Rorate Caeli

Institute of the Good Shepherd:
"a decision... taken by the Pope himself"

Read first report. Communiqué of the FSSPX, read here.

From the communiqué of Cardinal Ricard, Archbishop of Bordeaux, President of the French Episcopal Conference, and member of the Pontifical Commission 'Ecclesia Dei':

From the beginning of his pontificate, Pope Benedict XVI has conveyed his wish for a return to full communion of those who have followed Abp Lefebvre and has wished to make welcoming gestures regarding them. It is in this sense that the decision to erect this new Institute was taken by the Pope himself. There is in such decision the will to propose an experiment of reconciliation and of communion which should still strengthen itself and deepen in practice. That is why the statutes of this Institute are ad experimentum for a period of 5 years.

23 comments:

proklos said...

There seems to be no other interpretation of this move than that the talks with SSPX have failed. We still do not know the real reason why these priests who form this new institute left SSPX. Were they in good standing with SSPX?

FSSP has proven a disaster. They are permitted to say the novus ordo as well as the 1962 rite. Then too there was that homosexual scandal in which St. Gregory's was embroiled..

Fianlly, we have all of these institutes for saying the traditional mass. And what is the meaning? The only thing we have learned is that Roman rite has two legitimate expressions the Mass of St. Pius V and the Mass of Paul VI. Does this mean that one can mix and match rites as I see being done in many parishes?

But there is no continuity between the rite of St. Pius V and the novus ordo. They are at variance. This has been shown by disinterested study of the new collects. We only await a study of the lectionary. As for the new canons and changes in the old, this is already plain since their inception.

And then there is the question of communion to protestants, permitted since Vatican II. Is there going to be a reversal on this? And what about the new teachings on religious liberty and the affirmation of the principles of legitimacy enshrined in the US constitution? Can traditionalists be happy with this? To me the meat of the issue lies here and not in the rite. I mean the rite only rflects the deeper issues that divide Catholics today.

New Catholic said...

These priests left (or were invited to leave) the SSPX at different times and for different motives in the past few years.

Sixtus V said...

The bell begins to toll for the schismatic SSPX "church." Truly great news.

Sixtus V

New Catholic said...

I really do not believe this new Institute has any considerable impact on the SSPX or on any eventual negotiations involving the SSPX and the Holy See.

Philothea said...

Sixtus V said:

"The bell begins to toll for the schismatic SSPX "church." Truly great news."

Not so Sixtus, it tolls for thee!

Long-Skirts said...

Sixtus V said...

The bell begins to toll for the schismatic SSPX "church." Truly great news.

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 (SSPX) 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!

With Peter said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
With Peter said...

To be precise, the division among Catholics is only among those who do not submit to the Roman Pontiff, which is actually a characteristic that calls into question whether they can really be called "Catholics."

tardivel said...

The members of the new institute were among the more energetic priests of the SSPX. Strong characthers, some of them great organizers (Laguérie who was ordained in the 70s, Aulagnier who was a companion of Mgr Lefebvre) or intellectuals (Fr. Tanouarn who is a proud polemicist). The turmoil begun with Fr. Laguérie for having criticized fiercely the ever-increasing and near-jansenistic severity at the seminary of Écône (compared to what he called the openness of Mgr Lefebvre himself - which almost scandalized Fr. Laguérie when he was a seminarian, but which he understood later), and the claim by Fr. Aulagnier that the creation of the St-John-Vianney Society in Campos signaled that the time had come for an agreement with Rome. These critics could not be beared by the SSPX authorities, precisely because they come from so-called "historic leaders".

tardivel said...

Besides for Proklos, how can be the FSSP "a disaster" when it started with 12 priests in 1988 and now boasts 180 plus 120 seminarians???... It's all very well to repeat all the time that they have to concelebrate or say the new mass, but have you examples with dates and names or photographs? If it happened routinely as you seem to imply, wouldn't it logically show up somewhere and somehow?... (Other than by using urban legends patterns, I mean.)

Gaufridus said...

Sixtus V said:

"The bell begins to toll for the schismatic SSPX "church." Truly great news."

How did we get from a tiny group of disaffected, former SSPX-associated priests to "the bell begins to toll..." etc.?

Moreover, the SSPX is not a schismatic "church": it is part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and adheres to every correct traditional doctrine and tenet of the Faith.

The only argument possible against the SSPX is the one concerning "obedience". It's usually based on incorrect understandings of Papal Infallibility.

The SSPX does not refuse obedience to sacred tradition. The SSPX does not deny the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

The Novus Ordo and its promulgation involve neither sacred tradition nor Papal Infallibility. It's all rather simple.


Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum

tardivel said...

If I may. The Pope's office is not reduced to occasional (and exceptional) "ex cathedra" pronouncements on new dogmas (or restatement of existing ones). Infailibility is not all what it is about. The Pope is the (vicarious) head of the Church and the mission of the Church's hierarchy is triple: preach, pray, and GOVERN. The dogma of pontifical infailibility was only defined in 1870, but that of petrine primacy (referring to government rather than teaching) dates back to the 14th century. Obedience is due even when the Pope is not speaking "ex cathedra".

Gaufridus said...

Obedience is due even when the Pope is not speaking "ex cathedra".

That is absolutely false.


Pax tecum

tardivel said...

Sorry, but you are wrong.

See what Council Fathers said in 1870:

"Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this NOT ONLY in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the DISCIPLINE and GOVERNMENT of the Church throughout the world." [Vatican 1, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 3, no. 2]

Pope Boniface VIII in 1302: "For every human creature it is a condition of salvation to submit to the Roman Pontiff." (Unam Sanctam). This declaration purported to be dogmatic and is recognized as such by all traditional theologians (Catholic ones, I mean).

In the same 14th century, St. Catherina of Sienna called the Pope "sweet Christ onn earth", at a time when the Church was shaken by the scandal of the Great Schism, and even though she urged the Pontiff to leave Avignon and return to Rome, she wrote:

"Even if he were an incarnate devil we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom."

Gaufridus said...

Here we go...

Sorry, but you are wrong.

No. Sorry, but you are wrong.

While we're trotting out quotes and name-dropping...

"The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that they might disclose new doctrine, but that they might guard revelation and the deposit of faith."
--Vatican I (1870), Denzinger 1836

"One must resist the pope who openly destroys the Church."
--St. Cajetan

"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."
--St. Athanasius

"I do not care if I have against me all the Bishops; I have with me the Saints and all the doctors of the Church."
--St. Thomas More

"To announce to Catholic Christians a doctrine other than that which they have received from the apostles and their immediate successors was never permitted, is nowhere permitted and never will be permitted."
--St. Vincent of Lerins

"The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but men of tradition."
--Pope St. Pius X

"No authority can force us to diminish our Catholic Faith."
--Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, 1974

Oh, and here's one of my personal favourites:

"Should anyone presume to tamper with this [Mass], let him know that he shall incur the wrath of God Almighty and His holy Apostles Peter and Paul."
--Pope St. Pius V, 1570

Lastly:

"When the Mass has been overthrown, we shall have overthrown the Papacy. It is in the Mass, as on a rock, that the Papacy wholly rests."
--Martin Luther

That all said, will the next round go something like, "Nanny-nanny-boo-boo"?


Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum

tardivel said...

Well, you have good quotes.

Pretty much Protestant indeed: putting your own judgement above that of legitimate authorities - but I suppose they are not legitimate in your eyes either.

In fact, simply American.

The final point is that YOU (alone) will decide when it is OK to obey, right?...

Now, let's see...

-was St. Francis of Assisi wrong when asked if he would receive communion from a priest who would be a public sinner, and he said that not only he would, but he would kiss that priest's hands?

-was St. Alphonsius of liguori wrong when he submitted to the Pope who removed him from his congregation in the last years of his life and condemned those of his brothers who went on to set up a separate order?

-was St. John of the Cross wrong who never rebelled against his own order that had him put in jail and tortured?

-was St. Theresa of Avila wrong who said that she would burn her writings if she was told that they were contrary to Holy Church's teachings?

-was St. Louis of Montfort wrong who had his faithful build a huge Calvary set of monuments and complied with the command of his bishop to have them demolished, while this was supposed to be a permanent witness to his pastoral efforts and pretty much looked like condemning his ways?

If you believe that the Church does not bring you the Word and Bread of Life, why do you even pretend to be a Catholic anyway?

Gaufridus said...

Well, you have good quotes.

Thanks. I didnt make them up.

Pretty much Protestant indeed: putting your own judgement above that of legitimate authorities - but I suppose they are not legitimate in your eyes either.

Catholic quotes are "Protestant"? Talk about a leap of logic...

Two things:

1. I am not putting my own judgement above that of legitimate authorities. I am simply following Catholic tradition as best as I can within a Church that appears, quite frankly, to be hostile to that tradition.

2. Dont put words in my mouth. The Pope and the Bishops are of course legitimate, and I have never denied their legitimacy. Whether or not they are doing the right thing is the question: not their legitimacy.

In fact, simply American.

No. Simply Catholic.

The final point is that YOU (alone) will decide when it is OK to obey, right?...

Of course not. You are assuming that I dont obey Catholic tradition now, which is completely false. Of course I do; otherwise, I would not be Catholic.

That said, there is no requirement to obey anyone -- the Pope included -- if he commands one to sin. By the grace of God, that has not occured yet (i.e., no Pope yet has actually attempted to abolish the Roman Mass de jure; their actions have all been de facto. By the grace of God, it never will.

In the meantime, I pray for the Pope that the Holy Ghost will descend upon him and inspire him to return Tradition to the Church.

If you believe that the Church does not bring you the Word and Bread of Life, why do you even pretend to be a Catholic anyway?

Of course I believe that the Church brings the Word and the Bread of life. I have never stated otherwise.

These days, however, not everyone within the Church brings the Word and the Bread of life. Sadly, one must seek Catholic tradition carefully within the Church.

But, crises such as the current one are not without precedent. Afterall, the Arian heresy lasted something like 400 years before it got sorted out. Then, everything the Arians screwed up had to be suppressed, fixed, corrected, etc.

As to the question, "why do you even pretend to be a Catholic anyway?"... I think you ought to ask yourself that question. As for myself, I am not pretending to do anything.


Dominus tecum

tardivel said...

"It's not me, it's you". I thought you did not want to go to that level.

All in all, I don't really disagree with your last post. Which makes me wonder how you could say that it is false to state that one has to obey the Pope even when he is not speaking "ex cathedra". Maybe there is a misunderstanding about what this means. The Pope governs the whole Church with "immediate" jurisidiction, and government includes not just doctrinal teaching but also discipline (Vatican I). Speaking "ex cathedra" involves a solemn pronouncement. This is not the way the ordinary jurisdiction of the Pope is exercised. And this is why the Pope must be obeyed even outside these exceptional events. If you disagree with that statement, I must presume that your belief is that the normal exercise of the Pope's immediate jurisdiction would lead you to sin, according to your own reasonings - and yet, you just said the contrary, that you haven't seen that. So, how could you claim that it is "completely false" that the Pope must be obeyed otherwise than when he defines new dogmas (the last time being in 1950)? On the other hand, if you believe that the Pope cannot be trusted even though he does not lead you to sin, how can you claim that you recognize his legitimacy??

With Peter said...

Gaufridus, How do you reconcile your opinion that the Pope must be obeyed only when speaking ex cathedra with chapters one through four of Pastor Aeternus, which clearly defines that the Pope holds full and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church. Moreover Vatican I clearly asserts that all Catholics are "bound by the duty of hierarchical duty and true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church" (Denz. 1827)

Jordan Potter said...

"Moreover, the SSPX is not a schismatic 'church': it is part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and adheres to every correct traditional doctrine and tenet of the Faith."

Except, that is, for the traditional doctrine and tenet that all Catholics must be in full communion with and in submission to the Holy See.

Jordan Potter said...

"You are assuming that I dont obey Catholic tradition now"

The true obedience that God requires of us is the obedience that is yielded to persons, not just the obedience that one yields to traditions. If doesn't matter what traditions one may "obey" if one does not obey the Holy See and does not accept what the Pope and the bishops in communion with him formally teach.

With Peter said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
With Peter said...

Jordan, to be more precise, it is obedience to persons that guarantees that one's obedience to tradition is not obedience to an erroneous private interpretation, but to authentic tradition.

There can be no tradition without apostolic succession. This was proved by St. Irenaeus in the second century. Without the concrete immediacy of apostolic succession, tradition becomes a esoteric gnostic principle.

"Magisterium" is the only "regula fide" that cannot be perverted by private interpretation. Reason, Scripture, Tradition: All these can and will be perverted if there is not a living teaching authority instituted by Christ and protected by the Holy Spirit.