Sunday, February 17, 2013

Modestinus: Bishop Fellay on the council

The contemporary Catholic Church and the sedevacantists both hold to an undeniably true principle: the Church is infallible. From there, however, they radically diverge.
But few pronouncements are infallible. The council didn’t define doctrine. (Because the church’s infallible, nothing can change doctrine.) I’m actually a moderate to center-left Catholic by 1960 standards, but entirely in the church’s pre-conciliar big tent: the vernacular and religious liberty are fine. (The ‘liberal’ German seminary professors John Jay Hughes liked then taught exactly what I believe about the papacy: subset of church infallibility.) But based on the harm the council did, the answer’s obvious. 86 it.


  1. Modestinus has a good command of the language, and I enjoy his writing style; but, by that fact, I'm surprised to see his misuse of "error" in his composition.

    The verb is "to err."
    The noun is "an error."

  2. Anonymous2:27 pm

    All men have faults.

  3. Anonymous8:13 pm

    I should reply to this and maybe add an addendum on my blog...

    The Council didn't invoke infallibility in its teachings, which is a point the SSPX (and other trads) frequently highlight. But that doesn't eliminate the problem since, according to the Society, certain teachings of the Council and the reforms which followed lead the faithful into sin. Remember, the SSPX believes the new Mass is not only defective; it is evil. And so while the New Mass is not itself a "dogma," it does carry with it forms of teaching and worship (lex orandi, lex credendi) that are, according to the Society, wicked.

    I will note that I do not accept the Society's interpretation of the Novus Ordo Mass hook, line, and sinker. I think they overstate their claims at times and even Bishop Fellay, apparently, has been "caught" conceding that the New Mass, when properly executed, would not/should not elicit the rancor often directed toward it by traditionalists. I am, however, of the opinion that the Novus Ordo is liturgically weak, especially when compared to the Tridentine Mass and the traditional liturgies of the East. I believe the "option friendly" nature of the current Missal opens the doors to all sorts of abuses. At some point I hope the SSPX redirects their polemic against the New Mass in that direction. Fellay (and others) have, at points, left the door open to the possibility that the New Mass could be incrementally reformed to adhere to Catholic Tradition. I doubt that would switch their fidelity to the Tridentine Mass, but it would likely quell most of their critiques. Moreover, if the Novus Ordo was augmented to correct the problems the Society (and other trads) have identified in it, I doubt very much they would make much of a fuss about Latin vs. vernacular.

  4. Re: Torture

    I am not a lawyer but I am qualified to determine what is torture. When I attended Navy OCS in 1970, it was clearly stated in our Geneva Convention training that water boarding is an example of torture and that the Japanese had done this to our American POWs and that they (allegedly) were held accountable for this and other war crimes. What more needs to be said about water boarding? It is torture and it is a war crime and the U.S. politicos who have approved of this interrogation method have committed war crimes and are therefore unindicted (war) criminals.


Leave comment