Rorate Caeli

"The end of the schism" - Turning Point in Rome-FSSPX talks

The Italian daily L'Indipendente publishes today a powerful article (PDF file), written by Tommaso Debenedetti, with extremely important information on the Papal meeting of February 13, the considerably deep rapport between the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X and the Pope himself, and the prospects of what may happen at the second Papal-Curial meeting of March 23.

These are the most important parts of the article:

1. The heads of the dicasteries [capi dicastero], in fact, were called to evaluate, together with the pope, the fastest and the most legally valid ways to arrive at what Benedict XVI wishes with all his strength: that is, the end of every disagreement with the Fraternity of Saint Pius X (the official name of that organization which assembles the followers of Lefebvre, that is, the four bishops, almost 500 priests and hundreds of thousands of faithful in the five continents). Actually, Ratzinger did not need consultants: he had been put in charge by John Paul II to look after this very delicate question for more than a decade. It is known, in fact, that Wojtila suffered immensely for having to impose the excommunications which signaled the birth of the only schism of contemporary times.

2. Benedict XVI, who, once elected pope, quickly decided to carry the matter forward to solve it in a short time, has chosen instead to assure a broad consensus and the input of legal-technical advice in taking the decision which he had always considered an absolute priority.

3. A document will be drafted to be presented to the Pope in another meeting, scheduled for March 23, which -- according to the news collected by us -- will signal not only the lifting of the excommunications, but the end of the schism

4. "The Holy Father", says one of his collaborators, "is so interested in finding a solution in a very short time that he is ready to find any legal way which pleases him. Naturally without disregarding the fundamental principles of the Church, of her history, and of the dispositions which concern her today."

5. Therefore, a compromise? "In such matters", responds the Pope's collaborator, "there are no compromises, at least not in the current and easily misleading sense of the word, but there are fruitful mediations, especially when both parts have the will to arrive at an objective".

6. Asked if March 23 will be the true date, it is answered: "For us, it will be."

7. Nobody in the Vatican admits it in clear terms, but the often recurrent news according to which Benedict XVI himself has, at least with a certain frequency, direct contacts with the Fraternity of Saint Pius X seems well founded. Repeated (extremely discrete) telephone conversations between Ratzinger and the Lefebvrian bishop Fellay are mentioned, from which has matured a disposition, from the part of Traditionalists, which is quite superior [more positive] than that which is expressed by the official communiqués.

8. Actually, the truly encouraging results of these contacts have induced Ratzinger to call the two meetings of [past] Monday and of March 23 and to bring the news to the outside, which would have been avoided if there had not been a feeling of justified optimism.


Holy See - Rome - SSPX - Fellay - talks - reconciliation
--

Update (March 1, 2006): If you are visiting us from Hugh Hewitt, please visit the rest of our blog. You may also enjoy the following recent articles:

Rome, FSSPX, and the Traditional Roman Rite - What to expect in the near future


Rumors, CHECKED!


No news? Good news.


A RORATE CÆLI Editorial: Holy See - SSPX.



72 comments:

Boko Fittleworth said...

This is great news. Is it accurate?

New Catholic said...

The translation is as accurate as I could master, with a hectic day at work and all. As for the facts, they fit in very well with many different news and serious rumors from many different sources. L'Indipendente is a very respected newspaper and has broken many relevant Vatican stories in the recent past.

Jeff said...

Marvellous!

I hope it's true. And I hope it WORKS. There is, as they say, many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip. One of those slips is the possibility of a lack of reciprocal willingness on the other side. I pray that the Refuseniks will be swept along by events beyond their control.

What does the good Brother think about all this?

Thanks so much for all your hard work, NC!

Moretben said...

Jeff

I share in your prayer for the "refuseniks". Undoubtedly some are ready to cry "betrayal!" whatever terms are proposed. I earnestly hope such spirits are not given the veto.

petrus69 said...

We can only hope and pray that is comes to pass. Let us also pray that there are no flies in the ointment.

Jeff said...

Moretben:

You know, the brilliant thing about this is, it sounds like the Pope isn't going to PROPOSE any terms. He's just going to do an end run around these folks. They say they're in and they recognize him as Pontiff; he's going to make it so they ARE back in, whether they want to be or not. What's Willimson, going to say, "No, I don't WANNA be in the Church"?

THEN, over time, Rome will work on regularizing them, just like it's working on regularizing so many other imperfectly obedient and imperfectly believing folks. This is ecumenism with a vengeance!

The SSPX is just going to wake up and find that they are back in the Church, in the nasty old "Conciliar" Church, whether they want to be or not! And then the better elements will help us FIX what needs to be fixed!

Brilliant Benedict.

Al Trovato said...

Jeff,

It's infuriating when I have to agree with a neo-cath like you!

But that has been my theory from the start, one that I have shared many times with New Catholic.

It's what I like to call "the coup d'etat option". What are they going to say: No, Holy Father, You have got to excommunicate us again!

Peter Karl T. Perkins said...

One possibility is that the Pope will lift the declarations of excommunication and declare that Sunday and holyday attendance at a Society chapel fulfils the obligation to assist at Mass. He could do these unilaterally. He could, at the same time, allow all the priests of the Latin Church to celebrate the old Mass, either privately or both publicly and privately. Third, he could erect a personal and international apostolic administration for the Ecclesia Dei communities, possibly under the jurisdiction of Bishop Rifan of the Campos p.a.a. (by merely expanding the current one to cover the whole world). This would still leave the local bishops with enormous power over the old Mass because they would still control all the best venues for its celebration: old churches and chapels and oratories. It would induce co-operation between Bishop Rifan and the local bishops.

But to effect a complete reconciliation and offer the S.S.P.X a jurisdiction, the S.S.P.X would have to agree to accept it. So both sides must agree in order for any reconciliation to be complete.

One thing we do not want to see is a personal prelature. Under Canon 297, that would be nothing but smoke and mirrors for traditon. The right jurisdiction is the personal apostolic administration already granted in the Campos and not the jurisdiction given to Opus Dei.

Peter Karl T. Perkins
Victoria, B.C., Canada

Peter Karl T. Perkins said...

One possibility is that the Pope will lift the declarations of excommunication and declare that Sunday and holyday attendance at a Society chapel fulfils the obligation to assist at Mass. He could do these unilaterally. He could, at the same time, allow all the priests of the Latin Church to celebrate the old Mass, either privately or both publicly and privately. Third, he could erect a personal and international apostolic administration for the Ecclesia Dei communities, possibly under the jurisdiction of Bishop Rifan of the Campos p.a.a. (by merely expanding the current one to cover the whole world). This would still leave the local bishops with enormous power over the old Mass because they would still control all the best venues for its celebration: old churches and chapels and oratories. It would induce co-operation between Bishop Rifan and the local bishops.

But to effect a complete reconciliation and offer the S.S.P.X a jurisdiction, the S.S.P.X would have to agree to accept it. So both sides must agree in order for any reconciliation to be complete.

One thing we do not want to see is a personal prelature. Under Canon 297, that would be nothing but smoke and mirrors for traditon. The right jurisdiction is the personal apostolic administration already granted in the Campos and not the jurisdiction given to Opus Dei.

Peter Karl T. Perkins
Victoria, B.C., Canada

New Catholic said...

Thank you very much for your input, Mr. Perkins. I sincerely believe that a Prelature was never even considered in the current talks -- it is in nobody's true interest.

Peter Karl T. Perkins said...

I should like to add one clarification to my last post. In the current situation, I do not believe that the S.S.P.X should accept an instant reconciliation. There are too many outstanding issues that need to be resolved. But Rome could grant or expand the current personal apostolic administration in order to advance the integration of the Traditional Latin Mass; and Rome could also lift the declarations of excommunication and declare a right to fulfil the obligation at Society chapels as a way to prepare for full reconciliation.

In order to achieve full reconciliation, some important issues do need to be resolved. One is the œcumenical policies of Rome. Another is the character and effects of the New Mass. A third is the new seminary document, which apparently lets sexual inverts proceed to diaconal ordination if they pretend to be celibate for three years.

A full reconciliation must be grounded in truth. Better to proceed in steps and never compromise on principle. Should compromises on principle be made today, we shall all suffer for it tomorrow.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

Well, Italian journalists, have a bad habit of printing hopes as news: so until it is confirmed by others, you should all be calm.

However, if the Pope is to unilaterally cancell the excommunications and "free the mass";it certainly will be a unqualified victory for everything the Archbishop stood for.

However, as I see it, the Pope's doing this for other reasons: his intention is to end the schism with the Orthodox this year or next; and they have made it very clear that they want him to end the schism with the SSPX first; and show them thereby how he would propose to end the Great Schism.

So this is a case study for that. And I think B16 has the same idea for both: that is a unilateral cancellation of disciplinary censures. He may ipso facto make the SSPX in communion, without requiring anythign from them; as a good will gesture, and then ask them in Christian Charity to make a Christian response in Charity. And likewith to the Orthodox.

On the one hand, this is going to cause a lot of confusion: because laws are supposed to be for guiding the practice of virtue and for the instruction in virtue, and until we se how he does it and if he does it this way, it is hard to say what the repercussions will be. On the other hand, the sins of heresy and schism remain, regardless of whether they are condemend in this particular person or church. And it is conceivable, for those who are ignorant that they are in sin, and have no malice (which even Christ admitted to St. Bridget in regard to the majority of the Orthodox), that such a unilateral step will only foster their acceptance of the truth, ultimately. In short, the pope will be treating them as poorly catechised children, with whom it is pointless to impose censures, since they are not yet ready for the responsibility of adulthood. It all seems highly unorthodox to me. Let us pray for the Pope!

Tradosaurus said...

The SSPX, if they do reconcile with the novus ordo religion will go the way of the Bishops of Campos who have been readily absorbed and have slowly lost the Catholic faith.

I for one will refuse to ever step foot inside a sspx chapel if they reconcile with the vatican ii church.

I believe that half of the sspx membership are closet sedevacantist and will stay with the few sspx priests who will not embrace the novus ordo religion.

Trad

Matt said...

The SSPX, if they do reconcile with the novus ordo religion will go the way of the Bishops of Campos who have been readily absorbed and have slowly lost the Catholic faith.

I for one will refuse to ever step foot inside a sspx chapel if they reconcile with the vatican ii church.

I believe that half of the sspx membership are closet sedevacantist and will stay with the few sspx priests who will not embrace the novus ordo religion.

Trad


Without Bishops your schism will end in a short time, and the True Church will live on, as promised by Christ.

"Extra Ecclesium Nulla Salas".

I think this is a brilliant move on the part of B16. Since SSPX insists they are not in schism, he agrees with them formally and carefully exercises his pastoral authority, while allowing them a significant degree of autonoy within their apostolate. Any that refuse this lawful authority have no excuse.

I think what's especially important is the pressure this will bring to bear on the Bishops, they face losing large numbers of their flock to SSPX if they don't satisfy the demand for traditional masses and orthodoxy.

Jeff said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jeff said...

Yes, Tradosaurus is precisely the problem. If it is up to Tradosaurus and his friends, the schism will never be healed. So let him fulminate; what can he do? He'll be in the Vatican Two church anyway; how does he propose to leave EXCEPT by a formal schismatic act on his part? If he does that, at least it won't be the Pope's fault...

And I think the good Brother's suggestion has a kernel of truth to it. We SHOULD treat the SSPX as errant children and bring them to heel slowly and carefully, with love, over time. There's no other way to bring them back, I don't believe, than the expansive embrace of charity. God is Love, guys, remember?

I think it's funny to see these guys so uncomfortable and trying to figure out what in the world they can DO about it if they suddenly find themselves back IN? Not something they'd planned on having to deal with...it's so much more easy and relaxed in SSPX-Land.

Peter Karl T. Perkins said...

Responding to both Tradosaurus and Jeff:

I don't think that we need fulminate on either side on this issue but let us insist on being reasonable.

First, I think that Pope Benedict XVI can indeed take certain actions that could lead to a reconciliation. We must all pray for a reconciliation as a final goal because disobedience to legitimate authority can only be rightful in the case of necessity and such a case is not normal but exceptional.

On the other side, I think that it would be folly for the S.S.P.X to accept a complete reconciliation under current circumstances. We now have popes who pray with heretics and who respond to $1 billion in abuse settlements by making it possible for yet more sexual inverts to infect our seminaries. This is absolutely unacceptable. That seminary document could have been written by Satan himself and the S.S.P.X should not reconcile completely until it has been repudiated and annulled. And there are more problems, including the continuing form of the New Mass. While the New Mass per se is both valid and licit, it also has very serious negative effects and has undermined the Faith. Therefore, it needs to be reformed (or, ideally, abolished). Hence the Society hardliners are right that Rome needs to reverse those of its policies and laws that are clearly anti-Catholic.

But the Pope, in the mean time, can do much to move the S.S.P.X in the direction of regularisation. A personal apostolic administration for the loyal Ecclesia Dei communities and the withdrawal of the declarations of excommunication can, at least, make it justifiable for the S.S.P.X leadership to negotiate with Rome; and a statement that the old Mass was never suppressed could also be very helpful.

petrusprimus said...

OH GREAT! The SSPX is going to be in FORMAL communion with a heretic. What's the principle now??? Yoke yourself to an unbeliever, just don't explicitly profess his unbelief??? St. Peter, pray for us!

Peter Karl T. Perkins said...

Let us suppose that the Pope extends the 'Campos' personal apostolic administration to cover the whole world (with a needed clause about amending some concordats with various countries in due course); he might, at that point, promote it into a personal diocese. This would give its proper ordinary (e.g. Bishop Rifan) juridical independence from the local bishops but those bishops would still control all the churches, chapels and oratories best appointed for the old Mass. Hence the local ordinaries and the new proper ordinary would have incentives to co-operate with each other. The local bishops would want to approve requests from the proper ordinary so as to avoid the possibility of finding themselves circumvented anyway (and thereby losing face when a group of faithful buy a church); and the apostolic administrator would want to gain access to good venues for the Traditional Latin Mass and must therefore establish good relations with all the bishops.

Such an arrangement would also exert pressure on the S.S.P.X because, especially in Latin America, if given the choice between Tradition with the Pope's blessing and Tradition without it, most faithful will choose the former. That is why the growth of the Society in Latin America has been so limited.

The danger to such an a personal apostolic adminisration is the possibility that Rome could eventually impose on it reforms to the Traditional Latin Mass, such as the 1965 and 1967 reforms--or even baby steps into a 'nice' N.O. in Latin. We certainly don't want that.

In the case of the S.S.P.X, reconciliation can only come when all the doctrinal disputes are resolved and, even then, the Society must be careful to keep its property owned by its own inner circle. Under the current Code of Canons, a parish can indeed offer Masses in private chapels owned by associations of the faithful or private individuals.


I think that, to begin the process of reconciliation, the Pope could withdraw the declarations of excommunication and, perhaps, recognise formally that the right of priests to celebrate the old Mass was never abrogated. Owing to the operation of other canons, this second measure would not, in fact, result in a massive rebellion as priests start refusing to celebrate the ancient Latin Mass. In fact, owing to other canons, only retired priests would be able de facto to offer the old Mass under such a recognitio, and even they could be hampered somewhat in that by their bishops. I might cite the relevant canons in a later posting. Part of it has to do with limitations on the number of Masses parish priests can celebrate on any day and part of it has to do with a legal requirement now in force that they must offer the New Mass on Sundays for the benefit of the faithful because it is normative.

Such steps would help the process. In addition, His Holiness should consider reforming the New Mass. For example, he could restore the mediæval Roman Offertory at least as an option. One of the worst changes in 1970 was the imposition of that horrid "Blessed are You Lord God of all Creation" thingy.

I think that comments by some contributors go too far when they claim that Bishop Rifan has 'sold out' to the New Order. It simply is not true. True, he is not perfect (unlike God) and he did make an error in judgement and ended up participating in a regrettable N.O. with some unfortunate abuses. But this does not make him a hopeless case. His priests celebrate only the old Mass and he has worked assiduously to advance the cause of the Traditional Latin Mass. Let's give this good man some credit. We all make mistakes from time to time. I certainly have.

Al Trovato said...

Mr. Perkins,

I have been an admirer of yours for many years, and I don't know anyone who knows more about the whole Ecclesia Dei situation than you.

I also share with you the same disgust regarding that odious "perverts can be priests" document, but, for the life of me, I cannot understand the notion that the Church has to be perfect before we can support an agreement between her and the Society. Until this whole situation is regularised, the enemies of the Church can shoot down everything we say by simply yelling "SCHISMATICS!"

I'm sure you have encountered people who say: "oh, I love everything the SSPX says, but my conscience does not allow me to go there". There are many Catholic on the "inside" that think like us, but cannot "cross the line" and come to the Chapels. You must understand, since I know you were there once. Do you feel less or more Catholic now than before? I know you don't.

Why do you think Arinze doesn't want the agreement? Why is Cardinal Lustiger upset? They don't need the annoying Trads "inside" the Church.

There will be no agreement, but Our Lord knows that I pray for it every single day.

Jeff said...

I agree with Al. The annoying Trads should be inside the Church, if that's at all possible. Let's let them leave if they don't want to be inside the Church and then they can't complain that they've been kicked out or deny, Monty-Python-like, that they have been!

Mr. Perkins and those who think as he does want the doctrinal "questions" resolved in a certain way. They never will be. Rome isn't going to change them; Pope Benedict isn't going to say, "Religious Freedom is a false doctrine; Vatican Two was wrong." And every day that these folks are outside makes the possibility of healing the breach more remote.

And, though I'm almost always considered the most bigoted "homophobe" possible, I must also insist that Rome isn't going to apologize for the fine document on the seminaries. There's never been a document on this topic that said that anyone who has once experienced an odd romantic attraction for someone of the same sex at a party when they were drunk for all of thirty seconds can't be a priest. There were documents that said HOMOSEXUALS can't be ordained priests.

Now we have a document that says not only HOMOSEXUALS can't be priests, BUT ALSO anyone who has suffered from STRONG HOMOSEXUAL TENDENCIES can't be priests. That's an expansion of the principle, not a liberalization, despite dishonest attempts by some bishops and priests to pretend otherwise. It does recognize, though, that people can change.

I believe homosexuality is a disorder. Disorders can be cured and sometimes are. If someone once was a homosexual and isn't any more, why not let them be a seminarian if enough time has gone by and they no longer suffer from those temptations? Please enunciate YOUR principle: Once a homosexual always a homosexual; it's not an evil tendency, it's a permanent character? OR...If someone's ever had a fleeting attraction to a man, or a Brideshead-Revisited-like teenage fling with a man, he is barred for life from the priesthood, even if his sexual attention has been on the opposite sex for many years? What is your alternative? Do you have one?

Anyway, I don't get to decide these things. Neither do you guys. That's one reason we have a POPE, Deo gratias! The question is, do Trads still want one? Or only on certain terms? Do they still want to be Roman Catholics? Or do they want to be Western Orthodox?

Peter Karl T. Perkins said...

The doctrinal questions will be resolved. It is only a matter of time. The S.S.P.X cannot be outside the Church on the grounds that its supporters believe what all Catholics have always believed.

On the matter of religious liberty, Jeff has not been watching the news lately. The Pope has recently made a gesture, commenting that the document in question is *not* a matter of dogma. It was a clear overture. Another prominent theologian in France (who is not in an irregular situation) has recently written a very long and detailed tome regarding how D.H. is not incompatible with the Syllabus. At any rate, in principle, the S.S.P.X can accept V. II as interpreted in the light of Tradition, which is how J.P. II said it *must* be interpreted. And the current Pope has called for ongoing interpretation of the Council. The problem is that the Holy See has so far followed misinterpretations of the Council-and-Tradition on a number of matters, including praying with heretics and advocating that Catholic states become secular states. The New Mass is also seriously flawed catechetically and has led souls astray--and away. Salus animarum lex suprema est!

As for the seminary document, by signing it, the Pope has effectively stabbed our future priests in the back. It is *not* simply a matter of holding that someone might have homerastic tendencies but not be a homerast. As the Church has proclaimed many times before, even if one thinks one has a vocation, nobody has a right to be a priest. The Church has an obligation to safeguard the priesthood. At one time, a man with a withered hand could not be ordained because of the appearance of being unwhole. Having a lust for another guy is genuinely being unwhole, no?

Today, a pink mafia controls the priesthood and so we need a document that says that nobody who has had any disordered attractions should be welcome. That does not mean that anyone who has had such attractions need be a fag. Clearly, people in prisons and some other cases engage in such actions but are not 'fags'. Boys who were sodomised in upper-class boarding schools mostly went on to marry and father children. But they would not have made acceptable priests because of the risk they would have posed. It is a risk to adolescent boys, to young men, to parishioners and their lost dollars when churches are sold. And it is a risk to such candidates themselves. Is it right to expose such people to constant temptation in an all-male environment? We must flee not only sin but also the occasion of sin. And those who deliberately expose the weak to temptation are sinners themselves.

When you have a bill for $1 billion and three U.S. and one Canadian dioceses gone bankrupt because *85% of sexual abuse cases were homerastic, you need to ban anyone with those tendencies, at least in principle.

The new document is in no way some improvement. The 1961 and 1931 documents that preceded it allowed for *no exceptions*. Now, should the Pope send seminary visitators to clean up the pink palaces, the local bishops can plead that they let these queers in through the back door because they *claimed* to be clean for three years before diaconal ordination. That is a formula for disaster! Under the 1961 document, it would at least have been *possible* to say 'no exceptions' and clean out the trash. Make no mistake: our seminaries and priesthood have become a target of professional sodomites, who have turned it into a gay culture club.

Imagine, they could be buggering one another for the first two years in seminary and *claim* that they had only had a passing interest from early manhood or late adolescence. If their disposition became known, they could claim to be free of it for three years and its off to be ordained. THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE and it is why I have abandoned the Indult movement after more than ten years. Still, I do pray for Bishop Rifan and the Indult movement. But the S.S.P.X should not enter full reconciliation until that Satanic document is repudiated.

And the S.S.P.X should not accept full reconciliation until Rome has agreed to stop praying with Buddhists, Jews, Shintoist, Jains, Muslims and fire-worshippers. There was a reason why we did not do it from the time of the breach of masoretic Judaism to the 1960s.


And notice how Vatican Twoish is the seminary document, just like, for example, Clause 116 of Sacrosanctum Concilium. There is wonderful wording that sounds tough and then the exception clause: let Gregorian Chant be the standard but ... other things being equal ... And look what happened to Chant as a result! And we all know how this gang of bishops will interpret that paragraph in the seminary document! It is an open invitation to bring on the dancing boys.

There was apparently a battle royal over this in the Vatican and the conservative side lost. I rather doubt that Benedict XVI wanted this but, then, with so many queers already in the priesthood, who knows what dirty little secrets might have come out had he done what he had preferred to do? That is the problem. The solution is a Gregory the Great with broom for a purge.

In the mean time, we must persevere in prayer, prayer, prayer--even if some of us must die in that state of prayer and never live to see the Age of the Barbarians end. Remember that we are immortal and we shall continue praying, God willing, when we enter into eternal bliss. If we don't remind ourselves of that every day, we are not Catholics but as pagan as our liberal opponents.

Peter Karl T. Perkins said...

A couple of comments on Jeff's last post. First of all, if he checks, he will find that the 1961 document said that anyone with any inverted *tendencies* "should not be ordained" and not only anyone who was homerastic. True, the 1961 document was a dead letter in practice but, at least had it remained in force, seminary inspectors under our new Pope or a future pope could ban anyone known to have such tendencies, and polygraph tests could be used to investigate the matter. Hence it would have been acceptable if the Pope had done nothing new on paper and simply sent out the visitators with orders to interpret 1961 strictly.

By the way, I find it interesting that the opening clauses of the 1961 document comment that the earlier 1931 norms remain *fully in force* and yet, despite extensive searches by many people, nobody I know has been able to find a copy of the 1931 document. I would just love to know what it said!

Surely, Jeff can see by now what I refused to see for so many years, that professional sodomites have been trying for years to infiltrate the priesthood and seminaries. As activists, their aim is to subvert the Church from the inside. Most Floridians would agree by now, I think. consider some of their bishops. And I know of two vicars-general in Canada who are clearly rainbow monsignors.

Secondly, Jeff keeps commenting about people being in the S.S.P.X and therefore 'out' of the Church. He should, instead prefer the opinion of Holy Church, according to which only four individuals in the S.S.P.X are declared to be excommunicated schismatics. Moral Law requires that we assume the best of people unless we have reason to think otherwise. Hence we are obliged to assume that nameless Society priests, deacons and supporters are not excommunicated or schismatical. They are simply Catholics. They might be mistaken but they are presumably not intending schism. That is not the law according to Monty Python; it is MOral Law and Canon Law. While E.D.A. did warn that supporters of the Society could eventually fall into schism by adopting a schismatic attitude, we are obliged to believe that a given Society supporter has not done so unless, in a particular case, we have reason to think otherwise.

But if Jeff wants to find outsiders posing as Catholics, he need only pay a visit to Paul Martin, former Prime Minister of Canada, or Senator Edward Kennedy. And I can name a number of priests, such as one in Montreal who has said publicly that he will 'marry' homerasts at his High Alter and will not change his mind on this even if the Pope orders him to do so (in fact, he is Paul Martin's parish priest!). His bishop, Cardinal Turcotte, will not remove him or even respond to those who demand his removal. This was the same Cardinal who gave Pierre Elliott Trudeau a formal state funeral even though he never publicly repented for legalising the mass-murder of unborn Canadian children. There is a man who manages to be a prince of the Church even though he is not a Catholic! So, if Jeff wants to find baptized people who are 'out' of the Church, I suggest very charitably that he will more quickly find them by the bushel barrel attending the Novus Ordo service.

As for the four Society bishops, there is very good reason to believe that the Holy See is wrong. Had the Pope used his power to impose excommunications (ferendæ sententiæ), the matter would be clearer: it would be a question of whether or not an ordinance of positive law was invalidated by Moral Law and nothing else. The Pope did not do this, however. Instead, he merely declared that they had excommunicated themselves. (latæ sententiæ) But the Pope is not infallible in matters of law and there is very good reason to believe that they did no such thing. See Canon 1323, Nos. 4 &7.

I continue to pray for a reconciliation and for the Indult and an apostolic administration for the Ecclesia Dei communities. But I cannot, in conscience, support those who would betray our good seminarians to a pack of pink wolves, to the very half-men who will certainly try to subvert Holy Church and Her teachings from within. One boy in the U.S. South was sodomised so badly by one so-called priest that he required multiple surgical operations on his anus. I am sorry for the graphic content here but THAT is why we cannot risk ordaining those known to have had any inverted tendencies at any time in their lives, drunk at parties or not.

May our Lady pray for the Church at this dark hour. Now, Satan himself is loosed and it is because of the many sins of each and every one of us. So let us consider that as Lent approaches. By cleaning ourselves, we shall better be heard by the angels and saints and by our Lady; and her pleas are always heard by God.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

Peter Karl T. Perkins,

I agree with nearly everything you say: though I would have used other words.

But this is an error to which so many of us can easily fall: presuming that the form in which certain parties, even the ruling part, in the Church would impose on the Church, or are trying to impose on the Church, requires us to accept that that is the form of the Church.

Or in otherword: The Church is as Jesus made it, and it shall every been the same. Communion with the Apostolic See only means accepting that. And if there every shall be a pope who would seemingly require acceptance of another idea of the Church, communion with him, as Pope, in no way requires that. So regardless of whatever the motives of B16 are, "reconciliation" in no way morally requires going along with the show afterwards. For the Church is what Jesus made it, so it is, and so it always shall be. Our communion with the Roman Pontiff not only does not require that we participate in any of his errors, alleged or real, but rather than we use our communion with him, in charity and prayer, to either support him in what is good, or resist or rebuke him in his errors or sins.

That is why "reconciliation" withe Rome on the part of the SSPX, in no way morally or theologically requires them to accept any error. And even if it seemed that this is whaat they were agreeing too, they have just the same obligation after as before, to proclaim the truth.

But as to the problem of the Abominatino of Desolation in the sanctuay: you are naive to believe that this is only in NO seminaries. The traditional groups have just as much problem; and use the same MO as Cardinal Law and Cardinal George; hiding it away, and letting the innocent suffer.

Andt this is not so much because there is so sort of world wide sodomitic conspiracy against the Church; which there may be, but because by the nature of the perversion, they seek the company of communities of men, whether in the Church or not. The military, the police, firefighters, etc., all have the same problem with infiltration by these types. The only cure is a generation of good fathers, who raise their sons with true paternal affection, governance, and responsibility. Because the clinical pyschologists have found that it is the absent, uncaring father, that unknowingly causes the symptoms of this perversion in the first place.

Tradosaurus said...

Now, don't assume that I agree with the SSPX. I was just making an observation.

I only attend the sspx chapel out of necessity when traveling since their sacraments and ordinations are valid (unlike the novus ordo religion). But they are most definitely a schismatic organization since they profess adherence to a "pope" yet pick and choose teachings they want to adhere.

If Benedict (and jpii) is the pope then they are schismatic since Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

The only logical course of action if one wants to fight the novus ordo religion is to fight it from the outside since inside the novus ordo religion there is no salvation.

The SSPV took the logical course to maintain the faith because they new that if jpii was the pope then the novus ordo service and vatican ii were promulgated legally and must be obeyed upon pain of mortal sin (if jpii, etc were true popes).

As one faithful stated during the Arian heresy, "They have the Churches we have the faith". This should be the marching banner of those remaining Catholics until God brings order from the chaos that was officially established by the vatican ii religion.

Trad

New Catholic said...

Just so it is clear to all first-time visitors, considering a couple of comments above, and while respecting the views of those who may believe differently, we pledge allegiance to Pope Benedict XVI, Successor of Peter, Bishop of Rome, whose power over the Church catholic and over all particular Churches is supreme, full, immediate, and universal.

Tradosaurus said...

So, I'm assuming you pledge allegiance to the following belief of Ratzinger where he denies original sin in his 1995 book In the Beginning…A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall:
"In the story that we are considering [Ch. 3 of Genesis], still a further characteristic of sin is described. Sin is not spoken of in general as an abstract possibility but as a deed, as the sin of a particular person, Adam, who stands at the origin of humankind and with whom the history of sin begins. The account tells us that sin begets sin, and that therefore all the sins of history are interlinked. Theology refers to this state of affairs by the certainly misleading and imprecise term ‘original sin’. What does this mean? Nothing seems to us today to be stranger or, indeed, more absurd than to insist upon original sin, since, according to our way of thinking, guilt can only be something very personal, and since God does not run a concentration camp, in which one’s relative are imprisoned because he is a liberating God of love, who calls each one by name. What does original sin mean, then, when we interpret it correctly?"

God have mercy on your soul.

Trad

New Catholic said...

Tradosaurus, I do not wish to transform this in an ultramontane-sedevacantist dispute. It does not seem the proper place. But one should never confuse the private opinions of the man who is pope with the very strict doctrinal powers of the Roman Pontiff as defined by the First Vatican Council.

Philip Glass said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Philip Glass said...

Trad, I think you must have pasted the wrong quote because the one above contains no denial of original sin. All the good Cardinal is pointing out here is how strange, indeed how absurd, the doctrine of original sin seems to modern man according to his very personalised concept of sin.

thumbs said...

I attend Immaculate Conception, in Post Falls,Id. I find some of the comments here interesting. First of all, most people who attend SSPX are not sedevacantists, I personally do not know any . Second are we suspicious of Rome? Of course!! The Mass is only one issue among lots of others that need to be solved. That being said I personally support a "deal" with Rome; As long as there are NO compromises.
There are a lot of Strawmen set up by the Neo-Catholics , who would be the most affected by a deal. The first one is that we don't "accept" Vatican II. That is not true, we do recognize this council as valid. We just don't accept the Novel teachings coming out of it.(Catholics are not required to accept novelties, whether they come from a Pope or from a Council). The same with the Pope's Authority, we accept His Authority, except when He teaches error, or when He advances some novelty in doctrine, or in our liturgical traditions.Really thats it in a nutshell.

Now, we don't have any respect for The Sellout Bishops and Cardinals of the New Religion, so we would need some solid assurances in writing that we would not have to deal these "Lovers of The World" (Hey I'm being as blunt as possible, so you know where we are coming from!!)

Now some comments here are stating We need to be Regularized into the Nrvus Ordo Religion. This not going to happen. You all need to come BACK to the True Religion of Your Fathers !! The New Religion is "Homo-ing" away, so when the meltdown is finished We will be the only ones left standing; Then Modernists Beware, either leave and join some Anglican Homo Loving Sect, or, repent and embrace The Teachings Our Lord himself left us.
Love You All and Hope that soon we'll be in battle fatigues on the "inside"

RAlsina said...

Mr. Perkins:

Would you please comment on the prominent french theologian? I ´ve been studying the matter of religious liberty and I am really interested on the tome you mentioned. I would like to know his name and that of his work.

Thank you.

Kind regards.

R. Alsina.-

New Catholic said...

Dear R Alsina,

I may be wrong, but I believe the book to which Mr Perkins refers is "LE DROIT À LA LIBERTÉ RELIGIEUSE DANS LA TRADITION DE L'ÉGLISE", by a monk of the Traditional abbey of Sainte-Madeleine du Barroux, France, Father Basile, OSB -- it is the short version of his doctoral thesis on the same matter.

It is available for sale here:

http://tinyurl.com/mffqz

Dan Curry said...

I pray to God this happens ! There is nothing worse than to see traditionalists separated into 2 groups....SSPX and FSSP. Any "deal" that includes approval of the Holy See and the opportunity for new priests to learn and say the Tridentine Mass is a beginnign of liturgical reform and a return to our beloved Tradintine Mass and THE SENSE OF AURA in the Mass....so long needed since 1970s. God grant us this reality.

Jeff said...

The arguments about homosexuality in the seminary are, AT BEST, plausible and persuasive. But plausible and persuasive doesn't mean right. You have an opinion; you have some reasons for believing it; you are strongly persuaded of it. But the habit, not of occasional polite and discreet disagreement with authority, but constant, full-throttle, public rejection and derision is what is so crippling to the Catholic spirit in the SSPX.

It's fascinating to see folks who reject a straightforward reading of Vatican Two on religious freedom and yet can read on the this very blog the post about Islam from the Catholic Encyclopedia above without taking a lesson from it. The Catholic author of that article obviously finds something primitive and offensive about Islam, not because it is intolerant of Catholics, but of all Christians and of Jews, and violates their "rights" [the author's word]. Hence, it is "fanatical." Sounds like Pius XII criticizing the Communists for persecuting the Orthodox for practicing their (damnable schismatic error-filled) faith...which should have no natural right to be practiced if the anti-Council factionalists are right! Or the same Pope providing Jews at Castel Gandolfo with space for worship, liturgical books, rabbis, etc. "No rights for error," eh, chums? I guess Pacelli just thought he was being sweet and allowing people to practice damnable false religions in his home for no very good reason. But, hey, at least it wasn't in Assisi! Traditionalists tend to have a very naive and unformed view of Tradition on these matters, based on a few articles they read in an SSPX journal.

I will say that it's mighty amusing to see a sedevacantist giving lessons on the necessary relationship of Catholics to the Pope as one of obedience, deference in judgment, etc. He's right, you know! If monasteries were run along the lines that the SSPX proposes to run the Church, the monks would be running around stabbing each other. After all, we only have to obey and respect authority when we agree with it! The abbot's not infallible, after all.

The only solution is Benedict's: bring these folks back in and then let some of them leave overtly if they want to! "I'm not OUT! I'm IN!" "Okay, NOW you're in." "What do you mean, I'm in? No way, not under these conditions..." "Well, then, do you now say you're OUT?" Time and discussion will allow the Holy Spirit to make many of the disagreements moot.

Don't confuse Benedict's concessions about what arguments CAN be believed about religious freedom without being a heretic as a sign that he ACCEPTS those arguments. Anyone who reads his books knows full well that he doesn't. The SSPX doesn't just want its view of religious liberty accepted, it wants the other ones rejected as heretical and anti-traditional. THAT is what won't happen.

They can fold their arms and harrumph all they like, but if Benedict lifts the excommunications, they and "their" bishops will be back again inside the Church (no, I don't take seriously the arguments about "We weren't excommunicated properly, etc.", they aren't worthy of serious discussion--anyone in any circumstance can ALWAYS claim that disobedience constitutes "emergency" and therefore their latae sententiae excommunications are invalid)... they will be back in the Church again, WHETHER THEY LIKE IT OR NOT!. All talk of reconciliation will either be moot or a matter of secondary fix-it stuff. Checkmate, guys! Back in the "Conciliar Church"! And Rome, patient as always, will outwait you, til you tire of your excesses. Horror of horrors!

Oh, well. It's better than "the True, True, Really TRUE, Traditional Catholic Church of Eternal Rome, (population 5,000; headquarters, Winona, Minnesota)" and waiting for a "real" Pope for hundreds of years, like the Shiites wait for the return of the Twelfth Imam.

Peter Karl T. Perkins said...

In regard to Bro. Alexis Bugnolo:

First, I am happy to have re-discovered this Brother, who provided valuable information on weblists in the past.

I agree with much of what he says. However, most (arbuably all) the priests of the S.S.P.X and its supporters are already in communion with the Holy See. The issue is a practical one only: Given current dangers posed to souls by NewChurch, is it advisable to reach a juridical solution at this time?

Bro. Alexis points out that firemen and other, even the S.S.P.X itself, has this problem with the seminaries. But the S.S.P.X, from what I have heard, has an entirely different policy in that regard, which is one reason why a certain Fr. Urritigoity was expelled first from the Society seminary in Argentina and then from that in America.

By the way, I do not mean to be harsh to everyone who may have some homerastic tendencies. What concerns me more is the growing conspiracy of professional sexual inverts (the old and correct term for them) who are clearly engaged in an attempt to infiltrate and conquer the sacred priesthood from within.

I do not much subscribe to conspiracy theories. I think that, for many years, it was simply that man people with those tendencies found a 'cover' in the priesthood. But, after V. II, the priesthood was emasculated as parish assitantettes largely took over. At that time, many of the more suitable candidates simply left--as did so many parishioners. Gradually, the priesthood has become a gay profession instead of a straight vocation. Since about 1990, I think that concerted efforts have been made to advance the queering of the priesthood, perhaps not one co-ordinated effort but several.

At any rate, in light of the effects, the Holy See has stabbed the good priests in the back with that document. Above all, it is an abomination that such people should stand in persona Christi because that implies things about our Blessed Lord that are unprintable. We must keep in mind that Holy Writ reserves some of its harshest 'words' for this activity. Deuteronomy calls for the execution of sodomites and St. Paul says that there action can bar them from inheriting eternal life.

I need not repeat the other effects, effects on the lives of innocent boys and young men, on the finances of Holy Church, and on those individuals whom we tempt when we expose them to such an environment.

The S.S.P.X is not bound by this document and will not be admitting candidates who have been engaging in these sordid acts but are 'clean' for the last three years.

If the S.S.P.X makes a reconciliation with this NewChurch, it is reconciling with poison. It is dangerous to souls. The way forward should be more cautious. As even the Pope veers away from the teachings of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Society must remember that its duty is to observe the highest law first: to save souls.

Of course, I support a gradual reconciliation. In fact, it was I who argued for this for so long and with such passion. But this latest document frightens me. AS I hear more and more about the real story in the priesthood, I am wondering whom we can trust now among the priests. Bishops are now implicated, either with having committed these iniquitous acts or with covering them up. And the number of cases is mushrooming. This is the one time with Holy Church needs to take a firm stand against these horrors--for eveyone's sake.

In Jesus and Mary

Peter Karl T. Perkins said...

In response to Tradosaurus:

No, that is an incorrect interpretation of Canon Law. The S.S.P.X does not reject the authority of the Pope and does not reject Communion with him or others with whom he is truly in Communion. This is an inadequate understanding of the limits of authority. There is a category of 'rightful disobedience' that does not entail a denial of the authority against which one disobeys. In a genuine emergency, especially to save souls, one can act outside legitimate authority and even assume supplied jurisdiction. Whether or not this is obejectively possible with the S.S.P.X is not the question in hand. There is no question of sin as long as those taking this route honestly believe that they are acting under grave fear or compulsion or in an emergency.

Once again, the S.S.P.X's supporters have never been identified by Rome as schismatics and nor has its priests or deacons. On the contrary, at the highest levels (e.g. Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos), it is denied that they are such.

thumbs said...

" My Fellow Neo-Catholics, Pagans, Seperated Bretheren...well everyone except those hateful Traditionalists. We here at Crises, The Wanderer and EWTN are happy to announce that although XYZ teaching seems on the surface to be against the teaching of the church , it is actually in line with Tradition.

Now Scripture, the Councils of Florence, Trent, Vatican I, and Nicea, along with a long line of Popes since The 2nd century all the way up to Pius XII may seem to contridict this teaching.

I am happy to annonce that John Paul The Great getting help from Cardinals Kasper and Mahoney, and now Benedict XVI,armed with those super groundbreaking VaticanII documents, have recently declared that XYZ is actually in line with Tradition...simply because they say so. Rome Has Spoken.It seems The Holy Ghost forgot to fill in those poor misled Catholics for 2000 years,praise the Lord for The New Springtime!!

Now I know those Pharisees at SSPX, the self annoited True, True, Really TRUE, Traditional Catholic Church of Eternal Rome, (population 5,000; headquarters, Winona, Minnesota) recently had the gall to question Rome on this topic; well we all know they are schismatic, excommunicated, disobediant, stupid, shallow..and I hear they can't cook either. So in order to stay Catholic you must accept this great new revelation, direct from the Holy Spirit to The Great One, that this XYZ teaching is indeed Traditional.Don't bother with those old Councils and Popes or Scripture...unless of course we decide that something they did is useful. Don't be afraid We will fill you in on anymore New Traditional teachings."

S.H. said...

Some of this resonates from Bishop Fellay's press conference that I attended today. But, from His Lordship's words, I don't see anything happening anytime soon. Find out on www.truerestoration.com

Kenjiro Shoda said...

I hope this works. Benedict XVI is much more open to the Tridentine Latin Mass than His predecessor. I would not underestimate the power of the SSPX and Catholic tradition. It's appeal is enormous, especially among the young. And the many religious Orders loyal to the SSPX would be a great boost to the Church which is suffering from a protracted vocations crisis. The example of the SSPX seminaries and their associated religious Orders should point to the way to correct this situation.
I hope the Pope allows for a general return to the Tridentine Latin Mass. Many Catholic, including myself would love to feel like Catholics again, and not half-way Lutherans, Episcopalians or Presbyterians etc.

Paul Haley said...

Do You Believe?

Do you believe that I have the power to change water into wine as I did at the wedding feast of Cana in Galilee and, subsequently, change wine into My Most Precious Blood and bread into My Body while maintaining appearances of bread and wine?
Yes, Lord, I do believe; help my unbelief.

Do you believe that I have the power to cure the sick and to raise from the dead as I did my friend Lazarus dead after three days?
Yes, Lord, I do believe; help my unbelief.

Do you believe that I am the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity and as Peter said: Thou art the Christ, Son of the Living God?
Yes, Lord, I do believe; help my unbelief.

Do you believe that I have all power in heaven and on earth, that I can calm the seas, quiet the winds, move mountains, fill valleys and turn daylight into darkness and darkness into light?
Yes, Lord, I do believe; help my unbelief.

Do you believe that I was born into the womb of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried.
Yes, Lord, I do believe; help my unbelief.

Do you believe that I am King of Kings and Lord of Lords and, though My Kingdom is not of this world, that nonetheless all things in heaven and earth are subject to me?

Yes, Lord, I do believe; help my unbelief.

Do you believe that I arose from the dead, ascended into heaven and that I sit at the right hand of My Father to judge the living and the dead?
Yes, Lord, I do believe; help my unbelief.

Do you believe the words that I spoke to my friends and disciples that whatsoever you ask of my Father in heaven, believe and it shall be done unto thee?
Yes, Lord, I do believe; help my unbelief.

Do you believe the words that I spoke to Peter and my disciples that I shall be with my church until the end of time and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it?
Yes, Lord, I do believe; help my unbelief.

Do you believe that I have the power to cleanse souls from the darkness of sin through the shedding of one drop of My Most Precious Blood ?
Yes, Lord, I do believe; help my unbelief.

Do you believe that I am All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Present, All-Merciful, All-Just and All-Good?
Yes, Lord, I do believe; help my unbelief.

Do you believe that I have the Power to heal the wounds in My Mystical Body, to enlighten the minds and warm the hearts of my servants on earth, to bring them together in unity of belief?
Yes, Lord, I do believe; help my unbelief.

(And Jesus saith to him: If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.
And immediately the father of the boy crying out, with tears said: I do believe, Lord:
help my unbelief.) Mark 9, v 22-23

Amen and Benediction.

Paul H.

RAlsina said...

Thank you so much, New Catholic.
I was aware of Father Basile OSB´s work, and I was fearing Mr. Perkins would be referring to him, since I´ve also seen Fr. Basile´s approach criticised by other traditionalists (mainly a FSSPX priest, abbe de Tanoüarn).
I cannot say I have extensively studied the matter of Dignitatis Humanae, but I´ve read a few things (including Fr. Harrison´s position, which is huge progress), and it seems quite a daunting task to read DH in light of Tradition... It works like a russian doll: each time you believe you found a solution, new problems arise, caused by that same solution!
I BELIEVE they can be reconciled, but we need a genius to do it!!
And speaking about believing they are compatible, there´s a question that I don´t fully grasp about the position that holds V II was "pastoral" as opposed as "doctrinal". If a pastoral Council declres doctrinal matters, how can we say it does not define doctrine? After all, religious liberty is proclaimed as a "natural right": that sounds much more doctrinal than pastoral... Perhaps what they mean is that being pastoral, its doctrinal definitions do not invoke infallibility? Please excuse me if this is not the right thread to pose these questions.

God bless you all.

R. Alsina.-

The Catholic Knight said...

Of course the schism needs to end. There is something about the traditionalists that the Church is sorely in need of these days, and they aren't going to be much help so long as they're outside the Church.

I can think of two concessions that would ultimately end the schism and rebuild Catholicism in a way that will fortify it for the 21st century.

First, the traditionalists must acknowledge the validity of Vatican II as an authentic ecumenical council.

Second, the Vatican must admit that it was wrong to virtually ban the celebration of the traditional Tridentine mass, and this was never the intention of the Second Vatican Council. Simultaneously, the pope must encourage the restoration of the old (Tridentine) mass to exist alongside the new (Novus Ordo) mass in harmony.

The Catholic Knight said...

Of course the schism needs to end. There is something about the traditionalists that the Church is sorely in need of these days, and they aren't going to be much help so long as they're outside the Church.

I can think of two concessions that would ultimately end the schism and rebuild Catholicism in a way that will fortify it for the 21st century.

First, the traditionalists must acknowledge the validity of Vatican II as an authentic ecumenical council.

Second, the Vatican must admit that it was wrong to virtually ban the celebration of the traditional Tridentine mass, and this was never the intention of the Second Vatican Council. Simultaneously, the pope must encourage the restoration of the old (Tridentine) mass to exist alongside the new (Novus Ordo) mass in harmony.

The Catholic Knight said...

Of course the schism needs to end. There is something about the traditionalists that the Church is sorely in need of these days, and they aren't going to be much help so long as they're outside the Church.

I can think of two concessions that would ultimately end the schism and rebuild Catholicism in a way that will fortify it for the 21st century.

First, the traditionalists must acknowledge the validity of Vatican II as an authentic ecumenical council.

Second, the Vatican must admit that it was wrong to virtually ban the celebration of the traditional Tridentine mass, and this was never the intention of the Second Vatican Council. Simultaneously, the pope must encourage the restoration of the old (Tridentine) mass to exist alongside the new (Novus Ordo) mass in harmony.

DaVinci Decoder Ring said...

It might be interesting to see if Fellay gets the Red Hat as part of the compromise.

Could it be that he'll be in a position to start cranking Trad Bishops out like there's no tomorrow?

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

Ralsina you wrote:

"And speaking about believing they are compatible, there´s a question that I don´t fully grasp about the position that holds V II was "pastoral" as opposed as "doctrinal". If a pastoral Council declres doctrinal matters, how can we say it does not define doctrine? After all, religious liberty is proclaimed as
a "natural right": that sounds much more doctrinal than pastoral... Perhaps what they mean is that being pastoral, its doctrinal definitions do not invoke infallibility? Please excuse me if this is not the right thread to pose these questions."

Here you get in trouble by using the word "declares", which is a technical theologic / canonical term to propound a doctrine in clear, defined or quasi-defined terms. Vatican II definitely did not do that, because it did not deny errors and so contradistinguish truths from errors. And thus it did not in theological or canonical terms "teach", "define", "declare", etc.. As for Tradsaurus' quote of the Paul VI document confirming Vatican II, it patently shows that Paul VI only obliged "religious respect" for Vatican II's documents. That means the same kind of respect you pay any priest or bishop or pope for a homily; it is not at all like the assent of divine faith which is required to the Bible's teachings, or the assent of divine and catholic faith, to the infallible teachings of the Ecumenical Councils and the Popes. Do read Vatican I's decrees, which are online, for more on this.

There is a great confusion over Vatican II, and perhaps the SSPX would best address that first, by not asking for the mass or anything like that, but asking B16 to seek some consultation on the nature of magisterial authority in teaching matters, and the different levels of obligation; because where as he seems to have made a good number of distinctions as head of the CDF, he does not seem to have ever understood in precise terms the limits of V2 teaching: saying on one occasion that it is pastoral and therefore not infallible, and on another, that it is the faith of the Church. I am sorry, you cannot have faith in anything fallible. That should be obvious to everyone before confirmation!

Ardevain said...

I welcome the possibilities that this movement on Rome's part presents, but many of them scare me. I have long thought that the very best way to bring the SSPX into a "regular" status would be to establish the traditional latin rite as a separate Catholic Rite, appoint Bishop Fellay to a red hat and name him as Cardinal Primate of the Traditional Latin Rite. (I appologize to anyone who likes Bishop Rifan, but I would definitely NOT nominate him.) Grant him parallel jurisdiction (as have the Catholic Oriental Rites) worldwide, give him the Liturgical Books and power over them, and establish the right of any Roman Priest to say the Traditional Mass under his jurisdiction.

Personal prelatures, apostolic jurisdictions, maintenance of the power of the Novus Ordo bishops over the Traditional Mass in any way simply will not work.

Do this, and the Novus Ordo, which owes its continued existence to its legal exclusivity, will fall under its own weight.

I trust Bishop Fellay to "do the right thing." Archbishop Lefebvre chose him wisely. He is a very capable negotiator and diplomat (nobody ever accused Bishop Williamson of being a diplomat!) but he has never displayed the slightest hint of duplicity or guile. If there is anyone who can ensure that the SSPX is protected as well as the many fruits of its ministry, it is Bernard Fellay.

Teófilo de Jesús said...

I am trackbacking this article at "Vivificat"

-Theo

Peter Karl T. Perkins said...

Today I have read the most shocking news of my life. Go here:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06022007.html


Apparently, the rector of St. Stephan's 800 year-old cathedral in Vienna, with the full approval of the Cardinal-Archbishop of Vienna, has started blessing same-sex couples in the cathedral. This is the end of the line for me.

The S.S.P.X is now the heart of what remains of the Catholic Church and we have entered the catacombs. This is diametrically opposed to the teachings of Holy Church on a most serious mattter. Obviously, the professional queers have taken over the sacred priesthood.

I implore the S.S.P.X bishops to refuse any more discussions with NewChurch. There need to be reparations for this foul act of sacrilege. I am asking all readers of this list to say the Divine Praises in reparation for this abomination. We can pray that the cathedral will be re-consecrated. Frankly, I would like to see it torn down and the land on which it sits sown with salt.

New Catholic said...

Mr. Perkins, we will have to check if these reports are actually true. I had read about them yesterday, but I am not completely convinced -- I have been fooled before.

David Hart said...

One to clarify the matter I am not a trad. You could classifly my as a neotrad, crunchy-con or whatever.

Until anything is agreed on it it is very hard to see what this entails. I think in order for Christianity to offer an effective response to Islam, it must start acting as one. The must be a healing of the SSPX breach. There must be some sort of reconciliation between the the Catholic and Orthodox. This will then start the pressure on the Protestants to start coming back into the fold. Hopefully many Protestants will start seeing the necessity of joining the true Church in order to be an effective counterweight to Islam.

China needs to be evangelized but unless there is some sort of great reconciliation in Christianity I believe it will be lost to the Muslims. I think in the short-term Budhism will continue its growth since the overt anti-religion oppression of Mao is gone. However, does anyone really believe that Budhism will be able to withstand the appeal of either Christianity or Islam in the long-term? Budhism just doesn't have the unified moral code that either of the remaining growing monothestic faiths. As China starts to degenerate into complete capitalist materialism, young people will start to seek out a religion with a strong moral code. If Christianity looks fragmented, Islam will offer a strong appeal. Please shudder involuntarily to think about our grandchildren versus an Islamic China.

I believe that the reason why the trads have found Latin America and non-Western countries difficult is that vernacular works in countries that really resent western influences. This is also why Cardinal Arinze is opposed to a simple reconciliation of the SSPX and the Church without some concessions on the SSPX side. I don't necessarily agree with Cardinal Artinze's position but I understand where he is coming from. Vernacular mass has done very well in Africa where the tradition of Latin has seemed to be Western imposition.

David Hart said...

About the "blessing" described in http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06022007.html

the rector "says" that the Cardinal of Vienna approved this. Anybody who knows the Cardinal of Vienna would be absolutely shocked at this statement. The pastor acknowledged that he was making a personal statement but he may vastly missinterpreted the Cardinal's approval.

Here is my "guess" at the pastor's conversation with the Cardinal:

Pastor: I'm going to have a blessing at the Cathedral for couples on St. Valentine's day.
Cardinal: That sounds like a good idea.
Pastor: Of course, not everybody in the congregation will be married. Some will be not married, even a few might be homosexual. Do you think that will be a problem?
Cardinal: You can't control who will come to Mass on any day. You can't presume that two people of the same sex who come to Mass on a day are necessarily are homosexual. I don't see a problem with a blessing.
Pastor: Good

Pastor later announces that Cardinal "approves" homosexual blessing.

The Cardinal of Vienna was instrumental in the design of the new Cathecism with does not flinch with calling homosexuality "disordered". I can't see him in any way overtly allowing a homosexual bleessing. I predict we'll be seeing a response to this within a few week but remember Cardinals often move slowly. The Cardinal may be so shocked by this that he may not quite believe this is happening.

David Hart said...

What I was trying to say with the last statement is that I believe that the pastor has probably place the Cardinal of Vienna in a difficult position. Either publically chastize me for something that you knew might happen in your Cathedral or just don't say anything and this will blow over.

What I don't think this pastor realizes is that there is a new sheriff in town with B16. If the Cardinal of Vienna of even thinks about vacillating (very unlikely knowing this Cardinal), B16 will not. B16 issue an encyclical about "God is Love", doesn't mention the evils of homosexuality (not even necessary since anybody who knows B16 knows he thinks it is disordered) now assumes B16 is a "new" pope. B16 hasn't changed and the biggest changes will be in all the German speaking dioceses (eg Germany and Austria) because with a German speaking Pope there won't be anyone to claim that it was just a "translation mistake". B16 will make sure that all the bishops and cardinals that speak German will be very orthodox indeed. Germany and Austria will have the same attention paid on it that JPII paid on Poland.

When JPII died, the most orthodox Catholic country was Poland. While it will take a time to get its parishoners to agree there will be no doubt that B16 will have that as his ultimate goal with Germany and Austria.

Jeff said...

For the Vienna/Schonborn thing, read this:

http://closedcafeteria.blogspot.com/2006/02/
whispers-with-bias.html

(Piece the link together and paste.)

Peter Karl T. Perkins said...

I hope that other contributors are right and that this report is a lie. But if there really has been a blessing of that which God reprehends in the most emphatic way possible, there clearly must be a re-consecration of the cathedral. How can Holy Church 'bless' what can be in no way approved (to paraphrase the new seminary document)? That would violate the principle of non-contradiction.

Moreover, the rector, if he performed such an abomination, must be removed and he must face defrocking unless he agrees to retract what he did in a clear statement. This is a matter of protecting the Faith. It calls for clarity from the Cardinal and/or the Pope; otherwise, this will confuse and mislead countless faithful.

David Hart said...

I wanted to post that in reading the last post you see that the previous article was a lie or more likely a great exageration by somebody.

Here is a translation from the just quoted URL:

Anyway, read what the priest who held the ceremony has to say (I translated from German)

The Rector of the Stephansdom denied a report by Austrian tv about an alleged "Mass for Homos and Heteros".
Father Faber: "It will not be a Holy Mass, but a blessing service with a possibility of a blessing for married or engaged couples, in which the relationship itself is blessed."
As far as homosexual attendants are concerned he stated that the relationship was not being blessed, instead the individual receives a blessing. Father Faber points to the guidelines of the Austrian Bishops Conference which states "To avoid misunderstandings, the difference between a blessing of couples and individuals has to be pointed out."



Here the rules of the Austrian Bishops Conference for such St. Valentine's Day ceremonies to which the priest quoted above referred to:

1. Ehepaare sollen eingeladen werden, ihr Eheversprechen zu erneuern; sie können durch den Segen Gottes eine Stärkung im Glauben und in der Liebe erbitten.
= Married couples shall be invited to renew their wedding vows. they can ask to receive a strengthening of faith and in love through God's blessing.
2. Brautpaare sollen zur gegenseitigen Hingabe im Empfang des Ehesakraments ermutigt werden.
= Bride and groom shall be encouraged to mutual dedication (give themselves) in the reception of the Sacrament of matrimony.
3. Verlobte dürfen den Beistand Gottes in der Vorbereitung auf die Ehe erbitten; die Verlobung kann und soll durch solche Feiern kirchlich aufgewertet werden.
= Engaged people may ask for God's assistance during the preparation for marriage. The engagement can and should be increased in its "church standing" through such ceremonies.
4. Wer nicht in einer sakramentalen Ehe oder in Vorbereitung darauf lebt, soll in Form eines sorgfältig formulierten Gebetes und durch eine Einzelsegnung gestärkt werden.“
= Who does not live in a sacramental marriage or preparation thereof, shall be strenghtened by receiving an individual blessing in form of a carefully prepared prayer.



Update - since some sources claim that there were "irregularities" at said service, one thing needs to be said:

The point Sullivan and Palmo made was that Cardinal Schoenborn had given his tacit placet to the official blessing of homosexual (non-marital/non-engaged in general) relationships, so to speak. Given the rules of the bishops conference and Cardinal Schoenborn's being a part of it, that is simply not true, unless of course you think that Cardinal Schoenborn, editor of the Catechism, does not abide by Catholic teaching that he helped set forth in the Catechism. However, there is no evidence for such a stance, on the contrary.

Also to say that if somebody hijaked a Mass and did innapropriate things we should have to re-concencrate the cathedral, I think that might be a bit too much. Certainly if any ceremony had any sort of satanic tinge that would be warranted but I don't think it is warranted in this case.

I do agree that the Cardinal is going to have to have a talk with his rector and reconcile these obviously two different accounts of what hapened. We must remember the press is constantly trying to sieze any showing of human compassion towards those with homosexual orientation as a validation of their state.

Peter Karl T. Perkins said...

I thank Mr. Hart for what he has been able to dig up on this issue. But there definitely does need to be a clarification. Keep in mind that the following was given to us by the German magazine not as a paraphrasing of Fr. Faber's words but a direct quotation:

“people with homosexual inclinations [should come up] to receive a blessing for their longing for love.”

Why would inverted people, even as individuals, be blessed for their "longing for love"? What love are they longing for? Fr. Faber clearly has no reason to believe that they are longing for ordered love; clearly, they are longing for disordered love.

Obviously, such a statement would be understood to endorse disordered love; otherwise, why make it?

Of course, Mr. Hart is suggesting that, perhaps, Fr. Faber did not make this remark. If that is the case, the secular press has gone beyond distoration and has engaged in outright mendacity.

Given the damage this has done, a clarification needs to be made.

Keep in mind the context of Fr. Faber's supposed remarks. The Anglicans of at least one of their dioceses (viz. New Westminster, Canada) are now blessing inverted unions as a "gift from God". And the Catholic parish priest at former Canadian P.M. Paul Martin's parish has said publicly that he will bless inverted unions at the Altar of his Catholic parish church (he has not carried out the threat but nor has he been disciplined by Cardinal Turcotte of Montreal).

Clearly, if Fr. Faber did make this remark and did bless inverts' longings for love for one another, the cathedral should indeed be re-consecrated and Fr. Faber should be dismissed. Otherwise, Fr. Faber should issue a formal statement of clarification.

RAlsina said...

Br. Bugnolo:
Thankyou for your response.
But a question remains: is not the word "declares" written in Dignitatis Humanae itself? What about the intentions of the Council Fathers? (Perhaps if their intentions were mistaken, the fact that the words of the documents can be reconciled with Tradition is an example of the Holy Spirit protecting the Church?).
I find your comment on "religiously observed" as opposed to "divine faith" very illuminating.
And of course, if one were to see an authoritative statement on these matters and distinctions APPLIED to VII from the Holy See itself, what a difference that would make!! That´s why I agree that having FSSPX working with Rome rather than appart from it would immensely help this effort. What we need is an open discussion with the top of the Hierarchy (but a Catholic discussion, one that assumes that things can be resolved and that it is the work of the faithful to discover -not force or fabricate- an explanation). It is this what I like of the abbe de Nantes position, for example.

RAlsina said...

Br. Bugnolo:
I was re-reading your post and I believe the matter of "declares" is fully answered.

Indeed, the fact that these distinctions have to be made, all these explanations and fine-tuning ("V II used that word but did not do this, therefore the use of such word means not what a simple reading would tell you, etc.") supports the idea of open discussion. By this I do not mean "public opinion" discussion, but serious and deep theological analisys. It´s being done as "private" studies on the matter by many a theologian, we must pray that authority pays attention to that, in hope of having a definitive statement on VII.

In this line, the admision of FSSPX would not be closing the matter but merely bringing it closer to the heart of the Church. I fear the Hierarchy thinks the former. There´s so much passion over the Council, that cold theological academic argument cannot be freely had. And as a result of this the confusion remains...

Jeff said...

I guess you guys interested in Vienna didn't read the previous link. The rector NEVER BLESSED HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES. There's a translation of the German you should look at.

Peter Karl T. Perkins said...

Response to Jeff:

Thank you for pointing out that the inverts present received only blessings as individuals. The guidelines translated from the German still do not answer the question of whether or not Fr. Faber explicitly asked such people to receive a blessing for their "longing for love". Hence I am not completely satisfied by what this rector supposedly did, especially since the first article pointed out his history of collaboration with homerastic interests.

However, if they were not blessed *as couples*, the principal issue is at least resolved and we can put this crisis down to the usual misreportage of the secular press (which has its own agenda, of course).

I must say that this entire report has created great anxiety for me, especially in light of the woefully inadequate seminary document that preceded it.

I now worry that it is only a matter of time before some faithless priest blesses these sordid relationships. Of course, what someone does illicitly does not reflect Church policy but it would pollute a place of worship.

Peter Karl T. Perkins said...

First he took the tiara off his personal arms, now he removes the title 'Patriarch of the West'. His predecessors removed the papal coronations. What's next? Will Benedict XVI transfer the title of Pope to the Archlaic of Canterbury?

Johaniim said...

I for one pray for and cannot wait for the reunion of SSPX and the vatican.If the left wing (secular-humanist-"Catholics") think the Holy Father is doing an end run to decieve Traditional-Orthodox Catholics into reunion, with the end result to remake them into Novus Ordo participants, I really question that logic.That almost implies stupidity in the halls of Traditionalism and the Vatican alike. Not to mention that the Holy Spirit is the author of reunion of Traditional Catholicism and the badly eroded post Vatican 2 Church. The REBIRTH of Catholicism on a worldwide level is coming, not from the neo-protestant catholic left but from Catholic Tradition. Millions pray for it. God-willing it can't come soon enough.
John

JDM said...

I want to express my thoughts too. I grew up as a "traditional" Catholic and was even a "traditional" nun for a bit. I grew up thinking that the post-Vatican II church was alien and evil. By the grace of God I've been taken out of that sedevacantist way of thinking! Disunity is the curse of mankind. I pray "traditionalist" understand that although the Church is ever the same it must progress and mature until it reaches the fullness of Christ. Some things do and should change. (For an extreme example, full body hairshirts were part of a pious practice to some in the middle ages. Psychology has changed since and we know now that God ask our LOVE, real love, not just tears and breast beating.) I pray that Catholics today who are one with the Pope but confused as to why there is evil in and outside the Church realize that there has always been confusion in and outside the Church. We MUST support our Pope and together live the life worthy of our vocations. The Pope is our father and he needs his flock just as we need a vicar of Christ. May everyone be gifted with faith, true love, and real unity founded on truth! God bless!

John said...

SSPX and many others inside ecclesia Dei have fought the malignant influences of Apostates like Bugnini and other masonic influences that ended in the decline of the Catholic faith since the unwarranted and un-necessary council called Vatican 2. Since Vat 2 millions have left the Catholic church since the advent of the non-organic and imposed Pauline-Bugnini Mass.Religious orders have dissappeared secular and religious vocations minimal (with the exception of the Traditionalist orders). So much for the fruits of Vatican 2.Since the early 19th & 20th centurys the rot of leftist-liberal relatistic humanism has eroded the Catholic Church, its time for this Pontiff to staunch the wound.When the Mass of All Ages codified at the Great council of Trent is celebrated front and center in St Peters for all to see then the beginning of the healing will occur by the will of the Risen Christ---John

John said...

Addendum-- It has been said in many circles the present Holy Father, Our Pontiff wants to have reconciliation with the growing Traditionalist elements in and outside the Vatican establishment with an eye to encouraging a reunion with the Schismatic Eastern Churches. Far more important in my reckoning is the mending of fences and reunion of all Latin-rite Catholics. The Orthodox have been in schism for well over a thousand year,The Russian Orthodox will never reunite- there is no need to kiss-up to the Eastern schismatics. What is paramount is the reconciliation between millions of Traditionalist and(mainly youth-driven Tradition-oriented Catholics and the Holy See. Ora et Laboura

Anonymous said...

Here we go again ,just reading some of the reactions errrr reactionary comments of some post vat 2 concillar church lovers,"If the pope lifts the excommunications with SSPX they will find themselves back in the church whether they like it or not> In the name of JESUS CHRIST bout time comments like that ended and the post vat 2 catholics smartened up. SSPX never did leave the church and the Vatican consistantly says this is an INTERNAL CATHOLIC CHURCH MATTER. The sarcasms backbiting and revisionist smart-ass comments & attempted shunning of Traditionalist Orthodox Catholics since the close of the un-necessary and probably the most damaging council in the history of Christendom, Vatican 2. the last 40 years vis a vis Roman Catholic Societies like SSPX and yes even sedevacantist are Latin rite Catholics and have been abused and maligned by the so-called novus ordo church invented by john 23, paul 6 & not so great JP2and the coterie of protestant heretical "advisors" that aided the freemason Archbishop bugnini INVENT a new protestant venacular mass called novus ordo missae, if your not familiar with the so-called venacular mass then you havn't attended a so-called Catholic "service" lately. In closing we can thank John 23 for the gifts of Vatican 2, millions have left the Catholic church because of the invented mass that came after it, pedophilia and homosexuality are not only rampant but promoted in novus ordo seminaries ie:notre flame in New Orleans.Novus ordo bishops that over the last 40 yrs have consistantly ignored or gone against the will of the Pope and the Vatican such as weakland, Lustiger, Daneel, Mahoney & Brown. So who is obedient and who is disobedient to the faith & magisterium. So when a new order catholic wants to badmouth Orthodoxy and traditionalists who believe the Catholic church predates Vatican 2 just stop and possibly think for yourself and not have one of ur modernity bishops think for you, God did give liberals a brains also, "i think?"

Anonymous said...

Since the momentus declaration of the motu proprio SUMMORUM PONIFICUM and the rush to re-institute the once forbidden REAL MASS AKA TRIDENTINE, CLASSIC OR LATIN MASS most probably and literally millions of former Catholics like myself are considering returning to the church.In my case I pity the poor priest that hears my confession.None the less the Society of St. Pius the 10th needs full reconciliation and reintroduction into the mainstream of the Catholic churche (Latin-Rite).Her 500 plus Orthodox priests and millions of sympathizers are badly needed to make Summorum Pontificum work worldwide. There still are a formitable array of revisionist priests nuns and especially bishops like mahoney, brown daneel & kaspar that will do anything in their power to diminsh the return of Catholicity to the Catholic church and do everything in their power to retain their faith destroying chokehold on the worldwide episcopacy. In the end I suspect the paraclete is and will continue to thwart these freemason/protestantizing so-called Catholics. When the Holy Father sings the Tridentine Mass at St. Peters in public for the world to see, when the triple crown is again worn by the Patriarch of the West when every Roman Catholic church vigorously re-establishes the REAL MASS in every parish worldwide then you will see millions return to the Catholic church and millions more convert like myself and enter the One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church. YES THE SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS 10TH IS NEEDED NOW IN THE HEART OF THE CHURCH ALONG WITH CHRIST THE KING SOUVEREIGN PRIEST. FRATERNAL SOCIETY OF ST. PETER, ST. JOHN CANTIUS, THE SOCIETY OF THE GOOD SHEPHARD AND THOUSANDS OF NUNS MONKS OF THE MANY GROWING ORTHODOX RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY'S THAT ARE COMING INTO EXISTENCE. THE VENACULAT/MASONIC/PROTESTANT MASS OF PAUL 6TH IS ENDING. A good start would be to elevate the 4 Bishops of SSPX to the honour of princes of the church aka cardinals.

Poperinghe said...

Glorious news! (If it is true of course)

The problem is, if the SSPX reconciles Williamson WILL lead a internal SSPX schism of the cyrpto-sedevacantists who reject reunion. If the SSPX reconciles it will mean an SSPX schism. Schism breeds schism!

Archbishop Lefebvre would want this reconciliation, and Benedict is the SSPX lasts chance to return to the fold. The SSPX needs the Church, and the Church needs them.

Poperinghe said...

The irony is that a reunified SSPX with the Holy See will most likely mean the dissolution of the present state of the SSPX.

Poperinghe said...

The SSPX does not deny the veracity of the Second Vatican Council, Archbishop Lefebvre himself signed the documents.

The SSPX questions and cannot accept, within their current understanding, the notions of ecumenism, collegiality, and religious liberty that germinated from the Council.

Yet again, Italian media reports are hardly the gospel when it comes to Vatican insider news.

Reunion would be wonderful, but I think the SSPX still doesn't trust the Vatican yet (and can we really blame them).

I wonder if the excommunications would be lifted from all four of the consecrated bishops or maybe only three? Bishop Williamson has made statements that some could speculate border on heresy (and surely stupidity).

If changing the Good Friday prayer offended our "older Jewish brothers in the faith," I can only imagine the outcry that removing an excommunication against a Holocaust-denying Bishop Williamson would provoke?

Can any SSPXers on this site confirm at least a modicum of this latest media claim?