Rorate Caeli

URGENT
Fellay: SSPX "cannot sign an agreement"

The Superior-General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), Bishop Bernard Fellay, signed his latest Letter to Friends and Benefactors last Monday - and it was published in the current edition of the official newsletter of the Fraternity, DICI (alternative link) made available today.

This is the heart of the letter:

...
The Motu Proprio which introduced a hope of change for the better at the liturgical level is not accompanied by logically co-related measures in the other areas of the life of the Church. All changes introduced at the Council and in the post-Conciliar reforms which we denounce, because the Church has already condemned them, are confirmed. With the difference that, from now on, it is said, at the same time, that the Church does not change…[sic], which means that these changes are perfectly in the line of Catholic Tradition.

The disruption at the level of concepts, together with the reminder that the Church must remain faithful to her Tradition, may trouble some. Since facts do not corroborate the new attitude [lit.: affirmation], it is necessary to conclude that nothing [sic] has changed in the will of Rome to follow the Conciliar orientations, despite forty years of crisis, despite the deserted convents, the abandoned rectories, the empty churches. The Catholic universities persist in their ramblings, the teaching of the Catechism remains unknown at the same time that the Catholic school does not exist anymore as particularly Catholic: it has become an extinct species… [sic]

This is why the Fraternity of Saint Pius X cannot "sign an agreement" [ne peut pas "signer d'accord"]. It openly rejoices on the papal desire to reintroduce the ancient and venerable rite of the Holy Mass, but it also discovers the resistance, at times brutal, of whole episcopates. Without despairing, without impatience, we observe that the time for an agreement has not yet come. This does not prevent us from continuing to wait, from continuing on the path defined in the year 2000. We continue to ask the Holy Father for the repeal of the decree of excommunication of 1988, because we are persuaded that that would do much good to the Church and we encourage you to pray that it may take place.

But it would be very imprudent and hasty to thrust ourselves unwisely in pursuit of a practical agreement which would not be founded upon the fundamental principles of the Church, particularly on the faith.
...

+ Bernard Fellay
Menzingen, April 14, 2008

84 comments:

Anonymous said...

Please reconsider, Your Excellency.

You can't clean the stable from outside the barn.

~ Belloc

Anonymous said...

Very sensible and prudent action. The times is not ripe for a reconciliation. Benedict XVI is not convinced of the need for change, nor he will change. He is too dogmatic. Perhaps in the next 100 years, something will happen. The SSPX is the last hope of the Catholic faith.

Anonymous said...

No big surprise. Same-o, same-o.

Anonymous said...

It is what I feared. They are too far gone from Roman Catholicism to return. It is a sign of great pride to wait for the change of heart of "whole episcopates" before doing the Catholi thing by humbling yourself, and going down on your knees in submission to the anointed Vicar of Christ. I only hope they have the honesty to now remove the images of Benedict XVI they tend to keep around, with the pretense that they consider him their pope. Too much pride for too many years. He should read "Coriolanus".

Patrick said...

Although not an SSPXer, I admire their stand. They will keep the pressure on the Vatican, and we shall all benefit therefrom. The statement keeps all the doors open.

Hugh said...

anonymous: "Benedict XVI is not convinced of the need for change, nor he will change. He is too dogmatic."
Oh the irony......

Anonymous said...

hugh, Benedict XVI (JR) is a convinced liberal (like the conciliar church is). He believes that nothing can be imposed on the clergy; that any cleric is free to believe what he likes. How can you reconcile with something like this, if it goes against your beliefs?

Anonymous said...

Bravo, Monseigneur! Don't give in with the neos, willing to become the "high church party" in a VERY broad church.

"Unsquared Circle"

bk said...

Pro-aborts who received communion under the nose of the Pope:

John Kerry
Chris Dodd
Nancy Pelosi
Ted Kennedy
Rudy Giuliani

Furthermore...

*There's been no clarification from PCED disciplining modernist bishops for undermining Summorum Pontificum.

*The Good Friday prayer capitulation was a tragedy.

*The Pope has not offered the TLM.

*The Pope dissembled about the homosexual nature of the sexual abuse crisis in the Church on his way here.

*The Papal mass in DC was truly an abomination.

*The Papal mass in NY was just another "banal fabricated" Novus Ordo liturgy.

So...

How can anyone truly criticize this position by Bishop Fellay?

Anonymous said...

I can't blame him for not signing at this time.

If the Holy Father actually thought that simply putting forth a Motu Proprio would bring the SSPX, he was mistaken.

If he put more teeth in it so that the progressive bishops could not ignore it - or acted appropriately to such blatant disobedience, perhaps they would see things a bit differently - at least they could be more hopeful that further measures were forthcoming.

Mark

Anonymous said...

How can anyone truly criticize this position by Bishop Fellay?

How can anyone truly criticize an excommunicated, illicitly consecrated bishop who refuses to accept the spiritual medicine of the Holy Father?

Shall we count the ways?

Anonymous said...

I think that many of the comments on this blog, on BOTH sides, are too immoderate.

First of all, I sympathise very much with Bishop Fellay's stand, but I cannot support it. Moreover, I think that his position is likely the result of a threat of division from his own hardliners. He does not want to divide the S.S.P.X in two.

There is a way out of Bishop Fellay's dilemma, at least in logic. It is to ask that the structure granted for the S.S.P.X be provisional or 'ad experimentum' and able to be dissolved at the pleasure of Rome or the Society, until discussions on doctrine are finished. But I think that, by now, this has been considered and rejected, because he speaks of "any" structure.

One the one side, the offences against the truth being perpetrated in this pontificate are truly staggering, and they require firm resistance. However, I do not see how there is any state of necessity which supplies jurisdiction now. The Society has been offered the means necessary to protect itself and preseve the Mass and its entire ethos.

Why does the Society reject the offer? Is it because the hardliners in the Society want to be big fishes in a small pond? Is it because many of these hardliners are, in fact, sedevacantists?

This decision by Bishop Fellay is unfortunate for another reason. Thanks to S.P., there is now an enormous increase in the number of every-Sunday Traditional Latin Masses--one far greater than that of 1988-1993, just after Pope John Paul II extended the 1984 Indult.

Most faithful will prefer a T.L.M. blessed by the Pope to one not blessed by him. As a result, this decision of Bishop Fellay may doom the S.S.P.X to a period of decline, followed in the next generation or so by decimation.

Just consider the situation in Latin America, where fully one-half the faithful live. The Society has been labouring in that vineyard without legal impediment for thirty years now. And what is the result? Very paltry, I'd say. Only one every-Sunday Mass for all of Peru, with its HUGE Catholic population. The Oratorians took only three months to start one in Lima with the blessing of Cardinal Cipriani Thorne. It is thriving instantly.

S.S.P.X: nothing every Sunday for all of Mexico, the second most populous Catholic country on the planet earth. But there is now an every-Sunday regularised Mass--suddenly--in the huge Archdiocese of Monterrey.

S.S.P.X: only one apostolate for all of Brazil, as the Campos and diocesan Masses now cover fourteen dioceses.

S.S.P.X: little for Colombia, nothing for Ecuador, nothing for Venezuela, nothing for Bolivia, little for Chile, little for Paraguay and Uruguay, nothing for the Guianas.

The S.S.P.X has had some real success in Argentina. That's only one country in all of Latin America.

Little for Guatemala and nothing for the rest of Central America. Little for the Dominican Republic and nothing for the rest of the Caribbean.

S.S.P.X in the U.S.A.: It offers Mass every Sunday in 68 dioceses. Regularised every Sunday Traditionalt Latin Masses in 134 dioceses. Hello, hello? Is anybody home? Do the math!

Eastern Europe: in only one year, the regularised Masses are spreading all over Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, and even Lutheran Estonia and Sweden. They are more numerous in just one year than the S.S.P.X Masses are after thirty years. Hello? Is anybody home?

Even in tiny New Zealand, regularised Masses are now being planted and rooted in all but one Diocese (vz. Palmerston North). Where is the S.S.P.X there?

The S.S.P.X has its strongest support in France and South-West Germany. Fine. But, in France, 86% of the faithful now live in a diocese which has the old Mass every Sunday, and 80% of the dioceses have it every Sunday. In Germany, the number of dioceses offering the old Mass HAS MORE THAN DOUBLED in just one year, and 150 German priests are now learing the old Mass. Who needs the S.S.P.X when you can get the old Mass blessed by the Pope?

Please note that this question is not my question. I realise that there are good answers to it. But it will be the question asked by most ordinary people. That's what matters. It doesnt' matter what I or a few intellectuals think: it matters what the average Joe Catholic thinks.

I cannot understand why Bishop Fellay is slamming the door in the Pope's face. Why not send an official letter asking for the declarations of excommunication to be withdrawn? He could then decide whether or not to consider a juridical structure.

Our first contributor was dead on: Please re-consider, Your Excellency.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

"I can't blame him for not signing at this time."

Much against the propaganda machine around JR, it is clear to me that Benedict has his morality distorted, as the conciliar church has it. He just cannot see the wrongs of his liberal beliefs. Freedom of belief in the clergy is untochable. JR is not a whole person, he is a broken man. May God spare his Church of these sick men, soon enough.

Anonymous said...

P.K.T.P., but all of this is just experimental. In two years the experimental phase will conclude and then real face of tritentine liturgy in Rome will manifest clearly. The pressure of Vatican II is just too enormous to let tridentine culture to develop, alone without incorporating Vatican II culture. It is oil and water, and the people will end upt seeing the reality. Benedict cannot mislead me by wearing this or that traditional vestment. The Vatican is expert in deception.

Gian said...

"the teaching of the Catechism remains unknown at the same time that the Catholic school does not exist anymore as particularly Catholic: it has become an extinct species…"

The latter is especially troubling. The only Catholic schools I know of are those of the SSPX. My own college, known as one of the most Catholic in the US, has non-Christian principles as foundations, and it is impossible to find Catholic students with true knowledge of the faith. The false ecumenical examples from the top have spread to us, such that I hear the most Catholic students praising speeches by Baptists and other "Christians" on, of all topics, what the "Church" should be. Numerous inter-faith meetings relativize faith in an auto-destruction by propagation of the dictatorship of relativism by the ecumenical Campus Ministry.

At least Bishop Fellay knows what a Catholic school is. Truly a paradox.

Anonymous said...

The proliferation of "licit" Traditional Masses does not equate with the proliferation of orthodoxy/traditionalism.

Anonymous said...

VIVA SSPX!

Jim said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jim said...

God bless H. E. Bishop Fellay for standing firmly for the Catholic faith. The neo-Catholic papal sycophants would have no TLM nor Summorum Pontificum without the work of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and his Society of St. Pius X. But then they are too proud to admit that, just as Bnedict's pride will never let him admit that he was wrong in his youthful days at Vatican II. It's ironic that pride was also the sin of Lucifer.

Steve said...

P.K.T.P.,

You mention the new diocesan Tridentine Masses offered on Sunday. Here are some reasons why many Catholics will still go to the SSPX.

1.) Mulitiple weekday tridentine masses. Very few dioceses have this.

2.) Traditional sacraments. Baptism, confession, marriage. Many MP/ Indult dioceses only have the Mass.

3.) Doctrine. Diocesan homilies & spiritual direction will still be coming from priests who accept VCII & its errors (religious liberty & ecumenism)& the belief that the new mass as "just as good" as the old.

4.) Hardly any of the diocesan parishes that offer TLM on Sunday are purely Traditional parishes. they are usually Novus Ordo parishes with one tridentine mass.
The parish school teachers will still be teaching VCII novelties (or worse) to the kids.

5.) Traditional Catholics in diocesan parishes are forced to share a church with NO Catholics who see nothing wrong with girl altar boys, communion in the hand, standing to receive, sloppy dress, guitar and drum music at mass, no chapel veils, etc. One cannot have a Traditional Catholic life in these parishes. It is impossible.

Anonymous said...

I have very ambivalente feelings on Benedict XVI, clearly leaning towards negative. I don't trust him.

Anonymous said...

And I feel that Benedict XVI until his death will continue to have ambivalent feelings towards the Church. Deep down his minds he still feels that the Catholic Church is responsible for the ills of Europe (Holocaust and Word War II).

Long-Skirts said...

Steve said:

"Hardly any of the diocesan parishes that offer TLM on Sunday are purely Traditional parishes. they are usually Novus Ordo parishes with one tridentine mass.
The parish school teachers will still be teaching VCII novelties (or worse) to the kids.

VATICAN II PLUS TWO =

And where are the schools?
The daily Mass,
Lines to confess,
A uniformed lass?

And where are the schools?
The Latin class,
Cassocked priest,
Candles in brass?

And where are the schools?
To strengthen souls,
Shape their wills,
Set the goals?

And where are the schools?
The altar boy,
Assisting priest,
Like Christ, their joy?

And where are the schools?
Oh, time you lied,
Two generations
Have gone and died.

And where are the schools?
Which don’t derive,
That two plus two
Are sometimes five?

S – S – P – X,
They’re found in large,
Where struggling families
Let priest take charge.

For the good of the whole,
Priests’ lives are laid,
So many may come,
Not be afraid.

And win the Faith,
From Christ-like hand…
St. Pie the Tenth
Two and two are grand!!

Anonymous said...

Notice how the critics of the SSPX fail to address the FACTS of Bishop Fellay's message? He's spot on. We're not on the road to recovery because the Bishops of the world won't even admit the disaster exists. The Motu Proprio is great, but that's it? When do we start unleashing hell on modernism? A good old trad priest could clean out a rotten diocese in two weeks, but he would need full backing to do it. Right.
Forget it. Sadly, Bishop Fellay is right and you Novus Ordo apologists are hurting the church you claim to support. Come back when the Fatima consecration is properly done.
Joe B

Pascendi said...

I think the ability for someone like the former mayor of New York (bluntly put, a pro-abortion adulterer) to receive Holy Communion speaks far more than Bp Fellay's letter to the degree of the crisis in the Church. Here we have a politician that in essence spits in the face of the Pope (consider the Pope's address to the clergy in Washington, for example) and gets away with it. It shows the deep rift between Pope Benedict and, in this case, the American episcopacy (barring a few notable exceptions).

In not defending the Holy Father's previous teachings on the reception of Holy Communion, in the wake of these prominent dissenters receiving Holy Communion, these bishops have damaged the Church infinitely more than Bp. Fellay's holding back the pen for an agreement.

Anonymous said...

You cannot find your way to agree with the bishop. Ok. Here's the big clue your looking for: you're infected with Modernism. The next step is to pray. Keep praying. Then, read more and judge less. Keep praying. Stop rushing to this blog to vent your frustration. It's not helping, is it? Pray for fortitude. Sacrifice. Try self-restraint. Lay off the blogging for awhile. Can you? You can't continue like this. It's later than you think. Keep praying. I've known extremely hard cases finally purge the Modernist contagion. It will take time. It is terrifying. Pray.

Pax

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

Can you blame the SSPX for not signing an agreement? Just today the Holy Father praised the greatness of Vatican II!

No, there cannot be an agreement until Rome converts back to the true Faith.

Anonymous said...

"It is what I feared. They are too far gone from Roman Catholicism to return."

if you're judging on the past 50 years, you're right. If you're judging on the last 1,500 years, you obviously don't understand the Catholic Faith.

Anonymous said...

You cannot find your way to agree with the Church. Ok. Here's the big clue your looking for: you're infected with Schism. The next step is to pray. Keep praying. Then, read more and judge less. Keep praying. Stop rushing to this blog to vent your frustration. It's not helping, is it? Pray for fortitude. Sacrifice. Try self-restraint. Lay off the blogging for awhile. Can you? You can't continue like this. It's later than you think. Keep praying. I've known extremely hard cases finally purge the Schismatic contagion. It will take time. It is terrifying. Pray.

Anonymous said...

Sadly did I watch the Holy Father's Mass from St. Patricks today. The Pope processed down the isle to thunderous claps and whisteling. Seems to me that He was more of a figure akin to a rock star than the Vicar Of Christ. Do people realize who he is and can't there be some order, decorum and reverance. Now contrast the arrival of Bishop Fellay when he processes into a church. The congregation is reverent, quiet, and prayerful, no clapping,ya-hooing and whisteling. Consider the Mass in Washington with it banal music, not my words only, but even protastants are asking what has happened to the Catholic Church. It is obvious to me that Bishop Fellay has made the right decision for the moment. The Vatican II church is still to far away from real Traditional Catholicism for any agreement. We all need to redouble our prays for eyes to be opened and hearts to be softened to recognize the true dilemma which the Vatican has to correct. Truely, I belive the Society sees that it is not welcome in the church because there is a out right hatred among many faithful. And thay can't see the good which the SSPX is doing.

Tim from Erie

Hunter Thompson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Without their continued opposition nobody would be challenging the disaster that has happened since VATICAN 2. Liars figure,but figures dont lie!!!! Catholics are not attending mass, priest numbers are down,seminaries are disappeared or have disappeared,churches are closing. If this is what you call a "springtime" i hate to see summer!!! As an FSSP parish attendee i am convinced that this is a deliberate attack by SATAN and his willing and stupid unwilling friends to destroy the church,please keep up the fight SSPX!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

SSPX not signing an agreement?
Benedict praying with heretics?
I can't stand it....

Good fruits of the Summorum Pontificum
LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA

Good fruits of the Summorum Pontificum
LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA

Good fruits of the Summorum Pontificum
LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA

Anonymous said...

On Jim's comments:

No, I admit that we owe the Indult and even S.P. to the S.S.P.X. But that does not justify disobedience when disobedience is necessary.

Other bloggers have made the same mistake. The Pope, for all his faults, has offered the S.S.P.X an oasis for tradition. The Society can even protect its property under this. There is no excuse for saying 'no' to the Pope.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I thin the Holy Father has to go slow, because he has no choice. Things cannot be done that fast, but truth will prevail...

Lhd said...

Mons. Fellay is right in the essence and is wrong in the form (canonical forms).

To make the agreement conditional to the resolution of the crisis on the Church or doctrinal problems is a wrong path.

He must consider the "state of necessity", which in my view consisted on the lacking of a Bishop in order to pursue Tradition.

Mgr. Lefebvre didn't need to consecrate Bishops without the mandate of the Pope in the seventies, when the crisis and doctrinal problems were already there.

The Bishop (and what is the same, the lifting of the excommunications )has been offered and admitted as not being a difficulty.

The SSPX must reach an agreement (it is impossible to be in the Church and not to be submitted to the Roman Pontiff in any way)

The crisis on the Church and the doctrinal problems, like was the freeing of the Mass, must been resolved inside the Church.

Anonymous said...

On Steve's comments:

Certainly, while it is true that the majority of 'Indult' sites do not offer daily Masses or the other things mentioned, this too is changing--and changing fast.

One-quarter of all U.S. sees now have the old Mass daily, for instance. That's 44 sees. In France, nearly half of all the sees have the old Mass daily now (46%).

The F.S.S.P. and I.C.R. are growing *much* faster than is the S.S.P.X. In France, nearly half of all dioceses (47%) are now served by the F.S.S.P., the I.C.R., the I.P.B., the Canons Regular of the Mother of God, the Fraternity of St. Vincent Ferrer, the Society of the Holy Cross of Riaumont, the Grey Penitents, of one of the congregations of Benedictine traditionalist monks. Sorry, gents, but the S.S.P.X cannot match this and is falling behind fast.

As the F.S.S.P. and others train diocesan priests to celebrate weekly, they themselves are growing rapidly and moving in to dioceses to offer the old Mass daily. Often, they operate traditionalist schools and the works.

It's coming--and the S.S.P.X will be going.

P.K.T.P.

j hughes dunphy said...

"Mary Magdalen and Church Unity"

Charity that does not begin at the feet of Christ and return there in humble worship and adoration is the totally meaningless politics of this world, striving for the diabolical wordly bread of Satan’s dominion. To reject the one true Church of Jesus Christ and Peter's representative is to reject Jesus Christ!

We cannot love our neighbor as ourselves if we do not love God, His Church and Peter, with our whole mind and all our heart’s strength as the beautiful sweet and tender love of Mary Magdalen washing Christ's feet demonstrated, where we see the exhaltation of the sacred loving worship of God in the magnificent splendor of Mary]s total humility at Christ's feet. This can only mean the simultaneous burgeoning of charity in the real world for our fellow man, if one does not pursue pharisaical false charity of Judas the priest. Let us recall Christ’s words here: "You can do nothing without Me." (Mt. 15:5) And again: "The poor you will always have with you, but you do not always have Me." (John 12:3)


So often doing something that is ostensibly good for others can fail because it is done without Christ and His Church and Peter and becomes, therefore, its own reward or the reward of self and not performed for the Glory of God.

A soul bereft of the love of Christ, His Church and Peter (Pope Benedict XVI) and the totally united ritual of this love is a soul caught up in a heady altruism of this world that seeks its own glory in the bread of Satan: recognition, acceptance, approval and political correctness!

We must remember that rat poison contains 90% food and only 10% poison, which is similar to all heresies which mix truth with heresy on a similar scale: the SSPX, if you will, contains 90% Catholic truth with a mere 10% heretical disunity with Peter and Christ's Church.

Furthermore, let us not forget the doctrinally potent statement below:

"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can never be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels,’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; ... no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (1)

It is doctrinally defined that salvation and unity exist only within the Catholic Church.

A Simple Sinner said...

"They will keep the pressure on the Vatican, and we shall all benefit therefrom."

I am feeling snarky just before bed so let me toss this one out there and see what I wake up to in the morning...

Little secret? Rome does not need the SSPX. The SSPX is only big to people in the SSPX. We are talking 2M people involved, 10M people in the traditionalist movement - worldwide, TOPS.

B16 did not bring the TLM back to placate the SSPX. It really is NOT about them. Their schism (*) from Rome is not about being able to "show Rome!"

It was well said earlier - "You can't clean the stable from outside"... These guys are getting less than nothing done in the situation they are in, they are less effective, they are doing themselves a disservice and sinking deeper and deeper in the the quagmire of schism, division, and error.

Anyone who thinks that this minute group (in the face of 1.1B Catholics world wide) is "keeping the pressure on Rome" needs a reality check. Or what?


(*) Already been down the whole "Cardinal X says they are not in schism, see this link..." And then I point out when you follow a bishop who was ex-communicated by name who erects chapels without permission where priests hear confession without faculties, kinda hard to call it anything but schism... And then I am told that it is OK because Rome is so bad... So yea, I have seen the links, no need to re-do that debate...

Steve said...

One cannot deny that Rome very much wants the SSPX back in the Church. The Pope requested an audience with Bishop Fellay and the Society is mentioned by name in the accompanying letter to the MP.

The SSPX has a good number of priests, religious, faithful, and assets worldwide that could be a big help to curing the current crisis in the Church. This is the vision Rome has for them if they should reconcile. The previous role of the Jesuits.

Steve said...

In addition Rome went through the trouble of creating the FSSP and sticking them wherever SSPX chapels are found. I'd say there is a huge push to by Rome to go after the SSPX faithful and their $$. The SSPX are not small players by any means.

Steve said...

FSSP

· Total: 300
· Priests: 180
· Deacons: 13
· Seminarians: 107


SSPX

Bishops: 4
Priests: 463
Seminarians: 160
Brothers: 85
Oblates: 75

Anonymous said...

That's your argument? 1.1B vs. 2M? Ergo, the 2M are wrong? Yikes! You'd better phone the Vatican a.s.a.p. Disabuse those poor idiots. Tell them they can forget SSPX. Rome has the majority. Victory! Wow. Who knew?

Steve said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

JoeB said:

Come back when the Fatima consecration is properly done.

Very game banter!!!

Anonymous said...

A simple sinner,

Maybe you try reading about the Maccabees.

Jeff said...

Very sad.

I think this is the end. It seems as though the two roads were laid out before the SSPX and they hesitated and decided in the end to choose the easier one. I cannot see any possibility of reconciliation for the forseeable future.

And in a hundred years, when Rome still has not foresworn the teaching of the Ecumenical Council held at the Vatican, these folks will still be saying, "We understand Tradition and not the Pope."

Anonymous said...

On IHD's comments:

Partly correct and partly wrong. There is such a thing as rightful disobedience to legitimate authority in Moral Law, which trumps the Canon Law. There is a very good case for the argument that a necessity prompted supplied jurisdiction for the S.S.P.X. I certainly think that those who supported the S.S.P.X honestly believed this to be the case, which alone might justify their actions: doubt gives consent.

However, objectively, at least, the argument from necessity ended the instant the Holy Father offered them a de facto international diocese in 2000. The only counter-argument to this is that they don't trust the Pope. The answer, in turn, to this distrust is that, should the Pope betray them, they could simply return to separation with their property intact (canonically possible by keeping a separate corporation which would lease the property to the jurisdiction). The Society's counter to that is that any structure approved by a 'Conciliar Rome' might divide the Society. This means that, should the Society be betrayed and want to return to separation, many of its members would choose not to return to separation. In other words, there is a grave risk of disunity for a S.S.P.X which accepts a jurisdiction from 'Conciliar Rome'. Hence, it would be argued, the S.S.P.X must wait until conditions have improved considerably.

This brings in a matter of judgement. Obviously (1) no agreement with Rome will ever be risk-free, just as being Catholic is not risk-free (after all, the first Pope betrayed Christ directly) and (2) these sorts of arguments can always be used to keep the Society de facto separate from Rome.

Since this is a matter a judgement, there comes a time when every cleric in and supporter of the Society must ask himself if these are all excuses for a disobedience which is wrongful or reasons for one which is strictly necessary.

Now, of course, the Pope, given the pressures around him, will not solve all the problems of the conciliar revolution in a day, a year, or a decade. Really, he needs help to solve these problems. At this point, the S.S.P.X can be more helpful to the Pope and the Church by accepting regularisation. How can this be too risky? Will not God ensure that the gates of Hell will not prevail?

Moreover, there is very good reason to suppose that, should the Society refuse regularisation, it will face decline and eventual decimation as regularised Traditional Latin Masses spread like wildfire.

It's something to ponder.

What the Society has on its side is the observation that this Pope continues to pray in mosques and synagogues and will not clean out the seminaries of all the sexual inverts who attack children. His seminary document, which dares to attempt an impossible distinction between 'deep seated' and slight inversion, is an abomination. This Pope still has rock noise events in outdoor stadia and still tolerates Catholic politicians who receive Holy Communion after supporting the murder of unborn babies. And there is still the annulment mill. There is no quesiton that the mess is huge. But the question is whether or not the S.S.P.X can fight it effectively from within a regularised jurisdiction. I see no reason why not. While this Pope is not perfect, he has at least signalled his desire to reverse some aspects of the revolution. That's a start. Every journey begins with a first step.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On a simple sinner's comments:

I think that a simple sinner is right about the numbers, and I ought to know, since I have been analysing them on-line for years.

However, I don't agree with his view that S.P. did not come from the S.S.P.X demand. There is considerable evidence that, despite the small size of the S.S.P.X, Rome wants it to reconcile it very badly. In 2000, Rome essentially offered the S.S.P.X an international diocese which would circumvent all the local bishops of the world. That is a HUGE concession--one that would not be offered to anyone considered to be irrelevant. Bishop Fellay even publicly admitted that it was the "Rolls Royce" solution before foolishly turning it down.

Secondly, the extension of the 1984 Indult, which created the approved traditionalist movement, was entirely a reaction to the unapproved consecrations. This is incontrovertible: the extension was contained in the very same letter which declared the excommunications--only three days later.

Also, it is well known that Pope Benedict XVI prefers a traditionalisation of the New Mass, and not the old Mass. He had to overcome considerable obstacles from his curia and bishops to approve S.P. It is obvious that he would not have done so had the S.S.P.X not demanded this.

This leads us, however, to the question why. Why would Rome go to so much trouble for such a paltry group of as the S.S.P.X?

The answer, I think, is not some huge success for the S.S.P.X (there isn't one) but a mind-boggling failure for the revolution and its liturgy.

Rome feels, I think, that a traditionalism not blessed by the Pope has a very limited future, but that a traditionalism entirely supported by Rome might possibly help to reverse the disaster besetting the Church. But it is not possible yet to unleash a triumphalistic return of the old Mass. There are still too many old liberals in office and in chanceries. Rome still wants to delay while she 'turns over the sod' and replaces the old liberals. I think that Rome is really flying a trial balloon here: will the young flock to regularised Traditional Latin Masses or not?

Rome will likely try other ideas as well. And why shouldn't she? She is attempting to combat the overwhelming power of secularism and Islam. The Pope's baby, a traditionalisation of the New Mass, will also be tried in this pontificate, if His Holiness has enough time to do it.

P.K.T.P.

Stanislas Wojtiech said...

The Society of St. Pius X is the beacon of Roman Catholic Tradition.

Pope Benedict XVI has not proven religious liberty of Dignitatis humanae to be reconcilable with Quanta Cura and the Syllabus, nor that the Roman Catholic Church and the Mystical Body of Christ are one and the same thing (as H.H. Pius XII taught in Humani generis, par. 27), nor that Jews must convert and that the Old Law and Old Covenant without Christ do not suffice for them to eternal salvation, nor that Communion into the hand must be stopped as a sacrilegious abuse (Benedict XVI practices it himself, unlike John Paul II), nor that interreligious prayer is syncretism and communicatio in sacris in fact, nor that Truth (holy Roman Catholic Dogma, the deposit of Faith) cannot change itself like to contradict a former dogmatic or universal doctrinal definition.

This, and the practical anti-Christian agitation by the Conciliar bishops (just look how "conservative" Cardinal Schönborn had the Vienna Cathedral desecrated by a blasphemous art exposition by a stalinist artist), combined makes a practical agreement impossible.

Also, the controversies over the (in)validity of the new (1968) pontifical ordination rites (bishop and priest) must be discussed and refuted, also the other changes must be defended as valid and not heretical.

The Vatican does not. They continue in the naive "Vatican II is Our Way and Only Hope" fanatical direction of the neo-modernists, of the "moderate, conservative" changeable Catholics, etc. etc. etc.

This will not restore practical unity within the Roman Catholic Church, which is composed only out of orthodox Roman Catholic (Eastern Catholic) Christians, not out of modernists or heretical sects.

The SSPX is Roman Catholic and holds to eternal Rome, to the Holy Roman Church, not to the dictatorship of the Arian court of Pope Liberius I in the 4th century, nor to the conciliar court of today.

As a young but worried yet academic orthodox Roman Catholic layman, I like clarification and Benedict XVI to take a position. As supreme pontiff, pope Ratzinger must take a position and start a dialogue commission at least with "traditionalist" theologians and groups. He does not. He reaches out to so-called Orthodox and Protestants not intended to even hear the Catholic side, to Jews repeating hate speech against Pius XII and the Catholic past (e.g. the propaganda lies of the liberals and Marxists on the Mortara case), but he does not even listen to sedevacantists or SSPX clergy. Dishonest or naive denial.

Let us hope that the future catastrophal events and developments in our decadent world, will lead to Roman Catholic Church restoration and true Communion of the Faithful. As we all know the Mystical Body, which is the Catholic Church, is composed from those Christians united in the same government, under the Roman Pontiff (as the SSPX is), in the same faith (dogma) and united in prayer.

Long-Skirts said...

bk said:

"Pro-aborts who received communion under the nose of the Pope:"

SHIP OF FOOLS
(and Ted)

Mine enemy is
My family.
Mine enemy is
Mine own.

Mine enemy
Does not talk with me.
Mine enemy
Changed their tone.

What once was
Sacred through and through,
They now won't
Speculate

They take what
They can get with who...
Has lured them
With some bait.

So took the bait
To be approved
The hook, the line,
The sinker.

Together in the net
All grooved
Not one of them
A thinker.

But in the net
All tightly caught
They lye
They do not swim.

For net won't let
Them have a thought,
To sail the sea
For Him.

"The sea is calm."
The net it mocks,
"All's well,
No need convert.

The Ship is built
On many rocks,
So lay
You won't get hurt."

But out at sea
Typhoons they stormed
A tempest
Furored force.

Where schools of fish
Swim well informed
To help Ship
Stay the course.

And back on shore
In nets approved
The fish bask in
Sun, hot.

For they have theirs
All net behooved,
With bells and smells...
Of rot.

Anonymous said...

I think the time for clear separation has come. Let the SPPX declare Rome to be absolutely apostate, and let Rome declare the Society to be totally schismatic. Too much energy is being wasted on reconciliation. Clearly Roman traditionalist do not need the Society, they have a large a number of communities that can provide for their spiritual needs. They have cardinals and bishops who are willing and able to provide whatever it is they need from the episcopal rank of the priesthood, as well as a growing number of diocesan seminarians and priest who clearly are orthodox, and traditional who will guaranty continuity of tradition. The society for its part is doing well without Rome, she has bishops, priests and religious that can provide for the needs of all those attached to her. There seems to be no physiological need for external attachments to the structure of the modern Papacy for the faithful of the society to think of themselves as Catholics, as there is among Traditionalists connected to the dioceses. Finally if the Society were to be definitively declared schismatic, they would not need jurisdiction for valid confessions and weddings, the present code requires jurisdiction with respect to these sacraments only from priests who are completely within the Roman structure, ie. Rome recognizes the validity of marriages, and confessions of the Greek Orthodox, but not of the SSPX at this moment. Total separation is a win win situation for all at this moment.

Anonymous said...

FSSP absolutely needs the SSPX to continue to exist. Who out there thinks the bishops won't eat the FSSP alive if SSPX doesn't continue to be the badger of conscience to the pope? The SSPX is as necessary for our time as Saint Athanasius was for his. We trads need them. Why do you think the "ecumenical" hierarchy retains such a focused hatred of them alone? They are the strong link to our traditions that these wolves hate.

SSPX would grow much faster if the excommunication were lifted and the justice of that act was properly publicized.

Archbishop Lefebvre thought through the need to put a barrier between his priests and the hierarchy. FSSP is vulnerable to elimination on 1 hour's notice because there is no such barrier, and we all know (as does Pope Benedict) that there are many powerful wolves who would like to do it. This is why SSPX could not and cannot trust any agreement with the wolves yet. Until they see the captain running the ship, and soundly, they must cling to the narrow path around the cancer. And we all know they do it for the good of souls and the love of our blessed faith. Pope Benedict has confirmed they are an "interior matter." They are not part of the hierarchy, but they remain the Catholic faith, undiluted.
Joe B

Anonymous said...

"FSSP absolutely needs the SSPX to continue to exist. Who out there thinks the bishops won't eat the FSSP alive if SSPX doesn't continue to be the badger of conscience to the pope?"

I do not think the bishops won't eat the Fssp alive. The fssp are a society of pontifical right, that means they cannot be throne out of those diocese where they presently exist, and within their property they cannot be interfered with by the local authority.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Perkins,

Can you provide a reference for the Holy Father offering the SSPX an international diocese in 2000?

(Not saying it's not true, I just haven't heard this before. My recollection of the events in 2000 is that the progress being made came to a screeching halt when the usual cast of cardinalatial suspects met with the pope and threw a wrench into the machinery).

Thanks,
Sean McCollister

A Simple Sinner said...

"In addition Rome went through the trouble of creating the FSSP and sticking them wherever SSPX chapels are found. I'd say there is a huge push to by Rome to go after the SSPX faithful and their $$. The SSPX are not small players by any means. "

"Rome went through the trouble"... makes it sound like someone in the depths of the Vatican counter-insurgency department went throught he planning, and expense and inititiative of creating the FSSP... When in fact they were SSPX fellas who did NOT want to go through the motions of pretending like the fact that their superiors had been excommunicated by name!

"That's your argument? 1.1B vs. 2M? Ergo, the 2M are wrong? Yikes! You'd better phone the Vatican a.s.a.p. Disabuse those poor idiots. Tell them they can forget SSPX. Rome has the majority. Victory! Wow. Who knew?
"


That's your attempt at logic?

No my argument was against the fallacy that the SSPX is somehow the bane of Roman existence, that with 2M members worldwide going to smallish unapproved chapels following leaders who say increasingly bat-crap crazy things... NO, these folks are NOT are not THE pressing concern that pro-SSPX make them out to be.

If my Greek Catholic bishops went into schism and some of us stayed loyal - the creation of a diocese for us who remained would represent an accomadation of Catholics not going into schism.

"I guess by that logic, the Muslims are more right than Rome since they know (sic) outnumber us, pro-abort, contracepting Catholics. "

No. Another logical fallacy.

By that logic, Rome is FAR MORE concerned with the advancing growth of Islam into territories where the Catholic Church has made inroads...

"Maybe you try reading about the Maccabees."

You think I haven't? Weirder still, you fancy the SSPX the Maccabees?

"I think this is the end. It seems as though the two roads were laid out before the SSPX and they hesitated and decided in the end to choose the easier one. I cannot see any possibility of reconciliation for the forseeable future.

And in a hundred years, when Rome still has not foresworn the teaching of the Ecumenical Council held at the Vatican, these folks will still be saying, "We understand Tradition and not the Pope." "


AMEN, AMEN, AMEN. What makes them think that in the end the prudential decisions they have made are the litmus tests for "how Rome can be understood to still be Catholic?" That is arrogant in the extreme, and Catholic in its thinking.

"Also, **it is well known that Pope Benedict XVI prefers a traditionalisation of the New Mass, and not the old Mass.** He had to overcome considerable obstacles from his curia and bishops to approve S.P. It is obvious that he would not have done so had the S.S.P.X not demanded this."


Could it also be the fact that the Pope does have a preference for this Mass itself that fuels the SP? That it is the Mass itself and not an accomadation of a schismatic group that is the first concern here?

"FSSP absolutely needs the SSPX to continue to exist. Who out there thinks the bishops won't eat the FSSP alive if SSPX doesn't continue to be the badger of conscience to the pope?"

I certainly don't.

"SSPX would grow much faster if the excommunication were lifted and the justice of that act was properly publicized."

You know what else would have caused the SSPX to grow much faster? Not defying direct papal orders about the consecrations, staying true to the agreements reached between the Holy See via +Ratzinger and +Lefevre, or at the very least accepting the re-union initiatives offered generously in 2000.


"Archbishop Lefebvre thought through the need to put a barrier between his priests and the hierarchy. FSSP is vulnerable to elimination on 1 hour's notice because there is no such barrier, and we all know (as does Pope Benedict) that there are many powerful wolves who would like to do it. This is why SSPX could not and cannot trust any agreement with the wolves yet."

Any group in the Catholic Church is vulnerable inasmuch the Pope with immediate jurisdiction can make such decisions, however unlikely. But holding out in schism on the grounds that unlikely agreements must be reached to get one's order to have a certain "untouchable" sacrosanct status is the perfect way to never have to actually be serious about coming home.

Anonymous said...

Observations on Benedict XVI's Passover Eve Synagogue Visit
Witness video of Benedict's Passover eve synagogue visit in its entirety at this link:

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/Pope.Benedict.NYC.2.703533.html

What can we observe here that has not already been pointed out?

There is a tremendous amount of effort being devoted towards propping up the idea that these people who today call themselves "Jews" are actual descendants of the ancient Israelites. Maintaining this illusion is critical to the entire charade.

Likewise there's a great deal of effort made to associate Jesus with the people who today call themselves "Jews" and the anti-Biblical religion of Orthodox Judaism. Benedict stated, "I find it moving to recall that Jesus, as a young boy, heard the words of Scripture and prayed in a place such as this [NY synagogue]." This statement is false and ridiculous, but it does create an association between Jesus and the Talmudic synagogues of today, which is its most likely intended purpose.

The "brothers" theme was reinforced by the rabbi. This is a clear allusion to Jacob and Esau who were at conflict in the Old Testament. There is a Kabbalistic gnosis having to do with "Jacob" being reconciled with "Esau" prior to the Judaic "redemption." This gnosis stems from the occult tradition related to the conjunction of opposites. The Vatican's relentless drive towards "reconciliation" between Christians and Orthodox Judaic followers of the Talmud and Kabbalah is harmonious with this Kabbalistic tradition and has nothing to do with Christian, Biblical tradition. St. Paul spoke of reconciliation between Jews and Gentiles, but that it could only be through faith in Jesus Christ. This is beside the fact that we can't know who the true descendants of Abraham, Issac and Jacob are. To apply St. Paul's words regarding reconciliation to these Khazars and Sephardim who deny Christ and adhere to Talmud and Kabbalah is as diabolical as it is foolish.

The gifts that are exchanged at these meetings between the popes and Judaic leaders invariably are Judaic gifts. There is a lot to be read into this in terms of direction and proportion in their "dialogue." The synagogue gave Benedict a silver Seder plate, a Passover haggadah and matzo, and he gave them a medieval Judaic codex.

The Judaic codex which Benedict gave the synagogue as a gift was a text from the medieval rabbinic codifier, Jacob ben Asher the Ba'al ha-Turim (Master of the Pillars). Jacob ben Asher is best known for his Rimzei Ba'al ha-Turim, a work of gematria, which is to say, methods for finding "hidden teachings" in Biblical texts which, consequently, nullify the written meaning.

These poor, deluded people could benefit so much more from a copy of the New Testament than the satanic gematria of Jacob ben Asher, but why would Benedict bring the Gospel to a synagogue on the anniversary of Christ's execution? Apparently, Benedict visited these people in their synagogue on this day only to celebrate with them in their delusional ethnic conceit, praise them for their anti-Biblical traditions, and to validate those same ethnic delusions and anti-Biblical traditions in the eyes of Christians. The only preaching I heard had to do with the anti-Biblical doctrine, "Tikkun Olam" and it came from the rabbi.

Speaking of gematria, The NY Times has gone to great lengths to document that the visit was 22 minutes long. Those who understand the Kabbalistic obsession with numbers will recognize the significance here:


Pope Benedict XVI paid a 22-minute visit to the Park East Synagogue — the first papal trip to a United States synagogue — on Friday afternoon ...

The pope entered the synagogue at 5:16 p.m. ...

The pope exited the synagogue at 5:38 p.m., ending a visit of just over 20 minutes. (Pope Makes First Visit to a U.S. Synagogue," Sewell Chan, The New York Times, April 19, 2008) http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/a-key-moment-in-benedicts-relationship-with-the-jews/?hp



Benedict could well have become the most treacherous "vicar of Christ" in history after these past two days. Meanwhile, "traditionalists" are focused on complaining about the music at his baseball stadium Mass ...

See also:

http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2008/04/at-synagogue-pope-tells-two-lies-in-two.html

http:mauricepinay.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

Note what His Excellency observes within the neo-Catholic apparatus: "With the difference that, from now on, it is said, at the same time, that the Church does not change…[sic], which means that these changes are perfectly in the line of Catholic Tradition."

He has observed that the post-Vatican apparatus now emulates a mode of Judaism's defection, the PROCESS of "traditioning."

"... The rabbi constituted the projection of the divine on earth. Honor was due him more than to the scroll of the Torah, for through his learning and logic he might alter the very content of Mosaic revelation. He was Torah, not merely because he lived by it, but because at his best he constituted as compelling an embodiment of the heavenly model as did a Torah scroll itself." [Rabbi Jacob Neusner, "The Phenomenon of the Rabbi in Late


"On the surface, Scripture plays little role in the Mishanaic system, The Mishnah rarely cites a verse of Scripture, refers to Scripture as an entity, links its own ideas to those of Scripture, or lays claim to originate in what Scripture has said, even by indirect or remote allusion to a Scriptural verse of teaching... Formally, redactionally, and linguistically the Mishnah stands in splendid isolation from Scripture....the Mishnah constitutes torah. It too is a statement of revelation, 'Torah revealed to Moses at Sinai.' But this part of revelation has come down in a form different from the well-known, written part, the Scripture. This tradition truly deserves the name 'tradition,' because for a long time it was handed down orally, not in writing, until given the written formulation now before us in the Mishnah.... Since some of the named authorities in the chain of tradition appear throughout the materials of the Mishnah, the claim is that what these people say comes to them from Sinai through the processes of qabbalah and massoret --handing down 'traditioning.' So the reason... that the Mishnah does not cite Scripture is that it does not have to." —Rabbi Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah: A New Translation. New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1988. pp. xxxv-xxxvi.

Note the casual admission that both "qabbalah and massoret" change Scripture through "process," "traditioning." In Judaism tradition is not fixed or faithful, but is an ever changing "process" that is described as "traditioning." This is why "the latest Responsa and homiletical interpretations of the rabbis" are Torah, authoritative in Judaism.

Indeed all this oral "traditioning" is precisely what Jesus fingered as "make void the commandments of God for the traditions of men." Mark 7:9.


So, for 40 years, the neo-Catholics have made themselves "proselytes of the Pharisees," so make themselves"children of hell two fold more than [the Pharisees]. Matthew 23:15

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

More than anything, the sheer violence and anger of the comments now being made by SSPX supporters against the Pope, here and in other fora, convinces me that permanent schism has finally come to pass between the SSPX and the rest of the Catholic Church.

To merely ask that Rome "convert" and "turn back to the true faith" is already to imply that Rome is no longer the Rock of Peter, the Rock of the Faith. It would be more consistent if the SSPX were to simply declare that the Holy See is vacant. After all, that is the only logical conclusion of everything that SSPX says about Rome and what it derisively calls the "Conciliar Church"

Anonymous said...

I support the SSPX and other traditionalist groups 100%.

The comment which anon. said :

"It is what I feared. They are too far gone from Roman Catholicism to return. It is a sign of great pride to wait for the change of heart of "whole episcopates" before doing the Catholi thing by humbling yourself, and going down on your knees in submission to the anointed Vicar of Christ. "

is simply nauseating. This kind of "Pope right or wrong" attitude is assinine, and a violation of valid judgement. If more bishops had stood up with Marcel Lefebvre at Vatican II, or done the same thing as he after rather than march in lock step with Paul VI and John Paul II as they lead the Catholic Church into the abyss thanks to Vatican II, then this crisis might have been much less.

Benedict XVI is an improvement over John Paul II in some ways, but he is a wimp.
Read what bk added in his post. All of it is true.

Bishop Fellay and the SSPX and other traditionalist groups (even traditionalist sede-Vacantist groups) are the real Catholics....not the Church as pictured by the circus of the D.C. Mass with the Pope.
That was complete Vatican II garbage.

New Catholic said...

I have modified somewhat the translation in the beginning of the second paragraph. I believe it is clearer now, though a little bit less literal.

Anonymous said...

Yes, the revolutionaries have won: they have Rome. Now they have the audacity to label "rebel" those who merely refuse to adopt the revolution. Ironic, isn't it? More ironic, still, are those who claim to be Catholics condemning their brothers who refuse the new religion. The catholocism of today's Rome is a novelty: our great grandfathers would not recognize it as their own religion; yet, bubbling with bile, the accommodationists attack those with the temerity to say: I will have the religion of my fathers and my fathers' fathers, not this banal on-the-spot fabrication of a religion that men who have lost the Catholic Faith have been ramming down our throats for almost fifty years now. Of all the possible tacks to take concerning the current tragedy, the most irrational and unbelievable is that Benedict's Ecumenichurch with its sex scandals, blasphemous museum exhibits, "catholic abortionist politicians" taking communion at papal liturgies, and the daily rota of officially-sanctioned liturgical sacrilege and blasphemy IS (or, if you prefer, SUBSISTS in)the Catholic Church. It would be more consistent with logic and the Church's claims to conclude from the present mess that: a) the Church never was what she claimed; b) God, if He should exist, is nothing like His description by the Catholic Church. Ugly, yes. Repugnant to Faith yes. As irrational as trying to claim that Ecumenichurch is THE Church...no way.

"Unsquared Circle"

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

There is only one answer to this tragedy (i.e., of the Church crisis) and that is the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Our Mother.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

I have a question for all the SSPX supporters on this list:

Given that you now consider Rome to have lost the faith and to be now in heresy, why don't you become sedevacantists? If, as you say, Pope Benedict XVI and his three predecessors are modernists, then why remain in communion with him, even if only in theory?

Nobody has ever given me a straight answer to that little question.

Anonymous said...

Simple Sinner writes:

"Could it also be the fact that the Pope does have a preference for this Mass itself that fuels the SP? That it is the Mass itself and not an accomadation of a schismatic group that is the first concern here?"

No, it could not be. Look, I agree with much of what Simple Sinner writes, but he goes too far in thinking that the Pope would go to all this trouble to restore a Mass which he clearly disfavours. He made his position crystal clear to Michael Davies after a CIEL conference and on other occasions: then-Cardinal Ratzinger clearly favoured a traditionalised Novus Ordo, not the Traditional Latin Mass. In particular, he prefers the New Lectionary. After the CIEL conference, he remarked that, if the N.O. were celebrated properly, most traditionalists would not even realise that it was the N.O. I recall this because a scholar there replied that, if that's the case, why not bring back 'the real thing'.

Simple Sinner misremembers the extreme difficulty this Pope had in releasing S.P. We waited two years, remember? During that time, Archbishop Vingt-Trois of Paris and, in particular the Cardinal Archbishop at Bordeaux tried to intervene and stop S.P. They went ballistic when the Pope approved the I.P.B. The German and French bishops both threatened revolts over S.P.

What is this, Simple Sinner, wilful blindness? Those who love to point to the 'post hoc' fallacy seem to be infected by its converse: they seem to think that, if a second thing follows a first, the second could not possibly be caused by the first.

The fact is that the S.S.P.X asked for what was essentially delivered in S.P. Rome could have handled the matter differently. She could have erected an international personal diocese for tradition--a Campos writ large--or she could have stipulated that every diocese have at least one every-Sunday T.L.M. if a certain number petitioned for this. Instead, she did exactly what the S.S.P.X asked for. And you think that S.P. is not a response to the Society's request. Well, it's a point of view.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Skinner,

I'm afraid you're still not getting it. You're still relying on numbers to prove your point. Your point is this (whether you realize it or not): The SSPX can't be the bane of Rome because their numbers are are "smallish." Also, SSPX can't be the bane of Rome because their leaders say bat-crazy things (a numerically infrequent occurence, yes?). Your logic is a numbers fetish. By the way, since you like numbers, do you honestly believe that Rome is NOT concerned about the numerical increase in Muslims throughout Europe? The pope's own statements contradict this, as does European history. What's the magic number? For you, what number does a "smallish" group have to reach before they can have a legitimate claim to Rome's attention...before they can be sure that they are a "pressing concern?" Ok, I'm wrong your logic is fine. Do us a favor then: learn how to write and clearly express yourself. It will save you time (oops, there's something related to numbers again, sorry).

Anonymous said...

One blogger wrote this:

"I support the SSPX and other traditionalist groups 100%. . . . "

The problem with his argument is that Abp. Lefebvre signed *all* the conciliar documents--every single one of them, INCLUDING Dignitatis Humanæ, which the Society claims is incompatible with the Catholic Faith.

Secondly, in 1988, Abp. Lefebvre was clearly willing to accept from Rome FAR LESS than what Rome has been offering the Society since 2000. Hence the Society is not following Archbishop Lefebvre. Why is this?

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McCollister:

Finding a reference will take some time. Strictly speaking, Rome did not offer the structure but 'suggested' it as a solution, through Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos. In reaction to it, Bishop Fellay called it, publicly, "the Rolls Royce solution" before rejecting it (under pressure from his own hardliners, I think, but nobody can prove that). The same structure was then offered to the Campos group. Originally, it was to cover all of Brazil but the Brazilian Bishops Conference of Trotskyites blocked this, and they only got it for the territory of the Campos diocese, plus those three or four of its chapels in neighbouring dioceses.

The entire matter was debated quite a bit in 2000 and I was part of this. There is no question of what the Cardinal suggested, although its exact juridical structure was never determined because Fellay slammed the door in Rome's face.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Addendum re A Simple Sinner's Comments.

A fortiori, we know what the Pope's preference is because the entire Adoremus Movement, founded by Frs. Fessio and Harrison and Helen Hull Hitchcock, was created to support that position. I note that Fr. Fessio is a friend of this Pope and was once his editor.

On the matter of why the Pope has gone out of his way to accommodate the S.S.P.X, I agree with Simple Sinner that it is not because the Society poses a threat. The numbers prove that.

Somewhere out there (no, I can't find a reference), I believe that the Pope himself answered this question. He said that he simply wishes to reconcile this group in order to ensure a more perfect unity in the Church. The implication was that they are already Catholic.

Another explanation is that the Pope wishes to use traditionalism as a counterweight against a reform movement which has had only bad fruits. In other words, it is not that the old Mass has been so successfull under the S.S.P.X (it has not), but that the New one has been so unsuccessful. I think that the Pope is looking for various means of reversing a very serious decline.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

P.K.T.P.,

What possible difference does it make if Apb. Lefebvre initially signed Dignitatis? He later repudiated it (and in no uncertain terms). But, of course, that means nothing. You've got your signature. Congratulations.

Is that the best you can do?

Anonymous said...

Simple Sinner,
What part of "there is no schism" do you not understand? Until you get that far, why waste our breath on you. Take it up with the pope, who has already made that clear.

The SSPX isn't sedevacantist and isn't in schism (by Rome's admission) because they know Benedict is the Pope and they have not set up a parallel hierarchical structure. The church hierarchy, like the world, is suffering a 'diabolical disorientation", although the church not so badly. But SSPX knows the church isn't dead.
Joe B

New Catholic said...

P.K.T.P.,

Could you please e-mail us at
newcatholic AT gmail DOT com ?

New Catholic said...

The SSPX is not a schismatic organization. It is not Sedevacantist, either. Let us avoid generalizations which may cause pain and misunderstandings.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

Yes, the SSPX is neither sedevacantist nor schismatic -- well, at least not yet -- but I fail to see how its positions can be sustained without eventually concluding in favor of sedevacantism. This is the question that has always perplexed me: the question of the SSPX's theological consistency.

This is not meant as disrespect for the SSPX faithful, but is simply meant to point out that it is hard to see how one can consider Rome to now be a source of manifest heresies (even if no ex-cathedra declarations are involved) and still be in favor of formal communion with, and obedience to it.

Anonymous said...

About a month ago, somebody from the Vatican (i.e., Apostolic Penitentiary which is incharged of matters regarding the internal forum) said in an interview that there is a new list of deadly sins. Did he speak the truth? No. Will I believe him? No....Several months ago, someone from the 'Ecclesia Dei' Pontifical Commission said that the SSPX is not is schism. Did he speak the truth? No. Will I believe him? No. I only believe what is STATED FORMALLY in the Ecclesia Dei Adflicta: "All those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre...they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law." The movement referred is clearly the one mentioned in the preceding statement - the movement initiated by Archbishop Lefebvre. THE SSPX IS SCHISMATIC ACCORDING TO A PAPAL MOTU PROPRIO AND NO INFORMAL STATEMENT BY ANY VATICAN OFFICIAL CAN CHANGE THAT. - Aleksandr

Anonymous said...

It's hard to say that Bp. Fellay is wrong in his assessment. Just look at some of the comments. How do you expect a man to reconcile with you when you abuse him?

It is hard to see that it is charitable to want others to suffer under the Local Ordinaries what so many of us have suffered.

It is a very unhappy situation but I think that neither abuse nor rushing to judgement is helpful.

Finally, one must ask again: who is being more disobedient? The Bishops who remain in obdurate invisible schism or the Bishops of the SSPX who are irregular?

Anonymous said...

Carlos,

Like you, I can be critical of an institution without wishing to destroy it.

Aleksandr,

Is it simply impossible for anyone in Rome to be in error? Is that it?

P.K.T.P.,

Now, do you understand that Bishop Fellay is not "slamming the door in the Pope's face?"

Anonymous said...

God Bless Bishop Fellay and the Society of St. Pius X

1 Maccabees 3 19-22:

For the success of war is not in the multitude of the army, but strength cometh from heaven. 20 They come against us with an insolent multitude, and with pride, to destroy us, and our wives, and our children, and to take our spoils.

But we will fight for our lives and our laws: And the Lord himself will overthrow them before our face: but as for you, fear them not.

A Simple Sinner said...

"Simple Sinner misremembers the extreme difficulty this Pope had in releasing S.P."

Back that up. Back up how I misrepresent.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Perkins,

Thanks for the reply. I had heard speculation that an international diocese or something along the lines of a military vicariate might be a possible solution, but wasn't aware Cardinal Castrillon had actually proposed this.

If you were involved in all this in some way, please, more details! :)

The "Trotskyite" behavior of bishops (not only in Brazil, but globally) certainly makes the SSPX fear of any proposed juridical solution understandable; and the spectacle of Popes taking their orders from bishops and cardinals doesn't inspire confidence.

Given the obstructionism and threats from certain bishops and cardinals in the dioceses and the Curia, would such an offer have ever been formally made by the Vatican in the first place?

Thanks,
Sean McCollister

schoolman said...

"...but it also discovers the resistance, at times brutal, of whole episcopates. Without despairing, without impatience, we observe that the time for an agreement has not yet come."
===========================

Does this indicate an expectation that all problems in every diocese must be difinitively resolved before reconciliation can take place? When St. Athenatius was restored to his see who took it up again immediately and with courage in the face of the crisis that still raged all around him. He did NOT say to the Pope: "yes, certainly I will return -- but only after you have cleaned up all the problems in the Church..."

Nick said...

Lets see how the SSPX attitude towards the Pope compares to the Catechism of St Pius X:


12 Q. The many societies of persons who are baptised but who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not, then, belong to the Church of Jesus Christ?
A. No, those who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ.



54 Q. What, then, is the dignity of the Pope?
A. The dignity of the Pope is the greatest of all dignities on earth, and gives him supreme and immediate power over all and each of the Pastors and of the faithful.


62 Q. How should every Catholic act towards the Pope?
A. Every Catholic must acknowledge the Pope as Father, Pastor, and Universal Teacher, and be united with him in mind and heart.



Before Vatican 2 it was pretty well established that refusing to submit to the Pope meant you were outside the one true Church. Some errors are so clear that to not recognize them can only mean your heart has become hardened.

A Simple Sinner said...

"What part of "there is no schism" do you not understand?"

The part where you can follow named excommunicates in establishing chapels outside of the permission of local ordinaries and hear confessions without faculties from same.

But you are right - don't waste your breath.

Anonymous said...

Nick and Sinner,

Gents,

Do yourselves a kindness and go to www.sspx.org and read what you find there. Read it all.