“Anything less than requiring a vigorous and transparent effort to remove the foundation of theological anti-Semitism that underlies the teachings of the SSPX will mark a visible retreat for the Church from the reworking of its relationship with the Jewish people that began in the Second Vatican Council almost 50 years ago.”

We have made a lot progress because of the Council – especially in our relations with our Elder Brothers of the Faith. I have great confidence in our Holy Father.

Anti-Semitism is frightfully woven into the Lefebvrite theology to the degree where one wonders – Is it the SSPX or SSP卐?

I would like to mention that neither Msgr. Gherardini, or Prof. de Mattei (a supporter of tradition, family and property), or Prof. John Lamont in Austrailia have any authority whatsoever to speak for the Vatican, or for the Pope. They are merely giving their personal opinions on the matter. For SSPX adherents, it seems important that they show that even those outside of SSPX circles (such as these three men) hold some of the same views as they do. But they do not hold the views of the Pope and Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

There is no difinitive or authoritative proof which shows that the Council has contradicted previous teachings. The Council has given a different interpretation of Church teachings, but a differing interpretation, whicle remaining faithful to core doctrines, is not contradiction.

There are many traditionalists who want the Church to return to a heavy-handed approach to religious liberty. But the heavy-handed approach is no longer needed or wanted by those at the helm of the Church. It is up to a pope to decide what approach the Church will take with relating to the world at large, and it can vary according to the times and climes in which the Church has found herself throughout history. But at this time, a softer approach toward the world is what the Popes after the Council have taken. It is their perogative to do so, as they know what’s best for the Church.

Some “progressives” claim to be the “true” church usurped by the “reactionary” Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Read the comments on National Catholic Reporter’s website if you don’t believe me.

Prof. Roberto de Mattei (following in the footsteps of Prof. Amerio – author of “Iota Unum”) – along with 50 other Italian academics (all non-SSPX) – has likewise requested such a debate.

Finally Prof. John Lamont also mentions that Second Vatican Council has texts that contradict what the Church has always taught and practiced.

See sspx.org for details if you want to know what the SSPX really stands for.

Joe alluded to the difference in treating public officials v. SSPX. It is not so much the liberal v. conservative (or progressive v. orthodox, if you prefer) divide. It is more because of the different situations of the two. One professes to be the “remnant” of the Church and directly attacks the ecclesiastical structure, basically claining to be the one true Church or at least a parallel one. The others (public officials) are acting outside the Church – they are not ordaining priests or consecrating bishops, or otherwise monkeying with the internal structure of the Church. If Pelosi and her ilk started claiming the US Govt had the power and authority to decide who can be priests/bishops, and started ordaining women or setting up a Federally approved Catholic Church, then you would probably see the excomm’s flying.

I defense of the VAT II religion, I think your view of the fruits of Second Vatican Council are based on a false premise: namely that this church is in decline. If you live in Europe or North America, that is an understandable belief. However, the Catholic faith is actually growing at an accelerated rate almost everywhere else in the world. The number of faithful and the number of priests are going up worldwide. Furthermore, to blame all of the things you list on the council is to seriously ignore some of the problems the church had before the council. Both the council and the problems that occurred afterward were a long time coming.

Peronne observes that “”Councils are not infallible in the reasons by which they are led, or on which they rely, in making their definition, nor in matters which relate to persons, nor to physical matters which have no necessary connexion with dogma.” Præl. Theol. t. 2, p. 492. Theologians, like Tournely and Amort contend that even those most instructive capitula passed in the Council of Trent,, from which the Canons with anathemas are drawn up, are not portions of the Church’s infallible teaching [Amort. Dem. Cr., pp. 205-6] Thus, no Catholic is troubled by the fact that the Council of Ephesus quoted a passage from an heretical author in defence of the doctrine defined, on the mistaken assumption that he was Pope Julius.

“Nothing,” says Perrone, “but the objects of dogmatic definitions of Councils are immutable, for in these are Councils infallible, not in their reasons.”

That a general council cannot be infallible in its legislation is obvious enough, for a command cannot be true or false; it is, nevertheless, binding on the faithful.

…which, oddly enough, issued two “dogmatic” constitutions.