Rorate Caeli

The Traditionalist canonical package - Important

La Stampa also offers a few interesting notes on yesterday's meeting. We will translate the pertinent passage as soon as possible.

The essential information is that the pope's resoluteness prevailed over the small opposition of a few cardinals, historical opponents of the FSSPX. The result of the discussion was that, in general terms, the Pope was given "carte blanche" to pursue what he deems necessary to integrate the Traditionalists who are in irregular communion . The outline of a possible structure was introduced as part of a "canonical package" to be presented.

Source and translation of the relevant passage (5:30 PM GMT):

On the Lefebvrists, meanwhile, Benedict XVI has obtained a free way [via libera, the go-ahead] from the porporati [the Cardinals], even if some resistance from some cardinals, historical opponents of the Fraternity Saint Pius X, was noticed. Cardinal Kasper noticed the fact: "There are different approaches," he said. But the will of the Pontiff, who last August received Bishop Fellay and Father Schmidberger, has prevailed over the hesitations, even though the success of what is to come is not certain.

The "package" for the reintegration of the Lefebvrists is substantially ready, result of the work of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos (Clergy) and of Cardinal Julian Herranz (Legislative Texts). A kind of worldwide super-diocese would be established, guided by a bishop named by the Pope, who would then delegate portions of his jurisdiction to vicars. Other than that, which would render Lefebvrists [Translator's note: actually, all Traditionalists] independent from the local bishops, the creation of a seminary, for the formation of future priests, is expected, keeping the future spiritual identity of the organization.

A secret two day meeting in Rome, in mid-November, between the leader of the "Fraternity Saint Pius X" and Cardinal Castrillon, had clarified some aspects; and bishop Fellay, and his right hand [man], Franz Schmidberger, seemed willing to [give] a definitive step, even if that would have cost the loss of some extreme fringe.

However, in that meeting, it had been agreed that the Fraternity would write the Pope a letter asking that, in view of the new situation which was being established, the excommunications issued when Marcel Lefebvre had illicitly ordained four bishops be eliminated. And the letter has not yet arrived. There was then a second point, observed yesterday by cardinal Kasper: "Each one of us wants the reconciliation, even if there are always signs of different experiences. The problem is knowing if the situation has already matured. If they are willing to recognize the Council, there is the possibility of a resolution". Cardinal Castrillon was even more optimistic: "The Church welcomes them with open arms. We are in the way, we need God's help, everything depends on the Lord, it is he who is in charge and who guides everything. In every family, there are many voices and many points of view." And the Lefebvrists would be, in the inside of the Church, one of those voices.


We would add that a few details are not precise, but the general tone is very similar to the information we had been receiving. Some other details regarding the November meeting had already been confirmed by Bishop Fellay in his most recent conferences.

36 comments:

John Heavrin said...

"Carte blanche"

Unless the skies parted, who in that room could give the Holy Father a "carte blanche" that he doesn't already possess? Having said that, it's encouraging if this means that even the fiercest opponents basically gave up and assured him they wouldn't stand in the way or have some sort of fit as he proceeds. If this is what "carte blanche" means, then by all means I'm glad the Cardinals "gave" him one.

But "carte blanche" means just that: does this mean that the Lustigers, etc., have told the Pope, "Do whatever you have to, and we'll go along with it, even if it means allowing Williamson and the likeminded to continue to denounce and condemn the New Mass and much of Vatican II." Somehow I doubt if the "carte" is quite that "blanche."

Bottom line, though: the most important thing is that the Holy Father seems determined to regularize the situation, and broaden not just the availability of the Latin Mass and all that goes with it, but to elevate the place of the Traditionalist movement in the life of Holy Church in general. Perhaps the move he will make, perhaps soon, will be definitive, and not just generous but breathtaking.

Let's keep our prayers going up for this intention.

New Catholic said...

The exact expression used was "via libera" (a free way, a free pass...), but it was used in the sense of not placing obstacles (as they were repeatedly placed when John Paul II tried to give innovative solutions to the problem). Of course the Pope has the "carte blanche" and the "via libera" to do most things he sees fit, within the limits set by Vatican I, but this must be understood strategically.

I will be back soon with the translation.

Al Trovato said...

Mr. Heavrin,

The original says: "Benedetto XVI ha ottenuto il via libera dai porporati, anche se si ha sentore di qualche resistenza da parte di alcuni cardinali, oppositori storici della Fraternità San Pio X"

that is: "Benedict XVI obtained a 'free way' from the Cardinals, even though resistance was felt coming from the part of some Cardinals, historical opponents of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X"

John Heavrin said...

If there won't be any "threats" of schism, etc., I'm glad to hear it. There was word of such threats when John Paul II wanted to proceed on this situation. I think that these were bluffs on the part of German and French bishops who perhaps overestimated the size and number of the crowd that would have followed them into "schism," bluffs that should have been called...but if they've agreed to keep quiet, that's helpful.

And if their bluff was so clearly going to be called that they didn't even bother to make the bluff, that's priceless. Viva il papa!

I am still trying to imagine what regularization of the SSPX would look like...hundreds if not thousands of churches and chapels suddenly "legitimized"? Practically if not literally every city in the U.S., anyway, has an SSPX chapel or church (unlike the FSSP or Institute of Christ the King, which have only been invited here and there).

New Catholic said...

Yes, I believe that is the way it should be understood, Mr. Heavrin. Thank you very much for your comments.

Michael Brendan Dougherty said...

The language at the very end "there are many points of view" could be seen as problematic by members of the Society. Read in one way- as members of the church having different missions- it is acceptable. If it is read in another way it falls into Bishop Fellay's metaphor of the zoo - in which the Society is just a Dinosaur locked up and kept safe.

Boko Fittleworth said...

Thank you so much for your comprehensive, sober coverage of this, for your accurate translations, and for your insightful commentary. I visit this site daily and it allows my prayers to our Lord re: this matter to be more specific!

Again, Deo gratias! and rorate-caeli gratias!

Guadalupe Guard said...

These are joyous tidings in the heart of Lent!

I suppose Cardinal Kasper feels especially qualified to comment on the situation as the arch-ecumenist. One suspects that when Cardinal Kasper says "accepting the Council" he means "not debating it." One would think that Cardinal Kasper would have the good ecumenical sense to fade into the background in regards to this issue, since he is Traditonalism's stumbling-block personified.

In any case, may the Holy Father heed the promotings of the Holy Ghost and not that of his Cardinals: and let the debate begin!

Vergil said...

For starters, elimante the bent or
broken cross with its distorted
corpus of Our Lord from all Papal
liturgical events and ceremonies.
Replace with a croiser. Although
I have not seen pre-conciliar popes
with a croiser.

old jack said...

Assuming for the sake of argument that La Stampa is to be trusted (an assumption I'd advise against rushing into), I don't see any reference to a guarantee that the head man will be from Tradition. The SSPX isn't going to accept that.

Nor do I see any reference to the SSPX's insistence that the Vatican admit the right of every priest to say the Old Mass. I don't see how the SSPX can accept a deal without that, either.

So it looks to me like one more trial balloon for one more effort to stampede the SSPX. If it works, the SSPX will be split, and the augmented indultists will be left to the tender mercies of the likes of Bishop Fernando (What? Me Concelebrate? I Was Just Faking It) Rifan, or worse.

I also note that there's no guarantee suggested that the Pope will name somebody from Tradition. I don't see how the SSPX can accept this either.

Al Trovato said...

Old Jack,

About La Stampa, you are right; it's not to be trusted, but it's also really anti-traditional, and it must have hurt them like hell to have to report such good news about the Pope's efforts. I don't think they would have gone this far if they did not have to.

You're right, also, about the need to have a real Traditionalist running things (I guess Kasper is not in the short list). And, yes, I believe people do matter, and the SSPX leadership is aware of that, and so is Cardinal Castrillon, and so is the Holy Father...

But, most of all, I believe we should be looking for institutional stability, a structure that can survive future papacies, so that we can never be treated this way again, like criminals and beggars.

One last point, right now we should be careful not to sound ungrateful. All our enemies want is to be able to tell the Pope: this people are crazy! You have a "mini-conclave" just to try to solve their problem and they attack you? What is the use?

Maybe you are right, maybe the Pope wants to fool us, maybe he wants to steal our Chapels, corrupt our Priests, have our wives and daughters dancing in front of the Altars, but maybe not. Maybe this is the beginning of something good, something we have been praying for, maybe the Holy Ghost wants to use this Holy Father.

Let's do penance and pray.

Screwtape said...

Let me paraphrase a line from an old American presidential-campaign bumper sticker:

It's the Dogma, stupid!

I mean no disrespect to any of the comment contributors, but with such as Kaspar and Sodano still in place, "encouraging" appointments and promises don't amount to a hill of beans.

Until Vatican II is repudiated, humanly speaking it's over, folks.

The Holy Spirit is the only One that counts now and when He does act it will cause the entire Novus Ordo apparat and all its works and devotees to disappear as though they had never existed.

And where in all this is Fatima?

Tradosaurus said...

Well it appears as if Fellay and Schmidberger are selling out the sspx to the novus ordo religion.

I wonder why Fellay said he had no contact with the Rat since Aug. 2005? Hmmmmm.....

Can anyone say "St. John Vianney from Campos Brazil?"

I hope that this succeeds it will be clearer for those true Catholics who won't go along with the absorption into the vatican ii church.

Trad

quodabsit said...

Oh Trad, with due respect, go back to your cave!

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

Did the original really say set up a New Seminary?

Because the SSPX already have many seminaries.

Also, I wouldn't jump the gun and presume that the canonical structure is for all traditionalists. It seems rather it will be the SSPX structure as it is today with their own communities. Others would have to apply for admittance.

New Catholic said...

"The creation of a seminary". I do not know if it would be a new seminary, an additional seminary... you may have to ask Cardinal Castrillón himself...

Tony La Rosa said...

Tradosaurus, how dare you call the Holy Father a "rat"! You are the rat! Why do sede's have to post here? In all charity, get lost!

New Catholic said...

You are correct, Tony. I had not noticed he had offended the Holy Father so deeply.

Tradosaurus, I will keep this comment as a last warning of what happens to despairing minds. One more like this and I will delete all your future comments.

Screwtape said...

I now step in where Angels . . .

1. It appears to me that a lot of people are jumping the gun on this issue; in every direction under the sun; which, for those who have not been paying attention for forty years, has happened every time the post V2 leprechauns issue a document of any kind.

2. From what I have observed from the films and writings featuring Bishop Fellay, his primary criteria for fully embracing Rome is a complete repudiation of that Council of notorious reputation. He has not impressed me as a man who capitulates.

3. The SSPX will very soon have a new Superior General. It is what he has to say that will undoubtedly matter most from now on.

I personally favor Bishop Williamson; and ah, wouldn't that be after going in quite an undiplomatic direction now - the right direction, undiplomatic nevertheless. It would certainly deliver the proverbial "board between the eyes" message to Rome - listen to what we're saying; put up or shut up. Alas, when has Rome ever done anything like that.

4. Please do not be too hard on trad. First of all, not everyone has the ability to be as discrete as I am; my discretion is second only to my humility. I will give the fellow credit for having come up with the most clever pseudonym. On my own blog, I'm Bucky Katt - after the comic strip. Don't ask.

5. Please please please! let us all stop using the term sede vacantist. It has never been properly defined, as Atila Sinke Quimarães has demonstrated in quite some detail. This is now become a hobby horse of mine. We are promised the Church shall prevail, yes (the "gates of hell" business), BUT WE ARE NOT TOLD HOW !!! As Sir Laurence Olivier said to Charlten Heston (in an entirely different context), "they none of them _______ know!"

6. I haven't read everything about the coming of the Antichrist, of course (I only have this life and it's dribbling away at an alarming rate). I have read a lot, however. Everything mentioning the subject I have seen, if memory serves correctly, from Robert Hugh Benson to the late Father Micelli, indicates that the Antichrist's #1 henchman will be a legitimate, bona fide, duly ensconced Pope. In all logic, I don't know how anyone, sede or otherwise, handles that one. Then there is St. Alfonse's disappearing Mass and other fine tunes.

7. May I request to know who it is that runs this fine blog site? Real name and brief description of present circumstances would be nice. If it is somewhere in Latin, please to forgive. My Latin got lost in a moment of High-School cowardice and stayed lost. Alas!

8. Meanwhile, permit me to mention my own lonely little site; URL: blyhouse.blogspot.com. All are welcome, but Novos Ordos be prepared for things that, as Lear said, "shall be the terrors of the earth." It is nowhere as good as this. First of all, the posting of photos feature does not accommodate Mac. Mac is to cyber world as the SSPX is to Rome.

9. Forgive the windiness. However, it is usually windier, so consider yourselves pampered.

New Catholic said...

Thank you for your comments.

I remind our readers that the comments do not necessarily reflect the position of this website. We tolerate a wide variety of comments, but we please ask the commentators to be respectful and charitable, especially regarding our liege lord Pope Benedict.

Screwtape said...

Dear New Catholic:

I appreciate your response and the position you adopt with regard to the Office of St. Peter regardless of the occupant, no matter how problematic he may be.

I didn't mean by what I said regarding the untoward remarks of "tradosaurus" to excuse the way he spoke. I'm sure he spoke in anger without thinking and trust he will take the chastisement he received to heart.

These are trying times, which is why I try sometimes to address matters with a touch of humor, without, I hope, sounding flippant.

I meant very seriously what I said about the SSPX. It is utterly unimaginable that any of the present Bishops will capitulate in the way some assume they will.

I heard Bishop Fellay in a video taped speech lament and severely chastise the Campos fiasco. Both he and Bishop Williamson have addressed the inevitability of a schism in the SSPX should there be any real capitulation.

The rumors and their fallout are tiresome, indeed, and I wish they'd stop, but I suppose they are inevitable and we'll simply have to endure them.

I think we all need to take a deep breath and wait, at least, until the elections of the new Superior General are concluded. It is highly unlikely that any definitive conclusions can be drawn until after that takes place.

I am surprised at the lack of conjecture as to who the new man will be. Not that any such thing would likely produce much by way of accuracy.

Should the worst scenario play out (which I most seriously doubt), we may find ourselves becoming, as I like to say, a Remnant of one.

I will watch your blog site carefully. And I appreciate the opportunity it offers for an exchange with the various interlocutors.

Thanks again for your response.

Screwtape said...

This is just to let all my friends,fans, and benefactors know that my posting name has changed from "Neil G. Barclay" to "Tradgrind", because these are indeed "Hard Times" and we're having a Dickens of a time trying to get things straightened out.

[for those unfamiliar with the work, the real meany in Charles Dickens' grimmest novel is named Gradgrind, hence my play on that name. I promise not to be as nasty as the novel's character]

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

May I remind those here that there is a war on? THE war, in fact. The greatest ever fought for the One, True Faith to conquer in word and deed. And the enemy is the same as yesterday - Pope Ratzinger is the same as Cardinal Ratzinger is the same as Fr. Ratzinger -- all three of these men are modernist, hegalian, liberal, new theology, no action on evils like the new mass and its communion desecration, priest faggotry upon alter boys and girls AND therefore the enemy of Christ in word and deed. Traditional Catholics denounce "dialogue" with the enemies of the Faith, but here we have the head of the SSPX "dialoguing" with a greater enemy than Luther! Things are getting worse everyday for the conciliar church which hates the attacks coming from the SSPX which they intend to silence and control with a dishonest deal just as the scandals Pope Benedict and others have abetted grow from homo-priest attacks to the sublime positioning of innocent children by Catholic Charities in US Dioceses with dual homos so they can grow up to be just like their daddies. You don't sip tea and speak of the "certain spirituality" eminating from the Pope which is nothing but a more seductive odor from a liberal sewer. Just when Tradition is winning souls for Christ and beginning to win the great war, Bishop Fellay is now ready to put down his arms and surrender. He would do well to learn from secular history. We now know from North Vietnamese admissions that if the bombing of Hanoi had continued, the US would have won the war in short order. We stopped the bombing when Ho Chi Minh begged us to the peace table. We stopped the bombing and lost the war - period. Catholics there were crucified and worse. This is war, my friends, and Pope Benedict and his friends, like Kung and Kasper are enemies, too. The right time to dialogue with the authorities in Rome will come when these authorities disavow their heresies and evil actions which condemn them to a life without grace, an eternity without God. Make a deal with this ilk at a similar peril to your own soul.
Liberals alway, ALWAYS turn ugly in the end. A deal with Pope Benedict is a deal with an unrepentant devil from hell itself. If that's who you want to follow, that's where you go, too.
A deal with these arch-heretics and monsters of inequity? Don't bet your (eternal) life on it. I beg you, please don't!

Screwtape said...

I may be wrong, but I don't think Bishop Fellay is "dialoguing" with Rome. He has been holding meetings with several in the Vatican for quite some time. In his filmed speeches and in his writing he has stipulated very clearly his unease with the deal with Campos. Also, he has stated categorically that no "negotiations" can BEGIN until certain criteria are met by Rome. First, a public and unqualified statement to the effect that the Mass of the ages has never been abrogated or Obrogated and that all priests have the right to say it without permission of any kind either from Rome or any bishop. The second condition is a statement from Rome that there never were any excommunications involving Archbishop Lefebvre or any other member of the SSPX. The third condition is that Rome publicly admit that the SSPX is not in schism. For all of these stipulations to be accommodated no dialogue or negotiation needs any quid pro quo from the SSPX. Bishop Fellay has also stated that there must be no giving in on accusations against the diabolical Council. He has also made it clear that the core problem has to do with doctrine and Dogma and not, strictly speaking, with any of the above.

If Bishop Fellay is now ready to capitulate in any way, then either he was lying all this time or he has for some unfathomable reason decided on a complete volte face. Either seems to me to be completely out of character.

In addition, any such action would certainly split the SSPX, and he has indicated that he realizes this. Most assuredly, he would part company with at least Bishop Williamson. Both Bishops have stressed over and over again that the only thing that matters is the truth and the salvation of souls.

Yes, he has also stated that "the door is always open," but that hardly constitutes a capitulation. He has made it clear that the ENTIRE onus is upon Rome to repudiate the Council and fulfill Our Lady's Fatima requirements.

I think a lot of people are panicking and drawing very premature and erroneous conclusions.

Again, in June there will be a new Superior General of the SSPX, and I doubt Bishop Fellay will do anything to undercut his successor, whoever that may be.

Nothing conclusive has been accomplished and I am certain that the best we can all do is wait and see if anything like that transpires, without going off hog wild with hysterical conjecture.

Guadalupe Guard said...

Pax Christi.

Chartel dsiplays quite well the faulty, non-Catholic reasoning that is characteristic of those who argue against reconciliation when he uses the Vietnam example. He promotes doing an objective evil, blanket bombing of a civilian population, and justifies it to avoid atrocities, such as "Catholics being crucified."

In short, sin rather than suffer.

This is exactly the reasoning and moral dynamics of the those that argue against reconciliation: there should be disobedience and uncharitableness intentional displayed toward the Holy Father in order to avoid their (the traditionalists) crucifixion.

These men have little faith and do not understand the very essence of Catholic tradition: that we are called to crucifixion, and that one chooses to die rather than commit a sin.

Yes, once inside the Church traditionalists will (and do) suffer martyrdom, but this is the only way that their blood can cleanse and water the Church, and it is the only way they can become sancitified.

Traditionalists against reconciliation are at essence not traditional at all, for they reject the doctrine of the Cross. Indeed, they are afraid of crucifixion and have a mentality more akin to Protestant "survivalists" than Catholics.

These men are deficient in the Catholic spirit, especially charity. Indeed, schism and the schismatic mentality are sins against charity. Until there is a turning away from sins against charity there will be no sancitification within their ranks, no matter how Catholic they are in other ways.

I recommend that New Catholic's Rorate Caeli editorial on reconciliation be read again: it is of the purest Catholic spirit and tradition.

In Christo per Mariam.

dfive said...

I believe that the Church needs SPXX fully restored to the fold. One of the most important projects of this Pontificate is the restoration of the Holy Mass. We have the impending Apostolic Exhortation which, we are told, is admonish the Curch to restore the solemnity to the sacrifice of the Holy Mass. We have the most recent GIRM whose implimentation is being frustrated by the USCCB through the likes of the Liberal Bishop Trautman (Trautperson). There could be nothing better than having the SPXX in communion with the universal church in the Diocese of Erie. I belive most Catholics would see what they are being denied.

Screwtape said...

Oi Vei!

Some are panicking and some are tickled pink. And both sides' attitudes are predicated upon an agenda that probably doesn't exist. What's a guy to do.

Look, there are many passages in Scriptures where we are told not to "dialogue" with Baal. Suffering doesn't mean joining the enemy, even if the enemy, as Pogo said, is us.

The point here is that any reconciliation precisely would not be with the Church that has been around, say, between the years 33 AD and 1962. That's just a guess. The Conciliar outfit is practicing and preaching false doctrine and the leprechauns' middle name is "doublespeak". Doublespeak Dogma? Where is that found in Tradition?

If I hafta suffer I'll go buy my pipe tobacco at a drug store.

Settle down, boys. This is gonna be a long hay ride.

Let me remind everybody that in each of the very long speeches I've seen on VCR by Bishop Fellay he has stated that "They lie!" and "How can we trust them?"

If I can hazard a guess, this is a ploy based upon what Rome thinks is the impression that most people have of Herr Ratzinger, whichever of the three you don't prefer. Which is to say he is really a good guy and is genuinely conservative and blah blah blah. Look, for starters, he's the one who led the charge AGAINST the "Third Secret." I've read his pieces and heap big chief speak always with forked tongue.

So put your peace pipes . . .

chartel said...

I see Bishop Fellay as not fully convinced this is an all out war, and war it is - the holiest and most honourable crusade to restore the True Faith to the True Church.
May I remind my above "charitable" friend that if one's faith deviates one Iota from apostolic, there is NO charity in that person, whatsoever, no santifying grace, no salvation. This is because the principle of true faith is utterly simply - the implicit acceptance of all truths solemnly taught by the Church; a submission of mind to what God has infalliby revealed. In this simple, but holy act of faith, there is not the possibility of formal error and the great possibility of holiness and that charity which dwells in a pure heart. A pure heart knows how to love God, neighbor, self and how to wage uncompromising, unwavering, unretreating WAR against those who bastardize the Holy Faith of the Catholic Church.
These men are monsters, I repeat MONSTERS of evil by ordering Catholics to do and pray and believe novelties which pluck the True Faith from their mind and sink their souls into the damnable corruption of error which eventually removes grace from their souls with damnation following and for all eternity.
Think on this if not still convinced this present Pope is not evil incarnate: the anti-christ is supposed to be one who lays waste to Catholics world-wide through his perversity and seduction. In order to be seductive, he can't come out and say: "I'm the anti-christ! Come and worship me!" No, he will be one who lays the most inescapable snares for souls enchanted by his seducing words and ways. Now, the fact is that presently, the number of those who still hold the Catholic faith by the principle of faith (a simple submission to the unchangeable truths revealed by God in their entirety) are reduced from hundreds of millions to a tiny remnant. This begs the question: If the conciliar popes were not anti-christ who was to devastate the believing Church, then what is left to be destroyed by some future anti-christ who is yet to come? p.s. The purpose of an analogy is not to prove the analogy, but the point which is made by similarity to the analogy - as in the Vietnam bombing I mentioned earlier. Get out your bombs and blast away at the anti-christ while you can, my friends. The honor to be bestowed by Christ in eternity to His true warrior crusaders who do so is limited to the present time while anti-christ is among us. Know the enemy and fight boldly for Christ and His Truth - Our Lady of Victory, pray for us! Jerusalem, Lepanto, Malta, Vatican II - may we conquer all!

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

On the Antichrist,

I think it is fair to say that anyone, be he layman or bishop or Pope, who works to overturn or subvert, either directly or through mischevious interpretation the infallible teachings of an infallible Ecumenical Council is an "antichrist", for this is at lesat the teaching of Pope St. Leo the Great, a doctor of the Church (for entire quote see my blog "The Antichrist in Catholic Thought").

By extension anyone who seeks to overturn the deposit of the faith by similar means.

Theologically speaking, it think that one could make a very probable and sound argument that Paul VI's attempt to do away with the tridentine mass, or JP II's praying with heretics and promoting false, pagan worship, and the similar behavior of most of the hierarchy, is a mark of their being "antichrists" in the sense that they were mislead by his spirit, or beholden to.

But at the same time, we should recall, both that St. Catherine of Siena said she would give the Pope full obedience in all things legitimate, even if he were the Antichrist, spoken of in Scripture; and that each and every one of us are behold by that same spirit, when by deviating from the Faith we would attack the Church and Her welfare either by similar acts or by giving similar scandal.

Clearly, therefore, the spirit of the Antichrist is afoot in the Church with Vatican II. Even the ambiguous language of that council reflects that same spirit at work.

Sedevacanisma and papolarty are both the offspring of this same evil spirit: because both argue that a man of light, who appears to be without sin, should be obeyed as only God can be; and so both prepare the world to accept the Antichrist to come.

Also because both are consequences of his spirit at work in the Church, for the former divorces itself from the office of Peter, which will always oppose that Spirit, and thus makes itself an enemy of the Office; and the latter seeks to united catholics to the evil tendencies to which every occupant of that office can fall into,and thus seeks to unite the Church in servitude to the Antichrist to come.

Screwtape said...

Chartel & Bugnolo:

I do wish "charitable" had not been put in sarcastic quotes. I don't see where taking strong issue with someone regarding a mere assessment of character is uncharitable, unless it be scandal regarding the subject. You do not indicate upon what you base your questioning of Bishop Fellay's constancy (?).

Meanwhile, I certainly ever keep in mind the admonition from Psalms: "do not put your trust in princes, nor in any child of man." There are words to that effect in several locations.

To you and Br. Bugnolo, I can assure you that iota unum aut unus apex non praeteribit is a code of mine. Also, I am in agreement with Atila Sinke Guimarães that the entire enterprise from, say, 1959 on, has been animus delendi with a vengeance.

The necessary distinctions having been made, Br. Bugnolo is correct regarding obedience. The question then becomes, how many are qualified to make the necessary minimal distinctions.

I refer to those since V2 as anti-Christ, as opposed to Antichrist. Christ said it's either/or with no exceptions. These I am suggesting are not yet fully Antichrist because they can still come out with the truth upon occasion, and the utterly Satanic can abide no truth. As of now it is enough to say that Rome is not on the side of Truth.

Permit me to appeal to any of the interlocutors as to the possibility of possession. Having read Malachi Martin's definitive book "Hostage to the Devil", it certainly seems probable if not highly likely that Wojtyla was among what Martin calls "the perfectly possessed." (Let's hear no accusations of sede vacantism, if you please . . . even if you don't please. It has become but the equivalent of an epithet - no one can really define it!) On the other hand, papolotry is definitely an acceptable term of description, and is defined every day in, say, "The Wanderer."

To describe all the leprechauns since "That Council," there is a phrase I borrow from Tolkien that he gleaned from Beowolf : these are "offspring of the dark."

chartel said...

Tradgrind,

My "charitable" comment was in no way directed to you, but rather to GuadalupeGuard. Perhaps, I should have been specific in this. Mea Culpa.

Your distinction between Anti-Christ and THE Antichrist is well noted. On the other hand, don't you think the Antichrist can abide some truth for the purpose of seducing "even the elect" if this were possible?

As to sede-vacantism, I too, do not subscribe to this, but leave open the kind possibility that these conciliar, heretical popes shall LATER be declared by competent papal authority to have been anti-popes, their bodies dug up and unceremoniously dumped into the Tiber, the entire acts of their pontificates declared null and void, including the entirety of Vatican II and the long list of conciliar "saints" and "beati" like Mother Teresa and Jose Maria Escriva removed and true Saints like Padre Pio reviewed to assure the Church, if this seems wise to later magisterium.

On Bishop Fellay, his tone with these heretics from within is not in keeping with that of Archbishop Lefebvre who called John Paul II an anti-christ or Antichrist - I'll have to check the spelling. Spelled either way, it is most appropriate. Here is where Bishop Fellay has gone wrong. Specifically, he has entered into negotiations with these bad Romans before the two conditions laid down in 2000 as pre-conditions have been met - free the true Mass and declare the false excommunications as false or null with no concessions from traditionalists for these measures.
This has not been done, but Bishop Fellay has, by his words recorded on the DICI site in a interview format, come within seconds of accepting a bad deal for the SSPX at his last interview with the Pope last August. He no longer condemns this Pope which is the only charity appropriate to this Pope that he may know precisely from a truthful Christian just where he stands before God's judgement in objective terms. As such, Bishop Fellay is not behaving like a warrior, but like a diplomat and this is not a negotiation, but a war. There is a difference. War is a violent struggle, negotiation is a non-violent consideration of terms of peaceful accord. Both are done with words and actions, but war in this case is not that of guns and bombs, but the actions of this war are primarily spiritual and the words leave NO doubt that you are FIGHTING and fighting a distinct enemy. If the enemy where merely modernism, negotiation would be possible if it could deflect the moderntic ideas, but the enemy is not modernism, per se, but rather with those who pertinaciously hold and act upon modernist principles.
War condemns, war takes no prisoners in this spiritual realm, but seeks only to kill the evil in a man with words which are sharp as Truth, strong as death. Such words directed against this pontiff might actually shake him from his error. Negotiation, on the other hand, gives respectability to his error and this is not only uncharitable, it is most unwise, imprudent and ineffective. The Pope needs to be told and told repeatedly by all of us that he is going straight to the fires of the hell he sinfully and falsely thinks is either empty or only for the likes of a Hitler or Stalin. He needs to be told in critical, logical detail precisely WHY he is going to hell and precisely what this will mean for him and "all who follow the Pope".
He needs to feel the full weight of Truth against him. Bishop Fellay does none of this. He maintains cordiality and is thankful the Pope is "kind" to him?!?!? What weakness and irresolution of purpose. So I say to Bishop Fellay - take up the sword of Truth and do as much damage as you can to this Pope's false idea of his own spiritual condition - that is the only true charity remaining for a virtual apostate, heretic, self-confessed schismatic and condemned man who is dead, dead, spiritually dead and done with his place in hell well reserved by the devils who have seduced his mind and purged his heart of all grace.

Screwtape said...

Chartel,

Thanks for the clarification regarding lack of charity. My charity is second only to my humility.

I agree that we are indeed in a war - to the death - in terms of souls. But . . . without rejecting your approach, let me begin by noting that in any war there are various possibilities regarding both strategy and tactics.

That having been said:

I know a lady in the SSPX who thinks Fellay is just perfect because he has a dimple in his chin. I'm not quite with her in that.

I could say what Bishop Williamson says: he's a nice guy. That's what Williamson says about someone who is being consigned to down under, and I don't mean Australia.

I still cavil at your insistence upon the word "negotiations". Although his approach may be a strong indication of such, I'll continue to make the distinction between "tone" and "word". Whistling past graveyards is something I've yet to overcome completely.

It is barely possible that Bishop Fellay is being deliberately and cleverly (maybe too) subtle; that he intends to lead THEM into their own trap; hoist them with their own petard. If that is the case, then he's making an egregious error. The leprechauns in Rome are way beyond approach; only denunciation will suffice. I am of the impression, however, that Bishop Fellay has left himself a "loophole" as it were, by means of which he can simply emulate the admiral who said "nuts."

I do know that you are hardly alone in your anxiety and aversion regarding Fellay. From what I know of Bishop Williamson (and I've collected all his conferences on the encyclicals), he holds a form of trepidation, albeit milder. He has also told at least one Cardinal, directly to the face, "yours is not the same church."

I, too, wish we had a Patton rather than, say, an EIsenhower at this moment as head of the Society.

I am certain of one thing. If Fellay capitulates, it will sunder the SSPX and the Bishop shall have carved himself a niche in the Circle where Dante put Brutus and Cassius - the lowest, because they were traitors.

We little folk can only wait and see. Perhaps June will bring a Caesar made of "sterner stuff."

Your question regarding the Antichrist vis-à-vis truth is interesting. Tentatively, I proffer two possibilities: 1) by then, nobody will know or care about truth, so they'll accept any lie (that's just about where we are now, anyway), or 2) the Antichrist will be clever enough to hide behind what Shakespeare called "seems". There is no doubt that he will be believed and followed.

In the meantime, may I borrow the counsel the Ghost of the Soldier gave Don Quixote: "Patience, cousin, and deal the cards."

Screwtape said...

CODA

I just had a long conversation with a member of our SSPX group here and she and her husband, who are very active in the Salt Lake Our Lady of Fatima Mission, are as worried about Bishop Fellay as is Mr. Chartel. They are no fools. They point to some very disturbing issues of the publication "Angeles" to substantiate their fears.

I just pray that Bishop Fellay either stands firm or is replaced in June by Bishop Williamson. Otherwise, the SSPX is, as they say, toast.

Our allegiance, following the admonition of St. Paul, is only to God and not to any man, group, or Mass, no matter how "valid" it may be.

chartel said...

I don't think Bishop Fellay will accept a deal with the Pope which appears in any way on its surface to be a compromise. My concern with a "deal" is two-fold, otherwise: One, Bishop Fellay does not have either the brains of a Williamson nor Two, the piety and gravitas of a Tissier de Mallerais, either of whom would make 3) a fine replacement.

Let's consider each of these points. First, Fellay is about on par intellectually with a Pius IX who made some terrible blunders of first accepting a liberal government, calling in troops only to be slaughtered when he saw the light but it was too late, speaking important truths like on invincible ignorance of the Faith not being culpable, in and of itself (he didn't say it that clearly)leading others to easily twist his words to say invincible ignorance is a trip to heaven for non-catholics and the definition of papal infallibility which was written so incautiously that a smarter man, Cardinal Newman - voted against it! and we see where that incaution has created papalators today. Such a man as Fellay will sign a deal that looks perfectly good on the surface (but Williamson will expose the trap, the fatal flaw, if allowed to comment before being presented with a smiling fait accomplit), but it will have a time-bombed clause to be sure. A hard to detect time-bomb that someone "trusting" enough as Fellay wouldn't hear ticking may look like this: Fellay is appointed Apostolic Administrator with all the powers and protections he can think to write into a contract (not being aware, perhaps, that contracts only prevent behaviors and have no power to enforce behaviors, at all). His term is three years, after which a successor will be internally elected without any influence from Rome. The excommunications are lifted, all is rejoicing for Fellay. Then, when the Society elects Williamson as next Apostolic Administrator, the Pope calls him to Rome for a consultation. Instead, he is met by three cardinals who grill him on his intentions and record the conversation. The cardinals find Williamson guilty of affrontery to the Pope, guilty of heresy to Vatican II and illegally suspend him a divinis --- sound familiar?
A determination is then made to root out Williamists in the Society and all prelates and priests must take an anti-Williamist oath in favor of Vatican II to continue without being suspended, themselves. Because similar things happened to the SSPX in the past, this is proof enough that it is likely to happen again as Rome is no less evil today than in 1974 and 1988, merely more in need of temporary moral cover until the sex scandals are brought under control. 2) Fellay makes humorous comments while speaking of the most serious and grave matters - St. Thomas tells us humor has no place in theological matters as it is disproportionate to the subject (there is nothing funny about a salvation and souls going to hell by the cartful). What this tells me is that the only real reason Fellay could have for talking with Rome (a special inspiration from say, the Blessed Virgin herself who might have somehow ordered him to do so under the most unusual of conditions) is hardly likely as he may be very good indeed, but he is no Saint or mystic and lacks the gravitas essential to a Bishop in his position. Finally, this brings me to the third point. Bishop Fellay should immediately resign as head of the SSPX. Why? One, he is responsible for these negotiations which Rome is preparing to offer him with a great public expectancy of acceptance so he cannot refuse without splitting the SSPX and cannot accept without splitting the SSPX, as half the Society (perhaps) thinks Rome can be trusted if we are given a good contract and half don't trust proven heretics and malfactors until they VERY much cease to be so. Resignation is his only option and a most honourable one, at that. He would then be under no obligation to accept Rome's offer as he would no longer have the authority to do so. His replacement would be free to hammer the Romans with the Truth of their heresies and condemn them as is most right and charitable. If eloquent, it would not only galvanize the SSPX into a unified and powerful force for good as never before, but this condemning charity may prove fruitful to the Pope and other heretics around the world. Resign Bishop Fellay, resign - the honourable path is into oblivion in prayer and penance for your foolishness.
Oh, and it is a member of the SSPX who writes these words.

Screwtape said...

Chartel:

Your "modest proposal" 'tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. I'm afraid the kink in this particular chain (early resignation) is labeled "humility, lack of."

I ought to stop here and make two observations not necessarily appertaining thereunto, as legalese has it.

First, you are obviously what might be referred to as vintage SSPX. My wife and I aren't, although aging, even aged Catholics. After half a lifetime as smugly contented atheists, we entered the Church at the age of 50, exactly 17 years ago; and it wasn't until I looked up from my "lector" book to see an altar bimbo bouncing around the sanctuary that we left Mother Novus. At that time, we'd never heard of the SSPX and didn't know there was a rite in town. Consequently, we spent the next five years in the Maronite rite and stayed there until they started to go wacko-modern by changing God's words: "Peace on earth and good will to AWLL." Finally, we headed for the Mass of the Ages, of which we'd by then learned; this, about four years ago. A poor priest who has had a stroke and can't genuflect flies in from LA twice a month (he is actually stationed in Arcadia) - that is, he arrives when Delta is willing to deliver. As you can see, we are, therefore, hardly familiar with the kind of history of the SSPX to which you allude.

The second matter has to do with our (you and I ), having, as it were, virtually taken over somebody else's blog site for our ongoing repartee. Perhaps all who tune in here are interested, which would be fine. Now while I know who posted the referent item, I do not know whose site this is. Maybe somebody could butt in and let us know if what we're doing is kosher. If not, then if there is further exchange to be had, we could use my blog site or yours, whichever.

Your take on Fellay is most perceptive. When I saw the tapes of his talks I was overwhelmed by the obvious stamina and apparent simplicity of the man. What you seem to be saying is that his simplicity is more likely naïvety - a very dangerous attribute for a man in his position.

I like what you say about both Williamson and Tissier de Mallerais - I am presently about half way through a reading of his biography of Lefebvre. I believe Lefebvre is a Saint, literally, but he, too, made some terrible mistakes early on - the main one, not walking out of that Council. Some good came out of that mistake in that what Lefebvre said, wrote, and did at the Council (ironically?) laid the foundation for his subsequent rejection of same and his establishment of the Society.

I first encountered the bloody V2 in that "Rhine/Tiber" book. My reaction immediately was, hey, I know these guys, they're all my liberal buddies on faculty committees at San Francisco State College circa 1966 - the epithets for whom are not printable in a family publication. That's where I first learned that "nice" and "vicious" are synonyms more often than not.

Your information regarding Newman's stand on propounding de fide papal infallibility is new to me. I've read several bios of Newman, and understood that his objection was merely that while the doctrine was right, the timing was wrong. Your explanation makes sense - perhaps Newman was merely trying to be diplomatic. I recalll that Cardinal Manning, Newman's sometime nemesis, was in favor of the pronouncement. They were both great men, and Newman probably the finest master of English prose extant in any age.

I digress, perhaps.

In fine, the SSPX situation is fluid and we most assuredly are dealing with highly intelligent and sophisticated wolves - I learned a long time ago and at no little cost the lesson of never underestimating the enemy. It cost me several vocations.

As for those on the other side of the potential SSPX split, the best I can say of them is that they obviously cannot have the necessary background in metaphysics, without which one can apply to Truth, but cannot know what it really means.

At last, while I am in general agreement regarding inappropriate levity, I can assure you that judiciously, advisedly, used it can be an extremely useful tool and need not at all lack gravitas - a paradox. Both Chesterton and Belloc were effective in its use, especially the former.

May your prayers be answered in the affirmative, and I, for one, join you in them.