Holy See demands Lefebvrists fully accept Second Vatican Council

[Michie]

Rome, Feb 4, 2009 / 01:39 pm (CNA).-

The Vatican Secretariat of State made public a statement today that outlines several points the Lefebvrists must accept in the wake of Pope Benedict XVI’s lifting of the excommunication of four bishops ordained by Marcel Lefebvre in 1988, including “full recognition of the Second Vatican Council” and of the Magisteriums of all the Popes since Pius XII.

The statement, published by the L’Osservatore Romano, indicates that in the wake of Pope Benedict XVI’s kind gesture lifting the excommunications, “it is hoped an equal willingness on the part of the four bishops be expressed in total adherence to the doctrine and discipline of the Church.”

“The lifting of the excommunication has freed the four bishops from a very grave canonical penalty, but it has not changed the juridical situation of the Society of St. Pius X, which currently does not enjoy any canonical recognition in the Catholic Church. In addition, the four bishops, while they are no longer excommunicated, do not have a canonical role in the Church and do not licitly exercise a ministry in her,” the statement says.

In order for the SSPX to be recognized, the statement goes on to say, “full recognition of Vatican Council II, the Magisteriums of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI himself is an indispensable condition.”

Continued- http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14981

 

[Davidnic]

As well they should.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

What's that mean though?

 

[Davidnic]

My guess is they can't say: "It's only a pastoral council"

They need to affirm and follow that the documents and decisions are bearing the full weight of Magisterial Authority.

 

[Foundthelight]

I doubt that they will. Pride is a powerful thing.

 

[Rhamiel]

My guess is they can't say: "It's only a pastoral council"

They need to affirm and follow that the documents and decisions are bearing the full weight of Magisterial Authority.

but what all would that entail?
why is that an issue, why is Vatican II such a hot topic?
what did it really change?

 

[Davidnic]

but what all would that entail?
why is that an issue, why is Vatican II such a hot topic?
what did it really change?

It changed the way we live out eternal truths with a legitimate expression in the modern world. If we do not adhere to the true spirit of it's teachings we fall to modernism on the left and ultra traditionalism on the right.

Only on the true path of the council can we live out our Catholic faith in a vital and true way in the modern world...faithful to our rich tradition (small t) but vibrant and alive in the truth of Scripture and Tradition (big T).

 

[ProCommunioneFacior]

My guess is they can't say: "It's only a pastoral council"

They need to affirm and follow that the documents and decisions are bearing the full weight of Magisterial Authority.

In Cardinal Ratzinger's address to the Chilean Bishops in 1988, he said something very similarly to Vatican II being a pastoral council:

"The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest."

 

[Virgil the Roman]

My guess is they can't say: "It's only a pastoral council"

They need to affirm and follow that the documents and decisions are bearing the full weight of Magisterial Authority.

It is only a "pastoral council;" an Oecumenical Council that was valid convened: but that doesn't necessarily mean it is good. Besides the FSSPX, if you recall, accept the Second Vatican Council, but especially want documents like the ones on Religious liberty, and Gaudium et Spes: interpreted in light of Sacred Tradition and most especially in light of Pre-Vatican II documents.

Cardinal Castrillon had conversed with his Lordship Fellay (Superior General of FSSPX) had said thus:
Cardinal Castrillón:
Relevant declarations to Corriere della Sera
Excerpts of an article published today in Italian national daily Corriere della Sera[PDF]:

"[Card. Castrillón:] When I delivered the signed decree to Bishop Fellay, we knew nothing of the interview, it had been a few days before."

And at that moment?
"[Card. Castrillón:] Evidently, at that moment [when the interview with Bishop Richard Williamson was known to Vatican authorities], the decree was already in the hands of the interested party. I would rather not enter into details, because they go beyond my competence."
...
"[Card. Castrillón:] Full communion will come. In our discussions, Bishop Fellay recognized the Second Vatican Council, he recognized it theologically. Only a few difficulties remain...[sic]"

Maybe on Nostra Aetate, the declaration which represented a turning point in the relationship with the Jews?
"[Card. Castrillón:] No, that is not a problem. It involves discussing aspects such as ecumenism, liberty of conscience...[sic]"
_________________________________

The FSSPX merely want the Second Vatican Council interpreted in light of Sacred Tradition. The clarification of which is gradually transpiring.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

but what all would that entail?
why is that an issue, why is Vatican II such a hot topic?
what did it really change?

It's a council that despite producing a plethora of orthodox and edificational statements also produced some questionable statements: whereby such passages were very vague and ambiguous and lending to a very pliable and easy manner of distortion in the Neo-Modernists' favour.

here this article will help perhaps illustrate things abit better:
http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20030103_Differing_from_Other_Councils.html

 

[Virgil the Roman]

My guess is they can't say: "It's only a pastoral council"

They need to affirm and follow that the documents and decisions are bearing the full weight of Magisterial Authority.

Actually, they say it is a valid Oecumenical Council and only a "pastoral" council, so that in order to be properly implemented, it needs to be absolutely and strictly re-interpreted in light of Tradition, particularly of Pre-Vatican II teachings on true Ecumenism (for example: Moratalium Animos, Humani Generis, Leo XIII's "Union of Christendom") and probably a firm reaffirmation and reiteration of "Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus." (I think this has to minor degree been done [think "Questions and Answers, to some things on Vatican Two that addressed that the Church of Christ IS or truly absolute has, will, and always will SUBSIST the Holy Catholic Church] , but some more reaffirmation is probably needed still.)
i
In order to properly implement the "pastoral decrees" of the council it is necessary to reaffirm and clarify the doctrinal and dogmatic basis upon which those pastoral decrees rest upon, and thus in what is the true subject matter (Tradition) and how it is properly pastorally applied (in light of aforesaid tradition) rather, than a dichotomous situation with a rupture with "Tradition," and an "Anti-Council" or "Spirit of Vatican II," imposing itself as the false Usurper of the true Teachings of Vatican II.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

http://remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-0128-mershon-vatican_insider_projects_speedy.htm

Vatican Insider Projects Speedy SSPX Resolution


SSPX Will Not be Forced to Swallow the Council


Brian Mershon
(Exclusive to The Remnant)

January 28, 2009, Rome, Italy—In his first interview subsequent to the Society of St. Pius X’s (SSPX) official statement to the good news, Superior General Bishop Bernard Fellay said that he believed in the infallibility of the Church and that he was “confident” that the Society would “reach a true solution” in its doctrinal discussions with the Holy See.

In fact, Vatican sources have indicated that the full regularization may occur as early as February 2, 2009, the Feast of the Purification of Our Lady and Candlemas, which, if true, would be quite a Christmas present to the Church and especially traditionalist Catholics worldwide!

Vatican Working on Stable Juridical Structure

Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro, chief of Human Life International’s Rome bureau, could not confirm the February 2 date, but said his Curial source told him that they are currently busy working out the practical arrangements for a fully regularized Society of St. Pius X.

The final solution “cannot depend upon individual diocesan bishops,” Monsignor Barreiro said, noting the longsuffering many traditionalist Catholics experienced for nearly 20 years under the Ecclesia Dei Adflicta arrangement.

“They would certainly need to have guarantees that where they currently are located, they cannot be touched by the local bishop,” Barreiro said, noting the Society’s chapels being located across the globe, which he described as “de facto parishes.” Barreiro rightly noted that the Society bishops most likely would not accept any solution that involved jurisdiction by the local territorial Ordinary.

France’s Seminaries to be Over One-Third Traditionalist

In fact, specific resistance is most prevalent in the dying churches of France with their bishops and priests. Upon final regularization, Monsignor Barreiro said, “More than one-third of all seminarians in France will be in traditionalist seminaries.” This would include the SSPX, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), the Institute of Good Shepherd and the Institute of Christ the King (ICR) as well as some other lesser known traditionalist priestly groups.

“I expect that some structure like a universal Apostolic Administration may be the only solution,” Monsignor Barreiro said, while cautioning that he did not have direct access to the specific details.

Several articles this week on the SSPX excommunication annulments contained comments from bishops and George Weigel in a New York Times interview noting that they expected that the Society bishops would need to explicitly adhere in some fashion to the Second Vatican Council. However, Monsignor Barreiro opined that the SSPX’s official request for the lifting of the sanctions would be sufficient as it demonstrates explicit recognition of the authority of the Holy Father and the magisterium of the Church.

Prior to the easing of the excommunications, Bishop Fellay wrote, in part, the following to the Holy See:

We are always firmly determined in our will to remain Catholic and to place all our efforts at the service of the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church. We accept its teachings with filial disposition. We believe firmly in the Primacy of Peter and in its prerogatives, and for this the current situation makes us suffer so much.

Vatican II and All the Councils

“They won’t be asked to accept the Council,” Monsignor Barreiro said. “There is nothing dogmatic regarding faith and morals in the Council documents,” he emphasized. “Many have elevated the Council as if it were a superdogma, when in truth, it was not dogmatic at all.”

In the SSPX’s official request to the Holy See asking for the lifting of the excommunications, Bishop Bernard Fellay wrote the following: “We are ready to write the Creed with our own blood, sign the anti-Modernist oath, the Profession of Faith of Pope Pius IV, we accept and make our own all the Councils up to the First Vatican Council. Yet we can but confess reservations concerning the Second Vatican Council, which intended to a Council “different from the others.” (Addressed by Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI)

The perspective of Monsignor Barreiro and Bishop Fellay can certainly be read to be consistent with then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s 1988 Address to the Bishops of Chile:

Certainly, there is mentality of narrow views that isolate Vatican II and which has provoked this opposition. There are many accounts of it which give the impression that, from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and that what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II.

The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.

This idea is made stronger by things that are now happening. That which previously was considered most holy – the form in which the liturgy was handed down – suddenly appears as the most forbidden of all things, the one thing that can safely be prohibited. It is intolerable to criticize decisions which have been taken since the Council; on the other hand, if men make question of ancient rules, or even of the great truths of the Faith – for instance, the corporal virginity of Mary, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the immortality of the soul, etc. – nobody complains or only does so with the greatest moderation.

In Pope Benedict’s “Letter to Bishops” accompanying the July 7, 2007 motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, while positively affirming that the Traditional Latin Mass had never been abrogated, the Pope wrote the following, which, upon reflection, was an important but overlooked part of the document. Part of this text corresponds very strikingly with the 1988 Chile Bishops document aforementioned:

We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.

Cardinal Ratzinger Recommends Bishops Examine Their Consciences

So in the Bishops Letter, Pope Benedict covers some of the same ground as in the 1988 Chilean Bishops address about the SSPX and many traditionalist Catholics who were attached to the traditional liturgy and devotions. Pope Benedict made clear in the 1988 Bishops letter that while he believed the Church had gone as far as it could at that time with its negotiations with Archbishop Lefebvre, he posed that it was the pastoral duty of all bishops and pastors to conduct an examination of conscience regarding the then currents within the Church that could have helped lead to the consecrations of bishops without a mandate. In hindsight, Cardinal Ratzinger was precisely accurate in his assessment.

Without any doubt, the problem that Lefebvre has posed has not been concluded by the rupture of June 30th. It would be too simple to take refuge in a sort of triumphalism, and to think that this difficulty has ceased to exist from the moment in which the movement led by Lefebvre has separated itself by a clean break with the Church. A Christian never can, or should, take pleasure in a rupture. Even though it is absolutely certain the fault cannot be attributed to the Holy See, it is a duty for us to examine ourselves, as to what errors we have made, and which ones we are making even now...

For all these reasons, we ought to see this matter primarily as the occasion for an examination of conscience. We should allow ourselves to ask fundamental questions, about the defects in the pastoral life of the Church, which are exposed by these events. Thus we will be able to offer a place within the Church to those who are seeking and demanding it, and succeed in destroying all reason for schism. We can make such schism pointless by renewing the interior realities of the Church.

One wonders: how many bishops and pastors in the Church in the past 20 years have used the traditionalist situation as a true “examination of conscience” as Cardinal Ratzinger outlined? To ask the question is to answer it.

Pope Urges Bishops to Pastoral Solicitude

Indeed, in the July 7 accompanying letter to Bishops, Pope Benedict repeated this same theme even more insistently, perhaps as a foreshadowing of the January 21 excommunications annulments.

It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these.

So the Pope asked the bishops to be pastoral and charitable to traditionalist faithful in guiding their pastoral solicitude. Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos dubbed it as avoiding treating traditionalist Catholics as “second-class citizens” in spite of the exaggerations and social aspects that had been “unduly linked” to traditionalist Catholics.

I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to unable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: “Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return, widen your hearts also!” (2 Cor 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.

So as we move steadily closer to full canonical regularization for the SSPX, whatever form it may take, we note that the precedent has already been set, most recently by the Institute of Good Shepherd, whose priests were allowed to continue working on the disputed theological points of the Second Vatican Council documents in good faith and avoiding public rancor, in the heart of the Church.

Vatican Will Not Demand SSPX Swallow the Council

In other words, there will be no demand for the SSPX leadership to accept the “Decree on Social Communication” as an infallible, dogmatic document.

And despite the ruminations of certain bishops, cardinals, priests, Cardinal Kasper and even George Weigel, neither will they be asked to accept the Decree on Ecumenism, the Declaration of Religious Liberty, Nostra Aetate or even Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum as dogmatic declarations that can stand alone without reading them in light of Tradition.

The Pope made this clear in his December 22, 2005 address. The “hermeneutic of continuity” can not allow the Second Vatican Council to be interpreted any other way other than “in light of Tradition.” And certainly, traditionalists should not overemphasize the degree of binding authority that marks the Council documents. If there is error or imprecision then there can and must be correction. And we now have a pope who is as much as ordering that correction. On what grounds can traditional Catholics object to that? Theological speculation on disputed and unclear points in a spirit of charity and without polemics and rancor will aid future generations in their understanding of Catholic truth.

Let us pray that the SSPX theologians, priests and bishops, as well as the Institute of Good Shepherd, Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter and Institute of Christ the King, exercise considerable influence in this arena. And if there are points in the Council that cannot be interpreted in light of Tradition then, obviously, they will be exposed and excised. Again, on what grounds could a traditional Catholic possibly object to that?

 

[thereselittleflower]

In Cardinal Ratzinger's address to the Chilean Bishops in 1988, he said something very similarly to Vatican II being a pastoral council:

"The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest."

Yes. It was a pastoral council . . there were no new dogmas. But that does not make it elective.

 

[Davidnic]

Maybe I should stress how I meant what I said:

They can't say: "It's only a pastoral council"

As if by being so it is somehow a minor thing or elective. It has the full authority of the Magisterium and they have treated it like a one credit elective compared to an honors course...and with that type of respect. And that is not only wrong...it is insulting and they need to fall into line.

VCII shows us how to carry out the eternal truths of our Dogmas. It gives wisdom and guidance. Now...have people taken great liberties with the "Spirit of Vatican II" Oh yes.

But we are blessed indeed to have the guidance of JPII and B16 where we have the authentic voice of the council. And it is that that these Bishops must accept.

I think that the best and most accessible recent summation of the authentic spirit and the history of the council is in the two or so chapters in Archbishop Chaputs book: Render Unto Caesar. Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life.

I would seriously urge everyone to go to a library and get the book, order it if you can or borrow it. Not only for it's view on VCII but for the great overview of Catholicism in America and how to live our faith and teachings.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

For any one that would wish a better understanding of where especially most Traditionalist Catholics are coming from (This article articulates rather well the general feelings that they [FSSPX are wont to express concerning its views on the Second Vatican Council and situation in the Church today), and so, I got yinz a webpage here (Don't worry, it's completely orthodox and in-line with Catholic Teaching. ) --> HERE <---

 

[Fish and Bread]

For any one that would wish a better understanding of where especially most Traditionalist Catholics are coming from (This article articulates rather well the general feelings that they [FSSPX are wont to express concerning its views on the Second Vatican Council and situation in the Church today), and so, I got yinz a webpage here (Don't worry, it's completely orthodox and in-line with Catholic Teaching. ) --> HERE <---

I thought their points were reasonable right up until they started talking about a communist conspiracy and using transcripts from the McCarthy hearings as evidence. It's seems like, along with a lot of good reasonable people, the traditionalist movement attracts a lot of conspiracy theorists.

Fish Eaters is a neat resource, I've known about it for years, but I wouldn't describe it as completely orthodox and in-line with Catholic teaching. Some sections of the site have (negative) things written about modern Popes, Papal authority, and the "post-councillar" Church that are pretty questionable. Their message forums also have a bit of an anti-semetic tenor (Not everyone who posts there, but it seems to run about 50-50 from some of the threads I've seen).

The site has some neat information on the old liturgical year and stuff, though. Sometimes that is neat to read through. A lot of information on old customs and so forth.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

I thought their points were reasonable right up until they started talking about a communist conspiracy and using transcripts from the McCarthy hearings as evidence. It's seems like, along with a lot of good reasonable people, the traditionalist movement attracts a lot of conspiracy theorists.

Fish Eaters is a neat resource, I've known about it for years, but I wouldn't describe it as completely orthodox and in-line with Catholic teaching. Some sections of the site have (negative) things written about modern Popes, Papal authority, and the "post-councillar" Church that are pretty questionable. Their message forums also have a bit of an anti-semetic tenor (Not everyone who posts there, but it seems to run about 50-50 from some of the threads I've seen).

The site has some neat information on the old liturgical year and stuff, though. Sometimes that is neat to read through. A lot of information on old customs and so forth.

You do realize that after the Iron Curtain fell that documented evidence came out from the KGB that the Communists had in fact during the Cold-War infilitrated the Church and that many clergy in behind the Iron Curtain either collaborated or act as spies for the Communists authorities?!? I'm not making this stuff up man. I'd think it rather callous to dismiss: a very grave error indeed.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Traditional Catholics' Motto​

[FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica, sans-serif]We are what you once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.[/FONT]​

indeed.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

I thought their points were reasonable right up until they started talking about a communist conspiracy and using transcripts from the McCarthy hearings as evidence. It's seems like, along with a lot of good reasonable people, the traditionalist movement attracts a lot of conspiracy theorists.

Fish Eaters is a neat resource, I've known about it for years, but I wouldn't describe it as completely orthodox and in-line with Catholic teaching. Some sections of the site have (negative) things written about modern Popes, Papal authority, and the "post-councillar" Church that are pretty questionable. Their message forums also have a bit of an anti-semetic tenor (Not everyone who posts there, but it seems to run about 50-50 from some of the threads I've seen).

The site has some neat information on the old liturgical year and stuff, though. Sometimes that is neat to read through. A lot of information on old customs and so forth.

The information there's all orthodox; however, this doesn't entail the Discussion forum, remember that: as there's a disclaim put up by one of the forum's owners. Here it is:

[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif] ``Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be;
even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church'' Ignatius of Antioch, 1st c. A.D[/FONT]​

Please read first before going to the forum!

Opinions expressed by folks at the discussion forum are NOT (necessarily)
the "opinions of the Fish Eaters website" or its editors!

​

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]
[/FONT] [FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]There are all types of people who post at the discussion forum -- Catholics of all types, non-Catholic Christians, atheists, Jews, the occasional Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and pagans. Posters can run the gamut of the political spectrum, too, though certain ideologies are banned, e.g., Nazism, Communism, racism, misogyny, etc. (see the Forum Rules at the forum).

Some of the self-described "traditional Catholics" who post are Catholics whose attitudes, opinions, feelings, means of expression, etc., are NOT in accordance with the only two people -- "Vox Clamantis" and "Quis ut Deus" at the forum -- who run this website (see our stance here, on the Contact Page). But we prefer, in general, to allow people to speak their minds so they can be responded to. We don't like overly-strict forums, and don't have the time to babysit the forum 24/7. Our usernames are clearly marked "Site Owner I" and "Site Owner II" in scarlet font. If you don't see either of those labels next to a poster's name, and if that poster enrages you for whatever reason (judgmentalism, Pope-bashing, rudeness, misogyny, anti-Semitism, etc.), debate that person, without ad hominems, and don't confuse their nonsense with "what Fish Eaters espouses." We're sick of it! Further, we're most likely enraged, too -- doubly enraged because stupid comments are far too often used as excuses by other webmasters and by blog owners for not linking to what I've tried so very hard to make a solid, credible, accurate, and educational resource for Catholics who worship in accordance with the 1962 Missal and calendar. I, Vox, have spent years and years of my life writing this website. I've invested so much love in it and have literally anguished over having my work smeared all over the internet because of a few imprudent, ignorant, or out-and-out stupid forum posters.

I messed myself up at Wikipedia a few years ago by unknowingly posting "too many links," thereby getting the label "spammer" back before there were rules against posting links to one's own site (and Wiki won't forgive and forget). Catholicculture.org reviewed the site years ago and mistakes it for a "rad trad" site of some sort, giving it their red warning sign, and good ole newbie Catholics mistake their designation for something magisterial (oh, how many times have I read something like "Beware that Fisheaters website! Catholic Culture gives them a warning sign! Stay away! The Devil's there!" Oh!). DMOZ, and therefore Google's directory, has the site incorrectly categorized under "Not In Communion with Rome > Society of St. Pius X" and refuses to correct it (I've never been to an SSPX chapel in my entire life, though I have many friends who have). The last thing I need in addition to all that nonsense is for people to mistake some forum idiot's rantings for what I think, for what my husband thinks, and, most especially, for what this site teaches. Please. Make it stop. Read the words above in bold again. [/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]OK, now enter the Discussion Forum [/FONT]​

[FONT=verdana, arial, verdana, sans-serif]Index[/FONT]​

(source: http://www.fisheaters.com/abouttheforum.html )

 

[Fish and Bread]

You do realize that after the Iron Curtain fell that documented evidence came out from the KGB that the Communists had in fact during the Cold-War infilitrated the Church and that many clergy in behind the Iron Curtain either collaborated or act as spies for the Communists authorities?!? I'm not making this stuff up man. I'd think it rather callous to dismiss: a very grave error indeed.

Do you have any evidence from a reliable unbiased source that this was widespread on our side of the iron curtain and that some of these men became bishops or members of the curia and were able to influence teachings or discipline? I don't mean some priests in Poland or something, on the communist side of the iron curtain, I'm sure that probably went on, but I doubt that changed the face of the Church as a whole.

I don't consider the McCarthy hearings a credible source, even if the quote on the website is an accurate quote from the hearings. McCarthy was known to have made things up and coerced witnesses into lying. He'd wave pieces of paper in the air that were actually blank saying he had lists of communists in hollywood or in government, etc..