  If they decide not, I hope the Holy See offers the canonical solution they have ready for those who would want to seek clear unity with Peter.  The sacrifice and the transition would be very hard for the individuals, but I would welcome any of them that made the choice.  Still, my prayer remains, and I ask our Lady of Mount Carmel today to help bring it about for all of them.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Benedict XVI, Brick by Brick, Our Catholic Identity, Pope of Christian Unity, SSPX, The Drill, The future and our choices and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to SSPX Bp. Fellay speaks about their General Chapter, the new CDF Prefect, unity with Rome (unresolved)

  1. MarkA says:

    Father,
    You comment “… it is also the role of the Prefect to snap to attention when the Roman Pontiff tells him to do something.” With all due respect, Father, there is considerable, reasonable speculation that is not what Cardinal Levada and others did on June 13 (see yesterday’s “a guest-post by Côme de Prévigny” at Rorate Caeli). Per Rorate, “And the Pope already took it into consideration several weeks ago because he changed the interlocutors of the SSPX, admitting that the previous ones had failed on that famous June 13. By submitting the affair to an Archbishop Vice-President with whom he has direct communication, and not anymore to a Monsignor secretary, he reshapes relations with the Society on different bases. ”

    At this point, we don’t know what actually transpired over the past month and a half. I continue my prayers for the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the Sacred Heart of Jesus and His Mystical Body, the Holy Catholic Church.

  2. Rushintuit says:

    “Numerous writings of Bishop Mueller…are questionable, to say the least.”

    Didn’t Our Lady of La Salette predict that Rome would lose the faith?

  3. Tim Ferguson says:

    Didn’t Our Lord promise that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church until the end of time?

  4. jhayes says:

    At this point, we don’t know what actually transpired over the past month and a half.

    I agree. That’s why I don’t give any credence to these claims from Côme de Prévigny’s post yesterday and other earlier posts:

    1. That the draft presented by ++Levada last month introduced new issues that had not come up before (rather than simply rejecting some changes +Fellay had proposed in his draft)

    2. That these new issues were introduced by ++Levada on his own initiative without the Pope’s knowledge.

    3. That the Pope fired ++Levada for doing this and appointed +Müller and +diNoia to take over the discussions with the SSPX because he felt they would be more faithful in carrying out his wishes (despite the fact that +Fellay says that +Müller “ne nous apprécie pas.”)

    Since the drafts exchanged by +Fellay and ++Levada have not been released, there is no evidence available to support any of hese claims. However, they are stated on some websites as if they are truths which everyone should believe.

  5. Sixupman says:

    The CofE are famous for having clerics and bishops who do not believe in God.

    We have clerics who not only do not believe in but openly espouse views contrary to both Magisterium and CCC.

    I appreciate two wrongs make not a right, but the angst demonstrated against SSPX is ridiculous. The CDF, et al, should remove the plank from their own eyes.

    Perhaps Vatican II should be declared Ex Cathedra a pre-requisite for the The Faith? Until then, one would have thought one could think of Vatican II in the terms of personal opinion.

    Is anyone stating that Vatican II has the same status as Transubstantiation or the Virginity of The Blessed Virgin – which, inter alia, are definitely pre-requisite to being a Catholic.

  6. acardnal says:

    I just don’t understand how if the writings, words and actions of Bishop Mueller (now Prefect of the CDF) “on the real transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, on the dogma of Our Lady’s virginity, on the need of conversion of non-Catholics to the Catholic Church… are questionable, to say the least”, AND the LCWR, AND heretical “catholic” professors in Catholic universities, AND some unorthodox bishops, and some priests can remain within the good graces of the Catholic Church, why can’t the SSPX, which has some valid criticisms of the Second Vatican Council and the NO/OF Mass, remain within the Church too???

  7. Supertradmum says:

    I am praying very hard for this and my own personal future is connected with this decision. It will be a great personal sacrifice for me if they do not come in.

  8. albinus1 says:

    I too look forward to the the reconciliation of the SSPX. But it has occurred to me that one reason why Pope Benedict has worked so hard to reconcile the SSPX is that he realizes that his successor might not care. Different popes have different priorities. If this situation is not regularized during this pontificate, the next pope may simply tell the SSPX to get with the program or get out. Or if not the next pope, then the one after that. I think there is a window here, but the window won’t remain open forever. I hope the SSPX realizes that. Just as there eventually arose a Pharaoh who knew not Joseph, we will one day have a pope whose attention will be focused on other issues and who will simply have no interest in continuing to talk with an SSPX that insists on setting conditions for its submission.

  9. albinus1 says:

    PS — And, in no more than a few decades from now, we will have a pope who has no personal memory of the pre-Conciliar Church.

  10. nanetteclaret says:

    Since I am a convert of only a few years, I really don’t know that much about all the issues. I made the decision to come into the Church and follow the Holy Father and the Magisterium, even though the Church isn’t perfect. Neverthess, Christ Himself said, “By their fruits ye shall know them,” and some of the fruits of Vatican II certainly seem to be rotten: communion in the hand, Mass facing the people, lack of reverence and belief in Transubstantiation, dissendent religious orders, clergy, and colleges, tolerance of scandalous politicians, etc., etc. There are so many rotten fruits and very, very few good fruits. (I’m guessing that there are a few good fruits, but I can’t think of any.) Our Lord said that a good tree cannot produce bad fruit and that a bad tree cannot produce good fruit. I guess I just don’t understand how the obvious stinky, rotten fruits can be ignored (or worse, be told that they are actually good and wonderful) and how the existence of the bad tree continues to be justified. It does not make sense logically. I guess all I have to say is, “Holy Father, chop down that tree!”

  11. pmullane says:

    This is heading in a disappointing direction, but for the Lord anything is possible, so All I can do is pray and trust.
    The SSPX supporters would do well to give up playing on the ‘whataboutarry’ regarding priests, bishops etc who are in good standing with the church but make heterodox statements, violate rubrics etc. this situation is nothing to do with that, they need to decide whether they want to be in full, visible communion with Peter and Christs holy Church. They need the church more than the Church will need them. This position of being half in and half out of the church can not continue, and will have to be resolved one way or the other. I doubt any Pope in our lifetimes will go as far to bring them back as this dear Pope has. I pray they do not grieve his heart.

  12. acardnal says:

    I think, among other things, the SSPX does not want to be silenced but is asking for the freedom to continue criticizing the heretical positions they see in contradiction with the Church’s Tradition just as the current day heretics of bishops, priests, professors, and canonically recognized structures, e.g. the LCWR, have the freedom to criticize the Church’s orthodox positions regarding priesthood, homosexual marriage, divorce and remarriage, etc.

  13. GregH says:

    Long Skirts…will you please comment on all of this Rome-SSPX business please (and not with a poem this time).

  14. Suburbanbanshee says:

    Right now, the SSPX has the freedom of being almost totally ignored, while allowing the folks they don’t like, the freedom of being heard. If they want to be heard, they should come back in.

  15. Pingback: SSPX and Identity | Catholic Bandita

  16. LaSalette was mentioned in a reply. Just to clarify so no one is led astray concerning the statement that, “Rome will lose it’s faith”, I felt the need to post the facts here. The first paragraph will give better understanding to what the Catholic Encyclopedia says in the second paragraph.

    “CLARIFICATION: To circumvent any misunderstanding – let me make it clear that I concur with the Bishop of Grenoble’s decision regarding the original apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary at La Salette in 1846, that the apparition is “worthy of belief.” The intent of these articles is to demonstrate that a) the true message” and/or b) “the secret” of La Salette does NOT form an integral part of that Bishop’s (or the Church’s) approval. The false message or secret suggests that the BVM prophecies that “Rome will lose the Faith…etc.”. This rumor is an 1879 corruption of the original and legitimate message recorded in 1851. This corrupted 1879 “message” and/or “secret” has been absolutely condemned by the Church. The official condemnation culminated with the false message of LaSalette being placed on the Index of Forbidden Books, the questionable Imprimatur of 1879 supposedly granted by the Bishop of Lecce notwithstanding. – F. John Loughnan

    From the Catholic Encyclopedia

    “…These two secrets, which neither Mélanie or Maximin ever made known to each other, were sent by them in 1851 to Pius IX on the advice of Mgr. de Bruillard. It is unknown what impressions these mysterious revelations made on the pope, for on this point there were two versions diametrically opposed to each other. Maximin’s secret is not known, for it was never published. Mélanie’s was inserted in its entirety in brochure which she herself had printed in 1879 at Lecce, Italy, with the approval of the bishop of that town. A lively controversy followed as to whether the secret published in 1879 was identical with that communicated to Pius IX in 1851, or in its second form it was not merely a work of the imagination. The latter was the opinion of wise and prudent persons, who were persuaded that a distinction must be made between the two Mélanies, between the innocent and simple voyante of 1846 and the visionary of 1879, whose mind had been disturbed by reading apocalyptic books and the lives of illuminati….
    The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX
    Copyright (c) 1910″

    More can be found here
    http://jloughnan.tripod.com/salquote.htm

  17. Father Z, separate from the SSPX, I have to say that I do have doubts about the current head of the CDF. Without diving into the wide range of issues regarding the Blessed Sacrament and the everlasting, physical and spiritual Virginity of Our Lady, I read a quote by him online that Evangelical Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, by virtue of valid Trinitarian Baptism, form a united, visible Church of Christ. I am not the one to pronounce on this, but I can say that that smacks of heterodoxy. All you have to read is Lumen Gentium and Dominus Iesus, which very clearly teach that there is one visible, physical subsistence of the Catholic Church, and that is the Church ruled by the Successor of St. Peter and the Bishops in communion with him. No ecclesial community that is not ruled by Pope Benedict XVI or the valid Bishop of the community’s territory ought to be considered a valid part of the one, visible Church.

    If that was a valid quote by the head of the CDF, then I have to say his theological opinions are indeed questionable. [I'd get on the phone to Benedict XVI right now and tell him he doesn't understand what kind of man should be running the CDF.]

  18. acardnal says:

    I mean this respectfully to all, but sometimes I wonder if anyone who is younger than say 55 really has any understanding of what the Catholic Church was like before the Second Vatican Council. All those younger than say 55 years of age only know the Novus Ordo and “Reconciliation” and the priest celebrating Mass in the vernacular facing the congregation and so on. That’s all they really know.

    To those of us older than 55, V2 brought about VERY radical changes not to mention the new Mass in 1970!! Consequently, the Church suffered the effects: low Mass attendance on Sundays, no more Latin, loss of seminarians, no one going to Confession, priests and sisters leaving the Church in huge numbers, loss of reverence and solemnity at Mass, and sadly most Catholics do not know the faith, the catechism, at all. This is a great sadness to me.

  19. Geoffrey says:

    Our Lord did indeed promise that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church until the end of time… that includes before, during, and after Vatican II! This appears to be “same old, same old” from the SSPX. I continue to pray for their conversion of heart and subsequent canonical recognition.

  20. The Cobbler says:

    “I mean this respectfully to all, but sometimes I wonder if anyone who is younger than say 55 really has any understanding of what the Catholic Church was like before the Second Vatican Council. All those younger than say 55 years of age only know the Novus Ordo and “Reconciliation” and the priest celebrating Mass in the vernacular facing the congregation and so on. That’s all they really know.”
    You mean everything from reprints of the Baltimore Catechism to the Mass still said in the extraordinary form to the parishes that use the Novus Ordo but in Latin and have the old-fashioned screen confessionals with normal penances like saying a decade of the rosary to the discussions and examples flying about here at this blog… aren’t reaching anyone under fifty-five? Or am I missing something? (I ask that in all seriousness, because it wouldn’t be the first time something that sounded to me unrealistically pessimistic and mildly offensive was in fact misunderstood on my part.)

  21. acardnal says:

    Sorry, Cobbler, but those examples are few and far between. I wish it was more prevalent.

  22. LouiseA says:

    SemperFiCatholic,
    Thank you for bringing up the fact that the later versions of Our Lady’s message at La Salette were condemned and put on the Index. These later versions are fabricated exaggerations. Our Lady never said that “Rome will lose the Faith and become the Seat of the Anti-Christ”.
    The original versions by the children were discovered in 1999 and published in 2002 in a book by Fathers René Laurentin and Michel Corteville. Here is a link where you will find images of the original messages of Melanie and Maximim:
    http://www.sspxasia.com/Newsletters/2003/Jul-Dec/Secret_of_La_Salette.htm

  23. acardnal says:

    I went to the Sacrament of Penance this past Saturday. I think five people went. When I was a youth in city of maybe 24,000, there were two or three priests hearing Confessions on Saturday afternoon. Long lines in each. And Mass was celebrated the same way at every parish. Hell was spoken of from the pulpit. I remember the pews being full and parishioners standing in the aisles at Sunday Mass with NO A/C , only fans blowing on you. My sister often fainted. :-)

    I used to live in the diocese of Arlington, Virginia. Very orthodox and many good priests. But still . . . most parishioners did not go to Confession or know anything about the faith, the catechism. They were nominal Catholics. . . probably for the sake of their kids.

  24. acardnal says:

    And, Cobbler, no matter how many of the “followers” on this blog are good, practicing Catholics, one cannot ignore the fact that only about 30 percent – depending on the poll you use – of baptized Catholics in the USA are attending Mass EVERY Sunday compared to 80 percent before Vatican 2. That means that objectively speaking, 70 percent of American Catholics are in mortal sin, violating the 1st and 3rd Commandments. Why? Because of poor post-V2 catechesis, poor preaching, a lack of teaching on what the holy Mass is, these Catholics probably do not know they are even committing mortal sin. They probably do not believe in hell. Sad. Not what you would see prior to V2 in my experience. V2 tore the Church apart and that is why the SSPX is there.

  25. The Cobbler says:

    @acardnal: But none of that about fewness or the general rule and statistics is what you said initially. You said you wonder if there even is anyone under 55 who “has any understanding” of what the Church used to be like. I was responding, in fact, to your blanket statement that anyone under fifty only knows the Novus Ordo complete with vernacular and versus populum (and “Reconciliation”, which, frankly, isn’t a precise label — there’s a legitimate meaning behind it that need not be tied to anything that changed in practice in the aftermath of Vatican II). Maybe I’m splitting hairs over few vs. none, but my point is simply, as an under-55, please don’t insult me by assuming ignorance on our part as a rule. ;^) Or, if you must default to an assumption of ignorance, at least entertain the notion that not all of us are quite difficult to enlighten if only the facts are well cited and the reasoning made clear. I do believe Fr. Z’s blog is as popular as it is as much because people who don’t know want to learn as because people who do know want to teach — and even if that popularity pales statistically*, it is nonetheless entirely real and valid.

    (*For comparison, if we’re going to go the route of comparison, the president of the US, arguably the most high-profile job there is, is only liked by about half the country at best; hence, even relative irrelevance may be relatively irrelevant! Okay, that was not one of my clearer statements, was it? Still working on that.)

    And, to reinforce what I’m trying to say somewhat, if you mean simply that nobody under fifty or so has direct experience of what the Church as a whole was like before Vatican II, I would agree with everything except the use of the term “understand” to refer to this experience, since understanding may be gained in many ways and not only by direct experience of that which is understood.

    (As an aside on the drastic change that occured during/after Vatican II, it’s also been noted before that Vatican II cannot have come out of nowhere, that either the changes, for good or ill, had been brewing already or else they came in some way or another from the seemingly stable Church status quo it tore apart. And now, because I’m not trying to pick on any of the eras prior to Vatican II, I shall end that note in a truly irrelevant tangent: “Because the status is not quo!” ~Dr. Horrible)

  26. AnnAsher says:

    It sounds like from the statement ” it will not be us who breaks …” that Bp Fellay does not expect reunion but expects “Rome” to cut them off while in his mind he remains in union with Eternal Rome. I continue to have a nagging feeling he may be right.? I am under 55. I was taught to be a Protestant catholyc hetetyc. I’ve discovered the true faith but it took an extra 10 years! I see readily how souls have been sacrificed on the altar of false ecumenism.
    I think the SSPX is often taken as senselessly stubborn, arrogant, unruly. But ask yourself what would you do of you really truly deeply believed as they? Our Lady does warn of the loss of the faith; of enemies within; of dark days ahead. What if they are right?

  27. jhayes says:

    I think, among other things, the SSPX does not want to be silenced but is asking for the freedom to continue criticizing the heretical positions they see in contradiction with the Church’s Tradition

    acardnal, according to La-Croix, the French Catholic newspaper, on the day +Fellay met with ++Levada, the Vatican rejected +Fellay’s draft revision mentioning “errors of the Council.” I don’t know if La-Croix is correct about that, but I believe Benedict’s view is that there are no “errors” in the documents of Vatican II even though there can be legitimate discussion of how best to read the VII documents and older documents together to avoid conflict. As he has stated, this requires distinguishing between principles and contingent applications of those principles in the older documents.

    Restaient cependant des formulations jugées non acceptables par Rome, notamment la mention des « erreurs du concile » : en clair, la Fraternité peut avoir des réserves sur tel ou tel point de Vatican II (liberté de conscience, dialogue interreligieux, œcuménisme) mais elle ne peut parler d’« erreurs du concile ».

    FULL ARTICLE

  28. Cavaliere says:

    Nevertheless, it would be unrealistic to deny that there is a modernist and liberal influence in the Church since the Second Vatican Council and its subsequent reforms.

    Dear Bishop, Weren’t there modernist and liberal influences in the Church prior to Vatican II? In fact didn’t Pope St. Pius X write an encyclical condemning modernism and wasn’t it rampant in the Church? Still I don’t remember reading about any groups bailing on “eternal Rome” because of it. As also mentioned above the liberal or progressive voices that were at Vatican II did not sprout up over night. They existed and were working on their agenda more or less openly during the halcyon days when Churchs were filled, Mass was in Latin and so on. Clearly the post-Vatican II world has not been well catechized and that is a problem. However, pre-Vatican II Catholics were supposedly well catechized having been drilled in the Baltimore Catechism. But why did they leave then?

    @acardnal why can’t the SSPX, which has some valid criticisms of the Second Vatican Council and the NO/OF Mass, remain within the Church too???

    Because the SSPX chooses not to. And no matter how many times they repeat the mantra, “we accept the authority of the Pope,” when the rubber meets the proverbial road, they really don’t.

  29. Dear Father, there are many things I don’t know or understand, and I admit, as I did in my original post, that I am not one to pronounce judgment on that which the Holy Father does, it is not anywhere near my place. It isn’t even my place to really give commentary on the issues of the day, like you do in your great blog. I don’t presume any arrogance, I was just saying that it is not absurd to question the man’s statements, and was expressing my puzzlement at the appointment; I truly am confused, and I think a lot the canonical faithful, not just the SSPX, must be confused by his quotes and his position. That’s all I meant to say :) God bless, Father, Memorae for your intentions.

    [Thank you for the prayer. Our modern, information age has been great for putting lots of good resources into peoples hands. The liturgical movement and the reforms of the Council helped people understand more things about Mass. The side-effect is that many people now think they are qualified to sit in judgement as theologians when hearing or reading soundbites presented through the media. I think we ought to cut the Holy Father a little slack. IF you trust Pope Benedict, trust him. If you don't, griping about him on this blog doesn't take you very far for very long. And this is not just aimed at you, by the way. Lots of people here could use the reminder that when it comes to these high level decisions, they don't have either good information or clear insight into the Pope's thought.]

  30. Disobedience everywhere, even if what Bp. Fellay says is true. Wish he would be the better example.

    Suppose for a moment that the bishops during Vatican II intended precisely what happened after Vatican II, that Kung, et al., fully and truthfully represent the intent of a great many bishops. Still there is the matter of what was actually written down, which is what we actually have to work from.

    (I imagine it’s like that movie Liar, Liar where the main character tries so hard to say he holds a red pen but it’s really blue. He … just … can’t … force … out … the words.)

    Or is this interpretation impossible? It may well be if the infallibility of the college of bishops depemds ensures the infallibility of the intent of the bishops, for an analogous principle governs the truth of divine revelation. (What the author intended to convey is always true in addition to what the Divine Author intended to convey.)

    But is the Jim Carrey thesis of Vatican II potentially kosher?

  31. M.D. says:

    Up to this point, Bp. Fellay has been the most reasonable. Hope resided with him to turn back towards full unity. Yet by his current rhetoric he sounds as though he may be getting dragged down by the weight of dissent within the group.

  32. Rushintuit says:

    Our Lady of La Salette also predicted that, Priests would become cesspools of impurity. We can all rest easier knowing that the message of La Salette was corrupted.

  33. rachmaninov says:

    To any members of the SSPX who read this blog-please reflect on these words of St Pius X “When we speak of the Vicar of Christ, we must not quibble, we must obey … the one hope, the one remedy, is the Pope.” Tradition did not end in 1962, it is alive now and will remain so until the Lord returns. St Pius X meant those words not for himself but for all future pontiffs. Fight for the truth where it counts, within not without. That is where the difference can be made.

  34. albizzi says:

    @JonathanCatholic
    You said about Bp Mueller, head of the CDF: “I read a quote by him online that Evangelical Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, by virtue of valid Trinitarian Baptism, form a united, visible Church of Christ”.
    If the Evangelical protestants, who are true heretics purportedly form with the RCC a “united visible Church of Christ”, Mgr Mueller would be well inspired to welcome the SSPX back in the Church’s womb without any condition. Don’t you think that this would bring more coherence in the Vatican’s stance?

  35. albizzi says:

    @Cavaliere:
    All the modernist priests who were ordained before the Pope Paul VI abolished the “Antimodernist Oath” were and are (for those who are still alive) true perjurers.
    They will be accountable of their betrayal before God’s Court.

  36. dspecht says:

    “..are questionable, to say the least! [I don't buy that.]“ [Fellay, Fr.Z.]

    You know my answer yet: That´s not a question of buying it or not but of facts.

    If you read the sentences of Müller – and of course in context! – , and also whole his work, there remains no doubt that his teachings are “questionable” (at best, to say the least), deviating from traditional concepts resp. meanings.

    His teaching re virg. in birth is (at least) MATERIALLY heretic.
    I argued for this some days ago on wdtprs: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/07/new-prefect-at-cdf-gerhard-ludwig-muller-bishop-of-regensburg/
    So I won´t repeat all of it here. See also there.

    Let me point only to two things:

    1) Re Virg. i. p. the text of Müller itselfe is so clear that I can not grasp that anybody who sticks to the traditional meaning of the dogma, i.e. the real, bodily virginity and integrity in birth, does not see the conradiction of Müller´s words:
    the trad. concept is that the birth was physiologically not a pure natural one, but miraculous, extraordinary, that there were some extraordinary anomlalies. Well, the details which and how are not clearly de fide, but there must be generally some physiological anomalies, extraordinaries.

    But Müller says exactly the opposite: No, the doctrin is “not re extraordinary physiological anomalies in the natural process of giving birth”. Thus if it is only the natural process, without physiological anomalies, without extraordinaries – then this is the exact contradiction of the traditional content, a re-interpretation that totally spiritualizes it.

    Well, if you yourselfe stick to this mere spiritual re-interpretation and think that it were sound, then of course you will defend Müller. Then we need to disucuss the content of the trad. concept. But you can not have both: Müller´s spiritual concept without corporal anomalies and miracles – and the traditional teaching that is exactly about the corporal extraordinary-anomalous, miraculous aspect.

  37. dspecht says:

    2) This analysis above it is not only mine or Fr. Gaudrons but just recently a theologian (for dogamtics) of the German university of Bonn (so a theologian in “good standing”, not sspx!) Dr. Obenauer, made essentially the same observation, see:
    http://www.katholisches.info/2012/07/11/jungfraulichkeit-in-der-geburt-zum-konflikt-zwischen-der-fsspx-und-erzbischof-muller/

    His analysis and conclusions are nearly identic with those of Fr. Gaudron. (Btw., for our German readers (so perhaps Imrahil – Hi!), there are more non-sspx sources and blogs in Germany that see this contradiction between Müller and the traditional concept re virg. in birth, so f.e. the comment of C.V. Oldendorf on the conservative, always loyal to the Pope kathnews.de – see there!)

    Obenauer – as Gaudron (in his new interview http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/07/no-backing-down-fr-gaudron-responds-to.html) – explains that in the 5oies and 6oies there was this first deviating from the traditional teaching, beginning with Mitterer (and his article), followed by Rahner – and followed then by Müller etc. Both, Obenauer as Gaudron, point to this historo-theological lineage Mitterer-Rahner-Müller (and also partly Ott. But, according to Gaudron, Ott quoted in some edd. Mitterer, but in the last edd. this quotes were supressed! Ott in fact defended the bodily-corporal aspect clearly, in contrast to the three aforementioned.)

    And – so Obenauer – Müller goes even further than Rahner. Perhaps we can not show Rahner clearly, unambiguosly excluding every corporal aspect, although his text is very tendentious, captiouse. So Rahner´s article is perhaps [only] “questionable” (at best / “to say the least”) – but Müller is much clearer: he excludes plainly “extraordinary physiological anomalies in the natural birth-process”, so is declaring the birth-process as totaly natural re physiology. There is only the spiritual (and moral) aspect of virg., no corporal-physilogical.

    Obenauer comes to the same conclusion as Gaudron of the sspx (quotes form Obenauer):
    daß Müller eine sachlich un­haltbare Position vertritt; und zwar was den verbindlichen Lehrbe­stand betrifft. – that Müller represents an objective-factually untenabel position; and namely re the binding/obligatory corpus of teaching.

    He does not want to call Müller a formal heretic or a heretic at all (as also Gaudron and Fellay avoid doing) – but holds that his views are matrially-objectively speaking (considering the content)
    against the binding Church-teaching of the dogma (and thus materialiter heretical — – “questionable, to say the least” is very euphemistic!).
    Obenauer is cautious – he is in danger of losing his job. But what he says is courageous and clear enough! He is very brave. He goes agains the whole establishment in saying that Müller objectively contradicts Tradition.

    Obenauer is one of the few thomistic, traditional minded university theolgians.
    All the mainstream is Rahnerian, anti-thomistic.
    (And thus heterodox themselfes or at least open to all kind of “questionable” utterances and opinions).

    And re the sentences of Müller re the Most Blessed Sacrament Obenauer againg is in accord with the sspx´s analysis of Gaudron. Obenauer:
    ” Auch in bezug auf die Thematik „Eucharistie und Realpräsenz“ reicht es nicht zu einem Häresievorwurf an Müller…. – Also re “Eucharisty and Real-presence” there is not enough evidence to call Müller an heretic.”
    But:
    ” … Müller´s utterances are in some peculiar limbo/abeyance between the binding wording of the dogma and some hermeneutic deviating from it.”
    The formulations of Müller “are anything but fortunate/succesful. For an adequate presentation of the Catholic dogma of the Eucharist in a manual/textbook it is not enough. For good measure the quoted formulation [of Müller] sounds in a barely deniable way tendentious. This impression is getting stronger when…. All in all it is in my opinion not unjust to question if Müller were not still conceiving the real-presence rather as some dynamical unity of Christ with the elements, to rather avoid the plain literal sense of the words “that is my Body”…”

    So at least “questionable” ["not unjust to question"] here again. This Obenauer is very courageous. Hoping he will not get any big problems for calling a spade a spade (or the emperor naked).

  38. Johnno says:

    My personal opinion is that Pope Benedict XVI picked this man, because he was simply the best of the lot he has to work with… which is depressing…

    Now I’m not one to jump the gun as to declaring whether Meuller is intentionally in error. I can speak for myself when I say that I too am guilty of having held theologically incorrect positions, not because I wanted to go intentionally against the Church, I simply had the wrong idea and perception about a great many things, and I learn as I go… Who knows? I might still be holding many incorrect theological positions now, but I won’t know until someone points them out…

    In either case, it’s be nice if we could get Meuller to clarify what he meant so we can know whether he will be humble to say, he might’ve got it wrong, or worded it incorrectly etc.

    Also from the point of view of the SSPX, for them it seems as if they are being ordered to obey error. Now we all know that we as Catholics must submit to the Pope, but for the sake of argument what if the Pope one day got it in his head to illicitly demand that we no longer profess Christ as being consubstantial with the Father? Obviously, like St. Paul, instructing St. Peter, we must not allow this, and the Church tells us we should ignore such absurd commands, even from the ecclesiastical authority. The SSPX are convinced, and they make convincing reasons why, there are some seemingly erroneous and contradictory things present in the documents of Vatican II, and simply want such things to be clarified or changed. And also their modest request is to simply be allowed to only fall back on the pre-VII councils, and we certainly can’t say those councils are wrong. And certainly of greater weight than VII which was not a dogmatic council and only restated previous council dogmas which I doubt the SSPX have any issues with.

    If VII is not as binding, then why not allow the SSPX to continue without having to submit to anything from VII? But it seems that those in the Vatican are trying to force VII upon them and care not a fit nor fiddle about addressing the concerns of the SSPX, nor allow them the open choice of not participating in the VII club. In fact commentators have noted that the entire goal of the SSPX talks from the Vatican’s point of view is to get them to uncritically accept VII. I don’t get the impression that Benedict XVI wants this… but rather the men he’s placed in charge have all seemed to go in that direction, and as mentioned before, for the SSPX it seems as if they are being forced to accept error, or else face ‘expulsion’ from the Church, though technically, if the SSPX are correct, then this would be like St. Peter excommunicating St. Paul for telling him that his refusal to eat with gentiles is and having them circumcised is an error, and Church law says such an excommunication is invalid and St. Paul would still be in communion.

    The solution lies with the Vaticans side, stop forcing the SSPX to accept VII whose status as a binding council is still the intense subject of debate today that no previous council suffers with regards to whether the Catholic world had to accept it as part of the deposit of faith in order to remain Catholic. Allow them to hold fast to the previous Church councils and teach as the early Church taught, which is all still valid. And with that out of the way, the serious task of clarifying VII can actually begin in earnest.

  39. moon1234 says:

    Why do we keep seeing the comment “The Lord promised to be with the Church until the end of time” and then equate that to Rome can do no wrong? The SSPX has valid criticisms. The Pope has NOT always resided in Rome. He has fled and been in exile with virtually none of the “visible” Church of the time.

    This is always a red herring to me. Our Lord said “You are Peter and on the Rock I will build my Church.” To me this means the “Church” will always be with the Pope, not necessarily with Rome or the “Bishops along with Peter”. It means PETER. This, I believe, is why the SSPX only pledge to the Pope and not to anyone else in the curia, especially when said people have espoused visible questionable positions of faith that they have not clarified.

    No where does our Lord promise that the Church, as an corporate institution would exist, nor that it would be free from error or can pronounce no error. We know from other heresies, such as the aryan heresy, that much of the church can be led astray and even break away.

    I believe the Pope WANTS reconcilliation. I also FIRMLY believe it will require a PERSONAL act on his part to make it happen. The current members of the various dicastries ALL seem to be opposed to what the Holy Father wants.

  40. FrJLP says:

    @johnno: You have no insight into the mind of the Holy Father, so your “opinion” is vain speculation and, insofar as it impugns the integrity of the the dedicated men in service to the Holy See, it borders on calumny. Best not to assume…

    “The solution lies with the Vaticans side, stop forcing the SSPX to accept VII whose status as a binding council is still the intense subject of debate today that no previous council suffers with regards to whether the Catholic world had to accept it as part of the deposit of faith in order to remain Catholic.”

    How about the solution resides with the leadership of the SSPX! “Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will raise you up” (James 4:10). The determination of what is authentically “Catholic” and what is pertinent to the “deposit of faith” does not rest on the shoulders of an illicitly consecrated bishop from Econe!

    I sympathize with them, to some degree; and I believe that their reunion with the Church would promote much good in encouraging post-conciliar stabilization. But I cannot sympathize with the constant carping about fidelity to the Truth and the Faith and even to the Pope without visible, tangible submission to the Vicar of Christ. And it breaks my heard to think that a possible “no” to union at this point might force the Church’s hand to acknowledge that a schism has, in fact, taken place. May the Lord spare the SSPX and it’s faithful from this fate…

  41. Innocent Smith says:

    Excellent article, Father Z. I too had similar thoughts to the irony of the Gospel for this 7th Sunday after Pentecost. While your’s is certainly correct. I will go a little further and say that I find it interesting that it also speaks of ravening wolves in sheep’s clothing. The SSPX may look alright. But, from what I can see, they harbor a bitterness inside that I find deeply troubling.

    For the longest time, I have been in favor of a reunification from their self-imposed exile. But, the more I think about it and as the process goes on forever, I have changed my mind. The TLM is available in many places these days and it is growing. The last thing the Church needs is a group of Super Catholics who sometimes seem to behave more like Puritans entering in with some kind of exemption to not obey certain elements of Vatican II. E. Michael Jones had it exactly right when he referred to this group out of France as the new Donatists.

    I also find it more than paradoxical that a group that places so much emphasis on the Mass, does not appear to be receiving the graces that come from attending it and participating in the Liturgy. Because if they were receiving the graces they would be more worried about themselves than pointing out every clown mass and balloon mass they may have experienced ‘in person’ on Youtube. Allow me to further develop that point. The SSPX people I have come across on Angelqueen, Ingnis Ardens, and Fisheaters, seem to be of a mindset that is more about being against the last five Supreme Pontiffs and the dreaded Council than they are for Christ and His Church.

    I think the best solution to come out of this drama would be excommunications for the priests and bishops after the SSPX says “no”. And let the laity be labeled as Schismatic and be done with them. The priests and bishops with any modicum of sanity, can join the Church in the FSSP, ICK, or parishes that offer the so-called indult Mass, which seems a hopelessly outdated term at this stage of the game.

    Tradition is winning. With or without the SSPX. The last thing we need is a bunch of old bitter souls joining in with Holy Mother Church in full-communion and undermining the great strides the TLM has gained with the SSPX on the sidelines. And for the recored, being a bitter old soul has nothing to do with actual age.

    They are a sideshow. How much attention does this group require? Just go to Mass, pray your rosary or breviary, participate in the Sacraments and try and lead a devout life. Is that too hard? Getting involved in Church politics as a laymen does not seem the best road to salvation, either here, or in eternity.

    Bottom line. Force them to make a choice. Hopefully they will choose wisely. In the final analysis, I do hope they come to their senses. But, based on my interaction with some of the laity, I don’t see it happening. But, then again, God works miracles everyday. I was outside of the Church in a lapsed state for many years, and if you asked me 20 years ago if I would be writing a post like this on a blog like Father Z’s, I would not even know what you were talking about.

    May God grant us all the ability to develop in our own souls some of the humility that made Saint Alexius the great Saint he is, as we commemorate him on this day.

    St. Alexius, pray for us.

  42. dspecht says:

    ” There is no doubt that these texts would have been in the past the object of an intervention of the Holy Office, [I wonder. And this is entirely hypothetical.] [Fellay, Fr.Z.]

    According to Obenauer and Gaudron not hypothetical – there seem to have been in fact some admonitions from the Holy office in the 50ies or 60ies but only private ones (cf. the Obenauer and Gaudron sources resp. links above).

  43. dspecht says:

    @ Johnno:
    “Now I’m not one to jump the gun as to declaring whether Meuller is intentionally in error…”
    So nor I do – and neither Obenauer nor Gaudron.

    “I too am guilty of having held theologically incorrect positions, not because I wanted to go intentionally against the Church, I simply had the wrong idea and perception…”
    Well, on the one hand Müller is very educated and praised for his theological values. So then we must assume that he knows theology and the ideas and perceptions better than you of course and is not so easily excused as a lay-man.

    But on the other hand he is infected with modern German philosophy (and nouvelle theology) (coming from Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Gadamer etc.).

    This modern philosophy is the very root of the problem – and shown and condemned as such by Pius X in Pascendi and Pius XII in Humani Generis. But nearly all our mainstream theologians and (now) bishops and Cardinals are sticking to this – condemned – philosophy, way of thinking and phrasing.

    And so this kind of philosophy perhaps really excuses theologians like Müller from intentionally deviating from Church doctrine. I also asume – and Müller claims so – that Müller wants to stick to the Church-teaching (as Rahner did). But because of their infection with modern philosophy (and “hermeneutism” as Obenauer calls it) they do not realize that in fact they are deviating from the faith. Or well, they see some difference between their views and the traditional concepts. But they call it “reform in continuity” and do not realize that in fact there is contradiction and rupture.

    Because of their philosophical framework they have an other concept of tradition, of truth, of hermeneutics. That´s the deepest problem – as also the sspx (f.e. Fr. Gleize) pointed to (discussing with Ocariz – see at RORATE http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/12/sspx-rome-econe-theology-professor.html)

    They do not realize that their very concept of tradition is not traditional, that they do contradict the tradtional teaching in a way that is not in continuity.

    So, YES, they may be personally, subjectively excused – but that does not change the fact that they are objectively deviating from the faith.
    For contrary, it makes it worse, because it is not only some concrete, detailed error or deviation in some concrete doctrine – but a totaly different concept of the principles of faith and hermeneutics. So there is not even a common level of understanding and discussion.

    That´s the problem for the sspx (as they pointed to several times):
    Both parties speak a different language, think in a different way. The sspx thomistical – Müller, Schönborn, Lehmann, Kasper, Levada etc. idealistical, existentialistical, hegelian, “hermeneutistical”.

    We have to read Humani Generis to recognize were the really deep problem lies.

  44. Johnno says:

    FrJLP:

    I don’t see how it is wrong for me to assume that The Holy Father picked the best man he could find for the job… Why wouldn’t he?

    If you are referring to me assuming that I don’t believe the Holy Father wants to force the SSPX to be handcuffed to V-II, I refer to statements released by the Vatican that state that even the Holy Father feels that there is room to discuss V-II and be critical of it, but of course he insists on being in union and that V-II still be upheld as a legitimate council. That’s something Meuller from interviews doesn’t seem to acknowledge but rather wants to force the SSPX into accepting uncritically. I base this on various articles written about the matter. But yes, I’m not there looking over their shoulders, nor do I personally know any of them, so I don’t know.

    And as I explained, the situation with regards to acceptance of V-II is complicated. If the SSPX are right in their criticisms, then they are being asked to obey error, which is something the Church cannot force or order anyone to do. So if the heirarchy of the Church teaches something that is not authentically Catholic and against the Deposit fo the Faith, then no one is bound to accept it, and rather we are bound to reject it, even if the Pope himself were to theoretically order us to submit to him. This is what makes the whole thing difficult to sort through. The SSPX do want reunion, technically, if they are correct, then they never left in the first place and are instead being faithful. So here this is the problem and the complex issue that is at stake here.

    Now I believe the best solution to this is, as the Holy Father apparently feels or is said to have stated that he is open to discussion about V-II, means that it must therefore not be held binding as many argue for it is non-dogmatic, is a pastoral council , and therefore can be altered and changed as it is more about approach rather than teachings or so we are given the impression. So, allow the exception for the SSPX to hold fast to councils prior to V-II, and continue the ongoing dialogue with regards to V-II, change what needs to be changes or clarify what needs to be clarified and make everything better by being more defined and more in line.

    But of course, the problem is of course politics, particularly with regards to ecumenism, and I fear the Church worries now more about it’s image in the eyes of non-Catholics than it does about the truth about the Catholci Faith versus the falsity of other religions. ‘Tolerance’ and ‘soft language’ has overtrumped the truth for many. Let us not forget that the liberal culture that is entrenched in the Church as of lately is greatly intolerant of anyone even remotely criticizing V-II which they so wrongly believe supports many of their heretical and erroneous positions, which only goes to prove the SSPX’s point that more clarification or correction is required for V-II.

  45. Alan Aversa says:

    Re: “We are Catholic, we recognise the pope and the bishops, [Recognize, but don't submit to.]”
    The SSPX are not disobedient.
    There are three degrees of obedience, according to St. Ignatius:

    First Degree: External execution of the command.
    Second Degree: Internal conformity of the will with superior.
    Third Degree: Internal conformity of mind with superior.

    How can the SSPX have the 2nd and 3rd degrees if the Pope has not defined for them a “hermeneutic of continuity”?

    dspecht: You make a very good point how “Both parties speak a different language”. One heeds Humani Generis, and the other doesn’t.

  46. FrJLP says:

    @Alan Aversa: I’m not buying it. Four illicitly consecrated bishops with no jurisdiction, countless invalid confessions, countless marriages witnessed without proper delegation, and countless Masses celebrated without faculties seems awfully disobedient to me! I hope that their Superior finds in Benedict XVI a pope who desires their presence and witness in the Church… I pray every day during my Masses and Rosaries that they will not pass this opportunity by. If they do, it seems like they will fade into schismatic obscurity…and THAT would be a shame. But pride does that sometimes…

  47. MarkA says:

    Innocent Smith said:
    “The SSPX may look alright. But, from what I can see, they harbor a bitterness inside that I find deeply troubling.” …
    “The SSPX people I have come across on Angelqueen, Ingnis Ardens, and Fisheaters, seem to be of a mindset that is more about being against the last five Supreme Pontiffs and the dreaded Council than they are for Christ and His Church.”

    Please do not base your opinions based on the comments posted on a few blog/forum sites. The “SSPX people” that I have come across in-person, after-mass and do not display the characteristics you describe. They are young, old and middle-age; they are families with many young children. Their common characteristic is a sincere desire to practice orthodox Catholicism, the salvation of their souls and the souls of the families and loved ones. And they display great charity for each other and for visitors, such as myself and my family (my wife and son are not even Catholic)

    You also state:
    “Just go to Mass, pray your rosary or breviary, participate in the Sacraments and try and lead a devout life. Is that too hard? Getting involved in Church politics as a laymen does not seem the best road to salvation, either here, or in eternity. ”

    Amen. Your advice regarding salvation also applies to internet politics. You may wish to meet actual people that attend Mass at SSPX Churches before reaching some of your strong conclusions, such as:
    “I think the best solution to come out of this drama would be excommunications for the priests and bishops after the SSPX says “no”. And let the laity be labeled as Schismatic and be done with them.”

    You also state:
    “May God grant us all the ability to develop in our own souls some of the humility that made Saint Alexius the great Saint he is, as we commemorate him on this day.”

    Amen! Humility and charity are two great virtues that have never failed the saints and will never fail us.
    May God bless you and your family.
    Yours in Christ,
    Mark

  48. Supertradmum says:

    Mark, I have many friends in the SSPX who love the Church and want to live lives of holiness in the world. Those parents are exemplary in the way they raise their children. The marriages are healthy. None want to be separated from the Church. The only separation language I have heard in person has been from Williamson. However, the SSPX is made up of many, many members. I am afraid of a split when they come in . As to the bitterness, I have had only seven very nasty responses on my blog in comments, and three of the seven were from an SSPXers whose language against Rome I could not publish. I would hope their views are in an minority.

  49. dspecht says:

    @ FrJLP, Alan Aversa etc.:

    I´ve studied not only theology at a two German universities, but also philosophy. And I studied esp. on the one hand the anglo-saxon analythical philosophy and philosophy of mind (Russel, Quine, Putnam, Kripke, Rorty, Dennett, Searl etc.) (that in style of argumentation is very thomistic-scholastic, although many philosophers are atheistic),
    on the other hand German idealism resp. Kant and his transcendentalism

    Müller´s works are pure German transcendentalism. He is a disciple of Rahner – via Müllers doctor-father Card. Lehmann – and quotes Rahner abundantly. And Rahner himselfe of course was a Kantian transcendentalist (as all the nouvelle theology resp. theologians had at least a tendency to).

    Rahner´s and Müller´s (and also Card. Lehmanns, Card. Kaspers, Card. Schönborns etc.) antithomistic, transcendentalistic way of thinking and expressing was wisely condemned by Pius XII (Humani Generis). As his/their “Hermeneutism”, as Obenauer puts it – and also condemned by Pascendi of course.

    There is the deepest problem of our crisis today: Church-men in high positions sticking to antithomistic and really anticatholic – condemned, dangerous – philosophy and mode of expression, hermeneutically re-interpreting old terms.

  50. dspecht says:

    Alan Aversa (or FrJLP, …):
    I don´t know if you understand German – in case yes I can only recommend the excelletn analysis of Dr. Obenauer, the German universitiy theologian mentioned above (link to his essay see there).

    See what Obenauer says about the grounding, the bottom line, the deepest reasons of this deviating from the traditional faith by Mitterer, Rahner and Müller

    Again, also here his analysis is in accord with mine and Gaudron´s (or Gleize´s – - and even DiNoia recently critisized Rahner – but now his chief is a Rahner-disciple…).
    It´s a problem of philosophy, of hermeneutics and the very concept of it.
    And of modern unsound tendencies, connected to it.

    So I am a little bit proud btw. that my offered analysis (see the link above to the Müller-thread here on wdtprs and also the other links there) is the same as the one of an university theologian – and we did not contact us, so produced it independently (although I myselfe once studied in Bonn, but in those time Obenauer was not there. So we even do not know each other personally).

    Well, of course it is not so much about pride – but far more about some exterior confirmation, validation of my propositions (or Gaudron´s etc.). If – independently – different theologians come to the same conclusion it makes it more probable, more plausible (by exterior argumentation, notwithstanding the value of the arguments intrinsically) that they are right, at least that there is some objective reason for their analysis and not only subjective opinion.

    As I called Müller´s effort “(huper-) spiritualizing” and hermeneutically re-interpretating the dogma and as I pointed to that this kind of spiritualizing and re-interpretating the contents of traditional teachings is very common in modernistical theology and theologians, f.e. also re the Most Bl. Sacrament or re resurrection (as again Müller does!) – and as I pointed also to the philosophical backround and root of this kind of re-interpretation in naming Gadamerian Hermeneutics (and also German idealism and French existentialism etc.) [see all in my earlier comments under the Müller thread here on wdtprs - or in short at http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2012/07/more-commentary-on-gerhard-ludwig-muller-and-other-appointments/

    - the same does Obenauer in his essay. He speaks about "the strong contemporary tendencies towards spiritualization" in modern theology, calls the deeper problem "Hermeneutism" [what I called Gadamerian hermeneutics and historism-relativism], sticking only to the old phraseology, but coring it and re-interpreting it by filling it with totaly new content.
    “Hermeneutism” – the problem of nouvelle theology and modernism.

    So the whole picture shows – as I said before – that we have this problem especially of German philosophy (idealism-transcendentalism, existentialism, historism-Gadamerian-hermeneutics etc. – “Hermeneutism” as Obenauer puts it and shows that this cores the old concepts and re-interpretes them in a non-Catholic way) — resulting in German and French nouvelle theology.

    This is the very root of (neo-)modernism – and the problem of all main-stream-theologians, esp. German ones like Lehmann, Kasper, Schönborn – and Müller (and Ratzinger, at least the young one – but still now he seems to be very sympathetic to Müller and his theology).

    This philosophical (and linguistical) root and problem of (neo-)modernism as brilliantly explained and condemned by Pius X in Pascendi and Pius XII in Humani Generis.

    All our episcopal establishment, now more and more in Rome, is holding this bad – and condemned – philosophy and way of thinking and phrasing (coming from Kant, Heidegger, Hegel, Gadamer etc.) – and nouvelle theology.

    If you read f.e. the foreword of the 1st ed. of Müllers dogmatic (and then see how he re-interpretes traditional concepts in concrete instances) then you see that he holds a relativistic view of dogmatical development (“hermeneutism”, relativistic historism) – and thus that there is a big problem.
    Well, of course the concept of living tradition and accomodation, adaption of doctrine to the new times *could* be understood in a Catholic way as the hermeneutic of reform in continuity.
    But in fact it is understood NOT in the traditional Catholic way.
    (Two different languages, as I called it above)

    In fact – proofen by works of Müller like his dogmatics – it is modernistical Kantian-Rahnerian-Gadamerian “hermeneutism” and relativism: the times are changing, so the dogmas must be re-interpreted, and so far that there can be a total coring of the old meaning that is replaced then by a new one – only holding the old phraseology. That kind of “reform” in alleged “continuity” is differnt from a traditional concept of reform and continuity.

    According to Vincenz of Lerin it is not only the wording/phrasing that you must hold – but also the same meaning, the content.“Eodem sensu eademque sententiam”
    But the Rahnerian-Müllerian “Hermeneutism” allows for totaly changing the “sensus” – but still calling it “reform” in “continuity”.

  51. MarkA says:

    Supertradmum – Great comment; thanks. I just checked out your blog and bookmarked it. As to nasty comments on your blog, I think anonymous blog comments can bring out the worst in people. “I would hope their [SSPXers] views are in an minority”. I can only comment on the people I’ve met in person and had discussions with. While they are strongly anti-modernists, and therefore dubious of many post conciliar Bishops and Cardinals, they all are very respectful of our Supreme Pontif, Pope Benedict XVI.

  52. Supertradmum says:

    Mark, I shall not share what one man called the Pope- and that man gave his name. And, I rely on the many beautiful SSPX families I know to maintain respect and love for the Holy Father, as we do on this blog.

  53. Cathy says:

    Maybe it’s just me, but in a strange way both SSPX and LCWR seem to hold the same argument that full communion with the Church is somehow a threat to their Catholic identity as opposed to being definitive of Catholic identity.