UK District Superior states there will be no regularization

[Gerard]

These days, it seems that many Catholics shove doctrines they don't like into the "Authentic Ordinary Magisterium" category (treating them as opinions) when in truth they're likely Doctrina catholica or Theologice certa, and so must be believed under pain of sin.

I find the reverse true, I find that people prone to the "neo Catholic" position tend to shove things that are merely personal opinions into  the category of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium.  Because Pope Benedict said the Novus Ordo is the same rite as the TLM is must be so, or JPII didn't believe in the death penalty so the Catholic Church doesn't. etc. 

[Francisco Logar]

So the SSPX will likely not regularize. Well, that's hardly surprising. They really have no interest in regularizing, and likely never will, IMO.

They have no interest in uniting themselves with a bunch of Modernists. Rome has not changed its Modernist stripes a bit as was just demonstrated at the lastest heresy show in Assisi.

Thank God the SSPX is keeping Catholic Tradition alive.

Hear Hear.  After the Blasphemy of Assisi III, we are in no hurry to join these Modernists.

Bishop Fellay stated, "We don't trust you.  We want deeds and not just talk"

[Titus Alba]

Such is the nature of schism.

Another nonsense drive-by shooting...

CAF is THAT way, bro.

<--------------------

[Nic]

If this is true and Bishop Fellay will not accept either the "Rolls Royce" situation or sign the Preamble then I wonder what will happen in 10 years when the SSPX wants to consecrate new bishops?
Will the consecrators be excommunicated all over again?
What a ridiculous game!

The Holy Father should just declare the suspensions lifted [unjust or just] and let the Society operate the way they are now.
This is no skin off anyones nose [since they will do so anyhow] but they will have faculties for confessions and marriages.

He cannot do that.  The SSPX would constantly be exposing error, fraud, sacrilege, blasphemy within the Church.  Like just about every week they'd be protesting some new openly homo bishop, or sex crime, or mud-wrestling mass.  How can B16 pray with the Jews and tell them "all the old differences are forgotten and we can all be friends and work towards building a humanist utopia here on earth" (which is what he tells them), if the SSPX are constantly telling the Jews they are perfidious, God-Killing reprobates who have been cursed for the last 2000 years?

That is like having Harry Markopolos go and work at Madoff Securities, 11 years ago, hoping that somehow they will just get along.  It is like putting salt on ice (or slugs).  It ain't gonna work.  The truth is going to burn these Vaticanists and they know it.

A house divided against itself cannot stand.  If the SSPX could survive and thrive within the Church then there would be no crisis.  They'd either cause a lot of trouble (good trouble but trouble nonetheless), or they'd be broken up by Machiavellian methods.  If they cannot survive and thrive then what is the point of rejoining.

Waste of time from the very start.

Although I agree with much of what you say - the Jews have not been cursed for 2000 years.  Their privilege ended in AD 70, and so did their curse because that is when the Jewish people were no more.  As Scripture clearly states, the treatment of their Messiah was upon them and their children.  It was that one generation that was cursed - and that cursed ended when Jesus came as Judge upon Jerusalem in AD 70, dealing vengeance "upon those who had pierced him" as Revelation states.

The "Jews" today are nothing but an empty title - a people holding an empty religion.  There is no more Jew or Gentile, only Christian and non-Christian.  Jews have the same opportunity as anyone else does to be grafted to the tree, all they have to do is seek God with an open heart and mind and accept the Gospel of Christ's Church - its the same deal with everyone.

I was exaggerating to make the point.  The SSPX don't believe, nor will they act, like the Jews are "our elder brothers in the faith".

So the new religion cannot absorb them.

And that is why I knew a deal would never happen.

Very much agreed.  The "Jews" concerning the people claiming that title today are NOT our "elder brothers in the Faith" because they are not truly Jews because true Jews no longer exist.  The "Jews" that exist today are a lost group trying to claim a religion that ceased to exist, therefore it is not Judaism, it is something else (I prefer the term Pharasaic Talmudism). The Biblical Jews are our elder brothers, but they ceased to exist after 30-70 AD when the Covenant was transitioned to the Catholic Church, whose members are now the true "spiritual Jews."  But the modern post-conciliar Church will not admit this because it proves that the New Covenant superseded the Old - that would just not be "ecumenical."

[Someone1776]

The Jews are "our elder brothers" in the sense that we have something in common, that is, the old Covenant. It is true that the acknowledgment of the coming of the Messiah separates us.

Antisemitism has no place in our ranks. We follow fully God's commandments on justice and charity and the constant teaching of the Church. Antisemitism has been condemned by the Church. So do we condemn it.

-Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/02/fellay-jews-are.html

[Nic]

The Jews are "our elder brothers" in the sense that we have something in common, that is, the old Covenant. It is true that the acknowledgment of the coming of the Messiah separates us.

Antisemitism has no place in our ranks. We follow fully God's commandments on justice and charity and the constant teaching of the Church. Antisemitism has been condemned by the Church. So do we condemn it.

-Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/02/fellay-jews-are.html

That's correct concerning Biblical Jews - not today's "Jews."  I disagree with anyone on that because Scripture is quite clear concerning this (no more Jew or Gentile - the time of the Gentiles is over, etc).

[SouthpawLink]

These days, it seems that many Catholics shove doctrines they don't like into the "Authentic Ordinary Magisterium" category (treating them as opinions) when in truth they're likely Doctrina catholica or Theologice certa, and so must be believed under pain of sin.

I find the reverse true, I find that people prone to the "neo Catholic" position tend to shove things that are merely personal opinions into  the category of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium.  Because Pope Benedict said the Novus Ordo is the same rite as the TLM is must be so, or JPII didn't believe in the death penalty so the Catholic Church doesn't. etc. 

That's a good point, especially concerning Pope John Paul's stance on capital punishment.  On the other hand, recent events and speculation have led some Catholics to deny the infallibility of either canonizations or universal disciplinary laws because of the consequences of affirming those truths (e.g., a soon-to-be Pope St. John Paul II, apparently or actually theologically erroneous Mass prayers in the NOM, and bad laws in the 1983 Code).

P.S. - Pope Paul VI twice called the NOM a "new rite of Mass" (Audiences of 19 and 26 November 1969).

[Gerard]

On the other hand, recent events and speculation have led some Catholics to deny the infallibility of either canonizations or universal disciplinary laws because of the consequences of affirming those truths (e.g., a soon-to-be Pope St. John Paul II, apparently or actually theologically erroneous Mass prayers in the NOM, and bad laws in the 1983 Code).

That could be but JPII has nothing to do with my belief that canonizations are not infallible.  I agree with St. Thomas Aquinas that belief in the infallibility of canonizations is a pious belief, but I don't believe it to be anything more for the simple reason of the law of non-contradiction.  Canonization implies a direct knowledge of specific information that cannot be known by man by virtue of reason.  Therefore it must be revelation.  Now, either public revelation closed with the death of the last Apostle or it didn't.  But  you can't accept that public revelation closed and the occupants of Heaven are still being revealed to us at the same time. 

I also don't know how universal disciplinary laws could be infallible unless certain specific laws apply to the universal Church.  And since there are multiple codes of laws for the different Churches (eg. Eastern and Latin Rite Canon Law) infallibility isn't invoked if it doesn't bind the whole Church. 

[Atomagenesis]

In order for someone to be declared a Saint and it be infallible, would not all the bishops in union with Peter make it so? But it begs the question of the nature of complete magisterial infallibility, singular infallibility (the pope, Successor of St. Peter) and reasonable dogmatic exegesis of how the two co-exist in the realm of infallibility. The question is, can the pope declare a saint to be in heaven by canonization alone, because any infallibility declarations technically have to be fully united in the bishopric with Peter or or can some bishops not agree and it is infallible by other bishops with Peter? The ramifications are huge.

Hrmmmmm..... 

[Doce Me]

New update posted on Rorate Caeli:

Communiqué of the General House of the Society of St. Pius X

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/11/communique-of-general-house-of-society.html

Following the meeting of the Superiors of the Seminaries and Districts of the Society of Saint Pius X in Albano (Italy), on October 7, 2011, several comments have appeared in the press on the response Bishop Bernard Fellay [Superior General of the Society] would give to the Roman proposals of September 14, 2011. It is recalled that only the General House of the Society of Saint Pius X is entitled to make public an official communiqué or authorized commentary on this matter. Until further notice, reference should be made to the communiqué of October 7, 2011. (DICI of Nov. 2, 2011) [Original language: French]

I hope Fr. Morgan and others convince Bp. Fellay to strongly consider the comments of those at the October meetings.  I wish the General House would not continue to delay addressing the "doctrinal preamble", unless there is some good reason that I cannot see.  Pray for Bp. Fellay.