SSPX leaders have rejected Vatican statement, says superior

Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior of the SSPX, ordains a priest in Econe, Switzerland (Photo: CNS)

Leaders of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) have agreed that the doctrinal preamble presented to them by the Vatican is “completely unacceptable”, according to the society’s district superior in Britain.

In a newsletter posted online and subsequently removed, Fr Paul Morgan said SSPX superiors had rejected the doctrinal principles set out by the Vatican as the basis for further discussion.

The superiors met last month in Albano, Rome, but said they would only issue a response to the Vatican after further study.

In an official statement yesterday, the SSPX said that “only the General House of the Society of St Pius X is entitled to make public an official communiqué or authorised commentary on this matter”.

In his letter Fr Morgan said it was “disappointing” that the doctrinal statement, handed to SSPX leaders by Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “failed to acknowledge the break between traditional and conciliar teachings”.

“Instead,” he wrote, “it insisted upon the ‘hermeneutic [interpretation] of continuity’, stating that the new teachings included and improved upon the old!

“So it was perhaps not surprising to learn that the proposed doctrinal basis for any canonical agreement in fact contained all those elements which the Society has consistently rejected, including acceptance of the New Mass and of Vatican II as expressed in the New Catechism. Indeed, the document itself conveys the impression that there is no crisis in the Church…

“Hence the stated consensus of those in attendance was that the doctrinal preamble was clearly unacceptable and that the time has certainly not come to pursue any practical agreement as long as the doctrinal issues remain outstanding.”

The Vatican statement listed several principles that the SSPX had to agree with in order to move towards full conciliation with Rome.

It came after two years of doctrinal talks between leaders of the SSPX and officials at the Vatican.

About Gertrude

Sáncte Míchael Archángele, defénde nos in proélio, cóntra nequítiam et insídias diáboli ésto præsídium.
This entry was posted in Society of St. Pius X and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to SSPX leaders have rejected Vatican statement, says superior

  1. sixupman says:

    Fr. Morgan is of the +Williamson, arm with a ‘Sede … ‘ tendency, and anti-Fellay, they of course do not wish any rapprochement with Rome top succeed. Not to be trusted.

    SSPX have formally commented that Fr. Morgan has no entitlement to make any such statement.

    If you wish to confirm the tendency, they use the Ignis Ardens blog-site to demonstrate theior angst.

  2. JabbaPapa says:

    Yet another underhanded manoeuvre from the Willamson direction ; why is one not surprised ?

  3. Gertrude says:

    Sooner or later the Holy Father I am sure will intervene with Williamson, since I understand that Bishop Fellay has intimated that he ‘would be rid of this turbulant priest’ (my words, not his!). His comments, and indeed his very presence damages the Church and the SSPX.

  4. Surely the superiors of the SSPX can deal with Bishop Williamson & his ilk but, hang on, aren’t Williamson et al doing to the SSPX exactly what Archbishop Lefebvre did to the Vatican. It seems that ‘what goes around comes around’!!

  5. toadspittle says:

    .
    …he ‘would be rid of this turbulant priest’ (my words, not his!).”
    Ah, yes, Gertrude. When Toad was a mere tadpole, back in 1170, we knew how to do just that.
    Off with his head!

  6. JabbaPapa says:

    Surely the superiors of the SSPX can deal with Bishop Williamson & his ilk but, hang on, aren’t Williamson et al doing to the SSPX exactly what Archbishop Lefebvre did to the Vatican. It seems that ‘what goes around comes around’!!

    I think everyone is aware of the irony of the situation …

    If SSPX were in full communion with Rome, the Holy See would have its ways of dealing with him ; that are unavailable due to the actual nature of the situation. Meanwhile, SSPX has no means to assume papal Authority and deal with Williamson on their own ; because he’s a consecrated bishop and therefore not under anyone’s authority except the Authority that he’s rejecting along with the rest of SSPX.

  7. pablo says:

    The Scribes and Pharisees, and the Whitened Sepulchers of the SSPX hate Bishop Williamson.

    The poor in spirit, or Parasites, as some in the SSPX refer to them love Truth, and therefore love His Eminence Bishop Richard Williamson for always speaking Truth.

    His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI did not give sweetheart terms to the SSPX.

    Why not?

    It should be remembered His Holiness read the Third Secret of Fatima.

    The mean-spiritedness of the SSPX Elitists is phenomenal.

    *

  8. JabbaPapa says:

    Bishop Richard Williamson … always speaking Truth

    This must be a different Bishop Williamson you have in mind than the one who keeps on making borderline statements tending towards the heretical…

  9. pablo says:

    “…This must be a different Bishop Williamson you have in mind than the one who keeps on making borderline statements tending towards the heretical…”

    ‘…The Scribes and Pharisees, and the Whitened Sepulchers of the SSPX hate Bishop Williamson….” in making the above statement, you have proven yourself to be one of the three I described.

    Please give me one example of Heretical Statements made by His Eminence Bishop Williamson.

    Statements from anyone are either heretical or they are not. Which is it?

    In the interests of fairness and justice, something perhaps foreign to you?

    *

  10. JabbaPapa says:

    In the interests of fairness and justice, something perhaps foreign to you?

    Thank you for your lovely personal attack.

    http://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/conviction-of-bishop-williamson-upheld-on-appeal/

    Bishop Williamson’s crime was that he stated in a interview with a Swedish journalist that no more than 300,000 Jews were killed in the Holocaust and there were no gas chambers.

    There’s one borderline statement for you, that verges on the heretical. (please look up the actual theological meaning of “heretical”, if that might be helpful)

    Another borderline statement verging on the heretical :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Williamson_(bishop)

    Williamson and his supporters denied the validity of the excommunication, saying that the consecrations were necessary due to a moral and theological crisis in the Catholic Church.

    ditto :

    In the past, he opposed compromise between the SSPX and the Church leadership in Rome,accusing the latter of deceit and of being under “the power of Satan”.

    ditto :

    Williamson supports conspiracy theories regarding the assassination of President Kennedy, and the World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theory, denying that the latter were terrorist attacks but were instead staged by the U.S. government.

  11. Gertrude says:

    Some more of Williamson’s ‘gems’:
    “…politicians are virtually controlled by public opinion, which is fabricated by the media, which are tightly controlled by a handful of Judeo-Masons, the people who also control finance and the governments.”

    • “Leprosy is an Old Testament figure of heresy, and Vatican II is not only heresy, it is a total new religion.”
    • “Today’s feminism is intimately connected to witchcraft and satanism.”

    • “…the Jews have come closer and closer to fulfilling their substitute-Messianic drive towards world dominion.”

    • “…any supposed Catholicism in The Sound of Music is a Hollywood fraud corresponding to the real-life fraud of that “Catholicism” of the 1950’s and 1960’s, all appearance and no substance, which was just waiting to break out into Vatican II and the Newchurch.”

    • “Old-fashioned is good, modern is suicidal. You wish to stop abortion? Do it by example. Never wear trousers

    If you are in agreement with the meanderings, and heresies of Williamson Pablo, you might find other blogs where your views are shared – because I doubt you will find any common ground here. God Bless you anyway.

  12. The Raven says:

    “His Eminence”?!

    When, exactly, did the Pope send the schismatic Williamson a red hat?

  13. Gertrude says:

    Isn’t there a question over the validity of his ordination Raven?

  14. Wall Eyed Mr Whippy says:

    If G’s list of 17.06 on Williamson’s pronouncements is anything to go by, I cannot imagine anyone, much less the Vatican, reaching an accommodation with these ideas.

    Pablo, do you agree that these are Williamson’s ideas? How do you feel about them?

  15. pablo says:

    What do you think I am, a hypocrite?

    “… heresies of Williamson Pablo, you might find other blogs where your views are shared…”

    Really?

    Truth is shared by few.

    Diabolical disorientation affects the many.

    Roll up your sleeves and do some Truth searching.

    Somebody had to tell you guys to take the rose colored glasses off.

    Here is a video:

    Look in it at the different peoples in it.

    See where you fit.

    “…Pablo, do you agree that these are Williamson’s ideas? How do you feel about them?…”

    Truth is heavily on the side of Bishop Williamson.

    So are the Holy Angels and the Saints.

    Do any of you happen to know anything about Father Leo Francis McNamara?

    http://fatherleofrancismcnamara.blogspot.com

    *

  16. LeonG says:

    I find it completely incredible that many of you SSPX members can take positions of irrational hostility against your own priests and bishops. Those who oppose a deal with the devil at any cost are absolutley correct to do so. Fr Morgan, Bishop Williamson and many others (perhaps too many to mention, if the truth were really known) have the right to express their concerns. Because they do not match some of those here and elsewhere they are unjustifiably treated with insults, derision and contempt. This is a disgrace to The Confraternity and it does not serve the objectives of Archbishop Lefebvre. If those of you who think a deal at any price with Rome is going to lead you to Eldorado then you are much mistaken.
    Ask yourselves these questions – does it serve SSPX well to dump principles which are of eternal import for a mess of potage with liberal modernist Rome? Is it really wise to have a superior for 24 years who already has the intention of casting an agreement with a Pope who is an ardent eclecticist and liberalist deviationist, no matter what? Further, should such power be vested in one man that he can totally centralise the control of The SSPX and all it decides to do in the future and by muzzling the worthy opinions of those who well-informed have also fought the long hard battle for the soul of The Church? Most importantly of all, do you want to belong to & have your futures tied to a now ecumenical, interreligious organisation which has conspired in recent times to systematically pervert the course of justice throughout what was once Catholic Christendom; continues to flout the divine mandate to spread The Gospel universally and which is determined to further subvert the liturgy of The Church by hybridising The Latin Mass of All Times with Bugnini’s fabricated protestant anthropocentric postmodernist counterpart (protected in the SP of the current pontiff)? Do you ignore the warnings of your own founder on these subjects too?
    A deal with Rome at present is a deal with the devil which ever way you want to look at it. Masonry and satanism are omnipresent within as Paul VI alluded clearly. Nothing in Rome has changed in the last 50 years – it has only got worse. You will join not only the NO, but a heterodox organisation which includes horizontally the Neo-Catechumenal Way, Opus Dei, Focolare, Anglicans, Charismatics and a multiplicity of other diverse groups with whom you have little, if anything much in common.
    Ultimately, who do you trust more – a liberal modernist who is still committed to “razing bastions” or those who are committed to a true restoration in Christ? Seen in this light, those who warn and admonish and who do so within The Confraternity should be apoplauded for having the courage to raise necessary but thorny issues. Yes, ones that need o be broached with more openness than is the case at present. On the other hand, those who want to stifle important and significant views should be treated with the utmost suspicion.
    My parents (RIP) worked with The SSPX in UK for most of its existence and they would be shocked to see you behaving in this way. At times like these they put their Faith in Sacred Tradition and those who defended it with their lives. We are still living in those times and worse. Therefore, it is time to stop the internal persecution of those who would reslolutely and stout-heartedly resist those whose only interest is peace at any price and who attempt to deny others the very rightv they wish to reserve only for themselves.

  17. JabbaPapa says:

    cripes …

    Truth is not on the side of those that spread such gross falsehoods as Williamson does.

  18. Wall Eyed Mr Whippy says:

    Pablo, you still haven’t said if the ideas are those of Williamson.

    Does this mean that these are his views, but you’re a little bit embarrassed by them?

    Come on, spill the beans!

  19. piliersdelaterre says:

    It is scary how a miniscule but impeccably faithful remnant of traditional Catholicism can nonetheless attract such venom. For example, a religious person I know, compassionate, empathetic in the extreme, referred to the SSPX as the Antichrist.
    If I hadn’t met Fr Morgan, Bp Williamson et al in person, I would have expected no less than horns on their heads, fire from their mouths, blood dripping from their sharp-clawed fingers.
    When people are effectively demonised, there is something serious going on.
    No smoke without fire. When you say one plus one is two (or pre & post Vatican 2 are NOT some cosy continuum- pace BXVI) you should not be villified ad hominem. The evidence is there… if it was other, find it, expose it and put an end to the – persecution- of traditionalist Catholics.
    If Williamson is being silly in historical matters- argue it out properly, the evidence is there. He must be useful to Modernists in some way, as Le Pen was to those in Ireland who wished to sully the no-vote with his ‘poisonous’ influence!

  20. toadspittle says:

    .

    “….a Pope who is an ardent eclecticist and liberalist deviationist, no matter what?”

    Ah! That explains why Toad is growing daily fonder of the Dear Old Pontiff.

    We ancient, eceletic, liberalist deviationists must stick together! We are a threatened species!

  21. toadspittle says:

    .

    “Old-fashioned is good, modern is suicidal. You wish to stop abortion? Do it by example. Never wear trousers…”

    Sage advice, indeed.
    Alas, too late to be of use to Toad at age 70. A kilt might be nice, though…

  22. toadspittle says:

    .

    Toad’s “Americans With Guns on CP&S” survey is proceeding like molassess in January.
    If there are any of our transatlantic buddies out there packin’ heat – hands up! (Just to be counted, of course.)

  23. Mimi says:

    LeonG appears to be labouring under the impression that this is an SSPX blog.

  24. toadspittle says:

    .

    CP&S = SSPX? OMG!!!

    Fightin’ talk! Go for your six-gun Leon (If you have one. Sigh.) !

  25. If Vatican insists that there is a continuity between Vatican II and the previous teachings of Church, when very clearly what we have seen in the last 42 years and still see today are the horrible fruits of it, then I expect the SSPPX to reject this so-called preamble.
    I will continue supporting SSPX in anyway I can if it rejects this latest arm-twisting by Vatican.
    They don’t respect traditional Catholics . They don’t even respect True Catholic teachings themselves. It is a fact that every post-consiliar Vatican leadership has been shown disrespect to the teachings of previous Popes and Magisterium. No one can deny the fact that Paul VI, JP II and Benedict VI have associated themselves with, and promoting, other religions, a clear violation of previous Church teachings. All these while scandal after scandal, while dissension after dissension, and while heresy and more heresies from Cardinals and Bishops, that wreck havoc on what once was a church of holy , honest, and upright teachers of the Catholic Faith, but twas turned into a church of compromise where anything now goes for as long as it is politically correct. And Vatican officials like Levada still can afford to act and pretend like there is no crisis in the Church. Very much true, “No one are so blind as those who do not want to see!”
    GO, SSPPX, GO!!!!

  26. teresa says:

    SSPX are having great problems, they have more moderate members and those radicals like Morgan & Williamson, who hold obnoxious political ideas which they deem higher than the Gospel. SSPX will split and they will lose any meaning and fade into oblivion if they still insist on seeing themselves as the only true catholics. Catholicus means “universal” and it goes with the universal Church, a sectarian fraction can never represent the true Church.

  27. JabbaPapa says:

    More Catholic than the Pope ?

    Somehow I doubt it ; and to accuse the Catholic Church of heresies is a willful act of apostasy and schism, BTW.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s