The SSPX General Chapter Declaration
The news agency of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX/SSPX), DICI, has released a letter from the Superior General, to which a Declaration of the General Chapter on the relationship of the Fraternity with the Holy See is attached. For some unfathomable reason, the text has been released in French, Spanish, Portuguese, German, Italian, and Dutch, but not in English...
The Declaration affirms that the position of the Fraternity is that expressed by its founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, in November 21, 1974: "We adhere with our whole heart, and with our whole soul to Catholic Rome, the Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of those traditions necessary for the maintenance of that Faith, to eternal Rome, Mistress of Wisdom and Truth. Because of this adherence, we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies, such as were clearly manifested in the Second Vatican Council, and after the Council in all the resulting reforms."
The Declaration reaffirms the need for the two preconditions proposed long ago: the liberalisation of the Traditional Mass and the repeal of the decrees of excommunication of 1988. The Declaration also affirms that "the contacts which [the Fraternity] keeps at times with the Roman authorities have as their sole aim to aid them to regain the Tradition which the Church cannot deny without losing its own identity, and not the search for an advantage for [the Fraternity] itself, or to reach an impossible purely practical 'agreement'."
The Declaration also includes a reaffirmation of the one-two-three strategy, in which doctrinal differences could be resolved in future rounds of negotiations -- a strategy of which we have spoken before.
The Declaration affirms that the position of the Fraternity is that expressed by its founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, in November 21, 1974: "We adhere with our whole heart, and with our whole soul to Catholic Rome, the Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of those traditions necessary for the maintenance of that Faith, to eternal Rome, Mistress of Wisdom and Truth. Because of this adherence, we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies, such as were clearly manifested in the Second Vatican Council, and after the Council in all the resulting reforms."
The Declaration reaffirms the need for the two preconditions proposed long ago: the liberalisation of the Traditional Mass and the repeal of the decrees of excommunication of 1988. The Declaration also affirms that "the contacts which [the Fraternity] keeps at times with the Roman authorities have as their sole aim to aid them to regain the Tradition which the Church cannot deny without losing its own identity, and not the search for an advantage for [the Fraternity] itself, or to reach an impossible purely practical 'agreement'."
The Declaration also includes a reaffirmation of the one-two-three strategy, in which doctrinal differences could be resolved in future rounds of negotiations -- a strategy of which we have spoken before.
___________
Update: Full English translation of the "Letter to the Faithful" and of the Declaration, as provided by DICI.
For the glory of God, for the salvation of souls and for the true service of the Church, on the occasion of its Third General Chapter, held at Ecône in Switzerland, from July 3 to 15, 2006, the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X declares its firm resolution to continue its action, with the help of God, along the doctrinal and practical lines laid down by its venerated founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
Following in his footsteps in the fight for the Catholic Faith, the Society fully endorses his criticisms of the Second Vatican Council and its reforms, as he expressed them in his conferences and sermons, and in particular in his Declaration of November 21, 1974: “We adhere with all our heart and all our soul to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary for the maintaining of that Faith, to eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and of truth. On the contrary, we refuse, and we have always refused, to follow the Rome of neo-modernist and neo-protestant tendencies, which showed itself clearly in the Second Vatican Council and in the reforms that issued from it.”
Contacts held with Rome over the last few years have enabled the Society to see how right and necessary were the two pre-conditions that it laid down, since they would greatly benefit the Church by re-establishing, at least in part, her rights to her own Tradition. Not only would the treasure of graces available to the Society no longer be hidden under a bushel, but the Mystical Body would also be given the remedy it so needs to be healed.
If, upon these pre-conditions being fulfilled, the Society looks to a possible debate on doctrine, the purpose is still that of making the voice of traditional teaching sound more clearly within the Church. Likewise, the contacts made from time to time with the authorities in Rome have no other purpose than to help them embrace once again that Tradition which the Church cannot repudiate without losing her identity. The purpose is not just to benefit the Society, nor to arrive at some merely practical impossible agreement. When Tradition comes back into its own, “reconciliation will no longer be a problem, and the Church will spring back to life”.
In the long haul to victory, the Chapter encourages all members of the Society to live, as its statutes require, ever more intensely by the grace proper to it, namely, in union with the great prayer of the High Priest, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Let them be convinced, along with their faithful, that in this striving for an ever greater sanctification in the heart of the Church is to be found the only remedy for our present misfortunes, which is the Church being restored through the restoration of the priesthood.
In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph.
Dear faithful,
Allow me to begin this first letter of my new term by thanking you for your many prayers for our General Chapter. We indeed felt the spiritual support that you gave to us throughout the whole Chapter, in an atmosphere that was serene, but at the same time also intense.
I would like to explain to you some of the fruits of your prayers and of the Chapter.
First of all were the elections. The Chapter then decided to entrust to me once again, and this despite its length, a new term as Superior General. I come to request of you an increase of prayers in order that, with this precious help, I might better consecrate myself to the fulfillment of this task that is at the same time burdensome and magnificent.
The Chapter also elected two Assistants.
Father Niklaus Pfluger, who has two brothers and two nephews as priests with us, a third being a religious brother, without counting two religious sisters! He is Swiss, to whom was entrusted the responsibility of District Superior (in Switzerland and then in Germany) and Seminary Rector (Zaitzkofen). He has thus acquired a great deal of experience, both in the formation of priests, and also in the government of two districts.
Father Alain Nély, first of all teacher at the school of Saint Joseph des Carmes, then Prior in Marseilles, and finally District Superior in Italy, has also acquired a profound knowledge of youth and of priests, as well as the government of a district.
The two Assistants will both reside at Menzingen in Switzerland, where our General House has been since 1993. They will be invaluable collaborators for the Society’s good functioning, and will have the opportunity of traveling throughout the world, thus enabling the General Headquarters to keep in closer touch with the Society’s members, as well as with the faithful.
The Chapter is not just a question of elections. It is also the opportunity of assessing our situation, of analysing the weaknesses that ought to be improved, of establishing rules in order that our priests might always live their priesthood better according to our statutes, and thereby obtaining more effectively grace and Heaven’s gifts. We also, quite obviously, considered the state of our relationships with Rome. Out of a desire for the greatest clarity possible, and also with the intention of avoiding all false hope and every illusion, the Chapter unanimously decided to make the declaration that you will find as an annex.
Along the same lines, the Chapter asks me to communicate to you the following ambitious project: The Society has the intention of presenting a spiritual bouquet of a million Rosaries to the Sovereign Pontiff for the end of the month of October, month of the Rosary.
These Rosaries will be recited for the following intentions:
1. To obtain from Heaven for Pope Benedict XVI the strength required to completely free up the Mass of all time, called the Tridentine Mass.
2. For the return of the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
3. For the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
We are calling you, therefore, to a true Crusade of the Rosary. This prayer has been so many times recommended by the Most Blessed Virgin Mary herself, and has been presented as the great means of support, of protection and of salvation for today’s Catholics in this time of crisis. For centuries, since the opposition between the world and the Church has become more and more clearly apparent, this prayer has appeared as the weapon given by Heaven for us to defend ourselves, to sanctify ourselves, and to vanquish.
We consequently request urgently that you begin without delay to bud forth the spiritual roses for our bouquet. Shortly, the priests will give you the directions required to put together this treasure.
By this obviously symbolic quantity, we desire also to make it clear to the authorities in Rome, as well as to Heaven, that we have the will and the determination “to pay the price”.
Confident that our good Mother in Heaven will hear the assiduous prayer of her children, and that she cannot but be touched by the harshness of the present time, as well as the spiritual misery that surrounds us, and that sooner or later she will hear our prayer and respond to our cry, we have entrusted all the Chapter’s decisions to the motherly kindness of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and to the protection of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, in order that He might bless them, and make them more efficacious for the greater glory of God and for the salvation of us all.
Nos cum prole pia benedicat Virgo Maria.
+ Bernard Fellay
Allow me to begin this first letter of my new term by thanking you for your many prayers for our General Chapter. We indeed felt the spiritual support that you gave to us throughout the whole Chapter, in an atmosphere that was serene, but at the same time also intense.
I would like to explain to you some of the fruits of your prayers and of the Chapter.
First of all were the elections. The Chapter then decided to entrust to me once again, and this despite its length, a new term as Superior General. I come to request of you an increase of prayers in order that, with this precious help, I might better consecrate myself to the fulfillment of this task that is at the same time burdensome and magnificent.
The Chapter also elected two Assistants.
Father Niklaus Pfluger, who has two brothers and two nephews as priests with us, a third being a religious brother, without counting two religious sisters! He is Swiss, to whom was entrusted the responsibility of District Superior (in Switzerland and then in Germany) and Seminary Rector (Zaitzkofen). He has thus acquired a great deal of experience, both in the formation of priests, and also in the government of two districts.
Father Alain Nély, first of all teacher at the school of Saint Joseph des Carmes, then Prior in Marseilles, and finally District Superior in Italy, has also acquired a profound knowledge of youth and of priests, as well as the government of a district.
The two Assistants will both reside at Menzingen in Switzerland, where our General House has been since 1993. They will be invaluable collaborators for the Society’s good functioning, and will have the opportunity of traveling throughout the world, thus enabling the General Headquarters to keep in closer touch with the Society’s members, as well as with the faithful.
The Chapter is not just a question of elections. It is also the opportunity of assessing our situation, of analysing the weaknesses that ought to be improved, of establishing rules in order that our priests might always live their priesthood better according to our statutes, and thereby obtaining more effectively grace and Heaven’s gifts. We also, quite obviously, considered the state of our relationships with Rome. Out of a desire for the greatest clarity possible, and also with the intention of avoiding all false hope and every illusion, the Chapter unanimously decided to make the declaration that you will find as an annex.
Along the same lines, the Chapter asks me to communicate to you the following ambitious project: The Society has the intention of presenting a spiritual bouquet of a million Rosaries to the Sovereign Pontiff for the end of the month of October, month of the Rosary.
These Rosaries will be recited for the following intentions:
1. To obtain from Heaven for Pope Benedict XVI the strength required to completely free up the Mass of all time, called the Tridentine Mass.
2. For the return of the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
3. For the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
We are calling you, therefore, to a true Crusade of the Rosary. This prayer has been so many times recommended by the Most Blessed Virgin Mary herself, and has been presented as the great means of support, of protection and of salvation for today’s Catholics in this time of crisis. For centuries, since the opposition between the world and the Church has become more and more clearly apparent, this prayer has appeared as the weapon given by Heaven for us to defend ourselves, to sanctify ourselves, and to vanquish.
We consequently request urgently that you begin without delay to bud forth the spiritual roses for our bouquet. Shortly, the priests will give you the directions required to put together this treasure.
By this obviously symbolic quantity, we desire also to make it clear to the authorities in Rome, as well as to Heaven, that we have the will and the determination “to pay the price”.
Confident that our good Mother in Heaven will hear the assiduous prayer of her children, and that she cannot but be touched by the harshness of the present time, as well as the spiritual misery that surrounds us, and that sooner or later she will hear our prayer and respond to our cry, we have entrusted all the Chapter’s decisions to the motherly kindness of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and to the protection of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, in order that He might bless them, and make them more efficacious for the greater glory of God and for the salvation of us all.
Nos cum prole pia benedicat Virgo Maria.
+ Bernard Fellay
DECLARATION OF THE GENERAL CHAPTER
For the glory of God, for the salvation of souls and for the true service of the Church, on the occasion of its Third General Chapter, held at Ecône in Switzerland, from July 3 to 15, 2006, the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X declares its firm resolution to continue its action, with the help of God, along the doctrinal and practical lines laid down by its venerated founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
Following in his footsteps in the fight for the Catholic Faith, the Society fully endorses his criticisms of the Second Vatican Council and its reforms, as he expressed them in his conferences and sermons, and in particular in his Declaration of November 21, 1974: “We adhere with all our heart and all our soul to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary for the maintaining of that Faith, to eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and of truth. On the contrary, we refuse, and we have always refused, to follow the Rome of neo-modernist and neo-protestant tendencies, which showed itself clearly in the Second Vatican Council and in the reforms that issued from it.”
Contacts held with Rome over the last few years have enabled the Society to see how right and necessary were the two pre-conditions that it laid down, since they would greatly benefit the Church by re-establishing, at least in part, her rights to her own Tradition. Not only would the treasure of graces available to the Society no longer be hidden under a bushel, but the Mystical Body would also be given the remedy it so needs to be healed.
If, upon these pre-conditions being fulfilled, the Society looks to a possible debate on doctrine, the purpose is still that of making the voice of traditional teaching sound more clearly within the Church. Likewise, the contacts made from time to time with the authorities in Rome have no other purpose than to help them embrace once again that Tradition which the Church cannot repudiate without losing her identity. The purpose is not just to benefit the Society, nor to arrive at some merely practical impossible agreement. When Tradition comes back into its own, “reconciliation will no longer be a problem, and the Church will spring back to life”.
In the long haul to victory, the Chapter encourages all members of the Society to live, as its statutes require, ever more intensely by the grace proper to it, namely, in union with the great prayer of the High Priest, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Let them be convinced, along with their faithful, that in this striving for an ever greater sanctification in the heart of the Church is to be found the only remedy for our present misfortunes, which is the Church being restored through the restoration of the priesthood.
In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph.
posted by New Catholic at 8:29 AM
112 Comments:
It is now in English.
Declaration of the General Chapter
I see that the 2 key pre-conditions remain. Does this suggests that no canonical solution is possible without substantial resolution of the doctrinal issues?
The attitude of the document belies a lack of humility.
Dear blogger:
It is a big disappointment. That declaration is the worst possible result of the General Chapter. Tradition only exists in the Catholic Church under the Pope and its bishops (Papal Motu Propio Ecclesia Dei Afflicta).
Pray for the conversion and return of the SSPX to the Church of Christ, with doctrinal and disciplinary humility and charity. And with repentance for the grave sins against the Holy Mother Church.
God and Our Lady bless the SSPX and the SPXXers.
Its positive an encouraging: nothing new, the same SSPX. Eminently Catholic.
Furthermore, the foreword says:
The Fraternity has an intention to present the Supreme Pontiff a spiritual "bouquet" of a million rosaries by the end of October, the month of the Holy Rosary.
These [crowns of] rosaries will be recited for teh following intentions.
1. To obtain from Heaven the power necessary for the Pope Benedict XVI for total liberation of the Holy Mass of all times, ?as given? by Saing Pius V.
2. For the reurn of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
3. For the triumph of theImmaculate Heart of Mary.
God bless the Society. It is sure comforting to see them stand firm.
"A soul that is hard because of self-love grows harder"
"O good Jesus, if you do not soften it, it will ever continue in its natural hardness"
SSPX would be sinning if it were to agree with Rome while it still thinks it is "neo-modernist" and "neo-protestant." SSPX may well be wrong, mind you, but wouldn't you be frightened if a Baptist joined the Church while still believing she was the "whore of Babylon"?
Doctrinal debate is necessary, and there is no reason the Church should hesitent to engage SSPX. I wish I could be there to help. We should expect the light of such debate to show that we are perhaps not neo-modernists after all.
Do not confuse an unwillingness to compromise as a lack of humility. Nor confuse the ability to compromise as a virtue, because it is quite the opposite is regards to faith.
Juan Manuel Soria said...
"It is a big disappointment. That declaration is the worst possible result of the General Chapter. Tradition only exists in the Catholic Church under the Pope and its bishops"
Long-Skirts says...
"Under GOOD Popes and GOOD bishops!!"
THE LILY
(The martyrs were bound, imprisoned, scourged, racked, burnt, rent, butchered -- and they multiplied. St. Augustine)
NO BURNING, TEARING,
SCOURGING SKIN.
IT'S PSYCHOLOGICAL,
ALL WITHIN.
NO ROTTING FLESH
OR PUTRID BLOOD
IT'S STERILE, CLEAN
NO RANCID CRUD
FOR BUTCHERED, TORTURED,
BOUND UP SKINS,
REVEALS THE TRUTHS
OF BISHOPS SINS.
THEY WANT IT NICE,
THEY WANT IT HUSHED,
WITH VEINS OF ICE
GOOD SOULS ARE CRUSHED.
THE SILENT COLD,
IS BETTER, YET,
FROZEN, SOLID,
CAN'T BEGET.
FOR MARTYRED BLOOD
REVEALS THE CHURCH,
BLIND SOULS SEE TRUTH
AND END THEIR SEARCH.
"WE CAN'T HAVE THAT!"
THE BISHOPS' SAY.
"SO LET'S IGNORE...
THEY'LL GO AWAY."
"ENLIGHTENED MEN,
DON'T SCOURGE THE SKIN.
ENLIGHTENED MEN,
KEEP BLOOD, WITHIN."
BUT THEY FORGOT...
THE WOMAN BLEEDS,
AND MONTHLY, MAKES
A BED FOR SEEDS.
WHERE "NICE" AND "HUSHED"
THEY'LL GROW TO MEN
AND SEIZE THE OARS
FROM WRISTS THAT BEND...
ON PETER'S BARK
WHERE BLOOD STILL FLOWS,
FROM WOMAN'S WOMB...
THE LILY GROWS!
This declaration represents the consistency, immutability, stability and clarity so obviously lacking in most NO post-conciliar declarations. It is only the Roman Catholic Faith of Sacred Tradition and nothing else that will do.
In summoning our attention to current episcopal statements from Spain "Theology and Secularisation in Spain" 2006 it is self-evident that even NO Rome can see the proverbial writing is on the wall for conciliar modernism. SSPX does not wish to identify with progessivist trends, such as Jesuits dancing half naked on the sanctuaries of NO "worship spaces" throughout christendom and laypeople defying St Paul as they perform indecorously in an unscriptural manner at public worship. To compromise with post-conciliarism is impossible, from the orthodox standpoint. On the contrary, SSPX advocates the sacred priesthood face turned toward God at the altar on the sanctuary in visibly real Roman Catholic Churches with the faithful as reverent, prayerful and Christocentric participants at the Holy Sacrifice of The Mass of All Times. Nothing else suffices.
It is Rome which needs the humility to accept that VC II itself, and not so-called "false interpretations", is a failure. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture have been humiliated and persecuted enough. SSPX deserves all the support it receives for this. It is a laudable and commendable declaration.
Mack has the real handle on the meaning of this declaration. There has been no change, and there will be no change. The NO apparat is anti-Catholic and has been since what Bishop Williamson refers to as "that vile Council." It is simply incredible how many soi-disant Catholics fail to comprehend the meaning of iota unum aut unum apex non praeteribit. Doctrine and Dogma cannot change because it is the work of God. Since the Council II it has changed all over the map. Modernism and liberalism are not and can never be orthodox. It seems the SSPX is the only entity to fully understand this one, simple, unalterable, and totally unacceptable fact.
It isn't about the SSPX at all. It is about Rome understanding what the Catholic Church is, and it is an is (as in God's "I am") and making all of the necessary adjustments back to truth.
For any other "movement" by the Society, the result would be SSPX suicide.
But, as the old joke has it, "there's always the one dumb SOB who just never gets the word." Except today that "one" constitutes approximately 99% of the "Catholic" world.
Our Lord started out with twelve and strongly intimated that He'd end up with considerably less - like maybe none.
Let us all keep our comments calm and moderate, please.
A point about terms.
We should not say that Rome needs to understand this or that, or that Rome needs to convert or change.
For several reasons. When the Apostolic See rule the City of Rome, it was common place to say of it, as is said of the Kingdoms of Europe, that it (using the name of the city, rather than of the monarch or in this case the Pope) decides this, or does that.
It is thus a bit anachronistic to say "Rome", better to say "the Vatican".
But furthermore, it is a fundamental error of the protestants to fail to make a distinction between clerics in error and the Church, which can never err.
And thus to impute the errors of clerics to the Church, and say that the Church needs to repent, convert, change, etc..
This protestant error is common place today, on nearly all sides.
And thus we should not say that Rome needs to do this or that or change this or that, or repent of this or that. This kind of talk is erroneous and inflammatory, as an exaggeration.
br. bugnolo raises an interesting point regarding the need for clarity of terms.
In a way there is a danger of misinterpreting the distinction the Declaration makes between "eternal Rome" and "neo-Modernist Rome". We would not want to understand by this that there are really two separate Churches. For example, Pope Benedict is really the true successor of Peter ruling the one true Church and not an anti-Pope who rules "neo-Modernist Rome", "NewChurch", etc.
Similarly, it seems to me that we need to take equal caution when saying that the Church has "lost its Tradition". We would not want this mis-understood in a way that would appear to violate the indefectibility of the Church.
I can't help but feel insulted as a Traditional Catholic in union with Rome at the tone of the declaration. The Million Rosaries is a great idea, but I can't imagine for a second how they dared to quote a declaration which states: "On the contrary, we refuse, and we have always refused, to follow the Rome of neo-modernist and neo-protestant tendencies, which showed itself clearly in the Second Vatican Council and in the reforms that issued from it."
It would take great humility indeed for the Pope to continue dialog with them after that. Agreed the Society can't comprimise it's beliefs, but there is a way to say things without spitting on the face of the Supreme Pontiff.
I have never attended a SSPX chapel. However, I would like to unite my Aves with theirs for the needs of Benedict regarding the traditional rite of Holy Mass.
Why don't we all join together and send the pontiff 2 mill Aves?
United we are a greater force,
WEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!
Another comment fight.
What's the over/under on:
Someone accusing someone else of sinning.
Threat of physical violence.
New Catholic - I think you should have left the last round of over-the-top comments on the site. A lot of the commenters could have used the dose of shame that would have come from reading their words after cooling down.
Let's hope the Rosaries will help those that offer them.
Sixtus V
I don't think civis Romanus sum is an anachronism. Bugnolo's velleities are worse than those of any lawyer I've ever met. I don't think ultra-specificity is altogether necessary. I am perfectly willing, however, to drop "Rome" as no longer representing the Catholic Church.
Sorry about the peccadillo, New Catholic, but the joke makes an extremely apt point and it can't be told any other way.
I understand the need to maintain control, believe me. But, a little discretionary leeway might be in order now and then - one need not be quite as "precious" as at times you have been.
I am not a member of SSPX, although I assist only at an SSPX Mass. I can assure all, from what I've read and from with whom I've spoken, lay and clerical, that the declaration in question is exactly what was expected.
I am appaled by the use of the term Catholic by the Crypto-Lutherans that dance around these pages claimimg the errors of the See of Rome. They have left the Church some time ago, they are just not men enough to admit it. In or out, make up your minds. Start your own church, it's a venerable practice.
Sixtus V:
"Thou hast nor youth nor age, but as it were, an after-dinner sleep, dreaming of both."
I agree with some of the above postings that there needs to be a bit more clarity in the wording. Not of Bishop Fellay's statements but of the commentary by traditional catholics.
I think we can all agree that Rome, or The Vatican needs to return to a traditional understanding of the faith. The error that Traditionalists are fighting against is essentially the attempt by Vatican prelates, to make peace between the Church and the world.
They did this by secularizing the presentation of the faith, and 'updating' the liturgy etc.
I think slowly but definately sincere catholics are coming to realize this is spiritual suicide.
In fact Our Lord Himself already warned us about this, when he said "the world will hate you because of me."
So unfortunately, because some overly optimistic prelates thought they could solve a more or less practical problem via VV2 we have entered into a spiritual crisis these past 40 years with countless souls lost.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
"I think we can all agree that Rome, or The Vatican needs to return to a traditional understanding of the faith."
If you really believe that, you can't have been reading the above comments with clarity of mind.
"So unfortunately, because some overly optimistic prelates thought they could solve a more or less practical problem via V2 . . ."
Since when does animus delendi translate into "overly optimistic?" It wasn't a deluded tooth fairy that threw out all of the schemas the first day and invited in previously condemned periti and others to re-write the dogma of the Church.
Dears bloggers:
The positions of SSPX and traditionalism regarding Vatican II are qualified but the Church as ERRONOUS, RASH, DANGEROUS and “TUTO DOCERI NON POTEST”.
This results from the Doctrinal Commentary of the Congregation of Doctrine of Faith on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei(expressly approved by the Holy Father John Paul II exercising his supreme magisterial authority).
“10. The third proposition of the professio fidei states: "Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the college of bishops enunciates when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.
To this paragraph belong all those teachings on faith and morals presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings ...require religious submission of will and intellect....
A proposition contrary to these doctrines can be qualified as erroneous or, in the case of teachings of the prudential order, as rash or dangerous and therefore "tuto doceri non potest." [Cf. Canons 752, 1371; Eastern Churches Canons 599, 436 §2]”
Adding infra:
"As examples of doctrines belonging to the third paragraph, one can point in general to teachings set forth by the authentic ordinary Magisterium in a non-definitive way, which require degrees of ADHERENCE differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression."
"In contemporary usage, the term "Church" has come to include a variety of meanings, which, while true and consistent, REQUIRE GREATER PRECISION WHEN ONE REFERS TO THE SPECIFIC AND PROPER FUNCTIONS of persons who act within the Church. In this area, IT IS CLEAR THAT, ON QUESTIONS OF FAITH AND MORALS, THE ONLY SUBJECT QUALIFIED TO FULFILL THE OFFICE OF TEACHING WITH BINDING AUTHORITY FOR THE FAITHFUL IS THE SUPREME PONTIFF AND THE COLLEGE OF BISHOPS IN COMMUNION WITH HIM. The Bishops are the "authentic teachers" of the faith, "endowed with the authority of Christ", because by divine institution they are the successors of the Apostles "in teaching and in pastoral governance": TOGETHER WITH THE ROMAN PONTIFF they exercise supreme and full power over all the Church, ALTHOUGH THIS POWER CANNOT BE EXERCISED WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF.”
In reference to the last paragraph, SSPX bishops and –of course- Brother Bugnolo have not ANY TEACHING POWERS in the one Church of Christ.
Regards,
"Sasquire said...
Do not confuse an unwillingness to compromise as a lack of humility. Nor confuse the ability to compromise as a virtue, because it is quite the opposite is regards to faith. "
I'm not confusing anything with anything. One can be humble and yet uncompromising, Christ perfected that. The statements from earlier popes show that, as do most of the statements of Benedict XVI. My experience is, aside from being uncompromising (which they perfect), statements from SSPX leaders tend to lack this tone of humility.
In any event there's very few people here calling for compromise of the Faith on the part of SSPX, only submission to (under conditions) the authority of the Supreme Pontiff in regulating discipline within the Church, under some agreeable canonical structure.
with_peter:
"SSPX would be sinning if it were to agree with Rome while it still thinks it is "neo-modernist" and "neo-protestant." "
Again, no call for SSPX to "agree" with the Holy See, only submit to her in matters of ecclesiastical discipline. Obviously, every Catholic has the right and obligation to refuse an order which is contradictory to the faith.
First, my previous comments about "Rome" were directed in reference to those commenting here, not the statement of the Archbishop.
I do not think it takes a great deal of humility to understand that the term "Eternal Rome" used by the Archbishop in contradistinction with "Modernist Rome". Terms have meaning, in context.
By using this distinction, it seems, pretty clear, if we were to judge the matter with charity, that he was referring to the memers of the Church acting either according to grace or not according to grace, and those acting in accord with the faith, and those acting in accord with the errors of modernism, conciously or not.
And to this extent the Archbishop spoke well and in a catholic manner, because he was not imputing error or sin to the Church. How anyone can conclude this, I do not understand. How often the SSPX has criticized the imputation of error and sin to the Church! To accuse the Archbishop of having done so in this now famous declaration, would be uncharitably to assume that he and they were inconsistent or not catholic.
Needless to say, who has defended a doctoral thesis proving that the late Archbishop was not catholic or a heretic?
Theoloyg is not law: however to deny to law or theology a precision of language or of interpretation is unjust and ill informed.
What is "disappointing" is not when the person with whom you are speaking is "wrong," but when he is schizophrenic (i.e. Anglicans).
SSPX--under Fellay--has stayed focus on the original problems inherited from Lefebvre. This is not "disappointing," but hopeful. It means that neither is SSPX forging toward a new theology, which relativizes the importance of the papacy in the period between Christ's two comings (i.e. the sedevacantist headless horseman), nor is SSPX putting on a mask.
This declaration is useful because it states the position of the society with simple, unpolemical clarity. It is a gift to both adherents and adversaries of the society. Nothing is worse than when you are left guessing what your opponent "might" believe.
So, let's take the cue from both Rome and the society, who are conducting this affair with infinitely more dignity than we bloggers.
As declarations use "eternal Rome" and "the Roman authorities" and "Catholic Rome", I am perfectly entitled to employ such a term since it is clear to whom I am refering. Furthermore, I state, the Roman authorities need to wake up quickly before they find there is no Rome left to speak of. And to those who are sensitive about such statements - The Christ promised He would not allow the gates of Hell to prevail against His Church - but He did not stipulate it was the one in Rome.
Br. AB
I'm not sure, but I think you are agreeing with me.
I am with you in your concern for precision of language in ANY sphere or area or whatever. If it's soup I want it called soup and not thinly- endowed chowder or fat-free gunk.
"Rome" is a universally recognized synecdoche. Depending upon context it can refer to anything from the pope to the curia to (rarely) the entire Church.
Roma lacuta est . . . is not fuzzy language. Civis Romanus sum is not sloppy usage.
Ergo: to say, for example that, Rome is in apostasy, meaning the entire Vatican, is not abusing the King's English.
The contemporary illustration that there are many members of the public out there who believe any old piece of newsmedia is the fact that in spite of public statements by prominent cardinals and other learned Vatican spokespersons to the contrary that SSPX is not schismatic, certain sensibilities have led others to swallow whole the empty propaganda.
If SSPX is schismatic then most of the NO church must be a new religion invented in the 1960s at a pastoral council which had no authority to invent novel doctrines which has been its outcome. For example to falsely obey JPII in his idolatry at Assisi, which even Pope Ratzinger disapproved of, would be to disobey the first commandment given to us by God Himself. This is why St Paul tells us to obey God not man. He also gives excellent instructions on decorum in public worship in his letters to The Corinthians. These are routinely flouted by NO churches everywhere, everyday throughout christendom (or what is left of it after VCII) and were actively encouraged by Pope Ratzinger's predecessor. If protestantism and schism are the accusations then NO church must be both protestant & schismatic.
Quote St Thomas Acquinas all you will but he wrote according to the natural expectation of a church which acted in an orthodox manner according to Apostolic Tradition and keeping these prescritions as handed on by them, as St Paul stated. St Thomas also told us to judge the effects of changes in church norms in time therafter to test their validity. 40 years later, we can and the result is they are invalid because they are not Catholic. Not even St Thomas himself would reognise the church of the post-conciliar period as the one he wrote about when he was alive.
This is why the current Holy Father has made moves towards the SSPX because he knows in his Catholic heart therein lies a positively clear and unambiguous response to the decadance of a modernist edifice which is crumbling in post-conciliar "auto-destruction" [Pope Paul VI's expression not mine].
Dear Brother Bugnolo:
It is against the traditional catholic doctrine about the territorial diocese of Rome (and the Papacy and the Church of Christ located in that territory of the City of Rome –to the clarification of some blogger´s mind-) what you said. It is accurate to use Rome, the Vatican and the Apostolic See as synonyms. I could not imagine in which lefebvrist pamphlet you did read such a ludicrous idea.
As a good SSPXer you forget this catholic dogmatic definition: “Si quis dixerit … ROMANUM Pontificen non esse beati Petri in eodem primate sucesorem” a.s.
I suggest you to read the following authors, among others, to illustrate your lack of knowledge on the specific subject (of DIVINE nature in the opinion of the majority of the theologians):
1) Vogels: Textus Antencaemi ad Primatum Romanum Spectantes (1937);
2) Caspar: Primatus Petri (Weimar 1927);
3) Hartmann: Der Primat des römischen Bischofs bei Pseudo Isidor (1930);
and especially
4) Grabmann: Die Lehre des Erzbischosfs und Augustinentheologen Jakob von Viterbo (+ 1307/08) vom Episkopat und Primat und ihre Beziehung zum hl. Thomas von Aquin;
5) Lietzman: Petrus und Paulus in Rom (1927) and Petrus Römischer Martyruer (1936), and
6) Klauser: Die römische Petrustradition im Lichte der neuen Ausgrabungen unter der Peterskitche (1956).
Of course you must read the Aquinitate in the -S.t.G. IV 76- and the writings of St. Cataline of Siena.
The SSPX practical avoidance of the jurisdictional authority of the ROMAN Pontiff violates, moreover, these dogmatic definitions of VCI (with its consequent doctrinal penalties):
“Si quis dixerit, beatum Petrum Apostolum non esse a Christo Domino constitutum Apostolorum omnium et totius Eclesiae militantis VISIBILI CAPUT; vel eundem honoris tantum, NON AUTEM VERAE PROPRIAQUE IUIRISDICTIONIS ab eodem Domino nostro IESU CHRISTO DIRECTE ET IMMEDIATE ACCEPISSE” a.s.
and
“Si quis dixerit, non esse ex ipsius Christi Domine institutione seu iure divino, ut beatus Petrus IN PRIMATE SUPER UNIVERSAM ECCLESIAM HABEAT PERPETUOS SUCCESSORES” a.s.
It is a complete doctrinal mistake (an heresy) to justify the lack of submission to the jurisdictional supreme power of the Roman Pontiff. This is the one (dogmatic) condition of the Holy See to negotiations with the SSPX, but the "traditional" “catholic” SSPXers can not look down their noses at the Church of Christ.
Regards,
Janice:
"Why, look you now, how unworthy a thing you make of me! You would play upon me; you would seem to know my stops; you would pluck out the heart of my mystery; you would sound me from my lowest note to the top of my compass: and there is much music, excellent voice, in this little organ; yet cannot you make it speak. 'Sblood, do you think I am easier to be played on than a pipe? Call me what instrument you will, though you can fret me, yet you cannot play upon me."
Dear God,
I give you thanks for finding me and sending me your sanctifying grace. You brought me back to the church through SSPX & I believe in your work through this society which only has Thee & Thy Mother at heart & which provides true priests who feed the flock with true heavenly food and make sure there is not one bit of poison in the food they distribute to souls entrusted to them. I believe that the flame of the Catholic Church is being kept alive by your work in the SSPX & as you have said so wisely " By their fruits you shall no them" Thank you Lord & have mercy on my soul.
"By their fruits ye shall know them."
Indeed the simple wisdom of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour. He gave us the true measure, the true yardstick.
NO catholics applaud false religions and claim freedom for them BUT not for traditional Catholics; they contradict Sacred Scripture and tell us the Jews have no need of salvation as they have a special plan with God which He actually dispensed with when The Son died on the cross and the veil of the temple was rent in two; they proclaim the first commandment but worship false gods at Assisi, the Holy Lieu of St Francis who converted muslims to The Christ; they abuse and wreck young lives and try to conceal the facts by conspiracy to silence; they write a new service using the misplaced talents of a freemasonic churchman, Bugnini by name, and his protestant assitants and then attempt to destroy The Latin Mass of All Times calling adherence to it "schismatic", "disobedience" and "heresy" and deny the authority of the infallible papal bull of Pope St Pius V, "Quo Primum"; they rewrite the traditional catechism and conceal therein 12 heresies; they insinuate the novel and erroneous doctrine of universal salvation supplanting the doctrines of Heaven, Purgatory & Hell; they promise us a vibrant, growing church with many vocations but give the faithful tens of thousands of empty & closed churches and seminaries, convents and chapels, a worse record than all the destruction of Catholicism under Joseph Stalin in communist Russia; they tell us we need a reform of the reform but are incapable of understanding the norm of the norm.
Indeed, by their fruits ye shall know them.
Janice and Juan Manuel Soria:
Please contact me if you wish to discuss the validity of the SSPX bishops and priests. mgmcdonald@teppco.com
When the conciliarite revisionist wing of the church expounds on all the doctrines and teachings concerning obedience to papal authority then we must consider the environment in which this is being done. Most of the reliable & valid references to this are from pre-conciliar times when even immoral popes such as the Borgias left orthodox doctrine alone. Thus, obedience may reasonably be expected when the church behaves like the church with due Christocentric & Apostolic authority given it.
Therefore,let us consider the following case of the current pontiff Benedict XVI promoting women on the Altar.
During a Mass at St. Peter's Basilica on January 6, 2006, Benedict XVI invited a woman and her daughter to bring the Offertory gifts.
Before taking the chalice, the Pope gave the woman a caress-blessing, below. This seems to be the introduction of a "new sacramental" by Ratzinger that is open to interpretation: it is not certain whether he is giving just a caress, or a blessing that includes a collateral caress.
In either case, Benedict XVI continues John Paul II's habit, so convenient for Progressivism, of having women on the Altar. It accustoms Catholics to their presence there, opening doors for the establishment of women priests. Is this why modernist ecumenics insist on rapprochement with the Anglicans [who have approved sodomist clergy, women priests and are moving toward female bishops] as a prelude to such a move?
According to the Sacred Scriptures (1 Tim 2:12; 1 Cor 14:34-5), women should not have a place of prominence in the church. This, therefore, flouts St Paul's clear directions concerning women when he talks about decorum in public worship. No pope has the authority to do this. The Christ never stated to Peter that he could disobey The Word and this would be considered bound in Heaven. Of course not.
Correctly interpreting these passages and reflecting a centuries-old tradition of modesty, the Code of Canon Law of 1917 by St. Pius X and Benedict XV formally forbade women to be acolytes at Mass or have access to the altar (Canon 813, # 2). This is entirely Traditional and in keeping with the norms clearly and unequivocally laid out in Sacred Scripture.
SSPX has done as much as it can to protect these teachings unlike the so-called authorities in Rome (yes, Rome) who quite openly have not. Obey modernist progressivist norms and you fall foul of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Our learned forefathers understood this and wrote about it. It is only by twisting and turning their proper sense that such teachings can be made to appear what they are not. This is a characteristic modernist strategy. Professor Amerio demonstrates and confirms this tendancy.
Progressivists in the church may quote ad nauseam on obedience to The Holy See but in these times which are not normal this is tantamount to encouraging the faithful to disobey God in His Word. Modernist misunderstanding of obedience means to disobey the laws of God as have been amply demonstrated here and elsewhere. Many saints of the church have understood this and when necessary reproved their bishops. St Athanasius went as far as to be excommunicated to defend orthodoxy of doctrine; St Paul publicly reproved St Peter for showing prefernce toward jewish converts; St Thomas Acquinas would never have obeyed a pope who encouraged the faithful to commit idolatry - that is, obey false doctrines such as "universal salvation" or false religion such as the preposterous behaviour of Pope Benedict XVI's predecessor at Assisi, not once but twice. Even the current pope disapproved of this and has restructured how that holy place is administered in the light of such blasphemy. Can any Catholic honestly imagine St Pius V approving the rehabilitation of that heretic and sower of discord among the brothers, Martin Luther? And which pope called him "righteous"?
Ultimately, you do not have a moral leg to stand on. These and countless other disgraceful and un-Catholic behaviours have been well-documented for all to see. Holy obedience indeed - false obedience, absolutely not. Obey Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture indeed. Obey false teachings and dubious behaviours which scandalise and confuse the faith and the faithful, definitely not! SSPX has committed none of these crimes against the faith. Unfortunately, this is not so for the authorities of the NO church.
Who, therefore, can cast stones at SSPX first?
Dear Mr. Soria,
I think you mistakenly address your recent comment to me; I have never denied the teaching you refer to.
Perhaps you meant what Mack said afterwards:
"The Christ promised He would not allow the gates of Hell to prevail against His Church - but He did not stipulate it was the one in Rome."
Which is erroneous, for the reasons you state.
As for my comments about Rome:
Of course if you mean Rome, as was said in ancient times, "Roma locuta est", you mean the Pope, strictly speaking, as Pope, not as the man who is pope.
But then if you mean "Rome" in the same sense as this, when you say, "Rome needs to change", or "Rome is in error", you are obviously spouting heresy, because in his official infallible statements, the pope cannot err.
But if you mean "Rome" in a less strict sense, of the Curia, or of the the Pope as pope, when not teaching infallibly, then ofcourse you can do so, but there will always be someone who misunderstands, just like those who rap the Archbishop for his term "Eternal Rome" and "Modernist Rome".
Oh, and Mr. Soria, once again you are wrong: I am no SSPXer. I do not even attend their chapels.
Collegiality, ecumenism and religious freedom are key issues of doctrinal disagreement. As long as SSPX believes something opposed to what Rome/the Vatican/the Magisterium teaches, any unity between the two will be false and illusory.
"Women on the altar" and other such liturgical criticism are tripe. It is a liturgical practice--which we may not like--but which does NOT touch on the validity of the sacrament. Therefore, Peter has every authority to bind and loose this sort of practice, condemning it at one time and approving it another.
In any case, traditionalists are not be expected to practice this or any other post-1962 liturgical reform. They are expected, however, to recognize the ordinary and universal authority of the pope over such matters, viz. Vatican I Pastor Aeternus, chapter 3.
Mack:
"Before taking the chalice, the Pope gave the woman a caress-blessing, below. This seems to be the introduction of a "new sacramental" by Ratzinger that is open to interpretation: it is not certain whether he is giving just a caress, or a blessing that includes a collateral caress."
As far as women bringing up the gifts, is it not true that the practice of families bringing up the gifts is no novelty? In any event I don't think that qualifies as a place of "prominence". As far as a blessing with a caress... aren't you tilting at windmills? Surely this is not the first priest to touch a person on the cheek will conferring a blessing? I find it hard to believe this is a novelty, and further, I find it ridiculous to make such a deal of such an innocuous practice.
"Obey modernist progressivist norms"
Of course nobody should obey progressivist norms, but what about those norms which are not progressivist?
"St Thomas Acquinas would never have obeyed a pope who encouraged the faithful to commit idolatry - that is, obey false doctrines"
Of course Aquinas would not obey a false doctrine, but that's different from obeying a pope. You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between lawful instructions and unlawful ones. In the secular world it may come to a point where a leader is so misguided that his every order may be disregarded... however, the authority of the Supreme Pontiff is another thing altogether, and every just instruction is due the appropriate consideration.
"NO church."
This kind of denigrating comment adds nothing to the conversation.
With peter:
"Collegiality, ecumenism and religious freedom are key issues of doctrinal disagreement"
No traditionalist will object to the doctrine of collegiality, only it's improper emphasis.
Ecumenism is a practice, not a doctrine. No traditionalist will disagree with true ecumenism, which is an attempt to bring the return of dissenters and schismatics. A good traditionalist will however, object (justly) to ecumenical practices which are damaging to the Faith, regardless of who is encouraging them.
Religious freedom was never defined clearly in the Vatican II documents. Many traditionalists and liberals took it to mean indifferentism, a right to error; this would be doctrinal, and gravely heretical. Benedict XVI has clarified that it is merely a call to tolerant co-existence, so that all might be free to seek the truth without compulsion or persecution. This is nothing new, the Church has never called for forced conversion. Traditionalists may object (justly) to the degree of tolerance to public religious displays which might be advisable, however, that is really a matter for the temporal leadership of the particular nation.
Matt, you almost seem to imply that traditionalists don’t have a problem with the truth of the of Vatican II’s teaching, but only its “ambiguity” and “emphasis,” but if this were the case, traditionalists would not speak of “the errors of Vatican II.” I should also mention that if this were the case, I would have less respect for traditionalists than I do. I respect those who see this as a matter of truth and error, more than those who are second guessing the manner in which the Holy Father/Ecumenical Council chooses to express truth.
Ecumenism is a practice, but it also a doctrine that has been laid down in various conciliar and post-conciliar documents (e.g. Unitatis Redintegratio, Ut Unum Sint, etc). And various propositions in these documents are opposed by many traditionalists—SSPX among them—not just as “inappropriate” but “false” and “formally heretical.” Vatican II clearly defined a “right” to error when it said, “This right to immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and living up to it” (DH 2). This is definitely a proposition rejected by the medieval Church, who declared that those who had the truth and rejected it had no such “right to immunity,” but could be punished even with death.
Now the case can be made that punishing a heretic in an age of mass communication, moral confusion and religious ignorance only advances the cause of heresy. Hence, religious liberty is not an inherent moral right, but a civil right justified by developments in social and political conditions, and as such it would fall under Peter’s authority to bind (Syllabus of Errors) and loose (Dignitatis Humanae). I’m not sure how one who opposes Vatican II would respond to this argument. There’s certainly enough of you out there, who can let me know.
At any rate, Matt, if you are correct in your description of traditionalist dissent—that it doesn’t involve doctrinal truth and error—it is of the most base and puerile form, like children whining because they think they know how to do their chores better than dad tells them. I believe that traditionalists are more principled than this.
What I write stands.
This is a major problem in Novus Ordo church [a perfectly apt & accurate expression - it is the NO service which invented The so-called Tridentine Mass and Traditional Catholics]: the emphasis, the shrouds of ambiguity, the dubious messages transmitted across the media, the doubt and confusion disseminated in unclear public statements and behaviours, the obvious failure to address post-conciliar norms and values which undermine the authority of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. There is abundant evidence of this throughout the modern church. Objective evidence is presented annually of the appalling state of affairs is not being confronted.
When all is said and done, the liturgy has become a classic example of a progessivist liberal catastrophe. Only proverbial ostriches bury their heads in the sand and pretend they are unable to see what is going on, or the origins of such events.
Ecumenism, for example, may not be a doctrine but since VC II it has been presented as one. It has become an obsession. The meanings of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition have all been shifted on this to make ecumenism seem what it should not be. Anyone subsequently who disagrees with this genre of official-speak is branded "disobedient", "schismatic" or "fundamentalist". Rather strong if we consider the pastoral nature of a council which has been made to appear ultimately & dogmatically authoritative on what transpires in modern church life. It is clear to a Roman Catholic who understands the nature of The Faith according to Scriptures and Tradition, that today's emphasis is misleading and wrong. According to phenomenologically minded modern church members this is all in the mind and therefore subjective. This is where the problem exists in progressivist linguistic, semantic and philosophical twists and turns to accomodate contemporarily correct political & social thought. Women on the sanctuary, heads uncovered and being heard in the assembly, among a plethora of other issues, is a typical case in point. It does not equate with Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, However, liberal modernist rationale circumvent this by ignoring it; stating it is fine in the current social environment or just by boldly carrying it out, proclaiming it as an obedience issue if Catholics rightly protest. Elsewhere, Sodomist catholics justify sodomy because The Christ never actually made a public statement about it in The Gospels but adeptly ignore St Paul's adequate and unambiguous teachings about it. Holy obedience as another issue fits into this logic - such obedience has a scripturally and traditionally oriented framework but this is also manipulated and by-passed to permit the practise of any norm NO catholics wish. Then, it is represented as an obedience issue by those who are actually being disobedient.
Furthermore, it is no use looking to the last four popes for a precise and unequivocal lead on the matters in hand because, generally speaking, we do not receive one or if there is a statement in some form it is routinely disobeyed by the proponents of "obedience" who are often also the ones who criticise and condemn traditional catholics who are obeying Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
Nebulous thinking and equivocation have replaced clarity and precision. How like our disorientated, uncertain and unbelieving epoch. No wonder we have a seriously disunited and disorientated church.
Dear Br. AB:
"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous, there shall be nor more cakes and ale?"
I know you know very well what I mean and you know I know it.
I didn't say that I said that I didn't say it; I said that I didn't say that I said it.
You know a very great deal, as opposed to we who tug our locks, but thou art the epitome of the picker of nits.
To which you will doubtless reply: "I am neither a nit picker, nor a nit picker's son, but I'll pick nits till the nit picker comes."
Doubtless, when you sleep it off, you use a bed of nails.
To which I reply:
If you read more of what pleased you would only fall asleep, and if you wish to sleep, do not read the likes of what I will write.
Because Christ sent his disciples into the world to rouse men from their slumber, and to teach the nations.
I suppose you were one of those who sat in the back rows of the class room, and railed against any teacher who aimed to teach you something, saying they were mean, and not fun.
As Catholics, on this blog, we expect one another to be more mature, do we not?
But I agree in this: I do not share your expectations, and that is a cause of your displeasure, because you have chosen it so.
I pity you.
While the issue of Rome and the SSPX has been continuing, the Spanish bishops have publicly recognised there is an immense problem in society and this stems from progressivist NO church thinking. This is endemic in modernist norms, values & mores. This is why earlier this year they put the blame [a word jungian modernists dislike but find ways of doing nonetheless] not on Zapatero but on contemporary NO church ideologies. Some few years ago, Italian politicians were blaming Roman churchmen for betraying them with their modernist shift of doctrinal & pastoral emphasis. After the VCII, Canadian bishops told their politicians not to impose Roman Catholic principles on Canadian society in the "light" of conciliar thinking on religious liberty. I would imagine we are all aware of the moral slough Canada is descending into these days. It appears that many, formerly Catholic nations, have lost their bearings along the pastoral-cum-doctrinal pathway into the cul-de-sac of post-concilar-think.
Years ago, I lost count of the number of NO presbyters I used to hear quote the mythical "spirit of the council" when they had been sermonising as such on the novelties of universal salvation; equality of all religions before God; the meal table of the lord; the removal of the Tabernacle from the church building; liberty and equality of the sexes in active church & liturgical life; the invalidity of "dead" Latin as a liturgical language; the paramount importance of interfaith & ecumenical dialogue and as a justification for rock etc., music, protestants and non-christians "sharing" the life of "the faith community" and being welcomed into NO churches for joint services. One of them even had the audacity to claim that it was the so-called royal priesthhood of the laity that made the church a sacred place - that is until I quietly went to put him right on a few ideas, afterwards. He publicly recanted this nonsense the following week.
However, there comes a juncture when you can no longer tolerate such anarchic disorder of short skirts, t-shirts, spaghetti straps and unremitting babble for the lucidity, tranquility and recognisable orderliness and mysticality of the orthodox sanctuary of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. For this we must thank those who have maintained progress along the continuum of The Holy Roman Catholic Faith. We should thank them for all the humiliating and unjustified remarks & behaviours that they have suffered since the VC II closed. Indeed, there were many offences against them. I was there and I witnessed many.
Since those days in the rebellious 1960s, the progressivist juggernaut of linguistic, semantic and philosophical ducking and weaving has become so symptomatic, very few Catholics are able to decipher what is pastoral advice and what is doctrinal obligation. Having listened to many lay people from NO parishes,I know not many are able to distinguish either. One factor is certain, there is a superabundance of confusion, ignorance and, often, total disinterest.
These are valid reasons why it is so refreshing to hear, read and contemplate the true and authentic teachings of Roman Catholic organisations such as SSPX and their like. They are clear, understandable and guided absolutely by the benchmarks of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Let us hope this declaration and its sequel will help to further the long-term progress of The Faith. No wonder The Holy Father who has had a traditional upbringing can see the utter chaos into which the contemporary church is declining and detects there a bright luminescence from the past which will never be extinguished. The question is will he make pilgrimage towards it?
With Peter said...
"Matt, you almost seem to imply that traditionalists don't have a problem with the truth of the of Vatican II's teaching, but only its "ambiguity" and "emphasis," but if this were the case, traditionalists would not speak of "the errors of Vatican II." I should also mention that if this were the case, I would have less respect for traditionalists than I do. I respect those who see this as a matter of truth and error, more than those who are second guessing the manner in which the Holy Father/Ecumenical Council chooses to express truth."
I apologize for perhaps misleading you. Many traditionalists think they have found doctrinal error in VII. I disagree, and believe that all of these sticking points can be resolved when we read the documents in light of tradition and apply Pope Benedict's hermaneutic of reform. As regards certain pastoral recommendations, whether they are prudent, or consistent with the underlying doctrinal principles, I think it's very probable that there is error. This is not contradictory to magisterial infallibilty.
"Ecumenism is a practice, but it also a doctrine that has been laid down in various conciliar and post-conciliar documents (e.g. Unitatis Redintegratio, Ut Unum Sint, etc). And various propositions in these documents are opposed by many traditionalists-SSPX among them-not just as "inappropriate" but "false" and "formally heretical." Vatican II clearly defined a "right" to error when it said, "This right to immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and living up to it" (DH 2). This is definitely a proposition rejected by the medieval Church, who declared that those who had the truth and rejected it had no such "right to immunity," but could be punished even with death."
Please tell me what is your understanding of the "doctrine of ecuminism". Bear in mind that there are definitive magisterial teachings on the triumphal nature of the Church. Properly understood, "Extra Ecclesium Nulla Salas" is an infallible teaching.
The right to immunity is a right to be free from forced conversion, the Church has never taught otherwise, according to the teachings of the Church heretics should punished for leading the faithful astray, not for holding personal convictions. All men are subject to error in their practice, and it's probable that this was violated at times.
Do you believe the pope is immune from speaking things which are "innappropriate", "false" or "formally heretical"? Is he above reproach?
"At any rate, Matt, if you are correct in your description of traditionalist dissent-that it doesn't involve doctrinal truth and error-it is of the most base and puerile form, like children whining because they think they know how to do their chores better than dad tells them. I believe that traditionalists are more principled than this."
So we have no right to criticize the magisterial authority when so many are being led astray? Aren't you teaching against the 2nd Vatican council, and canon law which hold that the faithful have a right and a duty to inform the authorities and faithful about problems in the Church?
Do you deny that the Church militant has suffered a tremendous decline since Vatican II???
Ngb,
Thou makest me laugh, and life with a laugh is very much bearable. For that I thank thee! A praise to Br.B for trying to respond in kind.
St. Philip Neri thought humor was a necessary component of sanctity. Ngb, you may not have the latter (yet) but you do have the former! Any day now you may achieve the latter.
Thanks again. Three cheers for thee. Bartender! Give that man a beer!!
Dear The Publican:
Well thank you very much. Yes, some of the best of the early great British converts were funny, and one of them, Chesterton, explained that Christ himself had a sense of humor and why.
The following is true: the late Emmett Kelly (B&B clown) once saw my performance of Toby Belch in Shakespeare's Twelfth Night and told me I was a true clown. Forty years later, they still have to deflate me to come down to dinner.
I always like to be funny, even when I'm lowering someone's trousers for the switch.
As for sanctity, I could consult Br. AB, but . . . I'll put it the way the Cure d'Ars once put it during a sermon: "Most of you are going to Hell, so you can go back to sleep; two or three of you had better wake up and listen."
Besides, there are mitigating circumstances: I was a confirmed atheist until the age of 50. Till I was 8 I was a Mormon. I call them, nastily, double-"M- morons.
Thanks again, and you are actually very fortunate to possess the kind of sense of humor to see my wacky ways. I know that's blowing my horn a little loudly, but there are those who really don't have it: I know people who can sit through a whole night of Jonathan Winters and not crack a smile. Puns and irony elude many, also.
I am absolutely certain you are right that humor and sanctity are connected. I think that there's a correlation between that and the observation that "Communism (official, enforced atheism) has no wings."
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Out of the ambiguity & the emphasis have come forth plenteous errors.
The greatest of them all is the Bugnini service - written by a freemason with 6 protestant hirelings & commissioned by a pope to remove all unique Catholic content to draw in the protestants. This all done very badly with purposefully dubious translations (Fr S Somerville letter of resignation & recantation & apology to Catholics). A service which in its cranmerian style has perverted the true doctrinal content of the Roman Catholic liturgy with its Cain-type "offertory"; questionable consecration of the wine in the canon; its anthropocentric emphasis; its encouragement of blasphemous communions, inculturation with inappropriate norms and sheer noise; its complete lack of reverence; the facility with which lutheran & other protestant groups can identify with it and find it acceptable; the flagrant disregard of St Paul's directions on decorum in public worship; etc; etc; etc. In short, the very vehicle for propagating false doctrines and un-Catholic behaviour. Ideally following Luther's precondition for destroying the Catholic Church - destroying The Latin Mass.
The so-called "sacrament" of "reconciliation" is not far behind it and follows it in the manner in which it has been abandoned en masse by NO catholics & numerous presbyters - I read the other day only about 8% of regular church-going NO catholics in USA (that is 8% of 15%) go to "reconcile" with God - the article claimed there was "more light in the confessional" these days. Surely, this was a typical modernist denial of the true social reality. Verily, as there is less light in the church people are unable to find their way to the Confessional box.
SSPX is unable to compromise with this Bugnini service, the liturgical flagship of the post-conciliar church, because it is patently and grossly un-Catholic. It flies in the face of all official pre-conciliar writings on Catholic liturgy.
In spite of this, there is still a near-terminal state of denial in the NO church. Quote whatever volume, chapter, page, footnote or subsection you like from any writing, the Masonic and protestant Bugnini service is not Roman Catholic in any sense at all. As Professor Amerio has quite correctly stated, in the post-conciliar church anything can be said about anything since there is a loss of the true sense of what things mean. Indeed, this is the nonsense propagated by the thus-named "spirit of the councils".
Ngb,
Yes, humor is essential. Specially for traditionalists, lest we begin to believe much of ourselves. Humor is the one antidote to avoid ending up a Pharisee. Or a liberal. And, if there is one thing Our Lord came to this Earth to do (Br. AB: correct my geographical terminology if needs be ;)) is to fight Pharisees. So said a great priest, Fr. Castellani, and I think him right.
St. Phillip Neri had a Bible and a book of jokes on him at all times. Don Bosco, when asked by St. Dominic Sabio what he had to do to be a saint stated "fulfill with love your duties in life, go often to confession and be joyful (in Spanish "se alegre", almost a "be mirthful" or laugh often, rather). Going to confession has to have us laughing at our uselessness repeatedly or else our pride is getting on the way and something is not right.
Yes, take thyself not too seriously.
Mack, nuff said; you are beginning to repeat yourself, repeat yourself, repeat yourself.
All: let us take a break from fighting the pope's battles to examine our souls. Most of us are meant to be soldiers in the trenches not within the generals' tent... Examination of Conscience: are we speaking like aides de camp, full of self importance?? Am I lingering far away from my post in the battle?
Thus spake ThePublican.
PS: Speaking of Rome, anyone seen Simon-Peter lately?
The Publican:
Can't get better verifaction of our truism than St. Philip Neri.
As for the general's tent, the last time I looked, it was a camel sneaking under the flaps.
According to a Patton-like nutty uncle, who had his own cult, by the way, I was a general in the Persian Wars; wrote the Magna Charta; and, was a prisoner in the Bastille at the same time I was being Tom Paine writing The Rights of Man. Said sad uncle regularly traveled about with Joseph Smith and St. Paul. (Confession: uncle really did say, and believe that, all but the bit about the general - I just added that to the nonsense to make it germane to the subject).
As Br. AB would point out, correctly, we must in our use of humor, never be flippant about the sacred. The only applicable caveat (other than, of course, avoiding dirty stuff).
Simon-Peter? he's in the garden somewhere getting over a stiff rebuke from Paul. But he'll be back at the gates on Sunday, I believe. He's been repeating himself, too. Looks like a common failing in these parts.
So, here's something from a very young one of my 6 children - plenty of humour there, why look for it here?
Why do non-believers take cover during The Mass?
Because it's got a real canon.
I've got a diary full of them.
Now back to business!
Simon-Peter announced his total withdrawl from this Blogsite. So did I; but, I make a habit out of reneging when prompted; unfortunatley, the prompter is always in.
I'll trade you my uncle for your six kids. (I haven't any, so maybe that's what I'm making up for by being child[ish] myself.)
Just kidding. Uncle die. Cult's still going, though, if you're interested. At least you'll find out who you've been and what you've done back to at least the year 3,000 BC.
3,000 BC? There's still a long way to go till we reach that landmark but maybe the latest scientific discovery which claims to have found a medium in which speeds of up to 10 times the speed of light can be achieved, not only fronts up to Einstein but also poses questions about travelling back in time as this source reaches its destination before it starts. Yes, in fact, 3,000 BC is perhaps nearer than we think.
One of my children asked me once, as a matter of fact, if I was alive when Our Lord Jesus was born. What can you answer to that? "No" is too simple and "yes" is too complicated. He had a challenging theological point I thought.
Mack:
Too bad my crazy uncle is no longer whinnying with us, to borrow an expression from Dylan Thomas. He'd be able to answer your son's question. His idea would doubtless be blasphemous.
Withall, he still claimed to be a Mormon. God knows, that's nutty enough, but he really made it look orthodox in comparison, poor man. He was a very nice fellow, too, and a brilliant chemist. Alas, I feel that the only chemical he has to work with now has the odor of rotten eggs.
As for "time." That's truly intriguing. I try to think of the afterlife and it scares me just to attempt to contemplate the concept of timelessness. Whatever time is, it is very mysterious. Take for example the fact that it takes me an entire day just to pen a short letter, yet Bach wrote the equivalent of twenty pages of music a day while he held a full time job, sired twenty children, and used up three wives; leading me to the conclusion that actions do not take place in time, as we think, but that time takes place around actions.
I can't remember where she wrote it, but Dorothy Sayers has an essay on time that will boggle your boggle. I didn't understand a word of it, but she sure gave it a hearty go and sounded the while as though she knew what she was talking about.
Then there's the integral interconnection between time and space!
Now, if you'd been a Smithite, you'd have been able to answer your son's question with "I was boning up on how to become a god when I get my turn on earth." They believe that we