Rorate Caeli

For the Record

...those conditions are not proposed to the Lefebvrists [sic] in general, but actually to their Superior, that is, Fellay himself. Who, in the discussions, displays a will to dialogue, but afterwards writes and undersigns very harsh attacks against the Pope. The five conditions are thus a prior step before reaching the cancellation of the excommunication. [...]
(2) Paolo Luigi Rodari on calls to the headquarters of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX):
[...]
A very small indication regarding the fact that, probably, the Lefebvrists [sic] will accept the conditions proposed by the Holy See (or that they are at least seriously thinking about them) came to me by way of a phone call I made yesterday to Ecône, headquarters of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X. As in other occasions in the past, I asked to speak with Bishop Fellay, the Superior of the Fraternity. In the past, particularly when he wished to respond that there was no news regarding their re-entry in the Church, he answered me quickly. Yesterday, instead, he made it known that there was nothing to say. Perhaps because he is seriously thinking about accepting the Vatican conditions but does wish to say so?

63 comments:

Anonymous said...

Continuing the discussion re SSPX:

Zuhlsdorf also notes: "The problem – and it was a grave grave grave one – was this: What will happen decades in the future when, after decades of really lousy theological training in seminaries and squishy theology in universities, et al., bishops do not have a clear idea of who a priest is or what he does in the Church? Can he possibly have the intention to do what the Church wants if those things are not explicitly laid out in the rites? That would call into serious question the validly of the ordination. The ordaining bishop would not have the proper intention to ordain as the Church intends."

In view of the enormous DISSENT of the USCCB (and others), from perennial Magisterium, every reasonable man doubts that they could form the MINIMAL required intent, "to do as the Church intends."

To confect a sacrament requires a valid minister, valid matter, valid form, and valid intent.

The defectors in the pulpits and hierachy have tampered with every requirement for valid sacraments.

Daniel 9:27 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.

No Sede Here said...

Anonumous, please change your name to a more appropriate acronym - Sede for example.

Cerimoniere said...

Hmm. I'm not sure this presents a correct understanding of sacramental intention. One does not have to have a correct understanding of what a sacrament is, or believe in it personally, in order to confer it validly. We know that pagans can validly baptize, for example. The only intention necessary is a very general one: to do whatever the Church intends should be done. This can be usually be manifested simply be using an approved sacramental rite, unless a positive contrary intention appears.

Tornielli's post about to whom the conditions are addressed is interesting. Is any meeting of the FSSPX taking place to discuss the conditions; a chapter, meeting of the Council, just of the Bishops? If they were an immediate precondition to lifting the excommunications, then one would expect they would be addressed to all the bishops. Perhaps it's recognized that Bishop Fellay negotiates on behalf of the Fraternity, and is a requirement for continuing negotations in the light of his own recent public remarks.

Paul Haley said...

I beg you, I plead with you all to watch the rhetoric and what moves you think the Cardinal or Bishop Fellay might make. Let's not turn this into a fishbowl and short-circuit any relationship between the principals. For myself, I will not comment on this matter anymore. Cardinal Hoyos and Bishop Fellay have things well in hand and I trust them to be true to their consciences and to the good of Holy Mother Church.

Dan Hunter said...

"The only intention necessary is a very general one: to do whatever the Church intends should be done. This can be usually be manifested simply be using an approved sacramental rite, unless a positive contrary intention appears"

I have actually witnessed priests changing the words of Consecration,in the Novus Ordo Mass, from, "This is my Body", to "This means my body".
There is much permission for innovation, and heterodox teaching in the seminaries and universities, that it doesnt matter if the priest does not believe in the reality of the sacrament but still uses the correct form, for there are priests that are not using the correct form.

I also have been "absolved" with made up words in the confessional.

"God forgives you of your sins, and I bless you in the name of the Father...etc."
This happened to me twice.

There are also priests that will refuse to absolve you because they told me that a mortal sin is not a mortal sin it is only sometimes venial.
I had to beg for absolution.
This also happened to me twice and I am sure it happens all the time.

God bless

New Catholic said...

Cerimoniere: It is almost certain that all four Bishops already are in Ecône or will be in time for this week's ordinations (it is their yearly custom to be present in Ecône for the ordinations of late June).

Anonymous said...

alsaticus :
Bp Fellay seems to have said "no" in a June 20 homily. He said the right time has not yet come without any specific mention to the 5 requisites but ...
I doubt it is a move that is going to be well received by SSPX, although it is the nearly permanent position of the Cardinal president of PCED.

The best we can have would be Bp Fellay asking for clarifications on certain words and some delay.
I also understand that Rome, especially cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, is eager to have one good will gesture from SSPX after the steps forward made by the pope.

Woody Jones said...

From Paolo Rodari:

"i lefebvriani"

Sounds like title of an opera.

GCC Catholic said...

Anonymous (the first one),

I encourage you and all readers to re-read Fr. Zuhlsdorf's entry.

The problem that he was referring to was in regards to the rites as promulgated by Paul VI. These issues were initially brought to the forefront by the late Michael Davies and remedied by the addition of specific statements in the rites themselves.

I quote:

"John Paul II reworked the rites in 1990, reinserting into the rites some elements that had been removed in order to make clear what the rites were doing. I was probably the first man in the world ordained with that book as a deacon by Augustin Card. Mayer, now the oldest cardinal in the world, and then later I was ordained a priest with it by the same John Paul II.

However, even though Mr. Davies – now sorely missed – said that Paul VI’s rites were flawed, and I think he was right – they were not so flawed as to be invalid.

The idea is this. The bishops who were doing the ordaining were trained in an era in which what they were doing was very clear. They knew what the rite intended to confer even if that wasn’t manifestly expressed in its entirely in the rite. The rite was sufficiently clear, if not completely, and the Church and bishops knew what they were doing."
(emphasis mine)

You may think that the American hierarchy is in dissent, but there certainly are reasonable men (Fr. Z included) who do not doubt that they can form the minimal intention of doing as the Church does.

The problem that Fr. Z was explaining (that you quoted) was what would happen if the issue were not remedied. It has been remedied (even if only in to a bare minimum).

Anonymous said...

Excuse me, but what does Fr. Z.'s comments on the Sacrament of Orders have to do with this post here at Rorate Caeli. It seems that those who wish to comment on that subject should do so where it is relevant, i.e. at Fr. Z.'s blog. Here it is a distraction from the subject at hand. May I suggest to the webmaster that he might want to delete the irrelevant discussion? For whatever that's worth. ~Tobias

Jim said...

No matter what the outcome of Bishop Fellay's decision, next Sunday morning my family and I will be assisting at Mass at the SSPX chapel in Eddystone, PA. as we do every Sunday. Having said that, I do wish that Bishop Fellay and the other three bishops would be more careful in how they speak about the pope. Granted we may disagree with the pope in many important issues, but he is still the Vicar of Christ and should be addressed with basic respect. In other words, we can agree to disagree without being uncharitable. I hope that Bishop Fellay keeps this in mind before making his decision.

Anonymous said...

On one of the other comments here:

As superior-general of the S.S.P.X, Bishop Fellay has the warrant and the authority to negotiate on behalf of the S.S.P.X. While agreements on juridical structures and agreements regarding doctrine will, for practical reasons, require consultation with and probabaly even agreement from the other bishops, it is Bishop Fellay alone who speaks on behalf of the Society.

In the past, one superior-general of the Society was not even a bishop. At that time, Fr. Schmidberger was superior-general and the bishops took orders from him.

The Society has a constitution and a system of authority. Clearly, Bishop Fellay as the authority and right to sign these five points on behalf of the entire S.S.P.X. It is probable that he will not do so at least without consulting the other bishops and the other superiors of the Society.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Perkins is right. At one time the Superior General was not even a Bishop.

Archbishop Lefebvre did this precisely to avoid setting up a Counter Magisterium, as he wanted to ensure that there was no claim of jurisdiction.

Now that SSPX feels free to issue annulments, and rule on the validity of confirmations and ordinations, it seems clear to me that they claim a jurisdiction.

The five preconditions would pose no problems for those who did not claim some kind of jurisdiction.

GCC Catholic said...

Tobias,

Why it came up in the first place I do not know. However, I was defending the twisted interpretation of what Fr. Z said.

As to why it is relevant to the post at hand: Accepting this offer is to at least tacitly accept the validity of ALL of the Sacraments as offered in the Ordinary Form. This will force the SSPX to a position where they may explain why the newer rites are lacking and deficient, and even why they should be supplanted by the older forms, but where they may not say that the newer Sacraments are invalid.

If Bishop Fellay agrees to this, those who care to hold such positions (like anonymous I) will have to leave the SSPX and go elsewhere or will have to speak on behalf of their own opinion, not that of the SSPX.

If he does not agree, the self-proclaimed role of SSPX as "counter-Magisterium" will be obvious to all.

P.S. Use a handle instead of posting as "anonymous" - it's far less confusing

a catholic that came back said...

Whether the SSPX accepts or not really is not the issue. Those who attend the Latin Mass and those who attend NO cannot get on the same page. All I know is that the NO mass has changed(evolved) for the worse in the past 25 years since I was a child and an Altar Boy. How much more can you water down our Catholic traditions? My return as a practicing Catholic has been challenging to say the least with all the infighting and finger pointing amongst us. SSPX might be in error in the way they have handled themselves, but I do understand the why of what they have done. I attend both NO and Latin masses, and I have been to some parishes were it is almost a joke on how the NO is used. With Priests who add words and talk in the middle of mass among the use of Altar Girls. I pray that SSPX does come back officially in the fold, we need all the help we can to right the ship. The Vicar of Christ is slowly trying to fix some of the issues that have come along these past 40 years.

Anonymous said...

The SSPX has put itself against the wall.

Stéphane said...

Hum, with respect I'd like to express skepticism about this report. First, Ecône is not the headquarters of the SSPX, it is Menzingen (near Zurich). And the point is that Bishop Fellay, as Superior General, resides at Menzingen, not Ecône. Yet, Paolo Luigi Rodari says he called him in Ecône, not just the other day (granted, he may have happened to be at Ecône then) but also "in other occasions in the past" (I checked the Italian original: "come altre volte in passato").
So, how reliable is this report?...

Anonymous said...

GCC & Cerimoniere, you both missed the point of my ("first anonymous") post. Let me be more explicit.

Zuhlsdorf recognizes the problem, potential or real, of valid intention. We all know the minimal intent - intending to do as the Church intends (yes, even the pagan must intend to do as the Church intends for baptism by a pagan to be valid).

The problem is this: The pervasive dissent and disobedience among priests and prelates ---an objective fact--- causes a REASONABLE man to question whether such priests and prelates have even the minimal intent of intending to do what the Church intends. Why would men who do not intend to teach Catholic doctrine or obey Catholic discipline intend "to do what the Church intends" when it comes to the sacraments???

In the face of REASONABLE doubt, what is a Catholic to do?

Flee to CERTAINTY! Flee to priests and prelates who teach Catholic doctrine and assist at a Mass in which there is NO ROOM FOR DOUBT about the minister, the matter, the form, or the intent!

Yes, in the face of reasonable doubt, a Catholic must choose certainty.

There is nothing "sede" about that position.

Signed,
"first anonymous"

Anonymous said...

On a side note: when is the last time the Holy See required the liberal revisionist congregations like the Jesuits to sign documents like this one? Traditionalists still "get no respect" in the contemporary Church, lip service at best.

Anonymous said...

In response to this Tornielli person,

Suppose that I make a solemn written promise to argue without polemics. Now, will this not bind me whether I write on my own behalf or on behalf of an organisation I have a right to represent? Duh!

Obviously, this agreement will bind the entire S.S.P.X at least as long as Bishop Fellay represents it. However, this is not a problem for the Society hardliners. First of all, they can always back out later, claiming that they had never intended to be bound by these five points. Secondly, these five points, in themselves, only bind the Society to behave in a diplomatic and proportioned way. In fact, it is all only a prelude to a benefit for the Society bishops. Rome cannot grant them their second pre-condition without receiving in return at least the appearance of give-and-take. To do so would leave the Pope open to attacks from the liberal prelates.

Once the declarations of excommunication have been withdrawn, Bishop Fellay will not make any agreements with the Holy See without first consulting the other bishops and superiors as usual. He wants to keep the Society together.

Rome wants this signature so that she can justify to all her liberal prelates a coming decision to withdraw the penalties and, perhaps, declare a conditional legitimacy for the Society Masses to fulfil the Sunday obligation. The condition would be that the Society continue to bargain in good faith in discussions over doctrine.

P.K.T.P.

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

First Anonymous said: The pervasive dissent and disobedience among priests and prelates ---an objective fact--- causes a REASONABLE man to question whether such priests and prelates have even the minimal intent of intending to do what the Church intends. Why would men who do not intend to teach Catholic doctrine or obey Catholic discipline intend "to do what the Church intends" when it comes to the sacraments???

I have to disagree that the objection you raise is reasonable. Whether or not a particular priest has valid intent cannot be determined by noticing that he is a dissenter or is disobedient. That would be quite irrational, and if one were to take that suspicious approach, then one could never, ever be sure that a sacrament were valid. One may only reasonably doubt a given priest’s intent if he himself gives one good reason to doubt it. Otherwise there would hardly have been any sense or justice in the Church insisting that, for example, the heresiarch Peter Waldo sign a statement that he believed the sacraments are valid even when celebrated by priests who sin – dissent and disobedience are sins, after all.

Phillip said...

Anonymous I is on the right track. Although the 4 bishops committed a grave act by defying the Supreme Pontiff, what about the countless others who committed far greater crimes that were basically unnoticed for years. Those who ignored the sex scandals. Those who first started using altar girls, not saying the black and doing the red. Those like Mahoney and those Jesuits who butchered our tradition and taught false things. I mean, I know that schism and disobedience is serious, but our Lord also said that a person that strayed people away should not even be born.

Anonymous said...

Bp. Fellay should accept the five points as it is he who has meetings with Roman "higher-ups", gets his picture taken with Benedict XVI, insists that the Society never left the Church and recognizes the legitimacy of Benedict's pontificate (vs. the sede vacantist). Yet after all this he (and the Society in general) go about life as if they are the Catholic Church. They no more want to give up their comfy independence than the Greek schismatics! Sorry if this sounds harsh, but reality is sometimes harsh! Not to accept the five points will only prove my point. There is no other way out for the Society now. Rome has called Bp. Fellay's bluff.

New Catholic said...

Stéphane,

You are correct, yet I assumed that it was either a mistake by Mr Rodari (who has in fact interviewed Bishop Fellay repeatedly in the past for Il Riformista - for instance, read here) or the Bishop is in fact in Ecône at the moment for the ordinations.

GCC Catholic said...

anonymous,

The problem is this: The pervasive dissent and disobedience among priests and prelates ---an objective fact--- causes a REASONABLE man to question whether such priests and prelates have even the minimal intent of intending to do what the Church intends. Why would men who do not intend to teach Catholic doctrine or obey Catholic discipline intend "to do what the Church intends" when it comes to the sacraments???

Working under the assumption that the Holy Father is not dissenting from the perennial Magisterium, this argument can cut both directions and can ultimately be used against the SSPX. This is the reason why this document is so important. If SSPX refuses it, this demonstrates that they have chosen to place themselves above the perennial Magisterium and the current Holy Father, who is Supreme Legislator. Doing so is pervasive dissent and disobedience as well; in this case, simply of a different flavor.

If the SSPX chooses their flavor of dissent, they are no more trustworthy than the liberals.

There is no certainty of Catholicity when outside of the Church. Of course, where the SSPX lies is still debated, but this agreement forces the issue to be clarified. Let us hope they move closer to the Church and remedy their irregular status. They are much more useful to Tradition there.

Anonymous said...

What seems tendentions about these conditions is

1) There is no promise that the fundamental problems caused by the Conciliar documents and the aggiornamento will be discussed or admitted

2) There is no affirmation of the intention of the Roman Pontiff to correct these problems

3) There is not affirmation of the right of subjects, when not bound, to object to bad measures, etc..

Hence these 5 conditions do not seem to be a honest offer for reconciliation, rather, they seem to be a "shut up or else" ultimatum, as many are taking them to be.

Even with the Greek Schismatics at Lyons and Ferrara, there were no such preconditions for negotiations.

Ergo, does the Holy Father want reconciliation, or merely a pretext for denying one? This is the impression given by the Cardinal's 5 points.

A good catholic would doubt, therefore, that such an ultimatum comes from the Pope; just as the late Archbishop doubted that Pope Paul VI was involved in the schemes to trump up charges against him and his seminary back in the 70's.

But Pete Vere in his thesis established with documents that Paul VI did act in such a manner, even if he did not admit the Holy Father was malicious.

Let us pray that H. H. Benedict XVI is a greater man, and shows those who believe what the Church has always taught the same respect he showed the many dissidents whom he dealt with in the CDF during the previous pontification.

I don't think this ultimatum does that.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo

P.S. For the validity of a sacrament the minister must intend to do what the Church does; he does not have to intend to do what the Church intends...Sacramental Theology 101.

Anonymous said...

I pray Bishop Fellay will agree to the conditions. Thinking ahead, there will have to be a pope who believes Our Lady of Fatima; that she awaits the consecration of Russia. Recalling the consecration done by the four SSPX bishops at Fatima some years ago, I don't know who else in the hierarchy still takes our Lord's request seriously, if not the SSPX bishops. They must regularize their situation if they are to play a greater role in the restoration of the Church.

We have the example of Sr. Lucia who remained in visible, canonical union with Rome. There is a teaching example for our times.

Are the SSPX bishops willing to be dry martyrs 'within' the Church? Show us how! Be an example of fidelity to Christ, come what may, and we will follow.

M.A.

schoolman said...

Rome is simply acting to ensure that the work of reconciliation continue on sound footing—with due respect and charity. I have no doubt that Rome has been hesitating to reconcile factions of the SSPX —pending the fruit of this ongoing diologue. On the other hand, if the basis for fruitful diologue is non existent—then Rome must proceed in all good faith with those who are asking for full reconciliation with the Holy See. The date or “ultimatum” is a matter of justice for those within the SSPX (or affiliated) who truly desire a resolution.

Anonymous said...

Dear Fellow Readers,

May I have your indulgence and petitions you to commit some time in these few days of June to offer your personal prayers and some real sacrifices for the Church with the present administration in it with the Society of Archbishop Lefebvre.
The moment is delicate and potential to move in either direction.
Our prayers and acts of fasting done in a spirit of penance and preferably in state of grace to be efficatious are SPIRITUAL POWERS that matter, for we have the Lord Jesus' word for it.
Just one observation:
Notice the words in the 5 conditions: EACH of the FIVE conditions is asking for only a "commitment", NOT TO BE SHUT UP, but to be committed to charity, which is not constrained to cover up truths, or concerns, read Abbe George de Nantes' acerbic critiques of the popes, which were all done in charity and the Vatican could not respond to them, nor could they punish him for he spoke the truth to the face of the pope in each instance, this new proposal asking for such commitment to charity is for a spiritual intent and decision of attitude. Please, Bishop Fellay just asnwer: "I will commit to charity and truth." That is all he needs to say for now before the end of the month. More:
In the 3rd condition: "on the Magisterium superior to that of the Pope." This is a very unclear and misleading concept. No SSPX superior ever claimed such, BUT what the problem has been and remains is that SSPX rightly believes in its deepest faith that the popes had refused to adhere to the demands of the Magisterium when they refused to speak clearly, when they refused to have recourse to this most critical power and office. THE SSPX and the Church suffers because of this papal neglect. All of us need the Light of Christ to shine unencumbered to guide the faithful and be the light for the world. The Magisterium is the Light of Christ, divine authority, it belongs to God and is shared and MUST be excercised without neglect by Peter's successors that protects the faith of the Church.
THIS IS THE REASON FOR THE EXISTENCE AND DISSENT OF THE SSPX. MORE: Not only Bishop Fellay, nor only the SSPX, but every and ANY Baptised member of Christ's Church has the right to question and can voice their concerns, observations in regards to faith and morals even directly to the Pope. This is CANON LAW! So, Bishop Fellay's concerns cannot be silenced but must be faced and resolved by the Holy See for the good of millions of faithful, for 43 years the Church continues to suffer from voises and disturbances that do not come from the legitimate MAGISTERIUM Christ set up. Questioning the garbled and confusing ambiguities is not a rebellion to the Magisterium, nor an alternative Magisterium, for ther is only ONE, covered up. SSPX and Bishop Fellay and millions of the faithful are seeking the clear and authoritative voice and light of the perennial Magisterium, that is lacking for it had been abandoned beginning with Pope John XXIII since his opening speech to "Vatican II." So, dear fellow readers, let us pray that Bishop Fellay does not fear to respond to what the 5 conditions propose and that he reads it clearly and does not read more into it than its limited scope. I my view: This new proposal by the Cardinal for His Excellency Bishop Fellay is a beginning first step to form a position or a working attitude toward eventually to mutually formulate an aggreement, that will requires dialogue, a mutual questioning of the other side. To presume that Vatican II is the clear voice of the legitimate Magisterium and that it is necessary for salvation, which is not, and to expect the Society or anyone else to accept it, is unrealistic, harmful and anti-Christian. The Vatican needs to recognize and face the crisis Vatican II generated by its failure in her mandate to protect the faith, the Ligth of Christ, clear failure to excercise the Church's divine mandate to pasture the flock. Such horror, and failure to neglect the necessary and critical excercise of the power of the Magisterium is the direct cause and reason for the Society of Archbishop Lefebvre to come into existence, which latter is a manifest act of the protective Divine Providence, which as time goes on the Vatican will more and more will come to accept, thus returning to what it had abandoned that resulted in the ruin of the faith for millions. Lord save us for without You we shall all perish! "Pray, and pray and do penance!" Dear Reader, that is what the angel cried in the vision of Sister Lucia of Fatima. Pray and do penance.
Fr Stephen, o.f.m.

Anonymous said...

"..read Abbe George de Nantes' acerbic critiques of the popes, which were all done in charity and the Vatican could not respond to them, nor could they punish him for he spoke the truth to the face of the pope in each instance,.."

Father,

The Abbe is the one who came to mind when I referred to a "dry martyrdom" in my post above.

Thank you, NC for not deleting posts mentioning the dear Abbe.

M.A.

Anonymous said...

to Mr. Perkins
from Alsaticus

Bp Fellay naturally is speaking for the whole SSPX but the excommunications have been imposed on the consecrated bishops, not as members of the Society, but as persons for a specific reason.
I suspect Rome is setting these conditions for the 4 bishops and if one or another bishop disagrees, it cannot work.
Excommunication is striking only the 4 bishops and nobody else, so far, within the SSPX, as cardinal Hoyos repeatedly said. So these 5 conditions are affecting the SSPX as a whole - like any ecclesial body which isn't supposed to be disrespectful to the pope or, like the Dutch Dominicans, to pretend to be a superior magisterium than the pope's - but I feel they are also specifically aimed at the 4 excommunicated bishops.

Athanasius said...

JORDANES, for a change please be so kind as to read carefully and stop jousting at straw men of your own fabrication.

My “first anonymous” and follow-up posts IN NO WAY require reading the priest’s heart, soul, or mind –only considering that a PUBLIC CONTUMACIOUS DISSENTER himself raises DOUBT about the likelihood that such a public contumacious dissenter MIGHT not meet the minimal intention required to confect the sacrament.

You joust at a strawman in noting “sacraments are valid even when celebrated by priests who sin – dissent and disobedience are sins, after all.” Nobody suggested that priestly sin invalidated the Mass; only that public contumacious dissenters cause reasonable doubt that they have the minimal intent required to confect the sacrament.

There’s nothing “irrational” in doubting that a priest that just taught “homosexuality is a gift from God that we must celebrate” MIGHT not intend to do as the Church does. On the contrary, it is irrational to presume that such a priest does intend to do as the Church does.

DAN HUNTER described several experiences that would ---and should---raise reasonable doubt.

Athanasius said...

“For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth.” Vatican Council, Session IV Dogmatic Constitution I on the Church of Christ Chap. 4 (July 18, 1870) in Denziger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, §1836

So, when any Pope teaches "new doctrine" without roots in Apostolic Tradition, he can certainly expect just challenges "to the face" [Galatians 2:11] from even the laity.

Only Popolators teach otherwise.

Thank God for the SSPX bishops!

a catholic that came back said...

To quote GCC Catholic; "There is no certainty of Catholicity when outside of the Church. Of course, where the SSPX lies is still debated, but this agreement forces the issue to be clarified. Let us hope they move closer to the Church and remedy their irregular status. They are much more useful to Tradition there."

I could not have said it better myself. Which leads to the point that if the SSPX does not come closer and within, it is still up to all of us to continue the road that Pope Benedict has started in reforming the reform. Now that the Ordinary and Extra Ordinary masses are valid in all parishes (even with those kicking and screaming). Those of us who want a return to a more traditional richer Church can now attend Latin Mass. And the Ordinary can slowly be brought back to a proper pious sacrifice than what has been practiced these past 20 years.

Jordanes said...

JORDANES, for a change please be so kind as to read carefully and stop jousting at straw men of your own fabrication.

"For a change," eh? In the future I will expect you to exercise better manners.

My “first anonymous” and follow-up posts IN NO WAY require reading the priest’s heart, soul, or mind –only considering that a PUBLIC CONTUMACIOUS DISSENTER himself raises DOUBT about the likelihood that such a public contumacious dissenter MIGHT not meet the minimal intention required to confect the sacrament.

Yes, you said that. And I still disagree that it is reasonable to question whether or not there has been a valid confection just because the priest has publicly dissented in some area not directly related to the Church's sacramental teaching, or just because the priest is disobedient to the Church. Your suggestion would require us to wonder if SSPX or SSPV priests validly confect the Blessed Sacrament.

You joust at a strawman in noting “sacraments are valid even when celebrated by priests who sin – dissent and disobedience are sins, after all.” Nobody suggested that priestly sin invalidated the Mass; only that public contumacious dissenters cause reasonable doubt that they have the minimal intent required to confect the sacrament.

It's not a straw man, Ryan. You're just missing my point, which is that since Catholic believe that priests who sin can validly confect the sacrament, and since dissent and disobedience are sins, it follows that we should not question the validity of their sacraments without good cause. Dissent and disobedience are not of themselves good enough reason.

There’s nothing “irrational” in doubting that a priest that just taught “homosexuality is a gift from God that we must celebrate” MIGHT not intend to do as the Church does. On the contrary, it is irrational to presume that such a priest does intend to do as the Church does.

Sorry, I have to disagree. Dissenting from the divinely-revealed truth about homosexuality gives us no reason to question the priest's intent. If he tinkered with the words of the Mass, if he ad-libbed the consecration, then we'd have reason to wonder about his intent. But if he sticks to the form and the matter, and has never voiced any dissent from the Catholic doctrines of the Real Presence and transubstantiation and Holy Orders and apostolic succession, his heretical denial of what the Church believes about homosexuality would not be enough to raise questions about the validity of his Eucharists.

DAN HUNTER described several experiences that would ---and should---raise reasonable doubt.

HIs examples have to do with tampering with form and matter, and give clear evidence or at least a strong indication of a lack of intent. Your example does not.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes,

Your argument is fallacious. Saying:

The sacraments of a sinful priest can be valid. Sinfulness, in itself, is not a bar to sacramental validity.

Is not the same as saying:

All sinful priests have valid sacraments.

By your argument, a priest could have a valid Mass by saying the words of consecration over an apple, as such a modification of matter and form that would surely be sinful as well!

Clearly, have the wrong intention is logically distinct from being sinful. And it obviously has plenty of meaning to say that sinful ministers can validly adminster sacraments, even though certain sins, such as simulating a Mass for instance, could indeed invalidate a Sacrament.

Anonymous said...

"You're just missing my point, which is that since Catholic believe that priests who sin can validly confect the sacrament, and since dissent and disobedience are sins, it follows that we should not question the validity of their sacraments without good cause."

Jordanes,

That's a bad argument. No one is claiming that the sinfulness of an action is what bars sacramental validity. The claim is that certainly objectively sinful actions may imply a lack of valid sacramental intention.

The correct response isn't to dispense with sacramental intention, as you're doing, but simply to say that a valid intention is generally compatible with dissent and disobedience, whether they're sinful or not, as long as the intention is there of doing what the Church does.

Generally, isn't sticking to the liturgical books generally a sign of doing what the Church does? But if some priest went off the reservation and wrote his own liturgy, one might justly doubt if he was intending to do what the Church did.

Jordanes said...

Your argument is fallacious.

I'm not sure you are following my argument.

Saying:

The sacraments of a sinful priest can be valid. Sinfulness, in itself, is not a bar to sacramental validity.

Is not the same as saying:

All sinful priests have valid sacraments.


Yes, that's right. But I don't see how that has anything to do with what I or Athanasius have said.

By your argument, a priest could have a valid Mass by saying the words of consecration over an apple, as such a modification of matter and form that would surely be sinful as well!

Yes, you definitely are not following my argument. I said that a priest's sin, dissent and disobedience are not of themselves sufficient reason to doubt the validity of the priest's Eucharist. I clearly said that if a priest changes the form or matter, the Eucharist is invalid.

Clearly, have the wrong intention is logically distinct from being sinful.

Yes, as I have said -- and even Ryan has indicated his understanding of the distinction between wrong intention and priestly sin. None of that is in dispute.

No one is claiming that the sinfulness of an action is what bars sacramental validity.

Nor have I said that anyone here is claiming that. We're talking about when it is reasonable to wonder about validity, not when sacramental validity has in fact been barred.

The claim is that certainly objectively sinful actions may imply a lack of valid sacramental intention.

Of course -- and as I have said, dissent and disobedience in a priest do not necessarily, and perhaps more often than not do not, imply a lack of valid sacramental intention.

The correct response isn't to dispense with sacramental intention, as you're doing,

No, I'm not.

but simply to say that a valid intention is generally compatible with dissent and disobedience, whether they're sinful or not, as long as the intention is there of doing what the Church does.

Yes, that's what I said, except for the suggestion that dissent and disobedience might not be sinful -- objectively they always are, subjectively they may not be.

Generally, isn't sticking to the liturgical books generally a sign of doing what the Church does? But if some priest went off the reservation and wrote his own liturgy, one might justly doubt if he was intending to do what the Church did.

Yep. That example fits the examples I gave above. But preaching some heresy that has no direct relation to sacramental theology, etc., would not be a good sign of not intending to do what the Church does.

Anonymous said...

"..read Abbe George de Nantes' acerbic critiques of the popes, which were all done in charity and the Vatican could not respond to them, nor could they punish him for he spoke the truth to the face of the pope in each instance,.."

Father,

The Abbe is the one who came to mind when I referred to a "dry martyrdom" in my post above.

Thank you, NC for not deleting posts mentioning the dear Abbe.

M.A.


Truth be told, Bishop Fellay has never even come close to match the vitriol that the good abbé has poured on the popes.

To wit (Chief accusations taken from his Liber Accusationis Secundus against John Paul II):

- NOVATEUR. Vous trahissez le Christ. (Innovator. You betray Christ)

- CORRUPTEUR. Vous mettez le Christ à mort. (CORRUPTOR. You put Christ to death)

and that's just for starters...


Pierre Bélanger

Cerimoniere said...

New Catholic: Thank you for your answer to my question. I had quite forgotten about the ordinations. However, it seems that the conversation has moved on; we know now that it is Mgr. Fellay alone who must answer on his own behalf.

Still, it is interesting to reflect that he must be discussing matters with the other bishops and his assistants in these days. At any rate, let us pray for an outcome pleasing to Almighty God.

Anonymous said...

Five conditions for what?

A statement by spokesman Father Lombardi (http://www.la-croix.com/illustrations/Multimedia/Actu/2008/6/25/vatican.rtf) seems to indicate that they are conditions for a normal courteous conversation, not the conditions for full communion.

Anonymous said...

The question before Bishop Fellay is whether he can sign the document in conscience or would he be betraying God by doing so.

I think it would be helpful for Bishop Fellay to consider not a blogosphere, the pope and a (temporary or permanent) loss of regularity and the form such regularity could take, but to imagine instead a coliseum, an emperor, and lions, and these conditions. Can they be signed?

If yes, then they must be signed now. Anything else would be contumacy in the present case, or in the case of lions, suicide. If not, then they can never be signed.

Which will it be? Immortal souls may depend on the answer, and the date is fast approaching. It may not seem fair, in the same way that calling a condemned prisoner to convert before his execution date may not seem "fair". But it is God's will that this forced choice should be allowed. And no other opportunity may be given.

From my point of view, no silence is imposed by these conditions (#1-4) that is not already maintained in practice and in principle. The world may view it as an agreement to "shut up", but that is because the world falsely judges Bishop Fellay's actions to date (e.g. as uncharitable, etc.) Bishop Fellay, in signing, can make clear that he has always kept the conditions and therefore whoever hears of the signed conditions can know to expect no change in his behavior.

Anonymous said...

Just because the SSPX may not want an agreement right now doesn't mean that they can't sign these conditions right now. These conditions are not an agreement, but merely preconditions to a mature relationship with the Vatican.

After signing the conditions, honest negotiation has a chance of beginning. For example, the SSPX could demand that all bishops and priests in the world be commanded to take the oath against modernism. Rome may not grant that, but Rome would not look good in refusing, and the expression "no agreement with modernist Rome" would cease to appear like heated rhetoric.

Demanding really hard changes in person, or being content to express complaints from pulpits in Argentina or Winona: which approach looks more like the work of St. Catherine of Siena, and which like the work of Savonarola?

Anonymous said...

Formerly, we have heard the words "no agreement with modernist Rome".

If the SSPX rejects these conditions, it would be more like "no negotiation with modernist Rome".

This would be a huge step and I don't know how many of the faithful who go to SSPX chapels would want to continue doing so.

Dust I Am said...

Our chaplain has asked us to pray mightily during this 'holy week' of decision of the SSPX. If you haven't committed yourself to a rosary each day for this intention, do so NOW!

The SSPX knows the world is watching and will listen carefully to their response. They also know their advantage is being rendered less potent by the quick growth of other traditionalist groups within Rome's jurisdiction. I'd even bet there is a lot of discussion of how their decision will affect the future unity of the Church in centuries to come.

Moreover, who cannot be impressed by how Benedict XVI is exposing himself to the attack of the wolf Bishops when he encourages the old Latin Mass--even within Westminster Cathedral with Cardinal Hoyos celebrating and the other English Bishops refusing to come? See the Spectator article on a possible Church Civil War by Damian Thompson here

Anonymous said...

I wonder how many cases "dust i am" imagines there have been when local bishops turned up just to assist at a Mass celebrated by a visiting cardinal.

Dust I Am said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dust I Am said...

A visiting Cardinal ignored by the local Bishop when the Cardinal offers Mass in the Cathedral? Never, in my experience!

Stéphane said...

How many cases? Please let me rephrase the questions: how many cases do you know of a bishop + all of his 4 auxiliary bishops pretending to be too busy to attend at a Pontifical Mass celebrated by a Curial Cardinal who came all the way from Rome to make a point that they thoroughly dislike?
No comment.
If this is just as banal as you suggest, how do you explain that Pope Benedict XVI is furious at the affront?

Dust I Am said...

I don't consider the situation 'banal'. The Pope should righteously take affront--as he is confronted with hierarchial indifference, intransigence, and insubordination.

That's why I said I have not heard of such a thing happening during my lifetime of approximately 70 years. No wonder The Spectator entitled the article "Is the Catholic Church Sliding Towards Civil War?"

Stéphane said...

Hello Dust I Am. Sorry for the misunderstanding. My reply was meant for Anonymous (13:08 post). I fully agree with your point.

Stephen said...

If Bishop Fellay does not accept the conditions, then we who are faithful to the Tradition will have to consider leaving the SSPX behind; they will have served their purpose in God's plan; in rejecting these conditions they have moved visibly outwith the authority of Peter; their bishops want to see the pope only as a first among equals, as opposed to the one to whom the keys of authority have been given. They have become like the Anglicans. Our unity is not only in being in recognising Rome, but in being subordinate to its bishop.

Zorayda Nevada said...

For the Record: This came from an SSPX priest:

24 June 2008

Reaction from Bishop Fellay to the Ultimatum
From Voice of Catholic Radio, published in Rorate Caeli :

Important: What Bishop Fellay said about the ultimatum
UPDATED


[Update - June 24, 0900 GMT] The Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), Bishop Bernard Fellay, spoke of the "ultimatum" in his sermon during the Mass of Ordinations in Winona, Minnesota, last Friday (June 20):

[33:20]... you want an update of how things are going with Rome. All these excommunications, or the lifting, or the retraction of the decrees of excommunications, is it coming or not? Frankly, I don't know. My impression, right now, is that we still can wait for a while, and maybe a good while. And why so?

Because the approach we have towards the question is not the same as the one of the Vatican. And I say this problem, always these words, they are the words of the Archbishop "Rome wants a reconciliation, but with these words, they want us to go back to the new", which is not to go back, but to go in. And that's not what we want. He said the perspective is different, they speak of reconciliation,but it is an integration to the new.

In 76, it was already the same problem. Before the suspension of 76, Rome sent an ambassador to he Archbishop who told him, 'Say with me one new mass, concelebrate with me one mass, and everything is fine'. And now, well, they don't say 'Say one Mass', they just say 'Shut up'.

It is so far that Rome has given me an ultimatum. Seems that the last Letter to the Benefactors has been not so well received in Rome. They consider it as a proof of pride, of arrogance, and that's what they don't want. And we are not going to shut down our mouths, or to shut up.
[...]

[45:08] And now, we are, should we say, something like at a crossroads. And in a certain way, Rome is telling us, 'OK, we are ready to lift up the excommunication, but you cannot continue this way"

So, we have no choice, we are not going this way, we are continuing what we have done, we have fought now for forty years to keep this faith alive. To keep this Tradition not only for ourselves, but for the Church. And we are just going to continue, happens what happens. Everything is in God's hands. If God wants this proof, this trial to continue, it may continue. He will give us the grace we need for it. No fear, we'll wait for better times. That's what the Archbishop said twenty years ago. That's what we continue to say today.
Of course we have to do all what we can to have this faith to be continued, to be preached everywhere, this faith to be really, and all this Tradition to be really back in the Church. We have to do whatever we can for this, but nothing else. It is a hard time, my dear brethren, but it is not ourselves who are going to change it. We are in these circumstances, we did not cause them. So we depend on God.

Anonymous said...

While Dan Hunter's examples are strong evidence of poor intention, theological dissidence and liturgical disobedience are GOOD reasons to suspect a priest's intention and NO reason to presume valid intention.

Consider the example of Fr. Richard Sparks CSP, formerly of Berkley CA, now inflicted on Boston MA. Sparks long expressed his approval of active homosexuality and espoused a type of Nestorianism (e.g., pantomiming Jesus on the Cross, claiming He was confused about His Crucifixion -- "What am I doing here?" -- thereby teaching a Nestorian discordance of Jesus; Divine and Human wills). Later, Sparks started teaching the consubstantiation heresy ("Jesus comes into the bread."), Eventually, Sparks got around to improvising the [already dubious] Novus Ordo form and utilizing brownies (!!!) for the matter of his putative Communion.

Jordanes claims we are "irrational" for doubting Sparks' intentions at the point that he started touting homosexuality. I submit that Jordanes' "see no evil, hear no evil" approach to such problems would not have us doubting Sparks' intentions until too late.

Further, Jordanes innuendo against the SSPX would analogously have us doubting St. Athanasius because St. Athanasius was disobedient to Arian authorities. Go figure.

Zorayda Nevada said...

http://www.dici.org/actualite_read.php?id=1233&loc=us

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)



Our Comment: At the time of the release of the Motu Proprio, DICI made the following comment: “Here it would seem that the priests of the SSPX (excluded from the dispositions of the Motu Proprio by article 5 § 4: ‘Priests who use the Missal of Blessed John XXIII must be qualified to do so and not juridically impeded’) are paradoxically the only ones able to claim the exclusive use of the Tridentine Mass. This ‘exclusion’ which they contest by right guarantees exclusivity in fact for them.”

schoolman said...

The 5 conditions have nothing to do with forcing Fellay to “shut up”. They only have the aim to establish some basic ground rules on how fruitful diologue can continue within the bosom of the Church. May Bishop Fellay recognize this in time.

Ione said...

I think Rome has finally realized that all along Lefebvre was correct in his prescient analysis of what would happen to the Church after Vatican II, and they are trying as gracefully as possible to reconcile a group so inappropriately maligned.

Anonymous said...

Schoolman wrote:

"The 5 conditions have nothing to do with forcing Fellay to “shut up”. They only have the aim to establish some basic ground rules on how fruitful diologue can continue within the bosom of the Church. May Bishop Fellay recognize this in time."

My my!

If I put such conditions on reconciling with every inferior whom I had some disagreement, where would the observance of the charity I am obliged to show ("Do no Lord it over others...") or as a sucessor of St. Peter ("Feed the sheep . . .") every be practiced?

The conditions for a dialogue indicate the dialogue itself will be a mockery of charity...

We need honesty before concord...

The conditions indicate that the one demanding them has not begun with charity, (Forgiving and forgetting), and taken to heart the many calls for repentence and true dialogue, given by Msgr. Fellay for nearly 20 years....

I pray it is not the Pope who has demanded these 5 conditions...so that they can be dispensed with...


Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Anonymous said...

Dear Br. Bugnolo,

A true traditional Catholic would have no problem so submitting, humiliating though it might be for some. For all that is being overtly asked is straight from the heart of Catholicism: filial devotion.

Guadalupe Guard

Antonio said...

And now, it's really OVER:

http://www.papanews.it/dettaglio_interviste.asp?IdNews=8273

And it's sad.

New Catholic said...

Antonio, let us wait for Bishop Fellay's official response, which will come in time.

Anonymous said...

En el sermón de esta mañana de Monseñor Galarreta se dice que no se rechaza pero tampoco se acepta el pedido del Cardenal Castrillón.
Ellos piden 4 cosas:
1.Liberar la misa tridentina (cosa dada)
2.Levantamiento de las excomuniones.
3.Negociaciones doctrinales.
4.Acuerdos prácticos.
Creo que en la práctica se rechaza el pedido de Roma.Me imagino que Monseñor Fellay dara una nota oficial porque si no Roma dara como rechazado su ultimatum.

Fuente Cigüeña en la torre