“It is simply unacceptable that a Christian or even more a bishop…denies all that the Nazis had done against the Jewish people, their exterminations. How is it possible to be so cold-hearted about this? It is absolutely unacceptable, but this is a separate problem.”

I have no use for Bishop Williamson—nor does the leadership of SSPX who has disciplined him repeatedly.  But I am puzzled by this claim that a secular opinion would be a block to reunion.  (I can think of LOTS of other good reasons—such as that he is either functionally or actually sedevacantist—but not that.)

Moreover, the Archbishop is not stating the truth accurately:  he did not deny ALL that the Nazis had done against the Jewish people—or even most.  There were quibbles about HOW it was done, and whether the numbers were merely horrific or even worse. 

There has been a certain casualness about truth in recent decades within the Church which is disturbing since God is both Truth AND truth.

The Problem is Pope Benedict is a Modernist I say that with respect its the truth anyone who reads his writings on this will come to this conclusion His stuff is not traditional He needs to let go of the idea that the SSPX has to accept Vatican 2 to be in communion with the church that will never happen its really in the Popes hands We need a Pope like St.Pius X

I was closely affiliated with SSPX around the time of Archbishop Lefebvre’s death, and though I am not now, my heart has always been torn to see what their people and priests have peacefully endured.  As for myself (a single woman), I encountered grievious spiritual persecution and rejection from both sides after joining a fight to help them with reconciliation.  This was a messy deal since I believed (and still believe) they are Catholic. 

The effects of the expulsion of SSPX from communion with Rome were devastating.  One of the main causes of the separation is that documents of Rome are written so that they cannot be understood definitively by anyone (either then or now) - priests, bishops, or the faithful of SSPX or Rome.  Another cause is a substantial generic unwillingness of BOTH sides to genuinely invoke the aid of the Holy Trinity and the Holy Mother of God’s comforting hand. 

Having known Bishop Williamson personally, I would say he (forgive me if I speak out of turn, Your Eminence) is suffering greatly from not being loved and being regarded as defectively useless by Rome and SSPX - a most terrible lot, indeed!  As people try to be politically correct on his comments about Nazis, their compliance to PC designates a closed mind.  In my opinion, Bishop Williamson has been treated very unfairly - specifically, when he is characterized as a “problem” by Archbishop Muller!  A pedestrian account of the Bishop is not befitting of Rome on this matter and the use of negatives such as this, or blaming outsiders, or comparing SSPX to heretics will never lead to reconciliation. 

Archbishop Muller’s resume shows him to be to the far left on Church teachings, being associated with “liberation theology”.  The theology remains highly controversial - because of its origins in aggressive, atheistic communism in the name of Christ and Marx.  Whether Rome is looking at the Yin and Yang of left and right to reconcile a truly conservative group with Rome is uncertain, but a troublesome thought!  My suggestion is that God’s Truth is not being addressed with the current scenario and abandoning it should be looked at. 

As for reconciliation, a good first step would be to employ a neutral master to publicly discuss the SPECIFIC bits of contention where Vatican II document interpretations cannot be resolved.  These should probably involve issues such as how a serious misinterpretation of “Dignitatus Humanae” allowed other religions that do not even believe in God to be lauded in October 1986 in Assisi, angering and humiliating all of SSPX.  Also, the definition of “conscience” is vague and ambiguous in many documents.  Actual revision of the documents may be necessary.

To illustrate, I wish to comment on this quote from “Dignitatus Humanae”: 

“This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.” 

It is quite clear on cursory examination that this statement means that Vatican II is standing up for everyone’s “right” to oppose Christ.  Likewise, this can easily be interpreted as advocating other religions on the premise that they may oppose Catholicism and subsequently obtain God’s forgiveness.  But still, in order for God to forgive, there is a sin involved.  Standing up for a sinner’s God-given right to sin is not what Christ ever intended, and certainly not something the Holy Virgin would approve of.  This is what is called “doctrinal disunity” and a major point of dispute that needs to be resolved with SSPX.  Of course, the interpretation I see as a no-brainer is NOT what the Church meant to say.  However, the fact that it has been misinterpreted to the extreme I mention is the real problem.  American Catholicism is no comparison to what the rest of the world has seen when it comes to destruction of the faith.  Removing causes of misinterpretation of Vatican II documents may help.

I hope a genuine effort will be made to make the Church on earth a source of consolation for all souls intent on knowing God’s Truth.  The Society of St. Pius X wishes reconciliation, and so does the Pope.  Perhaps Rome and SSPX will begin again the path with Godly hope so we may all see Christ’s face in heaven.  Please pray for them.

And the SSPX is splitting. There is the ‘strict observance’ now and other off shoots of this sect that is like any protestant sect that can decide for itself what is ‘truth’.  The fact that they mostly adhere to some old ways is not enough.  The Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth. They are not in union with him.  They will continue to sail off their own way and splinter when some think they are not ‘traditional enough’ and so on. They are their own popes.

Their stuboorn and prideful attitude when our Holy Father was giving them so much leeway and a prelature too was disgusting.  I used to have some sympathy for them, having endured much under modernism myself, but I no longer do.  It is not the Holy Spirit guiding them.

May I suggest Bishop James D. Conley as a neutral moderator for the SSPX/Rome reconciliation.  He is one of the Bishops offering the Novena to the Mother of God for the Nation

http://www.religiousliberties.org/novena/bios.asp

How about the SSPX accept Vatican II, and the rest of the Catholic World accept the 20 previous General Councils?

“They must also accept the doctrinal pronouncements made since the Second Vatican Council, which have been authorized officially by the Pope.”

What doctrinal pronouncements have been made since the Second Vatican Council, that all men must believe?

Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore would also be a good choice.

Of course, the interpretation I see as a no-brainer is NOT what the Church meant to say.

Thanks for the info in the post, it was very interesting. But I am not clear on the interpretation you see as the “no-brainer” - are you saying that it is proper to coerce religious assent?  I thought the point of that was to say conversion and religious observance cannot be forced (aside from incurring the inherent penalty of sin for disbelief, etc.). I.e., you can’t force people to be Catholic at gunpoint, or go to Mass, etc.  How is that heretical?

I would like someone to point out a new dogmatic teaching of the Second Vatican Council.

Who will apologize to the Saints, Martyrs and Virgins?  Clearly Muller’s intention is to separate from the doctrines of the Catholic Church.  Facts are more provoking, disturbing, and more shocking than fiction:
1. Bishop Gerhard Muller Welcomes Punk Girls - Tradition In Action
http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A477-Muller-
1. Bishop Muller’s Denies the Perpetual Virginity of Our Lady by ... 
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a096_Muller_OL.htm
Jul 11, 2012 – Bishop Gerhard Ludwig Muller is friend of Liberation Theology and holder of unorthodox views, such as his denial of the perpetual Virginity of ...

When Rome makes clear what Vatican II actually says and which parts are new and therefore in need of assent, then the SSPX can know what they are signing on to.
At the moment the Vatican keeps telling them to accept Vatican II but no one exactly knows what that really means. So what they are really asking is for trust, “trust us, we are traditional and we know what we are doing” but given the history of the Vatican vis-a-vis tradition, over the last 50 years one can be excused if one is a bit supicious.
Read the book “Peter lovest thou me?” and see catalogued what Rome has done in the face of tradition.
The destruction of the Roman rite, Assisi 1 etc., communion on the hand, rampant tolerance of modernist experiments, ignoring sexual scandals of the clergy etc etc.
If the Vatican wants the SSPX to trust them, they need to show that they are trustworthy, the Holy Father cannot be given the benefit of the doubt anymore because of the terrible track record of anti-tradition of the last 50 years.
This is just common sense, and Arch. Muller should realize it, but someone I get the feeling he is too clever for anything common.

Dan,

  Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is the first that comes to mind.

“If the Vatican wants the SSPX to trust them, they need to show that they are trustworthy, the Holy Father cannot be given the benefit of the doubt anymore because of the terrible track record of anti-tradition of the last 50 years.”

Ah therein lies the crux of the problem. The SSPX will only be obedient when it suits them not and proves their lie that they “respect the authority of the Pope.” The issues mentioned like Assisi, Communion in the hand, liturgical abuses and so many other post Vatican II innovations were not called for by the Council and are not contained or called for in any of the documents. What it means to accept the Council is in my mind to stop denying that the Council was a break from Tradition. The Council stated from the outset that it was attempting to explain its teaching in a way that might be more understood by the modern world. In some cases that might lead to a seeming contradiction with what was taught before. It thus stated where there seemed to be a contradiction that in fact it must be understood in light of the traditional interpretation/teaching. Rather than wait for Rome to issue a syllabus to Vatican II that the SSPX finds acceptable as condition for their return, they should get back in the Church and help lead that discussion.

—Pope Paul VI (Letter to Lefebvre, 1976): With the special assistance of the Holy Spirit, the Popes and the Ecumenical Councils have acted in this common way. And it is precisely this that the Second Vatican Council did. NOTHING THAT WAS DECREED in this Council, or in the reforms that We enacted in order to put the Council into effect, IS OPPOSED to what the two-thousand-year-old Tradition of the Church considers as fundamental and immutable. We are the guarantor of this, not in virtue of Our personal qualities but in virtue of the charge which the Lord has conferred upon Us as legitimate Successor of Peter, and in virtue of the special assistance that He has promised to Us as well as to Peter: “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail” (Lk 22:32). The universal episcopate is guarantor with Us of this.” Again, you cannot appeal to the distinction between what is dogmatic and what is pastoral, to accept certain texts of this Council and to refuse others.

I do find the criticisms of Archbishop Muller’s quotes - isolated sentences taken out of context from his writings - be be rather embarrassing. One can see right away, without difficulty, how they can be interpreted to fit smoothly within Catholic theology. Why still tout them? What I find strange is that it is intelligent individuals in the SSPX that are doing the touting. One could do exactly the same thing with the works of the saints, or anybody. Really a very strange business.

Personally the more I hear Archbishop Muller speak, the more I like him.

Hmm. I can’t argue with ++Muller’s explanation of either doctrine. He’s right that we will never know what exactly happened-or didn’t-at the Birth of Our Lord in relation to the physiological properties of Our Lady. Also, his word choice might not be so clear, but clearly he understands and defends transubstantiation. To those who say he’s a liberation theologian, give me a break. He’s not quite on the Pope’s level, but the Holy Father’s theology thought-process is being modeled by ++Muller, as well as others in the Curia (H.E. Raymond Cardinal Burke comes to mind.).

“On the Eucharist, he stated: “In reality, the body and blood of Christ do not mean the material components of the human person of Jesus during his lifetime or in his transfigured corporality. Here, body and blood mean the presence of Christ in the signs of the medium of bread and wine.”)”

This is a very clear example of transignification, or at least its spector.  In transignification the words of the prayer by the priest at the moment of consecration, changes the meaning of the bread and wine to the humanity of Christ. In this view the elements remain bread and wine, but now signify Christ among the believers.  This is an old heterodox position, that appeared in some of the early versions of the post VII Dutch catechisms.  It was categorically condemned by Pope Paul VI’s encyclical “Mysterium fedei”, in 1965.

Transignification is what the Church and the Apostolic tradition have always and everywhere taught, that during consecration the elements of bread and wine- actually become the substance of the humanity of Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity- while the accedents or appearence of bread and wine remain. The substance of the bread and wine become the substance of the humanity of Christ.

I’m not a theologian, but that’s pretty straight forward and simple. 

“Transignification is what the Church and the Apostolic tradition have always and everywhere taught.”

My apologies, I meant transubstantiation here, not transignification.

Wow.  I am impressed with Mueller.  Great choice, Pope Benedict!  Compliments to NCR on this two part interview with excellent questions for the new prefect of the CDF. Mueller gives insight into who he is as a man of the Church and into his approach as a theologian.  He is absolutely correct that we need to focus on evangelizing the world with the truth and faith of the Catholic Church.  This will naturally lead to less squabbling as Catholics over internal issues.  Church teaching on all of the critical social issues of the day is clear.  Let those who can accept the Church move forward with her to proclaim the Gospel to all nations.  Blessings and prayers in your new work and ministry, Archbishop Mueller.

I have been following the whole “Doctrinal Preambule” Saga for some time now.  It is kind of crazy seeing all the actioons each party has done to “re-unite” and “come back home”.  None the less, it is very clear that one group, SSPX, only wants the things the way they were.  The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has given this group pretty much what they want:  liberation of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and lifting the excomunications on the 4 bishops.  This was done by the Pope knowing that he will be slammed for his effort, and he was, to unit the SSPX back to the Church.

What has happended?  The SSPX making demands and putting themselves over the Pope.  The Pope will say no and he is slammed.  The Pope accepts and he is slammed. 

The attitude over wordings and wanting to be more holy than God is almost full of vanity and pride like the devil himself wanting to be like God.  Sorry, but the attitude the SSPX has been that of the devil. 

In the early church, always like now, existed difference of opinion but never division like the one happening today.  What is more, the obedience always showed to St. Peter, the Apostles and to the Blessed Mother was enough.  Now, this obedience has gone to whom ever appears “wiser” and more intelligent. 

Jesus choose simple minded people not “smart” people who mess everything up with their “essence of holiness”.

The Church will continue, with or without the SSPX brothers.  Depends on us to maintain Tradition alive and always learn to love God and love the liturgy.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

You lose nothing by being obedient to the Holy Father.  You do, however, risk losing much by being disobedient.

“But it is important to remember that at no time in the history of the Church has a group or a movement in one country ever been successful when it has taken an attitude against Rome, when it has been “anti-Rome.” Setting oneself up against “Rome” has never brought authentic reform or renewal to the Church.”

Archbishop Muller is right.

The SSPX will outlast the lot of the modernists currently running roughshod over Holy Mother Church and will be around to help restore Her to Her glory.

If Bp Williamson isn’t Catholic, why was his excommunication lifted?

A little???

“We must concentrate our forces on the New Evangelization, especially in the old Christian countries of the West, which have lost their way a little.”

I would say the Western World has lost almost all the faith,the lost of faith in the Church is a complete tragedy!!!

One more, and here he goes again:

“The result is that we now not only have secularism coming from outside the Church, but we have a type of liberalism within the Church which has caused us to lose our direction (A LITTLE).”

For goodness sake the Cardinal needs a good dosis of reality.

Jason,

And how can the SSPX restore Holy Mother Church to Her glory if they’re not working from within?  I pray that they come in and work within the Church to help Her through this process.  But standing outside of it will not do it now or in the future.

I am baffled by the action of calling Pope Benedict a modernist, while belonging to a society that is named after another Pope - Pius X.  Such terms as conservative and modernist do not apply to the Chair of Peter.  Christ did not base his promise of protection on doctrinal matters or conservative positions.  He founded that protection on the Chair of Peter, no matter what man sits on the Chair. Those Bishops in union with the Pope are also our guides.  You can’t claim accuracy to one Pope, which has to be founded on his being “Peter” while claiming that another isn’t “Peter”.  Those who do so have the same problem as those in liberal dissent with the Church’s teaching.

Cdl Dolan and now Cdl Wuerl are admitting that the hierarchy has not taught on sexual morality for “forty-four years”. Why forty-four years? Because Humanae Vitae was issued in 1968 and its teachings were challenged immediately as they are challenged to this day. The mere fact that the writings of the present prefect of the CDF are even an issue signals to me that it was the SSPX and others who kept the Faith alive during the last four decades. Would there be an Extraordinary Form if it were not for the SSPX? OF COURSE NOT!

  I for one am sick and tired of the word “Modernist” getting thrown about particularly when it is the Pope himself who is being called this. These people are the well known “Integralists” that Pope St Pius X and Benedict the XV had to deal with in the early 20th Century. These folks think they are “holier than the Pope” and everybody else. They are also very uncharitable. The Pope is a Modernist was also used against Paul VI and that is why Marcel Lefebre was in trouble with Rome in the 1970’s. Is Modernism a problem in the Church? Yes. Can we call or accuse the Members of the Curia of being Modernists? NO. Pope St. Pius X himself warned against people claiming to love the Church but disobeying and disrespecting her legitimate leaders. These People are Schismatic in their mindset. I know because I used to go to a St. Pius V run Church and they are actually sedvacante clergy.

Archbishop Muller and many other liberals in the Church in dealing with the SSPX have seemed to find a new strategy. They are acting as if all has and is fine in the Church, for the past 45 years. They want us to believe that the horrible nightmare they caused, never happened. And now the Traditionalists are the bad guys. How soon they forget all the destruction they caused to the Church. They falsly interpreted Vatican Council ll, they distorted all the Council said, they caused unimaginable damage to the Church. And now they wish to speak as if they have long been faithful children of the Church, pretending to defend V2. Well in the “Year of Faith”, I hope Catholics will firmly remind them of the past 45 year catastrophe of which they were the very Authors.

You say, Angelo.  How about proof of what the SSPX has distorted.

Matt R, “To those who say he is a liberation theologian, give me a break.” Archbishop Muller himself said that he was attached to liberation theology. He proudly spoke of how he went on a retreat every year from the founder of liberation theology himself. He went yearly to South America to the University where liberation theology was born. Only a couple of months ago Cardinal Bertone and Pope Benedict XVl stripped this university of the name Catholic. Muller was speechless, it was his job to do this, but Bertone and the Holy Father had to do his job for him. As for how Our Lady gave birth to Our Lord, we do know this. The Church teaches as a dogma of the faith, “The Virgin Birth”. Our Lady conceived as a Virgin and thus gave birth to Christ as a Virgin. As Mary was the Immaculate Conception she was not under the punishment God gave to Eve, namely the pains of childbirth. The Church is clear that Christ did not come forth from the womb of Mary. But was born as God intended for Eve to give birth before the fall. Muller is a Modernist by his own views, not ours. And now Muller is talking obedience to the Church? Please, give me the break!

Joanie,  can you name 5 similarities of the pre-conciliar church to the post conciliar church?

Joe, I’m sorry I was not clear. The distortions I was talking about are those caused by the modernists and not the SSPX. The SSPX did in fact hold to some distortions about Tradition. And they still do, they do not understand what they condemn when it comes to Religious Liberty and Ecumenism. If they would look at these two subjects in light of Tradition, they will clearly find that Religious Liberty and Ecumenism was not the invention of V2, but has long been the Tradition of the Church. I believe that what they look at are the Distortions by modernists and not these two subjects in light of Tradition.

Joe, You have repeatedly asked the same question you are now asking Joanie. I have repeatedly given you my answer to this same question that you have posed to me before. Since you ask for only 5 similarities, I will not give you the thousands of similarities of the pre-conciliar church and the post conciliar Church. Here are 5 simmilarities. 1. We still have a Pope whom we must obey. 2. The Teachings on faith and morals by Christ’s Church have not changed, one iota. 3. The norm of the Church about Scripture and Tradition have not changed. 4. We continue to have in an unchangable manner, the Apostolic Succession. 5. We continue to have the 7 Sacraments as given by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Will you continue to wrongly condemn Vatican Council ll for what modernists have done in the past 45 years. They are totaly different, and you my friend know that only to well.

Although I find Archbishop’s wording of the Perpetual Virginity and - more especially - the reality of Christ’s Presence in the Euchurist a bit troubling (One if forced to really ask what is the difference between his definition and Luther’s expression via Constubstantation; even Pope Benedict XVI, when Cardinal, refered to the real presence via the understanding of the Resurrected Corporality of Christ (if I recall correctly); nonetheless I understand - I think - the good intention of attempting to find new ways of express the eternal truth to the modern age. 

Putting that all aside though; (I’m in my mid-30s)- why do some, including Archbishope Muller, not have a little more faith in the understanding of people - I find the explanations given say, in the Roman Catechim quite understandable; I question the need to be so overly concerned about expressing certain Truths in a more ‘modern’ manner ESPECIALLY when it seems to have the direct opposite effect of intent.

Sometime the Truth is best shared in simple terms; no wonder some don’t believe in the Real Presence any longer with such wording as the above.

Thank you very much National Catholic Register, for this enlightening interview.
We have a theological genius at the chair of Peter, and only through fidelity to the Holy Father can we evangelize the world.

In fact, we would have to respect the Holy Father even if he had mediocre intelligence. But it would be an act of Faith. With such an awesome Holy Father we have today, it doesn’t take any effort to obey him.

@ c matt:  Sorry my explanation was as unclear as the Vatican II document I referred to!  Here’s the quote again from ““Dignitatus Humanae”: 
“This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.” 

What I meant by the no-brainer interpretation was when someone decides the meaning of the document is that Vatican II is standing up for everyone’s “right” to oppose Christ “within due limits” (and what is that???).  That is an erroneous interpretation that can be made due to the confusing nature of the document, and similar interpretations have indeed been sources of error when used as references.  Religious freedom is much, much more than the absence of coercion - and what about those whose conscience tells them to kill Christians or bomb the World Trade Center?  I did not mention this had anything to do with heresy.  Sorry my words were not clear.  Also, “coercion by social groups” could be read by detractors to mean any attempt to evangelize would be considered a sin against the exercise of freedom of religion.  But those are the worst misinterpretations that could be read into this Vatican II piece.  An informed Catholic knows what the meaning is NOT, but a non-Catholic would be quite confused.  To me, there is absolutely no clear meaning to this “Dignitatus Humanae” quote.  Neither Catholics nor non-Catholics know for sure what it means.

Not too long after Vatican II changes wrought by Archbishop Bugniini and others had sickened my soul, to the constant guitar strumming Mass folk music, I could only ask, “Did we really ask for this?”  I know that I did not.  The pre-Vatican II church was, in effect, thought to have been unproductive.  When I moved into a new parish in the late sixties, in Reston, Virginia, Bishop Welsh had appointed the Oblates of St. Francis de Sales to staff the parish. Every Sunday, it seemed, we had a homily on the great virtues of Vatican II, ad nauseum and ad infinitem.  The liturgy was hum drum, and ho-hum, other than for the fact that Christ was in it, and I guess his suffering continued.  Mine did. The Oblates seemed to think that nothing in the pre-conciliar church was right, and on one occasion I was publicly chastized for my feelings of loss, due to Vatican II misinterpretations.  A church was built, and it looked like a fire station.  It has been replaced by a large meeting hall. The oblates continue to dish it out.  I might say that all of this came about because there were a handful of extremist liberals who wanted to “trash” everything pre-Vatican II.  The majority of us were led into what it now is; it was impossible to voice any protest about it with the pastor, who
twenty years later left the priesthood. The current group of Oblates advertize in each Sunday bulletin that they’re serving spirituality of St. Francis De Sales, and they have built up a little cult like system.
We’ve had faith healing services, glossalalia, people falling on the floor speaking in gibberish - under one of the former pastors. These priests have been trained in the spirit of Vatican II, and have been the avant garde in the diocese. When will we not under this spell?

Joesl, you said you,“question the need to be so overly concerned about expressing certain Truths in a more ‘modern’ manner ESPECIALLY when it seems to have the direct opposite effect of intent.”

This was in order to redefine the Church.  The Angelos of the world refuse to admit a contradiction when they are proven, especially Subsists IN, in Lumen Gentium para 8 that changed the office of Peter.  BTW, the changes created a contradiction with the 1917 Code of Canon Laws; therefore, a new list of laws was made to fit the changes.

Consider very carefully, Joel, that each Sacrament’s matter and form were changed; those assembled for the ‘meal’ are People of God.  The Mystical Body of Christ do not attend the conciliar Church.  Conciliarist form their own conscience - and for the most part they do so by leaving the conciliar Church.  These are old statistics and I would like more current:
There were 49,000 seminarians in 1965. By 2002 the number had plunged to 4,700 - a 90 percent decrease.

At the grade school level, there were 10,503 parochial schools in 1965 and 6,623 in 2002.
The number of students went from 4.5 million to 1.9 million”.

Yet, Angelos keeps saying nothing has changed.

Barney, statistics prove that the pre Vatican II Church was productive and that was greatly feared by those who want a one world religion.  I’ve experienced the same kinds of trappings in the conciliar church.  When non-catholics were asked to receive the Eucharist I did not know that they were following Vatican II’s approval and new code of canon laws.  The missionary spirit mandated by Christ to the first bishops has been renounced in the post Vatican II Church claimed Catholic.  Vatican II has twisted what Holy Mother the Church teaches and makes it appear as irrelevant.  Even in the bishops’ schools, youth are taught that they must increase in love, charity and tolerance.  The virtues are not taught for they interfere with the vices placed before the eyes of unsuspecting youth.  Youth are used as fodder to destroy Catholicism.  A mighty wedge is placed between them and their parents who appear to be clueless on how the Catholic faith is being destroyed and all the while subsidized with their money.

The Church needs to be inclusive with the SSPX.  Perhaps when this happens we can as a Church regain our sense of corporate sanity.  I never asked for Vatican II, and although Blessed John XXIII wanted to let some fresh air in, what came in twisted and warped the barque to the point of intentionality being demonic.  The Church is almost destroyed in Europe, although in a better state in the U. S., it is in decline also.  I remember with a sigh the cover on a National Review journal, which had the caption: What In The Name Of God Is Going On In The Catholic Church.
This was just after Vatican II.  My sighs have turned into anguished cries.

“The Angelos of the world refuse to admit a contradiction…”. False! The Angelos of the world love the Church and are battling within the Church for its restoration using truth as a weapon. Contrarly not on the outside of it with all kinds of distortions. Some of the latest comments are the same as my own. Catholics need to defend the Church from within. We were silenced for too long by the modernists who took over the Church. But many of us kept the faith. Catholics have been speaking up against the errors of modernism and Rome is listening. Lately the Leaders of the Church are talking about defending Tradition. Why now all of a sudden? Because the SSPX will not succumb to error, and Catholics are speaking up. Barney says, “My sighs have turned into anguished cries.”. This has been true for so many Catholics, I myself have been battling modernism for 35 years and I have seen and heard the anguished cries of so many Catholics. The liberals took the Church away from them and us, but they could not touch the Catholic Faith within us. As Chist said, “Fear not those who can kill the body, but cannot touch the soul.”. The liberals took our Catholic practices away, in a sense killing our bodies, but our faith remained firm and intact within our souls. And now Faithfull Catholics are speaking up and demanding an end to those who took the Church from us. We must do this within the Church and not make the error of doing it outside the Church. Do you hear me Joe?

Angelo, yes, at the Council of Vatican II the periti were primed to takeover.  Traditional Catholics were brutally treated at the council and they are considered scum as you can see from the Assisi Meetings beginning in 1986.  Traditional Catholics are not invited. Priests who refused to say the novus ordo missae were sent away without compensation.  We have the testimonies of some of them and you need to pay attention to what they have reported.

You claim you are defending from ‘within’.  You are defending conciliarism and not the Roman Catholic Church. 

It is shameful how the SSPX have resisted and yet recognized - picking what they claim is ‘truth’ and failing to connect the seriousness of the errors.  They cannot truly claim to be Catholics but are acting out a show of it.  Now they are including presbyters into their flock who are not qualitifed to speak the words of Consecration.  Once again, the First Commandment is violated.  Holy Mother Church is alive, Angelo,—- but you need to search for Her in the catacombs.

The archbishop simply playing politics: lying.He should prove that Mr Wiliamson is mistaken,but beside of the simply denial of facts,he declares and states the all should believe in a lie as a cornerstone of catholicism.Is he educating the world, and all historian should obey he’s teaching? Or will all be expelled? Or is it sound like the inquisitors? Isn’t he sponsored by the Wiesenthal centre?

Joe, I see now that you are the only Catholic left in the world. What next, will you hold a conclave and elect yourself Pope? You always say that the Periti took over Vatican Council ll. How so? What exactly is a Periti? I would like to know.

If a bishop denies the reality of the genocide of the Jews during WW2 one has to ask questions about his mind. If he can be so unreasonable about so basic a historical fact, then he can be unreasonable about anything. The church has had her share of problems of late - it does not need bishops lacking in reason. If he were mentally ill that would be different. But he denies what is clearly evident to any reasonable person. As to how the genocide was done - just read some of the major histories - the work of Raul Hilberg’s ’ Perpetrators, Bystanders,Victims’ is well documented. Try reading Chil Rajchman’s ‘Treblinka’. Go visit Auschwitz, Sobibor, Treblinka and Majdanek. If anything the official figures would understate the horror of what occured. As a grandchild of a Catholic grandmother who was in a concentration camp for 4 years - I find it amazing that people are so lacking in judgement and understanding in quibbling about ‘how’ it was done when the actual horror of the events rates hardly a mention.

You mean if a bishop questions the holocaust , then he is criminal, correct?

Earlier Phony “Holocausts” and “Jewish Genocides” & Sacred Six Million Number
Jews alleged a “holocaust” of “6 Million” Jews in Romania, Poland and Ukraine in 1919 at end of WWI
NY Times reports in 1906 that Russia’s “6,000,00 jews” facing a final “solution” of “systematic and murderous extermination”
New York Times reports 6 million jews holocausted in Russia in 1921!
Jews at NY Times refer to “European holocaust” of Jews in 1936, several years before alleged “mass killings”
9 months before Kristalnacht, 7 years before end of war, NY Times in 1938 claims 6 million jews are “victims” of “anti-semitic persecution”
The Kabalistic-Occult origins and purpose of the Holocaust™ dogma, and the 6 million number
Early Holohoax Tale - 64 million Jewish children wrapped in scrolls and burned by the Romans in 2nd century A.D.

Bishop Williamson has been chastized because he questions or denies in his own opinion the number of Jews killed in concentration camps. Has the Church made the amount of Jews killed a Dogma of the Faith. The Church should order the Jews to admit and decrie the 12 million Catholics killed in the Nazi concentration camps. Last I read, Jews have demanded that the Holocaust be considered only a Jewish thing. When Carmelite Nuns built a Cloister close to the Aushwitz concentration camp. The Jews so protested that Bl. John Paul ll asked the Nuns to relocate. After the war, a Cross was set up near the camp. The Jews ordered it to come down. The Cross came down and Catholics went and placed 1000 Crosses on the spot. I believe today it is still known as “The hill of a thousand Crosses”. If Bishop Williamson is being ordered to go against his personal opinion, then the Church should demand the same from the Jews. I am not anti-semitic, but if certain Jews continue to demand that we bow to them, the Church should chastize those certain Jews and demand an apology from them. An Apology to all Roman Catholics. Why can Jews constantly lash out against Catholics, and if a Catholic defends himself he must apoligize, or else the Jews will no longer have talks with the Church. We went from one extreme before the Council, to the opposite extreme after the Council.

Angelo,  the periti at Vat 2 were the modernists who wrote the 16 documents and were well prepared before the council began with their hijacked agenda.  They mocked and pushed aside the traditional bishops.  .

Doug Pearson,  according to Vatican II, members of The Jewish Faith and Islamic Faith worship the same God as Catholics do. That would be a new Dogma of the Faith, one that obviously, is erroneous.

It is the principle of the Catholic Church to convert not to ‘have talks’.  What Pontiff merely promulgated, “let us talk”.

Joe, You are once again mistaken. I asked you what exactly was a “Periti”, I knew what it was but I wanted to know, if you knew. The “Periti” were theoligians for their Bishops at the Council. They were specialists in Theology who were there with their Bishops for the sole purpose of advising them. Pope Benedict XVl was a “Periti for his Bishop, as a young priest at the Council. He was at all the sessions of V2, he was not one of the Council Fathers. They made no decisions at the Council, they took no part in the voting process, they wrote none of the Documents. They were only advisors to their Bishops. Now tell me again how the Periti took over the Council, tell me how they wrote the Council Documents. Your inventing what happen at the Council is not amusing!

When did Jesus suggest that although He Is The Truth, feel free to disagree?

Joe, Would you think that at all 21 Councils there were no talks? Some of your ideas of the Church make no sense. Like the anti-catholics it seems you just throw shots, any shots at the Church. If the Church would conform to your ideas of what should and should not be, it would be the most confusing of all institutions.

Angelo,    I’ve given you alot of references but you are not interested.  Think of why the millions of people left the new religion of Vatican II?  That should be some indication to you that many were refusing to adapt to ‘changes’.

Nancy - good major point!  The Angelos of the world believe the Holy Spirit has erred and needs to be corrected by subsequent generations.

Joe, What a contradiction on your part. It is you who proclaim that the Holy Ghost has erred by claiming that the Second Vatican Council erred. As I asked before, you being the only real Catholic left in the world, will you hold a one man Conclave and elect yourself the Vicar of Christ? In practice that is exactly what you have already done.

Those who believe we are free to agree or disagree with The Truth, The One Word of God, Our Savior, Jesus The Christ, most likely would agree with the erroneous statement from the Vatican Document, Lumen Gentium, which states that The Jews and Muslims worship the same God as we do, which is merely The Arian Heresy recycled. Although it is true that some, like the Centurion, or the Good thief, at the hour of his death, will come late to the fold, this does not change the fact that to deny that Jesus Is The Christ, is to deny The Father Who sent Him, and thus the ordered, complementary, communion of Perfect Love that Is The Blessed Trinity.

Edward Pentin,  Why do you desecrate Our Blessed Mother Ever Virgin by the quotes from Müller?  NEVER has the Roman Catholic Church spoken in such descriptive and graphic details in regards to the birth of Our Saviour.  This is shameful and has no place in public “Catholic” media.

Most Holy Father!  Please create a situation in which the SSPX is included in the Church. Why cannot Vatican II be clarified as to what is “dogmatic” and that which is not?  Until it is we will continue to have abuses within our liturgies in various churches.  The hermeneutic of continuity will not be served until the SSPX is included canonically within the Roman Catholic Church!

Herr Mueller does not himself accept the tenants of The Faith, nor all of The Creed. People need to read what he proclaims, such as his unbelief in the perpetual virginity of The Blessed Mother, and read what The Pope writes in his books about Jesus not being truly present in all the Tabernacles of the world, for starters. We need to pray those rosaries for a good and holy Pope, Princes, Priests, and Religious to return and then there will no longer be a need for Traditional Groups who ARE The Catholic Groups. Bishop Williamson said that The SSPX is in business to go out of business. And NO - a Pastoral Council is NOT binding: especially when it tampers with The Mass and Faith. CREDO! KNOW YOUR FAITH! ROME DOESN’T APPEAR TO ANYMORE! PRAY FOR OUR CATHOLIC CHURCH TO RETURN FROM DARKNESS!

Angelo, 
It doesn’t take much to be considered anti-semitic these days. Just disagreeing with anything about the jews will land you in hot water, be branded an anti-semite, excoriated by the press, etc. much less trying to proselytize them, for to be Catholic is to be anti-semitic in their eyes.  Just reading tidbits from the internet about the Talmud should give Christians a general idea of where they are coming from. Talmudists despise Christians, esp. the Catholic church.  I have no doubt the influence of jews et al , both internally and externally, have had on the church and if it came to light in a very public way , I think the church would change overnight. It does explain too the post-conciliar church and the walking-on-eggshells attitude she has exhibited these last 40+years towards them.

Adriennesz -  When did the virtue of tolerance for errors come into being?  It is unexplainable to me how concilarists submit to and are going along with so many errors.

Holy Mother the Church does not deceive nor is deceived -—-.

Nancy D.  What do you conclude with that error in Lumen Gentium and also in paragraph 8 that states the Church subsists in—no longer holds the Truth exclusively and can be found in other churches?