Rorate Caeli

Fellay speaks


In his most recent extensive interview, the Superior-General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), Bishop Bernard Fellay, talks to Brian Mershon - the only print journalist who did not miss a single beat regarding the motu proprio - on the release of Summorum Pontificum and on prospects for the future.

On Summorum:

I think we have to salute and to greet this date and this motu proprio as a very significant historical event in the history of the Church and in post-Vatican II history. This has to be noted. I think it is very important.

Nevertheless, this does not mean it is perfect—especially when we link the motu proprio with the letter [to the bishops]. The letter is, if I may say it, the usual Vatican language. It is very unfortunate.
...
But nevertheless, this letter has to be understood as a political letter which most surely does represent his personal thinking. Nevertheless, it is more than unfortunate in many ways, especially where he insists upon the necessity to recognize the value and the holiness of the New Mass. He plays both sides against each other. And the modern bishops that are progressive—they will jump on that point immediately trying to dismantle the motu proprio.

...

...this motu proprio is a step in our direction. It is most probably the will of Rome to answer to our first precondition. It is nice.

Is it enough to say, “We can now just go ahead?” Well, we can just look at this text published today [on the nature of the Church from the CDF] and you have the answer.

Look. It is a good step forward, but that does not mean that everything is solved. Absolutely not.
On the lifting of the excommunications of the Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988:

The second point on the Roman side: as far as I know, they consider the [lifting of the decrees] of excommunication less difficult than the motu proprio. That’s the only answer I can give you. ... It is the word of Cardinal Castrillón [in the letter] when he sent me the motu proprio [the week before Summorum Pontificum was issued]. That is the first contact of the Cardinal with me since the 15th of November 2005.
On the SSPX and schism:


... in the [Pope’s] letter that accompanies the motu proprio on the Mass ...the Holy Father says it is an internal matter within the Catholic Church — in the Church.

It clearly states that it is not about a schism. It is about an interior dispute which requires an interior reconciliation within the Church.

So we have it from the word of the boss. Our Pope says it is not a schism.
______________
Read also: original text of the short interview granted by Fellay to Vittorio Messori - Corriere della Sera (in Italian).

46 comments:

Gaspar said...

Fellay's statements demonstrate a completely political reading of the Holy Father's intentions.

Anonymous said...

Hopefully the Motu Proprio will one day make the SSPX completely irrelevant.

Jamie said...

I think Bishop Fellay has very good points - there is still confusion being caused by these documents and that needs to be stopped. I sincerely believe that the future will give us Saint Marcel Lefebvre and not Saint John Paul II.

Anonymous said...

Ah... no. I think Bishop Fellay's statments are quite relevant.

1.Its never been JUST about the Mass.

2. In the past Pope Benedict said that they were two different rites, and that there was a rupture. He's trying to heal that rupture, but you would be foolish to think that the SSPX would be Rome's lapdogs all of a sudden.

Anonymous said...

Amen Jamie, amen.

david joyce said...

I agree with Bishop Fellay, for the Holy Father's Letter to Bishops states:

"Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the
communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle,
exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the
new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value
and holiness."

Does a priest really need to accept the celebration of the New Mass - in principle - really in "order to experience full communion" - isn't being in "full communion" with Rome enough? Do we then need our priests to accept the celebration of the New Rite as well? As Bishop Fellay says, the MP is a great advance, and we can celebrate its publication, but some parts of the letter are not particularly helpful.

Jeff said...

Geeez....

When will the SSPX accept something from the Vatican as something that they receive rather than as grist for the critical mill?

OBVIOUSLY the Pope does not think the New Mass is completely unacceptable. If he did, he wouldn't be faithfully celebrating it.

It's perfectly fine to think that the New Mass is ramshackle, inferior, even dangerous. It's fine to think the Old Mass is greatly superior.

But the Pope is saying that it's not "fine" to think that the Church would have saddled us with a downright EVIL rather than something simply less adequate.

So...IN PRINCIPLE, not in practice, celebration of the New Mass cannot be excluded. The New Mass is the ordinary Mass of the Roman Rite. You might limit yourself to celebration of the Old Mass for various reasons, including being a member of an order exclusively devoted to fostering it. But you can't simply say, "Oh, I would NEVER do THAT! I'd rather roast in Hell! The New Mass is an invention of the Devil!"

That--the Pope says (or directly implies) is not consonant with the Catholic Faith.

And his saying so will upset some Traditionalists (NOT good old Bishop Rifan, though).

In practice, in most cases of priests devoted to the Old Mass, it won't make any difference.

SSPX won't budge.

The Pope has to just lift the excommunications and bring them fully back in. And he will.

And the Pope said nothing one way or the other about schism or non-schism for the SSPX. I don't know where Fellay gets that.

Anonymous said...

Jamie,
As much as I'd like to agree with you, how can someone who ordained his own bishops against the orders of the Holy Father possibly ever be canonized?

Anonymous said...

Bishop Fellay has to deal with a "political" situation within the SSPX, just as the Holy Father must in the Curia. I think both of these men have good intentions and similar goals. Measured steps must be taken on both sides. But his last line reveals much--the boss says no schism.

Anonymous said...

I agree that Fellay's message goes on, after the opening, and only to some extent, to stress the 'political' content of the MP and its accompanying letter, but that is largely on account of the fact that he knows that the political import (whatever meaning any Papal expression carries, inevitably, for better or for worse, has 'political' weight) will be overlooked, perhaps, in the glee and joy following the MP.

We all know that BXVI has fought for this MP, and we all have good grounds for thinking that the letter does not fully reflect his view of the "poor design" of the new rite as opposed to the organic glory of the Old. It is clear that some of the wording of the letter in particular reflects concerns expressed to him rather than his concerns.

To ignore the politics is not to care for how we can best *practically* assist and help in the restoration of the Church to its former Glory. It is almost a form of quietism, so that all we need to do is thank God and be joyful. And while many, many people *are* saying that they will *work* to ensure the MP is applied, we all know that some (many?) bishops will oppose this, and the situation will once again become 'political'. We have to pray and act - but be realistic about what we face, even now.

Mike Hennessy

Anonymous said...

Bishop Fellay has it right: let's wait and see how the MP is implemented by the bishops and parish priests before we get too excited. Despite the Pope's best intentions, the Church liberals will do everything they can to subvert this document.

Of course, when I expressed this concern on one of the "neo-conservative" Catholic blogs, the priest (you can probably guess who I'm talking about) accused me of "not trusting" my local clergy.

Excuse me, Father, but I live in a diocese where the previous Bishop was arrested for running over a pedestrian in his car and then fleeing the scene of the accident! He was also a staunch anti-Traditionalist.

For me, there must be compliance along with trust.

Unitas said...

I'm sure I know which diocese you're talking about, and we should feel blessed we now have a bishop who has accomodated the traditional community as much as he has.

I ran the idea past my pastor and he was very open to the possibility of having a TLM at his parish.

While not every pastor might allow it, there are still some that will. We must have hope that the MP will be effective, and there's no reason to despair, especially in our diocese.

professor basto said...

I adore the Tridentine Liturgy, adhere to the hermeneutics of continuity and disapprove of liberal readings of the Council, that interpret its texts as if they stood alone, ignoring that they must only be interpreted in a way compatible with the rest of the Deposit of Faith.

That being said, I read the full transcript of Fellay's interview, and I believe it goes to show that he totally rejects certain Documents of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, and any possible interpretation of them. Well, those documents are part of the Magisterium too, and what one must do is try and find a compatible key for harmonizing both those documents, such as the declaration on religious freedom, and the past Magisterium.

If the SSPX are really Catholic, if they really believe that the gates of hell cannot prevail, if they really accept John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI as true popes, then (in accepting John XXII and Paul VI as Successors of Peter) they must accept Vatican Council II as one of the Ecumenical Councils of the Church, and they must abide by its teachings, that were approved by Council and Pope, promulgated by the Pope and signed by the Council Fathers, including the founder of the SSPX. And, in accepting Vatican II's teachings, they must accept that there is compatibility between that teaching and the previous Deposit of Faith; there is one compatible interpretation, and that is the one that must prevail.

Now, it seems that Fellay thinks differently, and argues that finding that harmonization is impossible; he holds that the Catholic Magisterium was truly changed, and his interview makes clear his opinion that part of the Deposit of Faith was abandoned by the Church during the Council.

That interpretation, Fellay's interpretation, cannot be correct: if one rejects the Council, one rejects part of the Deposit of Faith. Bear in mind that the Council even issued two dogmatic Constitutions. By rejecting altogether certain teachings of the Council, Fellay shows that he is at least in material heresy.

And just as I condemn heresy on the part of the liberals, I must condemn heresy on the part of the so-called "ultraconservatives": Fellay clearly thinks that the Pope is in error, that the Church is in error, and that the SSPX will rescue the Church, will rescue the Chair of Peter, from current error. Well, the Chair of Peter is not in error. The only possible explanation is that Fellay is the one in error.

Paenitemini, et credite Evangelio!

gaspar said...

By talking in political terms Fellay is trying to give the impression he is a Vatican insider. Some people fall for it.

Woody said...

Vatican II was of a certain level of magisterial teaching, true, but it was not intended to be infallible, as was held by the Council's theology commission at the time and by Pope Paul VI immediately afterwards.

And as to sainthood, don't forget that Saint Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for heresy. In the 2,000 year history of the Church there is plenty of precedent of sainthood for some who did not suit the people of the day.

I trust and hope that with the universal charity of the blessed in Heaven, the Archbishop is interceding for us all, even those who disparage his memory.

Anonymous said...

Bishop Fellay should count his blessings. The Vatican would be walking a slippery slope to gradually give in one at a time to SSPX's conditions. I have in the past been empathetic to his positions, but from his tone, it sounds at this point as if nothing would make Bishop Fellay happy.

Woody, the dogmatic constitutions Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium were definitely as dogmatic constitutions infallible, like it or not.

Anonymous said...

St. Athanasius, ora pro nobis...

Archbishop Lefebvre....

Jamie said...

Anonymous - above you said: As much as I'd like to agree with you, how can someone who ordained his own bishops against the orders of the Holy Father possibly ever be canonized?

Well - my answer to that is very simple: St Athanasius, who travelled everywhere ordaining bishops and priests who refused to accept the Arian heresy despite having no permission from the then Pope Liberius (who signed an ambiguous document which gave support to arianism). His signing of this document (not unlike a Pope signing ambiguous VII documents) is largely the reason that Liberius was the first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church to not be canonised.

Jomo said...

What more does the SSPX want. The Pope's MP on 7 July and the Holy Office's "Responses" on 10 July leave its position somewhat academic.

There is now no alternative to unity and as quickly as possible. If some members of the SSPX want to hold out for the impossible that's their choice. The Church needs Priests who can deliver the MP especially in France.

Bishop Fellay needs to go and see the Pope asap instead of indulging in textual analysis.

Anonymous said...

We can compare the first response of Bp Fellay and current interview. The change is obvious. SSPX has fractions, inside and maybe he is under pressure. The fact is NO was lawfully promulgated, love it hate it. Pope Benedict cannot just erase it, as those who promulgated new one could not abrogated the Old Mass. The situation is more complex. What is given with MP is a choice, and it is like a light in the tunnel, it seems that now it could depend on us, church-goers to demonstrate in time what is more pleasing to God. Holy Father certainly wants the resolve SSPX problem and he shows he is positive about it. SSPX is now in delicate position. Moaning and groaning will not be appropriate now.

Anonymous said...

I Think Bishop Felley's observations are correct. Many of the documents of Vatican II are fuzzy and lack real clarity of expression. (I think the only correct interpretation is that of the Council Fathers. The 1970 Missal and all the other guff have been forced on us after the Council and in its name). I think the SPX sholud hold out until Rome clarifies the ambiguities. After all it was only their holding that gave us the clification the motu proprio gives us.

Anonymous said...

Maybe SSPX is the part of God's plan, they make the whole situation much more easier for Pope. He was elected Pope by Cardinals who know well situation the Church is in. The New Mass was forced on us as many other things, you are right, anonymous. However, we cannot expect to have a Pope who will make revolution, he would have not survive long. It is reality, the Pope we have now is certainly part of God's plan and the best we can have. We must pray for his wellbeing. I hope and believe he wants the beat not because he loves latin, as some people say, he wants the change and he proved it. He gave us now possibility to take part and we cannot waste it.

Anonymous said...

"Woody, the dogmatic constitutions Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium were definitely as dogmatic constitutions infallible, like it or not."

Anonymous 13 July, 2007 03:18, what absolute garbage!!

You make such an asertion on no surer basis than your own emotions!

Pope Paul VI:

In view of the pastoral nature of the council, it avoided any eztraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authoirty of the ordinary magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the council according to the nature and aims of each document

(General Audience, 12 January 1966)

Christopher Butler, an English Council Father at Vatican II, and who would be in a position to know, said:

There is no single proposition of Vatican II - except where it is citing previous infallible definitions - which is infallible. (The Tablet, 26 November, 1867, p. 1220).

So, what Vatican II teaches infallibly is only what has previously been taught infalliby.

humboldt said...

Fellay is playing politics. Not very good on the SSPX, but quite catholic.

Anonymous said...

I believe that the problem with the M.P. is that it's putting the cart before the horse. Dogma comes first then liturgy. The real problem is that many people have not been taught the simple-one-syllable-per-word Catholic faith for many years.The official religion books here in Ireland,for example, are quite terrible and episcoplally approved. On of my [many ] disappointments is that the new Compenium of the (NEW0Catecism was a shortened -rather than simplified version.It was meant for the ordinary man,but my goodness,the language and concepts are awful for the mythical "man in the pew". He doesn't read catechisms.He gets,or used to get, hisreligion from:
1.What the priest says in the pulpit.
2.What is taught in the school.
3.What happens in the Sanctuary on a Sunday morning.
The M.P. might help 3 but where are we going on 1 and 2.Unless doctrine is right,a Tridentine Mass will appear as just one of very many "styles" of worship now available as opposed to being the unavoidable consequence of good teaching and faith.
Alan Robinson.
rpienne@eircom.net

Anonymous said...

I think it's safe to say that we wouldn't be here--discussing a motu proprio and various reactions to it--if the SSPX didn't exist. The "good fruit," to use the Holy Father's words, produced by the SSPX (full seminaries, full churches with big families, etc) provided a living contrast to the declne of the NO. Thanks to the SSPX and other Tridentine Mass organzations the appeal of the Latin Mass is undeniable to Rome and can't be excused as some pining for the past or unrealistic nostalgia.

The SSPX is on the road to coming home, but Bishop Fellay is probably just as concerned about keeping his flock together as Benedict. Besides, you don't get to be bishop without having to deal with politics. Romanitas, eh?

Anonymous said...

Maybe SSPX is the part of God's plan, they make the whole situation much more easier for Pope.

Any reasoning for the MP which includes SSPX is meaningless to the great majority of the faithful who will have to make room for it and who could be influenced by it, however and whenever this Pope of tradition would have inevitably acted due to his own historically stated reasons.

I think it's safe to say that we wouldn't be here--discussing a motu proprio and various reactions to it--if the SSPX didn't exist.

That's like saying that the Holy Spirit is of less importance than any self proscribed group that could not wait in patience and trust for same Holy Spirit to act. The Father waits with the same fruits for the sons to return and they know within their own stubbornness of this unlimited Goodness, but He doesn't give us any example of changing His will while He continues to demonstrate His generosity to such. I would say that the sufferings of those who remained within the fold these many decades have cried out with more genuineness while they waited in humble patience, knowing the time would arrive. I believe that the explanation of the identity of the Catholic Church, coming at the same time as the Motu Proprio, speaks to ALL who have caused hurt and division to the Body and to the cry of the Lord for all to be One....even to the self anointed separated!

finegan said...

You know, as a 20+ year follower of the SSPX, I've listened to all these arguments until my head hurts! Are they schismatics, are they not? Are they heretics, are they not? Etc., etc.! I'm not a professional theologian, and neither are most people on this and other blogs. Yet, a lot of people fancy themselves as Church experts.

This is an internal matter among fellow Catholics that will be worked out according to God's plan. I don't see many people wringing their hands about the protestants, LDS, and others who haven't "accepted Rome's authority."

I intend to "follow my conscience" (as my former N.O. priest used to advise during Confession) and stay the course with the TLM and SSPX. With the release of the MP, things are starting to turn around in the Church. No honest person can say this would have happened without the long and dedicated and efforts of the SSPX.

By their fruit, you shall know them!

Anonymous said...

Young follower of SSPX,
You are absolutely right, SSPX is fast growing have full seminaries etc and they and other Trads are the part of God's rescue plan for the Church, just trough mere contrast with NO Church, for this reason Tradition is preserved. We have a free will and what happened in the Church is the results of free but ill choices of Church leading men, betrayal, politics etc. Only by contrast with Tradition Catholics can chose and they will chose, the work is ahead and long-term. But we must be optimistic, for it seems that finally God's will prevail in the Church.

Anonymous said...

The human reality of the SSPX is that they have fallen into the mentality of a self-authenticating tradition. Once the wind has blown and people are changed by it this is one of the hardest to dislodge. To move away from it is seen, on logical grounds, as infidelity. Let's hope that within the three year's experimental period enough change will be seen in the Catholic Church to persuade the SSPX to return. They are badly needed to help the acceptance of the Classic Roman Rite and restore it, once more, to a genuine place in the Church's worship. We can't do without them.

Long-Skirts said...

annonymous said...

"... but Bishop Fellay is probably just as concerned about keeping his flock together as Benedict."

Bishop Fellay shows he is concerned about keeping the WHOLE flock of Christ's Church together like the Good Shepherd. He wants the good of the WHOLE Church for all.

A
SHEPHERD’S
SUIT

Down the street
Schools closed,
The new Mass
Fruit.

Up the street
Latin Mass,
On abuses they stay
Mute.

We have Mass
Latin daily,
Schools abound
Truths root…

For the good of the whole,
These Shepherds die
To save all
For they wear Christ’s suit.

Big Dog said...

As much as I love TLM, I have not been impressed with the SSPX and continue to be underwhelmed. Perhaps the presence of the SSPX has pushed Rome to issue the Motu. But why would that be? It seems to me that both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have sincerely desired the unity of the Church and have tried to present the argument that the Church is one in doctrine, but experiences many different rites of worship (including TLM). In other words, the Motu has more to do with the ideas of the past two popes than it does, necessarily, with the presence of the SSPX. I do agree, however, that the traditionalist movement, of which the SSPX has played an important role, has kept the issue in the forefront in some circles in the Church.

I, however, think that the presence of the SSPX has been a negative for traditionalists as a whole. Because the SSPX is in schism -- they ordained bishops against the will of the Holy Father, a clear violation of Canon Law -- they have tainted traditionalist appeals. Whenever I argue with conservative orthodox Catholics (or heterodox Catholics) about the Mass, they almost always assume that I am an SSPXer or schismatic. I first have to convince them that I am indeed not an SSPXer before we can even get to the questions of the Reform of the Mass. It seems to me that in burdening orthodox Catholics who love tradition with the implication of schism, the SSPX has actually done a disservice to the traditionalist movement in the past 10 years.

I agree with the second comment on this thread -- "Hopefully the Motu will one day make the SSPX completely irrelevant." I think it just has -- who cares what Fellay says now? He has the mass and guarantees that the SSPX can say it. Now it is time for him to put up or shut up. I doubt he will do either.

Pascendi said...

Bishop Fellay raises issues that need to be addressed for the good of the whole Church.

The CDF document still leaves unanswered the ultimate question: is the Church of Christ exactly identical with the Catholic Church? If there is not an exact identification then we have a problem: a serious problem.

Matthew said...

This is it for the SSPX. If they don't return now, they never will return. A further delay might cause some of their priests to leave. Benedict XVI has done all that he can do. I must say that I agree with the positions of the SSPX, but perhaps the SSPX can do more good if they're on the inside. What else do they want or need?

Anonymous said...

Big dog,
the label 'schismatic' has always been bad, and NO did all they can to deepen this opinion in case of SSPX, because they are Trads, therefore tradition was to suffer. This is what happens, whenever SSPX chapel appears, the local church warns the flock not to have anything to do with SSPX, for it is forbidden. It is time for them to return to full union for they really can do a lot of good. there is always danger that some more radical fraction can go into sort of sedavacante state as it was in the past, for constant watch over errors naturally can lead to this sort of break with the Church, so it is time for them to return and I think that Bshop Fellay desire it. I listened to his talk he gave in May on the MP situation, and he was very supportive of Pope very sympathetic to the difficulties pope faces in Vatican, great opposition, fights etc,and very, very pro Pope. I was very impressed with his pro-Pope attitude. I hope it has not change, that it is only politics and I do not mind it if it will bring good fruits.

Anonymous said...

I, however, think that the presence of the SSPX has been a negative for traditionalists as a whole. Because the SSPX is in schism -- they ordained bishops against the will of the Holy Father, a clear violation of Canon Law -- they have tainted traditionalist appeals.

This is very true. I would say that their extreme position and demands have even delayed the beginning of the reparation. Such a separation and going one's own way is just as bad from the far right as those "rent a priests" on the far left. Everyone wants to still call himself a true Catholic but doesn't mind too much separating himself from Peter. So what gets seen here as having the most importance? Tlhis is why we have so many today calling themselves Catholic but in disobedience. Those getting the spotlight while still in schism have a lot to answer for in their influence on the average Joe Catholic who feels totally confused. If Peter is wounded they only add to His humiliation. They'd rather pass him by, bloodied, waiting for him to heal himself completely first before they offer any assistance to bandage at least some of the wounds. So who is Peter's real neighbor?

Anonymous said...

Please, for the last time, SSPX is NOT in formal schism (top Vatican officials have stated so publicly within the last few weeks).

I know, I know..."but they committed a "schismatic act" with their 1988 consecrations!" Please, again, there is a difference between a single "schismatic" act and being in a formal, unyielding state of schism as defined by Church law. I won't get into the differences here (besides, I'm sure there will be plenty to tell me I'm wrong); and it wouldn't make any difference to those of you who are anti-SSPX anyway.

Also, many hold this notion that being a Catholic in "full communion" with Rome demands unflinching obedience to the Pope, Bishops, and others in the hierarchy. There's no firm theological basis for this argument. Besides, what about the great saints who resisted bad Papal authority (earlier equivalents of clown masses, interfaith ceremonies, etc.) in centuries past?

I know, I know..."Well, that's "different!"

Sorry, but there's no use in this argument.

Anonymous said...

Anonymus said:
"Please, again, there is a difference between a single "schismatic" act and being in a formal, unyielding state of schism as defined by Church law."

Very good point, but used by those who do not like SSPX effectively, that is why formal reunion is required to remove this 'stigma'. SSPX can do a lot for Church and Catholics.

"being a Catholic in "full communion" with Rome demands unflinching obedience to the Pope, Bishops, and others in the hierarchy. There's no firm theological basis for this argument. Besides, what about the great saints who resisted bad Papal authority (earlier equivalents of clown masses, interfaith ceremonies, etc.) in centuries past?"

Another good point, so called 'false obedience' beloved by many progressivists to punch SSPX. However we have to be careful with open criticism of the Supreme Pontiff. Sometimes nasty things are written on blogs. This is a thin line. I participate in SSPX Masses, not on regular bases, and must say that during 2-3 years SSPX is more positive. Generally i am definitely pro-SSPX. They do a definitely good and much needed job in preserving Traditional Catholicism.

Anonymous said...

Anon: Re: Infallibility of Vatican 2:

Thanks for the quote from the British Council Father. I would, however, ascribe to Vatican II's infallibility before I ascribe to the Council Father's. If your are trying to assert that Vatican II only stated previous infallible statements infallibly, and thus derived its infallibility from the statement's themselves and not from the nature of the teaching office of the magisterium, you are saying exactly what Paul VI DIDN'T say in the very quote you provide. He condeded to the Council's acting as the magisterium, thus acknowledging that infallibility also derived from the magisterium's teaching office, which is where any Council's infallibility would ultimately derive from. Thus, as the Council makes any dogmatic statement, as in a DOGMATIC constitution, that statement would derive it's infallibility from the very fact that it is being stated by the teaching office of the magisterium, even though it puts forth no EXTRAORDINARY teaching. (Though many, despite what Paul VI stated, would claim that statements in Lumen Gentium like those addressing the Church of Christ subsisting in the Catholic Church and the salvation of those who may not have known the Gospel, are quite extraordinary. Another reason these same people would try to undermine these teachings by undermining Vatican II's infallibility, however, may be that they just don't like them.)

majella said...

I am sad that the Tridentine Mass of 1962 was not given the title of 'ordinary' and the New Order mass the title of extraordinary. It has never been abrograted and it was there first so surely it is the ordinary. I know beggars cannot be choosers, I am just a little sad.
I must look at all this as a road to eventual recovery.
The motu propio of Pope Benedict XVI is a huge step on that road and who knows the next pope just may take it a bit further.

Simon-Peter Vickers-Buckley said...

"He doesn't read catechisms.He gets,or used to get, his religion from:
1.What the priest says in the pulpit.
2.What is taught in the school.
3.What happens in the Sanctuary on a Sunday morning."

From my many talks with Catholics who left the Church post VII, that is, between 1965 and 1972 approx, this is why things collapsed. Amidst all the turmoil of the 20th, all the nagging questions posed by science, the barrage of anti-God skepticism in a world filling with beeps and buttons, the one thing that kept these folks going in faith was this:

The Church is constant and will not change. That alone spoke to "truthness."

IMHO: the single biggest problem with VII was it's timing, and timing really is everything...as God Himself testifies to...

"But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law..."

The timing was appalling. Hostage to an inherently hostile media, unwilling or unable to discipline wayward members spreading error and dissension, admitting that Catholics were badly catechized yet giving a Mass that was so deformed immediately one can be forgiven for thinking it was of a new religion and that the Church had fallen and given in.

Blessed John XXIII's belief that in a flash the Holy Sprit inspired him is I think a give-away. He was tempted and he fell for it. Satan laid a trap perpared for a long time and the Church walked right into it. Externally and internally, the pieces were in place...the warfare is always in the mind, Satan is a master of psyops, from the beginning. No one talks about the never-ending, withering and pervasive influence on "public" opinion of the Soviets and their fellow travellers in the media.

The Church has been led by some pretty useful idiots over the last 50 years. It's a good job (apparently, these days) that naivete is a positive qualification in estimating sanctity.

humboldt said...

"Blessed John XXIII's belief that in a flash the Holy Sprit inspired him is I think a give-away. He was tempted and he fell for it. Satan laid a trap perpared for a long time and the Church walked right into it."

The idea that some people have been trying to sell that the idea of the Council came as a sudden inspiration to John XXIII is false and equivocable.

This had been cooking for a long time, and John XXIII thought that the time was ripe for it. He was wrong, but all of this had been cooking for a long, long time.

Anonymous said...

"That's like saying that the Holy Spirit is of less importance than any self proscribed group that could not wait in patience and trust for same Holy Spirit to act. The Father waits with the same fruits for the sons to return and they know within their own stubbornness of this unlimited Goodness, but He doesn't give us any example of changing His will while He continues to demonstrate His generosity to such."

First of all, huh?

Second of all, actually, it's like saying what I said: without a living example of the "good fruits" (again, the Holy Father's words, not mine), produced by the Latin Mass communities--SSPX and others including indult communities--in contrast to the decine of the NO, the path to restoration may not have been so obvious.

And, personally, I don't presume to know exactly how, where and when the Holy Ghost acts. So it could be that the good fruits (yet again, the Holy Father's words) are a sign that the Holy Ghost is acting within the SSPX. Good fruits don't fall from bad trees. The Holy Father chose those words--good fruits--to describe the SSPX works for a reason.

And the other night on EWTN, Bishop Bruskewitz essentially proved my point by explaining that there had been a growing Latin Mass community not in full communion (he didn't specify SSPX) when he allowed the indult. Now the indult remains and the other is gone.

By the way, I don't attend the SSPX. I attend an indult Latin Mass. So I don't feel personally compelled to explain, defend or promote them. But yet I am grateful they exist because I don't know that these major events in the past week would have happened in my lifetime without them.

Long-Skirts said...

annonymous said...

"By the way, I don't attend the SSPX. I attend an indult Latin Mass. So I don't feel personally compelled to explain, defend or promote them. But yet I am grateful they exist because I don't know that these major events in the past week would have happened in my lifetime without them."

ONLY A SAINT

Only a Saint
Could preserve so much
Only a Saint
Whom God would touch.

Only a Saint
So hated by Hell
Only a Saint
Mere man, Marcel.

Merci, Macel!!!

Br. Anthony said...

I agree, again, that the SSPX has the right grasp on the crisis. The Indult communities do not.

Bishop Fellay is brilliant!

Jim said...

"So we have it from the word of the boss. Our Pope says it is not a schism." says, Bshp. Fellay, and this is okay because it comes from the boss, but it is not okay when the boss with the Church says the new rite of Mass is valuable and holy. they still don't get it.