Rorate Caeli

Galarreta: "We will not follow it"; Let us "follow the steps"


The essential part of the Sermon pronounced by Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), for the ceremony of ordinations which took place this morning in Ecône:

The ultimatum of the Cardinal: to call this an "ultimatum" is to say too much. It is, for us, a desire to alarm us, to build pressure for a purely practical agreement. This way which they wish to impose upon us is a dead way and we will not follow it. We cannot commit [engager] to betray the profession of Faith nor to let ourselves be signed up for a demolition venture.

Our response to the Holy Father is thus to follow the steps with the known prerequisites and a doctrinal discussion. This will produce this answer: either a pause or a stagnation in our contacts with Rome, or a new condemnation - and we ask ourselves what -, or a withdrawal of the excommunications.

RORATE note: Let us wait for the actual text of the official response of the FSSPX, which will appear in due time.

83 comments:

Anonymous said...

Firstly we assist of the willianson response "No"

Now Galarreta's "No but"

We must wait for the answer of Mons Fellay.

For me I,ll abandom FSSPX if the answer is no.

P

Anonymous said...

Anche io.
Vincenzo

Hugo Pinto Abreu said...

I wonder if there's still any chance of acceptance... I mean, could they accept and allow Galarreta to state the opposite during the ordinations?

Praying.

Anonymous said...

Señor editor, en vez de llamar esto DECISION 2008, Ud. puede llamarla AUTOEXCOMUNIÓN 2008.

Max

Stanislas Wojtiech said...

"Anonymous": If you abandon the SSPX because they insist upon a doctrinal discussion and dialogue commission (on religious liberty, Dignitatis humanae, ecumenism, interreligious compromise and indifferentism) inside the current Vatican, and because they first want the phony excommunications to be lifted, you never were an SSPX-supporting Roman Catholic anymore, or you simply never understood the real essence of this hugest Crisis ever in the holy Catholic Church. It is doctrine (neo-modernism), the pan-religious unity tendency ("ecumenism", indifferentism, interreligious union), and only from these errors and heresies resulted the defective deform of the traditional Roman Liturgy in 1969 with the Novus Ordo.

The SSPX is no nostalgics' club or a reserve for the "1962 Missal". It is about doctrinal resistance.

I think Bp. de Galarreta does not dismiss a solution, but he justly demands first the withdrawal of the "excommunications" and opening up from the modern Vatican's side towards doctrinal discussion (in public commission).

I will never leave the SSPX about this; I chose them really because they also have the doctrinal part among them.

They are not seeking red hats and practical solutions.

They do not fall for the divide and conquer strategies from Roman diplomats from modernism.

Of course the SSPX in itself should assent to these conditions, but Fr. Lombardi from the Vatican already said that these were minimal conditions and that Vatican II and the liturgical reform must be accepted by the SSPX in the long term. That means there is no openness in the Vatican to any serious doctrinal discussion and dubia in a commission with Roman Catholic clergy from or from the context of the Society of St. Pope Pius X.

It is silly for laymen who do not understand the matter to "leave the SSPX". If you abandon them now, you never understood the cause of Roman Catholic Resistance against neo-modernism essentially before either.

Stay calm. If you abandon the SSPX and cause divisions, then the MODERN Vatican's divide-et-impera and solve-et-coagula strategies indeed succeeded; they would have weakened the SSPX once again thus.

Dignitatis humanae and false ecumenism and compromise with other religions, and the tendency towards heretical dispensationalism (on Judaism) must be addressed. It is Conciliar Rome which must prove the continuity and non-contradiction with Roman-Catholic dogmata of all time and with the Holy Catholic Church from before the 2nd Vat. Council. If they cannot, then the Conciliar church is not the true church, but would be a false church. The SSPX never changed anything, it is Roman Catholic and remained thus always.

Stanislawów said...

The SSPX loves Catholic Rome, the Mother and Teacher of the universal Catholic Church, the Church of the Blessed Apostle Peter in "Babylon". But not the syncretistic, pan-religious, neo-modernist, neo-protestant Rome which even came close to denying Our Lord Jesus Christ, the only Messiah, to the Jewish people and the followers of Talmudic Rabbinism.

Stanislas Wojtiech said...

Let us all thank God, the Lord of Israel, the Lord of hosts, for the newly ordained Roman Catholic Priests! Ordained by this sacramental bishop today in Ecône, Switzerland, in the Immaculate Heart complex! More truly Roman Catholic Priests in these Apocalyptic times of crisis!

Deo gratias!
Lauda Sion salvatorem!


Nun danket alle Gott!

Sacristy_rat said...

THE SSPX has gotten used to being Catholic with out a relationship with the Holy Father. Tell me what the Church Father's say about that?! I can tell you this one "Where Peter is THERE is the Church." At this time, they are doing more harm than good by being outside!!!!!

Anonymous said...

'Our response to the Holy Father is thus to follow the steps with the known prerequisites and a doctrinal discussion.'

That sounds like generous co-operation without compromise to me. Let us thank Our Lord Jesus Christ for this great blessing ! The pure doctrine of the Holy Catholic Church remains defended; meanwhile it appears that the FSSPX has not 'rejected' the Roman effort but accepted it half way -- as much as God would allow.

Anonymous said...

The question that will be asked from this weekend until the end of time will be, "Why couldn't they sign the conditions?"

Nobody seems to have a direct answer for this. Just propaganda rehash. Even an SSPX supporter says, "Of course the SSPX in itself should assent to these conditions..."

Why can't the SSPX make a public commitment to do so? Is it because they are worried that Rome would actually lift the excommunications and begin a dialogue in which ridding the Church of modernism could be discussed?

Anonymous said...

'Our response to the Holy Father is thus to follow the steps with the known prerequisites and a doctrinal discussion.'

Menzingen Prerequisite I - Universal indult, granted by Rome.

Roman Prerequisite I - Sign the 5 conditions, apparently refused by SSPX

Menzingen Prerequisite II - Lifting the excommunications

Menzingen Prerequisite III - Doctrinal discussion

There being nothing abhorrent in the Roman Prerequisite, it appears plainly that the negotiating partner that doesn't want to negotiate is the SSPX.

Anonymous said...

As an SSPX-supporter, I must say I cannot understand why these "conditions" are to be rejected, if this happens.

There must be clergy in the Society who will feel seriously at odds with not accepting those conditions.
It appears to me that they in no way contradict "the steps" spoken about by Bishop De Galareta and which we all know about.

Depending on the outcome and the resulting actions by Rome, I fear I have to seriously question my affiliation withe the Society after a possible rejection.

EuroTrad

Anonymous said...

I fail to understand what all the fuss is about.

Those of us who were supporters of the SSPX at the time of the 1988 Consecrations remember how we were warned by John Paul II in Ecclesia Dei adflicta not to support the movement in any way lest the grave penalty of excommunication should befall us.

Rome rattled its sabres and there was a significant growth in numbers attending SSPX centres in response.

What is so different this time around? Perhaps Benedict will don some Medici cope and appear on the loggia of St. Peters and, using an eighteenth century copy of the Pontificale annotated by Benedict XIV, carry out the rite of solemn excommunication and hurl down blown-out candles himself?

Modernists in fancy dress are still modernists.

Charles said...

Posterity will judge this move courageous and of great merit, like the unflinching fidelity of St Athanasius the Great ! Let us not allow ourselves to become alarmed. The Society did not 'reject' the conditions of Rome, but responded in kind according to their perpetual position. What other sort of diplomacy was one to expect ? I think Monseigneur Fellay has acted wisely here, showing the Romans that the Society longs for a normal relationship with the Holy See but that they need a little collateral to know it is safe.

Upon that unfortunate time when Pope Benedict XVI passes away, Bishop Fellay should be made Pope !

Anonymous said...

Padre Philippe Laguérie

Restez avec nous, Seigneur, car il se fait tard...

jeudi 26 juin 2008, par Le secrétaire



Bien chers amis,

Je ne réponds aujourd’hui à aucune question : je viens vous demander des prières pour mes amis, mes frères, de la Fraternité saint Pie X. A la veille de « l’ultimatum » romain, que nous voyions venir depuis des années, l’abbé Héry, l’abbé de Tanoüarn, l’abbé Aulagnier, quelques autres et moi, nous sommes saisis d’une profonde tristesse, quasi mortelle. Sauf miracle, que seules des montagnes de prières pourraient arracher du ciel, nous connaissons suffisamment nos anciens confrères et toujours amis pour savoir que leur décision collective des jours prochains devrait renvoyer la proposition romaine aux calendes grecques. Hélas !

Quel gâchis incommensurable pour l’Eglise ! Tout dans leur attitude depuis des années (et bien avant nos difficultés avec eux) démontre un système de pensée et de relations avec les autorités qui induit la conclusion vers laquelle on s’achemine aujourd’hui, d’un rejet pratique de toute autorité dans l’Eglise. Je ne songe pas seulement à la conférence scandaleuse de Monseigneur Tissier que j’ai, seul, stigmatisé comme il se doit sur ce blog ; je pense aux contradictions revendiquées de Monseigneur Fellay qui oscille depuis des années entre deux positions contradictoires : accords doctrinaux d’abord et solution pratique plus tard (et donc jamais) ou accords pratiques possibles et plusieurs générations pour expurger les contentieux doctrinaux. Ses demandes de discussions doctrinales et, quand on les lui propose, son refus de s’y rendre. Ses fiertés jaunes de ne pas seulement répondre aux courriers de leurs Eminences romaines. Les pamphlets, insignifiants par eux-mêmes mais insultants quand même, de jeunes abbés de 25 ans qui salissent Rome et son évêque sans jamais aucune mise au point ni réprobation de leurs supérieurs…

Monseigneur Lefebvre n’en usait absolument pas de cette sorte. Son respect de l’Autorité romaine était légendaire au point que le seul reproche sérieux qu’on pût jamais lui faire fut d’ordre canonique : sacres sans mandat pontifical. Ses attaques étaient virulentes, certes, mais toujours exclusivement doctrinales : nous ne comprenons pas, nous ne pouvons pas accepter ; c’est contraire au catéchisme, au magistère de l’Eglise, à l’enseignement de mes maîtres…Tout sauf un juge de Rome ; face à la crise, un simple chrétien d’une rare humilité qui fait savoir, comme les autres, qu’il ne comprend plus. C’est les larmes aux yeux qu’il parlait de Rome et la voix troublée qu’il évoquait les papes Paul VI et Jean-Paul II. L’a-t-on jamais entendu, ne serait-ce qu’une seule fois, appeler l’un Montini et l’autre Wojtila ? Avez-vous oublié qu’il chassa de la FSSPX tous ceux qui refusaient de reconnaître ces papes et de les nommer au canon ? Je suis témoin personnel que, jeune sous-diacre en 1978, au moment même où Mgr commence à se poser sérieusement la question des sacres, interrogé sur le personnage de Paul VI et ses équivocités, il se contente de souffler profondément et de lever les yeux vers le ciel…On songe évidemment au roi David qui refusa toujours de porter les mains, et même son jugement, sur l’oint du Seigneur (sur ce seul motif) et fit périr systématiquement tous ceux qui s’y risquèrent.

Les cinq conditions romaines à un accord possible entre Rome et Ecône sont stupéfiantes, ahurissantes : elles concernent toutes, non pas la position d’un évêque dans l’Eglise, mais celle d’un simple chrétien ! Doit-on encore avoir du respect pour le Pontife Romain ? Faut-il respecter sa personne ? Peut-on se prévaloir d’un Magistère qui surpasse le sien ? Il est absolument certain que le jour où la conférence de Monseigneur Tissier est arrivée sur le bureau du pape, ce qui se passe aujourd’hui était inéluctable et l’on peut simplement remercier Dieu que le « doux Christ en terre », comme l’appelait sainte Catherine de Sienne (qui ne le ménageait guère, pourtant !) ait supporté si longtemps ces injures, bien plus infamantes cependant pour leur auteur que pour leur destinataire…

Il est donc patent que, non seulement il faut les accepter, mais qu’il serait indécent, déshonorant de les refuser. On peut quand même attendre d’un évêque qu’il soit simplement chrétien. Ils vont donc les accepter ? Et c’est là que le comble se produit. En les refusant sur des critères doctrinaux qui jugent d’un Pontife Romain qui partout ramène la doctrine catholique, ils vont simplement oublier le principal et le seul nécessaire à un accord pratique qu’on leurs offre sur un plateau. Pratique pour pratique, il faut être pratique. La question n’est évidemment pas Rome et le juste respect qu’elle exige à bon droit ; quoi de plus normal ? La question est de savoir comment ces nombreux prêtres seront reçus sur le terrain. Leurs donnera-t-on des paroisses ? Seront-ils considérés comme des prêtres au rabais, des sous-prêtres ? Rome les soutiendra-t-Elle concrètement, pratiquement, sur le terrain ? Peut-on espérer une paroisse personnelle de forme extraordinaire dans toutes les grandes villes du monde, comme le souhaite le Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos pour l’Angleterre ? Va-t-on exiger demain qu’ils célèbrent ou concélèbrent la forme ordinaire pour prouver une communion qu’on prétend aujourd’hui leurs rendre pleinement ? Va-t-on simplement régulariser toutes leurs maisons d’aujourd’hui sans aucune garantie de pouvoir en ouvrir une seule demain ? En un mot comme en mille, va-t-on vraiment les laisser faire une expérience loyale de la Tradition, avec les moyens assortis, telle que l’a rêvée, sans l’obtenir, Monseigneur Lefebvre ? Rome peut-Elle leurs promettre sérieusement cela ? Et qui le pourrait en dehors d’Elle ?

Voilà bien les vraies questions, les seules vraies à mon sens. Et chacun sait que c’est sur ce seul motif concret (évêques en plus que vous avez et que Mgr Lefebvre n’avait pas) que ce dernier a dénoncé les accords du 5 mai 1988, pourtant signés de lui. N’oubliez pas qu’un des rares évêques à nous avoir excusés, soutenus j’allais dire, en 1988 fut le Cardinal Ratzinger, depuis Santiago du Chili. Il vous a fallu presque un an pour que vous le remerciiez, bien timidement, de son Motu Proprio. Chacune de ses mises au point doctrinales vous a laissés indifférents ou critiques.

Savez-vous de quoi demain sera fait ? Oui, il y a encore des erreurs répandues un peu partout. Oui, la crise de l’Eglise n’est pas finie. Mais sommes-nous sûrs de ne pas ressentir encore les effets du jansénisme ? Et ceux du modernisme, alors ? Attendre que l’Eglise ne soit plus agitée par rien, c’est attendre la Jérusalem céleste au mépris de l’actuelle, qui rame et qui souffre jusqu’à la fin du monde.

Je n’ai aucun conseil à donner à quiconque, surtout pas à mes confrères d’hier et amis d’aujourd’hui, toujours. Ils ne les recevraient pas et je les comprends aisément. Qu’il me suffise donc de vous dire que je prie et fais prier pour vous. Dans vos rangs, je ne le cédais à personne en détermination et pugnacité ! Mais le temps a passé, les données sont nouvelles et l’heure historique. Nous serions tous atterrés d’une division dans vos rangs ou, pire encore, d’un entêtement unanime et funeste qui réduirait notre chère Fraternité au niveau de quelque Montanisme désespéré ou de quelque petite église sans lendemain. Je garde confiance que le grand évêque qui m’a ordonné et qui vous a fondé ne le permettra pas, dans son amour pour Rome et le sacerdoce romain.

P.S. On se reportera avec fruit au texte magnifique de l’abbé de Tanoüarn sur son Meta-Blog.

andl said...

"SSPX loves Catholic Rome, the Mother and Teacher of the universal Catholic Church, the Church of the Blessed Apostle Peter in "Babylon". But not the syncretistic, pan-religious, neo-modernist, neo-protestant Rome which even came close to denying Our Lord Jesus Christ, the only Messiah, to the Jewish people and the followers of Talmudic Rabbinism."

So you are saying this Catholic Rome no longer exists? And you call yourself a Catholic?

It is not enough to pledge obedience to some Rome of the past or some idea of Rome. A true Catholic must preserve communion with the actual ROME.

The idea that Rome came close to denying Christ is ridiculous, as are the other claims. If you actually listen to what Rome says without prejudice and with charity, it's quite obvious that Rome still holds to the Catholic faith.

Ss Peter and Paul; St Pius X, pray for us.

Anonymous said...

What is so different this time around?

The Motu Proprio..that's what is different. There are many more Latin Masses and parishes today as opposed to 1988...the SSPX is truly as Bsp Williamson claims, "A dinosaur" Outdated and ready to be hung up in a museum somewhere....

I frankly am glad that Cardinal Castrillon is "waving the stick" as Williamson says. It's about time he and the Holy Father stood up to the SSPX and other groups like them, traditional, liberal or otherwise. If we as Catholics don't respect the Holy Father, why should any other non-Catholic?

As far as this being "the worst crisis in the our history." That old tired line again. It is only the worst crisis because we are living through it. Read the history of the Church. This "crisis" is actually rather tame in comparison. Had this been centuries ago and a crisis was occurring none of us would have much cared because we would have been too busy trying to feed our families! It is only in the 21st century that we have the luxury to debate over Church issues while sitting in the comfortable confines of our home typing away on a keyboard.

Perspective is sorely lacking in the Traditional Catholic world today and the SSPX promotes and encourages this, either directly or indirectly.

Anonymous said...

A quick question for some individuals who, supporting the SSPX, believe the Vatican to be Modernist, neo-Protestant, etc.

"Do you believe the gates of hell have prevailed against the Catholic Church?"

When people say that the "mainstream" Catholic Church is neo-Modernist, neo-Protestant, has come close to rejecting Jesus Christ, it sounds to me very much as though you believe the gates of hell HAVE prevailed against the Church. In which case, doesn't that accuse our Blessed Lord of being a liar in promising this would never happen?

Guadalupe Guard said...

The other regularized traditional orders need the SSPX to step fully into the juridical structure of the Church and set the tone of courageous prophecy. Yes, these other traditional orders have in many ways abandoned traditionalism so that they may have their mass.

The SSPX would not be bound to abide by anything between the lines in agreeing. Indeed charity will demand that they witness prophetically and painfully. It is absurd to think they must abide by anything other than the law of Christian charity and filial obedience which does not in any way entail the muzzling of the truth.

Bishop Fellay has said in the past that he fears that regularization would be "suicide." No your excellency, it would be "martyrdom."

I'm afraid that it is the refusal that is suicidal.

(By the way, making the comment about suicide and martyrdom got me banned from AngelQueen: you may scream at the Pope but don't even politely demur against the SSPX.
In any case charity is always called for and, on the other hand, whether it is Popolatry or Fellalatry it is not Catholic.

Anonymous said...

"When people say that the "mainstream" Catholic Church is neo-Modernist, neo-Protestant, has come close to rejecting Jesus Christ, it sounds to me very much as though you believe the gates of hell HAVE prevailed against the Church. In which case, doesn't that accuse our Blessed Lord of being a liar in promising this would never happen?"

Of course it doesn't. The fact that the incumbents in positions of authority in today's Rome may have defected doesn't mean the Church has. Condider the prophecies of La Salette about Rome losing the faith etc..

May God reward the SSPX bishops for staying firm in their resolve to defend Tradition.

Anonymous said...

Modernists in fancy dress are still modernists.

This Pope is still the Pope.

Or do you disagree?

Paul Haley said...

We cannot commit [engager] to betray the profession of Faith nor to let ourselves be signed up for a demolition venture.

With all due respect, Your Excellency, no one is asking that you do this. You should consider what it will be like if the FSSPX refuses the call of His Holiness to be in union with him as he is left dangling with the "wolves" at his feet.

The FSSPX can be the vanguard of the restoration and a focal point around which all traditional Catholics can coalesce, but only if it is perceived to be in union with the Successor to Peter. May the Holy Spirit guide you choice in this matter.

Jordanes said...

Upon that unfortunate time when Pope Benedict XVI passes away, Bishop Fellay should be made Pope !

As long as he remains excommunicated, he lacks the qualifications even to be considered as Pope.

If Bishop Fellay decides he cannot agree with the request made to him, then I fear it will be many years before the SSPX is regularised and the bishops restored to communion -- if ever. Bishop Fellay may yet respond favorably, but obviously there are a lot of SSPX members and adherents who want him to say no.

Anonymous said...

Can someone please translate the French comment...that you!

Anonymous said...

And now Burke will be heading the Apostolic Signurata so as to better facilitate the consequences...

Anonymous said...

Romantic vision of Rome

It is time to realize that most if not all 'novus disordo' Catholics do not know the faith anymore. They have been made 'PRORESTANTS' by 40 odd years of theological and spiritual wastelands. Most 'catholic priests' today are poorly trained and most bishops are disobedient to all laws and morality..(of course the pope is just one amongst them). The Catholic Church as it is now is NOT the Catholic Church founded by Christ. The Church out of the womb of Vatican II is not catholic. If is a different religion….and we have seen its fruits!!!!

Come out of your dreams and get out of your romantic vision of Rome! These people in Rome do not love the Church, but only the power the Church gives them….They have lost their sense of purpose and slowly, Destiny is deserting them!

Anonymous said...

If the SSPX loves Catholic Rome maybe they should accept these basic christian conditions and acknowledge the authority of Pope Benedict XVI who is reaching out to them.

The conditions don't mention anything about shutting up on Vatican II and the SSPX can't assume that they will be the saviours of the faith. Tradition has been saved thanks to Archbishop Lefebrve. Yes there are plenty of doctrinal problems in the church that won't be sorted out for a long time and by not signing certainly won't resolve them. If they can't trust Pope Benedict who has done so much for tradition in the last year, well then who can they trust or maybe will they ever trust again?

I'm certain there are many priests within the SSPX who are praying for an agreement. The SSPX is very much so a divided camp.

Anonymous said...

Right now the SSPX has 463 priests and 160 seminarians. I greatly look forward to what these numbers will be after they reject this expression of good will.

Aspen

Anonymous said...

To paraphrase the great and saintly Mgr. Lefebvre:

'Excommunication by whom; and from what?'

Charles said...

'As long as he remains excommunicated, he lacks the qualifications even to be considered as Pope.'

But he is not excommunicated; thus, there is no problem.

'If Bishop Fellay decides he cannot agree with the request made to him, then I fear it will be many years before the SSPX is regularised and the bishops restored to communion -- if ever.'

The cause is just; the Holy Ghost will not allow the holy work of the FSSPX to perish.

'Bishop Fellay may yet respond favorably, but obviously there are a lot of SSPX members and adherents who want him to say no.'

I do not want him to give an unqualified affirmative answer. The political and diplomatic possibilities in response are virtually without limit. The best way to answer is one that leaves the Pope and the neo-traditionals aware of the desire of the FSSPX for normal relations with the Holy See. However, under no circumstances must they put themselves, and thus the defense of the Faith, in a compromising position.

Woody said...

From the even more forceful remarks of the SSPX sympathizers here, I have to conclude, with all sadness as one who wishes the SSPX could come home so that I could be truly united with them, that they do not want the regularization now, and that they prefer to stay on the outs, following their own leadings, for the foreseeable future (even, as a certain US presidential candidate says, for the next 100 years).

One therefore has to say: fare thee well, beloved brethren, may we meet in Heaven some day.

Gerard said...

Well, this just goes to show you how clueless they are in Rome.

Any threats against the SSPX or the faithful that may support them if the SSPX responds in the negative will be meaningless.

Until His Holiness actually starts to guard the deposit of faith and crush liberals, he is not going to gain any more credibility. He was making slow but positive steps until now. The more I think about how uncharitable the 5 points are, the less credible he seems.

Unless he's in a coma, he's either part of the problem or part of the solution.

Someone show me where he's actually condemned (and I mean condemned) some liberal error in the Church with force.

Sad Day said...

Woody -- I would sadly have to agree, there appears to have been too much time for them to establish themselves outside the Church and it also appears that they have taken the Luther's position, "Here I stand, I can do no more." It also seems that with a little prodding there are more than a few "Sede" in their midst

Anonymous said...

Why cannot the Society just say, "We accept these terms, and will abide by them, consistent with our past actions which have always respected the person of the holy father."

Paenitet said...

I am done with SSPX if the answer is no.

Gerard said...

Sad day,

Luther's stand wasn't error because he was unbending on a principal. It was wrong because he was a heretic.

Jesus Himself was unbending on principal. "Not one jot nor tittle.." can change.

As far as operating without guidance from the Pope goes, the Pope in history has been unable to guide much of the Church. The maronites went for over a century without contact with Rome at all.

Once the Pope makes it known that he sides with the traditionalists by cleaning out the modernist liberals, everything will come back to a normal situation. Until then, we're in an emergency.

Sad Day said...

The first step to heresy is an unbending will and obstinate attitude; both appear to be in abundance in the Society at the moment.

Anonymous said...

"Dignitatis humanae and false ecumenism and compromise with other religions, and the tendency towards heretical dispensationalism (on Judaism) must be addressed."

But it is being addressed, and has been for many years - by the Abbe de Nantes! (He's a mere priest. Think of the possibilities if we were to have four bishops with their worldwide network of teaching and preaching. Why can't the SSPX join him in this fight from within?
Why??

M.A.

Anonymous said...

"Upon that unfortunate time when Pope Benedict XVI passes away, Bishop Fellay should be made Pope !"

This is not going to happen unless he first regularizes his situation!

M.A.

Gerard said...

Well,

When heresy is actually adopted by the SSPX, you'll have a comparison with Luther.

The problem right now is the heresy that Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos spoke. He falsely stated that "to be teachers of the Pope" is "heresy."

I guess St. Paul is a heretic. The prelates who corrected Pope John the 22nd when he was preaching heresy from the pulpit were "teaching" the Pope and they certainly weren't heretics. They saved the Pope from dying a heretic.

Gerard said...

M.A.

The heroic work of priests like the Abbe de Nantes does not threaten modernists in Rome. It is bishops that threaten them. Bishops are where the power really is.

Priests die out. Bishops perpetuate and produce other priests.

Modernists in Rome were perfectly willing to let the traditionalists have their underground masses. It was only when LeFebvre gave them the means to "outwait" the modernists that the papal firepower was spent against LeFebvre.

Anonymous said...

I pray that the SSPX will come back into full communion with the Church.

I just wish this same tone would be used when talking to the "progressives" in the Church.

Anonymous said...

"So we have no choice... we are continuing what we've done," the Swiss-born Fellay said in English at an SSPX seminary in Winona, Minnesota. "They just say 'shut up' ... we are not going ... to shut up."..."

If the SSPX ultimately DOES reject the 5 point protocol offered by the Pope thru Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, this is the reason why.

And I really don't blame the SSPX at all. They have brought to the attention of the Vatican, and by extension all Catholics, the very serious problems and grevious errors born of the Vatican II reforms, and of the "deforms" that sprang from the "reforms" themselves.
According to Bishop Fellay, the Vatican is telling them basically to "shut up" about it all and just fall into line. But just think what we would NOT have if the SSPX had shut up and re-integrated into the Church years ago.
We would not have had the "Ecclesiae Dei" Commission, nor the Fraternity of Saint Peter, INstitute of Christ the King, probably 50 other new Orders and societies using only the Tridentine Latin Mass, and dozens of others being formed. We would not have has a "renaissance of traditional religious life", even among some communities which follow only the Novus Ordo.
We would not have had the Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificum", nor the blossoming and explosive growth of the Tridentine Latin Mass world wide.....nor now the very real possibility of the TLM being mandated by the Pope to be made available in every parish.
We would not have had Benedict XVI elected either, because without the groundswell of support for Catholic traditition which has been building for the last 20 years, the Catholic Church would not have had a TLM and Catholic tradition re-awakening. We would not have had a more favorable posture towards tradition in the Vatican, nor the college of Cardinals. They would not have looked for a man of tradition and disipline....but rather just another wimpish "Vatican II cheerleader Pope" open to everything of the world, and radical ecumenism.. probably like Cardinal Martini of Milan, or Tettamanzi (then of Genoa)....or God forbid, a radical like Daneels or Lehmann.
Without the growing appreciation for Catholic tradition, born originally of the SSPX and what it stands for, we would not be re-evaluating the disasterous 40 years in Catholic liturgical music, or Catholic Church architecture. There would not be whole monasteries of monks and nuns deciding either to change entirely back to the TLM, or to at least have it in their monasteries along side the Novus Ordo.
The Austrian Cistercian abbey which is making such a name for itself with it's CD of Gregorian Chant would never have been heard from, as there would have been no interest in Gregorian Chant without the SSPX, and their protests as to how wrong it is for the Catholic Church to abandon it's liturgical heritage in favor of the modern musical and liturgical garbage we've had for the last 40 years.
Without the SSPX giving the original inspiration which triggered all the return of Catholic tradition, there would be no Catholic liturgical or musical workshops, training sessions, or Summer programs in the Catholic classics. There would be no massive 3 day seminars for priests to learn the TLM.
If the SSPX had obediently just "shut up" years ago....like the Vatican is diplomatically (but forcifully) telling them basically to do with these 5 points, NONE of what I highligted would be around. AND, there would be no NLM website, because there would never have been anything to motivate it's creation.
Think of how much POORER we would be without Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX standing up and saying courageously even to the Pope's face "You are wrong" with Vatican II.
Aside from everything else, were it not for the SSPX, we would probably be very much MORE like Protestants today.....and all the liturgical abuses etc. would never have gotten any attention in Rome. And there would have been even more grevious ones by now.
I write this because I TOO would like the SSPX to sign the agreement regarding the 5 points. But I understand why they probably won't. And I won't condemn them, or criticize them, or disparage their character, or label them formally "schismatics", or a "fringe group", or "lunatics", like I've already read from alot of self-righteous people (not on this site....but on some others) who pontificate about how evil, and how wrong the SSPX is not to fall into the Vatican II line and obey the Pope without question.
There's a big difference between disobying the Pope to push your own opinion, or to force an issue which is 100% against the 1,700 year tradition of the Church (married priests, women priests, homosexual rights, gay marriage etc.,contraception, abortion, euthanasia, union with Protestants), or to disobey the Pope in an attempt to destroy the Church and set yourself up as the only right way (Archbishop Milingo, Luther, Calvin, Zwigli, etc.) VERSUS disobeying the Pope to point out that the Church is discarding 1,700 years of Catholic sacred beliefs and traditions in the name of "aggiornamento", :updating", and appeasment to the world, and that this direction is causing the destruction of the Church itself.
The Vatican wants the SSPX basically to "shut up". Usually, any organization , church, or company which wants someone to "shut up" over a point which is justified usually is unconfortable about it, has something to hide, and just wants the issue to go away. People have been fired from companies and organizations for bringing to attention the corruption and wrongdoings of the management of these companies.
It's the same with the SSPX. The Vatican
KNOWS it has a bad issue with Vatican II and what came from it. It knows that the crises in the Church is a scandal. But it has been acting in the same way as big business. It just wants those who are bringing it to the world's attention to "shut up and tow the company line", or "Go away".
As much as I hope the SSPX DOES sign the 5 point protocol from Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos and Benedict XVI, I will understand if they do not. I will be disappointed. But I will not trash them if they don't. I will understand, and respect them.
And appreciate all that we have in the Catholic Church today, which we would NOT have had if there were no SSPX. Including this website.

Anonymous said...

"I am done with SSPX if the answer is no."

This is a copy/paste quote from one of the contributors....but I've seen afew of them.

In all charity, I have to say to say something like this is so childish, it's pathetic.
It reminds me of all the women who threw their collective temper tantrums when Hillary Clinton lost the Democratic primaries, and the Democratic National Commitee ruled against her.
All we heard for weeks were a bunch of frustrated women saying "I'm thru with the Democrats if Hillary isn't the canidate". or " I'm voting for McCain if Hillary isn't the Democratic nominee"

The SSPX is courageous for standing up for Catholic tradition and the principles of debating the issues, rather than "shutting up" and accepting a bad deal, and an even worse situation in the Church --created by Vatican II.

dcs said...

Maybe someone more learned in moral theology than I can answer this question - Is there ever a circumstance in which criticism of one's superior is obligatory? I understand that there are circumstances in which it is permitted, but is it ever actually obligatory under pain of sin, even venial sin? If not, then the SSPX is never obligated to criticize the Pope (since, if they are in communion with the Holy See, he is their lawful superior), and a simple request for them to respect his person (as opposed to what he says, does, or writes) cannot possibly be an unlawful command.

Julie Collorafi said...

The SSPX is so near to reunion, and yet so far.

This week has been like a conjunction of the planets where the planets hover near each other for a brief time and then speed away in opposite directions.

For those of us who have been praying, hoping and dreaming of reconciliation for so many years, it is painful to hear the stiffening resolve in the voices of the SSPX's bishops as the week goes on.

I continue to hope that this is all posturing and, at the last moment, the SSPX will accept the Pope's outstretched hand in a spirit of trust and good will.

There are such good, earnest, holy men on both sides of this negotiation. It is an enormous tragedy that distrust, suspicion and ideology must keep them from coming together in unity to work for the salvation of souls.

Anonymous said...

If they don't sign they will lose most of their influence especially when latin masses become more widly available in response to the motu proprio.

Luiz said...

If you don't agree with FSSPX's decision, you are a modernist.

Unfortunately, this is the way many people think.

They don't say they are the Church, but act like that. If you criticize this, they will say you are another modernist or ignorant.

John said...

It is truly unfortunate to hear Catholics speak of Rome as if it were the enemy when, in fact, it has been traditionally held that the See of Rome itself is indefectible. Don't any of you realize that the current position (or at least, the attitude) of the SSPX towards Rome was condemned in the past as containing manifest heresy?

From the article in the American Ecclesiastical Review, 'The Local Church of Rome':

"Actually the infallibility of the Roman Church is much more than a mere theological opinion. The proposition that 'the Church of the city of Rome can fall into error' is one of the theses of Peter de Osma, formally condemned by Pope Sixtus IV as erroneous and as containing manifest heresy."

With all the talk about religious liberty and the syllabus, it would be nice if the SSPX and it's followers showed some consistency by refraining from restating condemned propositions in matters of ecclesiology.

Anonymous said...

For Luiz

So what you are saying essentially is that everyone who recognises the authority of Pope Benedict XVI as Vicar of Christ is a modernist !!

You need to go back to basics : Take out your cathecism !

luiz said...

I was telling what many who defend the FSSPX's position do. I don't agree with them. They don't say the FSSPX is Rome, but act like that. The consequence is considering everybody outside the FSSPX as modernists. That is obviously wrong.

Anonymous said...

Pride, pride, pride. I hope Fellay has some sense. If not, they might as well start having their own pride parades, because it will be all over.

Anonymous said...

For Luiz,

My apologies. I read your comment too quickly. Yes I agree with your comment.

Anonymous said...

If Vatican men are "modernists in fancy dress", SSPX are protestants in fancy dress, without good manners.

Anonymous said...

John,

Rather than proceeding a priori, it seems much more reasonable to look at the state of the local Church in Rome for rendering a judgment on how great an example it is for the universal Church.

Or do you feel that faithful Catholcis simply have to believe, in advance, that the diocese of Rome is the best diocese in the world, and that we all need to imitate what everyone in Rome does!

Do you seriously believe everyone in Rome is impeccable and infallible? Do you seriously believe that they don't have dissent and heresy like everywhere else? That people never make mistakes in Rome?

I'm sorry, but contrary to Fr. Fenton, the infallibility of an entire local Church has not been defined as a truth of the Catholic faith. And considering how morally corrupt much of Rome was before the Reformation, the assertion that the Church in Rome never errs needs to be heavily qualified to make any sense.

One act of a pontiff does not a dogma make. I think it better to look at the facts and reality, instead of just assuming in advance that everything has to be great.

You'll notice that Fr. Fenton says that the faith of the people in Rome is something we have to emulate. So we should emulate their lackluster Mass attendance rate?

I don't think these questions are settled by citing a condemned proposition that, ironically, has been removed from the latest edition of Denzinger. Perhaps it's referring to the Holy Father never erring. But clearly Popes can make lots of mistakes. So maybe it just means that the Pope is infallible ex cathedra. Then why cite it against the SSPX?

Or maybe that condemned Peter was simply using language that seemed to disparage the Holy See and the See of Rome generally, and got zinged for the same reason the SSPX may be struck down in the future. But I think the "Local Church in Rome" article needs a weighty argument, in light of contemporary reality, to sustain its dogmatic assumptions.

Anonymous said...

Now, out of fear for my own soul, I won't return. The words of the bishops are frightening.

Jacob said...

Anonymous 27 June, 2008 12:34 said...

This Pope is still the Pope.

Or do you disagree?


Any supporter of the SSPX care to answer that directly? Yes or no?

If you answered yes, what in the five points is so repugnant? Direct quotes would be nice.

Dan Hunter said...

I was just told by a certain bishop friend of the family that His Excellency Bishop Fellay has agreed to sign the 5 conditions!

I shall attempt to further verify this.

DEO GRATIAS!

New Catholic said...

Dear Mr Hunter,

It is prudent to wait until an official source is available - or at least until a credible version of a document is produced.

Dan Hunter said...

I am sorry Mr New Catholic,

I just got extremely excited.
Let us hope

Anonymous said...

"The heroic work of priests like the Abbe de Nantes does not threaten modernists in Rome. It is bishops that threaten them. Bishops are where the power really is."

I agree with you! AND that is why it is imperative that the four FSSPX bishops regularize their situation.

The poor, dear Abbe. He could use some strong re-enforcements.

Anonymous c said...

The reality is that an awful lot of the SSPX clergy in France are formally sede-vacantist and the Bishops know this.

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

Charles said: But he is not excommunicated; thus, there is no problem.

The Catholic Church disagrees with you. That’s why if he presented himself for Communion at a papal Mass tomorrow, he’d be denied Communion – and he knows he’s not in communion with the Church, which is why he never attempts to receive Communion at a Mass celebrated by bishops and priests who are not, as he, under a decree of excommunication or suspension.

Really, if he is not excommunicated, then there’s no point in him asking that the excommunications be lifted.

The cause is just; the Holy Ghost will not allow the holy work of the FSSPX to perish.

If their work is of God, it cannot be overthrown. If not, it will pass away sooner or later. But even if their cause is unjust, God can bring good out of evil while they continue to exist.

Anonymous said...

I am beginning to think many of us who attend the Fraternity's churches are in fact protestant. We owe the Pope our love, respect and obedience in faith. The role of the Pope is central to our faith; and we fully acknowldge Benedict as the rightful Pope chosen by the Holy Ghost. He errs and makes mistakes, but we owe him our love, respect, devotion and obedience, as long as we do not compromise our faith and sin.

Bishop Fellay has written: "The Society of Saint Pius X wishes that the favorable climate established by the new dispositions of the Holy See will make it possible – after the decree of excommunication which still affects its bishops has been withdrawn – to consider more serenely the disputed doctrinal issues.". We have not conducted ourselves serenely or charitably. Are we as Luther, or Calvin, or Cranmer? When we should be as More.

We are betrayed by those who are not Catholics but have infiltrated us to destroy us.

Zorayda Nevada said...

This is what you call a "regularized" situation?!! Hoyos not only wants SSPX to give in to his conditions, but he will want the SSPX to concelebrate with the NO Modernist priests and bishops...eventually. I went and wasted precious time in the indult for nine years because of my own foolish pride before I finally got it. The four SSPX bishops are UNITED. You only have to look at what happened to Campos, Dom Gerard, Fr. Bisig, and countless others. A supposedly Catholic pope who blesses the UN flag and rubs elbows in synagogues IS TRULY a Modernist! Duh....And you expect the SSPX to marry themselves into this?


Roman Parish of the Society of Saint Peter and Cardinal Castrillon’s Invitation to Concelebrate


Summary : On June 8, Fr. Joseph Kramer, of the Society of Saint Peter, officially took office as parish priest of Santa Trinita dei Pellegrini...




On June 8, Fr. Joseph Kramer, of the Society of Saint Peter, officially took office as parish priest of Santa Trinita dei Pellegrini. Indeed, in accordance with article 10 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum and after receiving the proposal from Cardinal Camillo Ruini, the pope’s vicar for the diocese of Rome, Benedict XVI decided that in downtown Roma, the church of Santa Trinita dei Pellegrini was to be erected into a personal parish, “so as to answer the pastoral needs of the whole community of traditional faithful residing in the said diocese.”

A press release from the Society of Saint Peter, dated May 7, said: “It is hoped that this particular parish will serve not only the local parishioners, but that it will also provide a fine example of the beauty and solemnity of the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite to the many pilgrims and students in Rome.”

In his Letter to Friends of the Society of Saint Peter of May 2008, Fr. John Berg, the superior general, rejoiced that Rome, “the heart of the Church”, was the first diocese in Europe to entrust a personal parish to the Society of Saint Peter.

But the Motu Proprio must be read at the light of the letter to bishops which accompanied it and stated that “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.” Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos reminded them of this, on May 30, 2008, during the ordination ceremony of four priests of the Society of St. Peter in Lincoln (Nebraska, USA) in the presence of Fr. John Berg.

In his homily he said: “As President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei I have particular interest in these young men who will celebrate the Holy sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments primarily according to the liturgical books of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite which is a treasure for the entire Church. This obviously meets a desire on the part of a good number of the faithful. While I am pleased to promote our Holy Father’s will expressed in his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum and invite in implementing this important document I also invite my dear sons and brothers to strive to be an integral part of the dioceses in which you will serve; brothers of your brother priests showing deep respect for the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, concelebrating with your bishops at the Chrismal Mass and when this sign of priestly communion is specially appropriate.” (Sources: Zenit/Apic)

dcs said...

but he will want the SSPX to concelebrate with the NO Modernist priests and bishops...eventually.

What difference does it make what he "wants"? It's not a question of "want"; it's a question of whether or not the SSPX will be required to concelebrate the New Mass. And since no priest can be so required, it will not be required of the SSPX. Furthermore if asked they can just say "no." I don't understand this attitude. Why is being asked and saying "no" somehow worse than being in a situation where one is never asked?

Ione said...

I don't know if the SSPX realizes that the layity who assist at SSPX chapels have had to sacrifice too. We have been waiting for reunion, and have suffered for the Church and the SSPX. Now we have a chance at vindication, to be full members of our Church again, and Fellay seems to imply that isn't good enough.

I think Archbishop Lefebvre is one of the greatest Churchmen in contemporary history, and I am astounded to see what is being done to his legacy by self-important hierarchs. I pray Fellay will sign, even though I know he won't.

Like a good American all I can do is say that if he won't sign no longer will I be putting my posterior in a SSPX pew or my contributions in an SSPX basket. I am not a sedevacantist or a Lutheran or an Ultrajectine, and Fellay needs to remember that.

The Society is in irregularity because it consecrated bishops without explicit Papal approval, that is the ONLY reason the SSPX is outside formal communion. The SSPX alone is not the forum to redefine the documents of Vatican II and the 1983 revised Code.

I, like the SSPX, oppose collegeiality, ecumenism, religious liberty, schismatic intercommunion, religious plurality, the Novus Ordo excesses, and masonic ideals; but that does not mean I need to rebuff a perfectly acceptable offer put forward by the Holy See.

Lest I sound ironically antithetical to everything I profess (a crypto-Sillionist indeed) but if the document were put to a vote by all the SSPX faithful, religious, and clerics I wonder what the result would be?

Anonymous said...

"I am beginning to think many of us who attend the Fraternity's churches are in fact protestant."

No offense...but have you lost your senses? To be a Protestant is 1 million times opposite to what the SSPX is ! You and anyone else attending the SSPX Latin Masses are good and faithful traditional Catholics. Even the Vatican has said so....and has said there is nothing wrong with attending SSPX Masses....especially after the Motu Proprio.

But to call youself, or compare the SSPX faithful to Protestants is a tremendous insult to the SSPX. They are 100% traditionalist Catholics and have maintained 100% the Catholic Faith. To lump them in the same catagory as Lutheans, Episcopalians, and down further on the ladder...the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, and on the lowest steps the "born agains" and Pentecostalists is a violation of all valid and objective judgement. To call the SSPX "Protestants" is a billion miles from the truth!

One Million For the Latin Mass said...

I invite all here to join in the debate, with One Million Strong for the Traditional Latin Mass:


Many priests are in attendance.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=21424106770&ref=ts

Stanislas Wojtiech said...

Those who dare call the resisting FSSPX clergy and Roman Catholic faithful "Protestant" should in fact notice that the current pope Benedict XVI dared to assert that current Protestants are "not heretics" at all but a "new ecclesial reality". (Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, Joseph Ratzinger.)

Typically Nouvelle Théologie neo-modernism. Subjectivism.

Please notice, you who dare call the Roman Catholic SSPX which merely upholds Roman Tradition of the apostles, Catholic truth and Romanitas towards the pontiffs until including Pacelli, that this is what Ratzinger said.

Do not live an illusion. With all respect, that is what reality is like. And Archbishop Lefebvre faced it. He had common sense, was a plain old-style missionary from monarchist France.

Super Flumina Babylonis illic sedimus et flevimus dum recordaremur tui, Sion.

Hebdomadary said...

This is power politicking of the most high-level kind. I suspected that they might respons with a non-response, and I'm not really that bothered by it. For one thing, I think the fact that the letter with the pre-conditions was made public at all was probably not desired by the Vatican. It sounds, feels and smells like curial sabotage to me. That being the case, I don't think that the SSPX is going to respons outside of diplomatic channels. I doubt tha the vatican wanted them to. I don't think Castrillon Hoyos would have made that mistake. Chew on that for a while, and everyone untwist their knickers. Nothing's ever over. Something always happens next.

Anonymous said...

Is it all right to give Cardinal Castillion Hojos the middle finger and then go to confession later for that offense?

Anonymous said...

The great theologian Fr. Cornelius a Lapide SJ * and others teach that the Great Apostasy must occur before the end of the world. Fr. Phil Wolf FSSP (not SSPX!) has elaborated on this.

2 Thessalonians 3-12 Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed , the son of perdition, Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God,or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God. Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity. But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved of God, for that God hath chosen you first fruits unto salvation, in sanctification of the spirit, and faith of the truth: Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

Daniel 9 :27 27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many, in one week: and in the half of the week the victim and the sacrifice shall fall: and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation: and the desolation shall continue even to the consummation, and to the end.

Consider also the prophesy of St. Francis of Assisi:

A short time before the holy Father’s death [St. Francis’ death], he called together his children and warn them of the coming troubles, saying: “Act bravely, my Brethren; take courage, and trust in the Lord. The time is fast approaching in which there will be great trials and afflictions; perplexities and dissension, both spiritual and and temporal, will abound; the charity of many will grow cold, and the malice of the week it will increase. The Devils will have unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity. At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavor to draw many into error and death. Then the scandals will be multiplied, our Order will be divided, and many others will be entirely destroyed, because they will consent to error instead of opposing it. There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people, the religious and the clergy, that, except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided, amid such great confusion, by the immense mercy of God. Then our rule and manner of life will be violently opposed by some, and terrible trials will come upon us. Those who are found faithful will receive the crown of life; but woe to those who, trusting solely in their Order, shall fall into tepidity, for they will not be able to support the temptations permitted for the proving of the elect. Those who preserve their fervour and adhere to virtue with love and zeal for the truth, will suffer injuries and persecutions as rebels and schismatics; for their persecutors, urged on by the evil spirits, will say that they are rendering a great service to God by destroying such pestilent men from the face of the earth. But the Lord will be the refuge of the afflicted, and will save all who trust in him. In order to be like their Head, these, the elect, will act with confidence, and by their death will purchase for themselves eternal life; choosing to obey God rather than men, they will fear nothing, and they will prefer to perish rather than consent to falsehood and perfidy. Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true pastor, but a destroyer.” --- Works of The Seraphic Father St. Francis of Assisi, translated by a religious of the order, London: R. Washbourne, 1882. pp. 248-250.

Consider, my “charitable” Novus Ordinarians, that the Great Apostasy may be here and that you may be defending the indefensible — operation of error, abomination of desolation, and defection from Tradition.

Signed,
Anonymous (because this is NOT about me; it’s about the Truth)

* Heretofore the works of Fr. Cornelius a Lapide SJ were available only in Latin. His commentaries of Scripture are, for the first time, being translated into English:
http://www.angeluspress.org/oscatalog/
item/8284/commentary-on-the-four-gospels

Zorayda Nevada said...

-- What should we do . . . weep, without a doubt. . . we mourn and our heart is broken and sorrowful. We would give our life, our blood, for the situation to change. But the situation is such, the work which the Good Lord has put into our hands is such, that in face of this darkness of Rome, this stubbornness of the Roman authorities in their error, this refusal to return to the Truth and to Tradition, it seems to me that the Good Lord is asking that the Church continue . . .
~Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

"This prelate and father will act as a counterweight to the lukewarmness of souls consecrated in the priesthood and in religion.” ~Our Lady of Good Success, Quito, Ecuador, 1634

"Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.”

"The Church will be eclipsed, the world will be in consternation. But there are Enoch and Elias, they will preach with the power of God, and men of good will will believe in God, and many souls will be comforted; they will make great progress by virtue of the Holy Ghost and will condemn the diabolical errors of the Antichrist.”
~Our Lady of La Salette
The message was approved by the Catholic Church and was published in its entirety at Lecce. France, on November 15, 1979 with the imprimatur of Bishop Zola.

The following Secret was given by Our Lady to two children, Mélanie Calvat and Maximin Giraud, on September 19, 1846, while they were tending cattle on the mountain of La Salette, France.

-- During this time, Our Lady foretold, "the secular Clergy will leave much to be desired because priests will become careless in their sacred duties. Lacking the divine compass, they will stray from the road traced by God for the priestly ministry, and they will become attached to wealth and riches, which they will unduly strive to obtain. How the Church will suffer during this dark night! Lacking a Prelate and Father to guide them with paternal love, gentleness, strength, wisdom and prudence, many priests will lose their spirit, placing their souls in great danger. This will mark the arrival of My hour." Our Lady of Good Success to Mother Marianna de Jesus Torres, February 2, 1634, Feast of the Purification, Quito, Ecuador

"I will finish with my testament. I would like that it be an echo of the testament of Our Lord: a New and Eternal Testament...the heritage that Jesus Christ gave us, His Sacrifice, His Blood, His Cross. I will say the same for you: for the glory of the Holy Trinity, for love of the Church, for the salvation of the world: keep the Holy Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ! Keep the Mass forever!"
~Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, 23rd September 1979


“Making use of persons in positions of authority, the devil will assiduously try to destroy the Sacrament of Confession... The same will happen with Holy Communion. Alas! How deeply I grieve upon manifesting to you the many and horrible sacrileges – both public and also secret – that will occur from profanations of the Holy Eucharist! Often during this epoch, the enemies of Jesus Christ, instigated by the demon, will steal consecrated hosts from the churches so that they might profane the Eucharistic Species. My Most Holy Son will see Himself cast upon the ground and trampled upon by irreverent feet.” Our Lady of Good Success to Mother Marianna de Jesus Torres, January 20, 1610, Quito, Ecuador

-- Our Lady prophesied that at the end of the 19th Century and especially in the 20th Century that Satan would reign almost completely by the means of the Masonic sect. The Queen of Heaven told Mother Mariana that this battle would reach its most acute stage because of various unfaithful religious, who, "under the appearance of virtue and bad-spirited zeal, would turn upon Religion, who nourished them at her breast." "During this time," she continued, "insomuch as this poor country will lack the Christian spirit, the Sacrament of Extreme Unction will be little esteemed. Many people will die without receiving it – either because of the negligence of their families or their false sentimentality that tries to protect the sick from seeing the gravity of their situations, or because they will rebel against the spirit of the Catholic Church, impelled by the malice of the devil. Thus many souls will be deprived of innumerable graces, consolations and the strength they need to make that great leap from time to eternity..." "As for the Sacrament of Matrimony, which symbolizes the union of Christ with His Church, it will be attacked and profaned in the fullest sense of the word. Masonry, which will then be in power, will enact iniquitous laws with the objective of doing away with this Sacrament, making it easy for everyone to live in sin, encouraging the procreation of illegitimate children born without the blessing of the Church. The Christian spirit will rapidly decay, extinguishing the precious light of Faith until if reaches the point that there will be an almost total and general corruption of customs. The effects of secular education will increase, which will be one reason for the lack of priestly and religious vocations..."

"Also perverse is the shocking theory that it makes no difference to which religion one belongs [religious indifferentism], a theory that is greatly at variance even with reason. By means of this theory, those crafty men remove all distinction between virtue and vice, truth and error, honorable and vile action. They pretend that men can gain eternal salvation by the practice of any religion, as if there could ever be any sharing between justice and iniquity, any collaboration between light and darkness, or any agreement between Christ and Bhelial."
~ from Pope Pius IX's Encyclical Qui Pluribus:

-- Our Lord: "For in all times I have need of valiant souls to save My Church and the prevaricating world." Our Lord also made Mother Mariana understand more clearly than ever before that devotion to the Passion, to the Blessed Sacrament and to Our Lady constitutes the support and mainstay of religious communities.

"Know, moreover, that Divine Justice releases terrible chastisements on entire nations, not only for the sins of the people, but for those of priests and religious persons. For the latter are called, by the perfection of their state, to be the salt of the earth, the masters of truth, and the deflectors of Divine Wrath. Straying from their divine mission, they degrade themselves in such a way that, before the eyes of God they quicken the rigor of the punishments..." (During the 41 years of St. John Vianney's ministry at Ars, France, no damage was ever done by storms.)

He also assured Mother Mariana that He was greatly pleased by those souls who take upon themselves the sublime task of suffering for the sanctification of the Clergy by means of their prayers, sacrifices and penances, and promised such souls a special glory in Heaven.

The ingratitude and betrayal of religious souls, so dear to His Heart, would compel Him "to let My Justice fall upon My beloved cloisters – and even over cities – when those so near to Me who belong to Me reject My spirit, abandoning Me alone in Tabernacles, rarely remembering that I live there especially for love of them, even more than for the rest of the faithful." Imprudent admissions and internal abuses permitted by superiors are the ruin of communities. "Such communities can only be preserved – while they exist – at the cost of much penance, humiliations and daily and solid practice of the religious who are good. Woe to these corrupt members during those times of calamity! Weep for them, beloved spouse, and implore that the time of so much suffering will be shortened." He warned her that the Chastisement would be severe for those religious who squandered the many graces with their pride and vainglory to secure positions of power and rank and He especially condemned the lukewarm religious.

Mother Mariana saw that the greatest interior torments of the Sacred Heart were the ingratitude and indifference of those souls who, chosen among millions to be His spouses and ministers, left Him in the most absolute solitude. And this despite the fact that in the Holy Sacrament, He would live under the same roof with His spouses and come into the hand of His priests at the simple call of their voices at the most solemn moment of the Consecration.
~ From a Historical Account of Our Lady of Good Success and the Admirable Life of Mother Marianna de Jesus Torres

Joe B said...

Let's see - you think SSPX would have more power in a church structure dominated by such orders as Legionaries of Christ and Opus Dei. Not so fast. The SSPX grows steadily stronger while those who try to change our traditions grow weaker, and they will grow weaker still and it will be even more obvious, driving even more good souls to Pax SSPX. It shouldn't be long now before even open warfare breaks out between the corrupt remaining Novus Ordo cults. Maybe when they have to choose a pope. Maybe when the Mohammedan comes to power in Rome. I can see the possibility of things getting more confusing than when we thought we had three popes. In other words, SSPX's need for a disciplinary firewall with Rome isn't getting smaller, it's about to get so big even the pope may have to ask for political asylum from SSPX to survive. Better wait and watch for a little while longer. Be patient. Terrible things are near.

Anonymous said...

Saw this new article posted to Angelqueen:
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1318241/1878315

Jordanes said...

Consider, my “charitable” Novus Ordinarians, that the Great Apostasy may be here and that you may be defending the indefensible — operation of error, abomination of desolation, and defection from Tradition.

If it has arrived, it will be made known through the Magisterium in short order. We won't have to rely on unapproved private revelations that were placed on the Index and never removed.

Zorayda Nevada said...

Ione said:

"Like a good American all I can do is say that if he won't sign no longer will I be putting my posterior in a SSPX pew or my contributions in an SSPX basket. I am not a sedevacantist or a Lutheran or an Ultrajectine, and Fellay needs to remember that."

Your problem is Ione, is that you are an Americanist. Let's cut to the chase. You are NOT an SSPX supporter and you obviously have no trust in Bishop Fellay or the other SSPX bishops. If you're just in it for yourself, then just make an exit NOW. Anyway, you have your Motu Mass. Just go and support your local diocese. Stop being the instigator and backbiter who sits in the pew and criticizes the SSPX priests and bishops. I know your kind and sadly you are everywhere.

If you have an inkling of the history of the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre, you would be on your guard too. His Excellency, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre would not have given in to these conditions.

"What should we do . . . weep, without a doubt. . . we mourn and our heart is broken and sorrowful. We would give our life, our blood, for the situation to change. But the situation is such, the work which the Good Lord has put into our hands is such, that in face of this darkness of Rome, this stubbornness of the Roman authorities in their error, this refusal to return to the Truth and to Tradition, it seems to me that the Good Lord is asking that the Church continue . . . "
~Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

"This prelate and father will act as a counterweight to the lukewarmness of souls consecrated in the priesthood and in religion.” ~Our Lady of Good Success, Quito, Ecuador, 1634

Anonymous said...

Your problem Zorayda is that your more SSPX than Catholic and more concerned with private revelation than with the living magisterium.

True sons of Lefebvre are neither.

Stanislas Wojtiech said...

There is no "living" Magisterium in the sense of a changing and innovating "magisterium". It cannot be, as it is condemned by Pastor Aeternus, which teaches that the Holy Ghost was promised to explain only apostolic Tradition and not to implement new teachings or "new understanding contradicting former dogmata".

We are Roman-Catholics, not Roman-neomodernists, not Roman-protestants, nor Old-Catholics.

SassyDefiance89 said...

To: those poor souls who up to now are ignorant of what the true fight is all about... here is it in a gist: SSPX does NOT crave for any recognition or prestige or any form or material reward be it in any form or shape of "prelature" or BRIBERY!!! The main reason they were established was for the "PRESERVATION IN PERPETUITY of DOCTRINAL PURITY - a surrogate custodian so to speak till the ROMAN MODERNISTS aka as ROMAN ROGUES have (by God's grace) fully recovered their MORALLY CORRECT right use of their reason!!! COMPRENDE?????????

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did NOT offer himself or volunteer for this mission... he was forced (so to speak) and thrown into the ROMAN COLLOSEUM -- now if you ask why? -- my reply is - you need to ask God that question yourself when you meet him face to face on judgment day...

What is so hard to understand about what this "VILLAINOUSLY DEFIANT SCHISMATIC EX-COMMUNICATE TEENAGE PAPIST" had just posted above???

And if you have "issues" with what I have posted? TOUGH! THEY are your personal issues alone!!! Take it up with the Triune God on your personal judgment and or on general judgment!!! END of Discussion!!!

Ain't gonna reply to any more whinny protestations!!!

But this uncalled for provocation and "threat/ insult" on the part of the Roman Rogues sure makes for interesting and "intriguing" fodder for all of us who loves to argue, voice out our opinion, release our frustration and be heard!!!

God Bless... and giving you all a virtual " friendly fist bump"... take care and have a great and safe summer...

28 June, 2008 15:28

Ione said...

Nevada:

So your deciding who is truly SSPX or not? You sound like the current leadership of the SSPX deciding who is Catholic and who is not.

To say Lefebvre wouldn't have accepted these terms in ludicrious.

If I am an Americanist then Bishop Fellay is certainly a Gallicanist.

Since your such a fan of selectively quoting the late Archbishop let me ask his successors if they would heed the Archbishop's words:

"when we do the will of God and not our own, the good Lord blesses us. And in the end we become attached to the task which God has given us." -Lefebvre (little story of my long life, pg 86)