Rorate Caeli

For the Record: "Progressive" paper mentions possible Vatican-SSPX development

The French "Progressive Catholic" weekly Golias reports the following:
"According to our sources, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos and Mgr Perl, in charge of the Vatican 'Ecclesia Dei' Commission, responsible for the dialogue with the Integrists [sic], would have drafted, along with an Italian prelate, Mgr Mario Marini [adjoint secretary of the Commission] a text of reconciliation in this direction [of pacification]."
The document, according to Golias, "would not mean a full and complete recognition of the Fraternity", but it would "recognize the good faith and the ecclesial sense of the Integrists, while a full agreement is not reached".

____________________
Tip: Le Forum Catholique

75 comments:

syriacus said...

.
Just a correction re.:"Mgr Mario Marini [adjoint secretary of the Commission]" : Mons. Mario Marini is Secretary of the PCED (no more 'adjoint' secr. , since Mons. Perl's promotion to Vice-President, months ago).

Long-Skirts said...

"...the Integrists"

THE
"INTEGRISTS"

We are St. Joan,
Philomena, Campion.
The Faith in its whole
Is what we do champion.

We are St. Margaret,
Pearl of York,
Where the bowels of the Faith
They tried to torque.

We are Sir More,
That's Thomas, the Saint,
Whose reputation
They could not taint.

We are vocations,
Catholic and kneeling,
Adoring His presence,
It's not just a feeling.

We are descendents
Of martyrs and beggin'
To stop all the men
Who are turning us pagan!

We are the poor,
Uneducated ones,
But in faith, well-informed,
The heretic shuns.

And when we are told,
"Don't kneel anymore."
Since we don't hold doctorates...
We kneel and IGNORE!!

Paul Haley said...

WORDS GOOD; ACTIONS BETTER! Justice requires the lifting of the excommunications and suspensions without any further delay. How long we will have to put up with these supposed conciliatory gestures in the mill?

Anonymous said...

Oh, more "partial communion" garbage!

Anonymous said...

Keep praying the Rosary for the lifting -- and rendering never to be valid -- the excommunication of the bishops!

Anonymous said...

The P.C.E.D., in a private responsum of 2002 (and another to U.V. America in 2003) which is now well known all over the Internet, confirmed that the Society Masses can fulfil the Sunday obligation. But this claim of the P.C.E.D. has been doubted by some throughout the world.

I think that any new agreement would simply lift all the declarations of penalty and clarify, under the Pope's signature, that the Society Masses can indeed fulfil the Sunday obligation. A document might also express agreement that the two parties are willing to enter into formal discussions to resolve theological difficulties. I pray that, thirdly, Rome will at least temporarity extend jurisdiction for the other Sacraments. But then they will go no further, and the Vatican would issue a subsequent statement that it does not recognise the liceity of Society Masses or other Sacraments, and that attending Society Masses incurs a risk of faithful falling gradually into schism. This, too, is old news.

This is not about 'partial Communion'. Rome will agree (and has already admitted) that the Society and its members are entirely Catholic. Any limitation simply has to do with the offering of Sacraments sans jurisdiction. Think of the Society as a group of renegade priests who have not been excommunicated but refuse to work under the local bishops or Rome. They are still Catholic until Rome says otherwise, or until they commit an act which results in formal schism.

Presumably, for the Society's part, it will formally recognise the Pope's Supreme Magisterium, which it has never denied; and the fact that Benedict XVI is the Pope, which it has never denied but quite the conrary, has constantly admitted.

What this means is that the Society will get the declarations of excommunication and other penalties lifted but there will be no canonical arrangement at this time.

The effect for the Cardinal is that he can retire on a positive note, his tenure having brought a measure of success.

The effect on the Society is that it will be able to continue to spread around the world, but now under the claim that faithful may attend its Masses. Another effect, however, may be that many Society priests come to want what Rome will still offer: the universal diocese.

The effect on the local bishops will be to encourage them to remove obstacles against S.P., so as to limit Society expansion. No bishop will want a way around his authority in his own back yard. He can avoid this simply by implemenenting S.P.

To make this work, Rome will have to follow it up with the universal diocese for regularised traditionalsits; otherwise, after a second but smaller resurgence following this coming deal, S.P. will continue to fade into irrelevance. That is what is already happening very quickly, according to my numbers. The problem is that, after forty years, most of those who left and staying out. Once that shiny new internatioanl and personal diocese exists, the Society priests will be tempted more and more to join it. This will put pressure on the Society to join it as well, while doctrinal discussions continue.

P.K.T.P.

Paul Haley said...

Lifting of the excommunications and suspensions without granting jurisdiction for other sacraments, especially Penance and Matrimony, would be an empty and futile gesture. It's like saying: you can go to their masses but if you want to go to confession before communion you cannot do so. Or, if you go to their masses and admire their priests and want to be married by them: "So sorry, you cannot do that".

This is preposterous on its face IMHO. It would prolong the concept of the Society not being in full communion. Though I have no inside information, I imagine the Society would not be properly disposed to such an arrangement.

For this reason I believe this rumor is not based in fact and is just another in the carrot-at-the-end-of-a-stick philosophy when dealing with the Society. This whole business is shameful IMHO.

Anonymous said...

I think these Vatican bureaucrats are wasting their time again.
This is an insult to the SSPX, which has upheld the Faith, and deserves all punative actions lifted. No more excommunications, etc.
As for "partial communion"...that's a joke.
The SSPX is more Catholic than most of these paper pushers in the Vatican (by that I don't mean the Pope....but I do mean some Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, Monsignors, priests, and nuns who toil from sunup to sunset in their little cubicles in the Vatican.)

Anonymous said...

"The SSPX is more Catholic than most of these paper pushers in the Vatican (by that I don't mean the Pope....but I do mean some Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, Monsignors, priests, and nuns who toil from sunup to sunset in their little cubicles in the Vatican.)"

Actually if you read the Cardinal's writings and those of nearly any members of the SSPX on the topics found in the Catechism, you'd have to say, even if you knew nothing else, that the former was less catholic than the latter...

Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Martin said...

It's amazing how stubborn the SSPX have become. I hope they have not forgotten the words of their founder, "let us have the experience of Tradition"; but unfortunately it appears so.

Rome is allowing the experience of Tradition and willing to support tradition concretely, but they still say no; or as Bishop Fellay says, "they want us to shut up". Amazing! What a profound insight. I would give anything to travel the labrinthine canals of his mind to know what really makes him tick.

Let us not forget that the SSPX does not claim to posses any special charisms. Decisions made by bishop fellay are not infallible. It worries me when people put all their trust in the SSPX leadership or in some cases hand over their minds to them.

I will be glad to see the excommunications lifted. As for Vatican II, the SSPX should do as their founder did, and accept "in light of Tradtion". regretfully they have changed their view of this.

Paul Haley said...

http://www.dici.org/actualite_read.php?id=1261&loc=us
Quote
My very dear brothers, if we are asking once again for the retraction of this decree of excommunication, we insist on one point: it does not mean that after it is retracted everything will be over. On the contrary, this step resembles, if you will, a kind of initial clearing of the jungle. If you want to get through, if you want to establish a road or have a plane be able to land, you first have to level the ground, you have to make a clearing. It is a labor which is not yet essential either to the landing strip or to the road to come, but which is nonetheless very important and makes things easier. What is essential is the Catholic faith; we hope finally to get into the heart of the question, once the faith has been set free of those accessory things used precisely by the enemies of Tradition, like that label they stick on us. You see, it has only taken a few financial upsets in the last few weeks and everyone is in a panic: there is an economic crisis, there is a financial crisis! If the earth moves a little too much, the world is shaken, and everyone says there was an earthquake. But today the Church is turned upside down and they tell us everything is fine. No! We have to go to the heart of the matter. Obviously, that is what we are seeking. That is the grace which we are asking of the Blessed Virgin. Even if there are steps to get there.
Unquote

I include this statement by Bishop Fellay because it appears I was wrong before when I said the Society would probably "not be properly disposed to such an arrangement." Perhaps, they are inclined to see the reconciliation happen in stages but I find it difficult to understand how the Society could function without some sort of legal jurisdiction once the excommunications are lifted. There is also the matter of the suspensions "a divinis" levied against the priests of the Society. What will happen to those suspensions?

Oh well, I guess we'll find out when we find out, as they say. The Rosary Crusade is still the best option IMHO.

FranzJosf said...

Well, if they accept Vatican II in light of tradition they will still be at odds with the Vatican, who does not apply a traditional light to ecumenism. Even the Holy F ather has difficulties with Gaudium et Spes, as well he should. They are way too many things in Vactican II, very things condemned by an earlier Pope. It is not so simple and will take another generation, probably, to correct. God bless Bishop Fellay for holding the line.

Anonymous said...

Martin,
You said,"I would give anything to travel the labrinthine canals of his mind to know what really makes him tick."

If you cared to read the SSPX documents you would then understand the good Bishops thinking.They have not changed their position as you assert.

You also assert that Rome supports tradition concretely. Yes it supports the small 't'tradition and it's support for Tradition is equivocal.

The SSPX are very clear about being forced to compromise the Traditional faith for the conciliar mess. This is principal not pride. There is precedent set with the FSSP and Campos.

As someone pointed out, the SSPX live Catholicism better then the curia.

Imho,
Pius Layman

Anonymous said...

Martin,
"It's amazing how stubborn the SSPX have become."

Are you quite sure?

I quote Archbishop Lefebvre from “THE CHURCH, THE PRIESTHOOD & THE TRIDENTINE INDULT, Conference of Archbishop Lefebvre to priests on October 29, 1984 at Stuttgart, Germany” from SSPX.org/whats new.

"When I said to Cardinal Ratzinger, 'Look, religious liberty and Quanta Cura are incompatible,' 'Oh',he said, 'we are no longer in the times of Quanta Cura.' We are no longer in the times of Quanta Cura, then tomorrow we will no longer be in the times of their own new truths — this is not possible!

The essence of what St. Paul said is: "Tradidi vos quod et accepi — I have passed on to you what I have myself received." Already in his time he said that, and he said: "If an angel himself says the contrary of what I have handed on to you, or if I say the contrary of what I have passed on to you, may I be anathema!" And that is serious! And so neither do we have the right to deny what was handed down to us.....

It's absolutely unimaginable, after all this, to be interrogating people on their opinion: Do you reject the New Mass? If you reject the New Mass, then you don't have the right to say the old one. That surpasses the imagination. For as I said to my confreres, if one of you were asked, or, if for example, we take the Abbey of Fontgombault in France, the Benedictines, they like the Old Mass, but they have accepted the New Mass out of 'obedience.' Now they will surely ask for the Old Mass again. And they could ask them: 'Why do you opt for the Old Mass?' 'Ah, because we prefer the Old Mass. You see, the New Mass has certain features...' 'Ah! You don't like the New Mass! Neither then shall you have the Old!'

That is ridiculous, because if we choose the Old Mass it is because we find it better than the new one. If you reject the new one, you don't have the right to the old one! They could quibble back and forth like that.”

This article was written at the time of JP2 indult but what has really changed since then?

Thankfully today we Catholics have a freer use of the Tridentine Mass however the other issues still remain.

The SSPX have reason to stand their ground in defense of those unchanging Catholic principals. In my mind the SSPX are still keeping to their founders principals.

Do you think that a marriage between the old and new rites is possible? I don't.

Pius Layman

Anonymous said...

Br. Alexis,

I always like your commentary. It is always so accurate and truthful.
You pull no punches, and don't give in to political correctness, which I think is a very grave sin in the Vatican. One of our recent Popes dead not too long was very much partial to political correctness....to the detriment of the Church.
Thank you for your commentary.

** Have you started your new, traditionalist branch of the Franciscan Friars Minor yet? I know you were planning on establishing a traditionalist branch following the pre-Vatican II rule, and looking to build a monastery.
Dor you have a website to visit?

Martin said...

Dear pius layman,

Yes indeed, Not only have I read the good Bishop's documents but also his contradictory statements about his views on a possible reconciliation. One day he speaks about a practical agreement, the next day about ironing out the doctrinal errors before an agreement.(and therefore never) The problem with the SSPX is consistency and unfortunately that has been missing for some time.

And yes, after reading an interview with Bishop Tisier de Mallerais, it is crystal clear that the SSPX have changed their understanding of Vatican II. They reject it in its entirety, whereas archbishop Lefebvre did not. They are becoming excessively harsh and as a result arrogant.

It would be difficult to argue that Rome is not concretely supporting tradition. The Motu Proprio and the lifting of the excommunications in the near future suffice for me. And before you answer, let me say the crisis is not over, and far from it.

I would hope that noone on this page would have the naivety to believe that Pope Benedict could solve the many many problems facing the church. He is after all just a man, who makes mistakes, just like the rest of us.

He needs our prayers.

Martin said...

pius layman,

You ask what has changed since John Paul II indult. To be honest the changes are astonishing. One example is that the indult no longer exists. The exemption from Church law has been replaced by Pope Benedict's Motu Proprio and anyone can now have access to the Gregorian Mass. And in the near future our pope will lift the excommunications! These are big changes!

You also mention Fontgombault and describe the problems they encountered. That's all fine, but how long ago has it been since they had difficulties. Can you honestly say that we are in the same situation today? Clearly not. I do not understand why people use examples from the past and apply them to the present as if there has been no changes in the Roman authorities attitudes. The circumstances are changing and so must our approach.

For example regarding the five conditions offered to the SSPX in June, there was no mention of accepting the new Mass. In 2000 when the priests of Campos were reintegrated they only accepted the validity of the New Mass which the SSPX accept anyway. In 2006 the Institute of the Good Shepherd were recognised by pope Benedict. They only accept the validity of the New Mass but not the content of it. The difference is vast. The monks of Papastronsay were recognised by the pope and only accept the validity of the New Mass. Their reintegration was made possible through the Motu Proprio.
I've even read about a group of sedevacantist nuns who were welcomed back to the flock after Pope Benedict's Motu Proprio.

The reasons why the SSPX still refuse are mystifying to say the least. One thing is for sure, the SSPX have some great priests who would like very much to be reintegrated, but only bishop Fellay, and him alone, can make the choice.

Anonymous said...

I would appreciate it if someone could tell me what -- specifically -- the SSPX holds to be "non-negotiable."

In other words, what Dogma(s) of the Catholic faith have been damaged and/or
discarded by Rome that the SSPX feels must be restored before they will feel that the faith is whole again?

I don't think these questions of mine have been answered precisely here before. Yes, I am aware of all the intrigue and ugliness and issues that have arisen over the last 40 years; and how many trad-Catholic blogs there are that talk about these things. I am well-read on these issues; including what the SSPX has to say about many of them. But I don't believe that a good accounting of such issues has been clearly outlined yet -- and it would be nice if it happened here on Rorate Caeli, given the high-profile and respect that this blog has earned to date. Also, it is important that Catholics are clear on such things -- given the direction that things are moving in lately.

Yes, the Novus Ordo is clearly lacking -- but is it the position of the SSPX to banish it entirely? Is EENS one of the Dogmas at risk here? Is it the specific mannerisms of the ablutions, and the rubrics and prayers of the Mass -- much of which the Church believes that it has received directly from Jesus Christ (a position which mystics like Anne Catherine Emmerich support)?
Is it women servers? EMs? Church architecture? The Orthodox? I don't like to see women servers or EMs. And I really don't like ambiguities, or the feeling that I don't quite have a grasp on it all, when it comes to the Catholic faith. I'm looking for a complete list of specifics here.

And if 'Tradition' is one of the key issues, please describe what aspects of Tradition must be restored. I'm not -- at all -- against Catholic Tradition, but I am a little bit unclear as to what aspects of Tradition are *absolutely* *necessary*, and which aspects can be changed, or set aside (if any), what exactly constitutes legitimate expressions of Tradition and what exactly constitutes 'antiquarianism', etc.

Again -- I'm not trying to be obtuse, or overly pedantic. I am trying to clearly understand the position of the SSPX.

Can the position of the SSPX be outlined in 5,000 words or less? Can a list of twenty or thirty precise statements be put together that would constitute the SSPX's position? I think a list of twenty or thirty precise statements should be sufficient (maybe forty, or thereabouts) -- for someone to be able to say that they have a *clear* *position* in the first place. I'm not trying to be snide or condescending towards the SSPX -- not in the least. What I am saying, I suppose, is that I would like to have such a list handy in my bureau drawer to keep and to think about and to understand -- and so would a whole lot of other Catholics, I believe.

Is this a good idea for a post?


Anyone?


Cheers,


-R
(full-disclosure: I attend an FSSP Mass as a member of the laity)

Paul Haley said...

Anonymous said...

I would appreciate it if someone could tell me what -- specifically -- the SSPX holds to be "non-negotiable."

With all due respect I do not believe it would be appropriate to discuss what the FSSPX holds to be non-negotiable in this forum. Those issues, I believe, must be discussed between the principals involved (from His Holiness on down to Bishop Fellay and his fellow-bishops) and outside the realm of publicity.

Having said that, I believe the Society wants to be able to practice the Catholic Faith and administer the sacraments unfettered by any modernist novelties that could be imposed by local bishops, They would also need some assurance that ecumenism, does not mean the "acceptance" of other religious beliefs and that the Creed statement that "we believe in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" means exactly the same thing today as it did before Vatican II and, in fact that the core beliefs of Catholics before Vatican II remain the same today - pure and undefiled.

It is my opinion and only my opinion that they believe Pope Benedict to be the "Great Synthesizer" who takes opposite beliefs and tries to synthesize them unto a new creed for us and that he truly believes in the efficacy of other religions. So, it has to be a meeting of the minds between the Pope and the Society if true reconciliation is to be achieved. But, then, who am I to be saying such things? I'm only a humble lay person brought up in the Faith before all the novelties following Vatican II -- on my knees as an altar boy serving the traditional mass in the late 40s and early 50s with the dictum lex orandi...lex credendi firmly imbedded in my heart and soul.

Anonymous said...

Cheers,

I think you are asking for what only an infallible Ecumenical council could given and has not yet given...it would be presumptious of anyone to answer your question definitively, though an outline could be sketched...

1) Delcare Vatican II not dogmatically binding, and not canonically binding

2) renew the condemnations of modernism of Bl. Piux IX and St. Piux X

3) contemnd phenomenology, personalism, hegelianism, communism, marxism, socialism, the errors of modern pseudo scriptural analysis etc. etc..

4) Reaffirm the necessity of holding the teachins of all preVatian II ecumenical councils

These points would be but a preamble, to set a catholic context on the discussion of all which would follow.

Without these, I do not see how any one could "dialogue" with the SSPX and understand where they were comming from.

But clearly until we have new leadership in Rome, whether by grace or election, then such a engagment will not occur.

Let us pray for Holy Mother Church, the Holy Father, and the Cardinals and Bishops, because so many do not have even a clue about the great crisis the Church is in, having lost a proper intellectual formation for the understanding of the Faith itself.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Mark said...

Completely off-topic, but would you maybe consider linking to this?

"In the Sight of Angels" is a new blog which aims to take the reader through the liturgical year in the spirit of the great abbot of Solesmes, and author of "L'Anée Liturgique", Dom Prosper Guéranger. With full posting commencing on Advent Sunday (Sunday November 30th), the blog will highlight the various 1st and 2nd class feasts of the Church's year, according to the 1962 Roman calendar. The Collect will be given in both Latin and English and relevant links, commentaries, and other material. Until then we will feature a précis of the General Preface to "The Liturgical Year" and some other short pieces.

URL:
http://sightofangels.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your comments Martin.

Your examples help me to understand to your position more fully.

FYI, the Fontgombault example was part of the good Archbishop's discourse.I thought it was good to include it.

My understanding is that the SSPX argument today is very similar to the one given back then by the archbishop.

Also,the Campos bishop is attacking the SSPX in Brazil - no love from him. Hasn't the Campos situation become one where there is compromise? I read concelebration, discouraging the TLM and pushing in of NO novelties?

I will read more about Bishop Tisier de Mallerais. Which interview did you refer to?

Also, what specific articles have you read that reflect the inconsistency of the SSPX? Also the articles where the Archbishop one day is wanting to reconcile and the next ironing out the doctrinal difficulties?

Pius Layman

Anonymous said...

Why does it have to involve dogmas? SSPX is fighting for Catholic tradition to regain its rightful place of supremacy in church government. Someone needs to defend Catholic tradition on all fronts, since the Vatican won't do it. Without our traditions we're nothing.

Pope Benedict has all the grace he needs to move these mountains. Our Lady showed him the way at Fatima. He must be committed to something non-Catholic not to see it.

Martin said...

Pius layman,

The article where Bishop Tissier rejects Vatican II can be found at:
http://truerestoration.blogspot.com/2006/04/interview-with-bishop-bernard-tissier.html


This is obviously a controversial topic in the SSPX, taking into account that Archbishop Lefebvre always accepted it in "Light of Tradition". Even the protocol signed by him in may 1988 accepted Vatican II in light of Tradition. The protocol did however fall through due to lack of trust between Rome and SSPX but the main point here is that he did accept it.

The SSPX as it appears to me, does not seem interested in updating their arguments. Rome nolonger demands them to say one New Mass, as was the case in 1988; nor are they demanding them to accept the New Mass in every sense of the word, or are they asking them to accept Vatican II and all its monstuous errors. The only argements they offer is that the crisis is not offer and until the errors are condemned from the pulpit there will be no agreement. In other words, they are arrogantly telling the pope that until he fixes the Church no agreement will take made.

Luc Perrin is a professor of Church History, well known in tradition circles. He has said that Bishop Tissier's remarks are very offensive and come very close to sedevacantism.

Martin said...

anonymous 23.35 said

He (Benedict XVI) must be committed to something non-Catholic not to see it"

What an interesting theory! Maybe you could elaborate on what he is committed to? But before that, you might explain where Bishop Tissier gets his theories from. Or maybe why he addresses the Pope as Ratzinger or why he rejects Vatican II completely. The SSPX should address their own problems before turning to the Church. Then a more a logical discussion with Rome could take place.

Paul Haley said...

Just a reminder, folks, that Bishop Fellay is the Superior General of the FSSPX and is the only one authorized to speak in their behalf, The other bishops are not "Superiors General" if you get my drift.

Anonymous said...

Bishop Mallerais is not the official spokesman for the SSPX any more than Cardinal Mahoney is the spokesman for the College of Cardinals.

A.M. LaPietra

Martin said...

It is true that Bishop Tissier is not the Superior General. We should be thankful for that, but he is a senior advisor in the SSPX.

Anonymous said...

Brother Bugnolo, Mr. Haley;

Thank you very much for your comments.


Cheers,


-R

Anonymous said...

Dear Martin,

I read the article you sited by Bishop Mallerais. Frankly I don't see it the same way you do.

I can concur with his view via, "The Rhrine Flows Into the Tiber: A History of Vatican 2". Others say that "Iota Unum" is also another good third party source. I have yet to read that book.

I care little whether the Bishop is politically correct, I care about his principals. As I see it, his principals reflect those of the SSPX which have not changed over time nor should they.

May the excommunications be lifted and real change allowed to take place in the Church.

Also, time will tell if the good priests of Papa Stronsay will be happy with their decision. They are in my prayers. I do respect Fr. Mary.

Someone once said that V2 is like the failed New Coke recipe and should be dealt with in like manner.

Pius Layman

John McFarland said...

Martin,

I would suggest that for purposes of understanding the SSPX, you focus on what the SSPX has been saying since the beginning of this decade. Those statements, I submit, are quite unambiguous. The Faith is paramount, and the conciliar and post-conciliar magisterium are a deficient and adulterated account of that Faith. To interpret the Vatican Council in the light of tradition is impossible, because its intent was precisely to break with tradition.

The issue is whether that judgment is correct or not.

I would, however, note the following. As the years have gone on, it has become clearer and clearer to those with eyes to see that the conciliar magisterium is a different gospel from the gospel handed down from the apostles. The more you learn, the more scandalized you become. See, for example, the study by Father Doermann (himself no traditionalist) that demonstrates beyond cavil the heterodoxy of Pope John Paul II's major theological encylicals and other works. It is quite sobering when Father Doermann puts a column of Pope John Paul the Great next to a column on the same topic from the prestigious pre-conciliar German dogmatic theology manuals of Scheeben and Ott: night and day.

Bishop Tissier is the most scandalized of the SSPX bishops because he is the theologian of the SSPX bishops. He calls Pope Benedict a liberal and a modernist because that is what he is.

Part of the problem, of course, is that you don't really understand what you are looking at. Take the indult and the MP. What the MP in effect says is that the traditional Mass was NEVER abrogated or superseded. It follows that no indult was ever required, because an indult's purpose is to permit you to do something that otherwise would be forbidden. Furthermore, in 1988 a blue-ribbon Vatican committee (Cardinal Ratzinger among its members) concluded that the traditional Mass had never been revoked or superseded; but that informatigon was kept under wraps, and not admitted, much less publicized, even after Cardinal Stickler let the cat out of the bag in 1991. The SSPX of course pointed all this out, but who paid any attention to those schismatics (who weren't schismatics, but that's another thing that was kept under wraps)?

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions about the significance of the whole indult thing in the light of the foregoing. But if you figure it out, don't bother to tell us; it'll never get through Content Moderation.

Martin said...

Dear Pius layman,

You indicate that Vatican II is like the New Coke recipe and must be dealt with in like manner. Empty seminaries and empty churches speak for themselves.

I agree with your first analysis. On the otherhand, treating Vatican II in like manner as you seem to approve is the point I disagree with. Ignoring the council and pretending it doesn't exist won't make it go away. It is the Church who will have the last say on this matter, and not Bishop Tissier or the SSPX. When Bishop Tissier affirms that the council cannot be read in light of tradition, it makes me wonder where he gets his authority from (certainly not from the pope!). From a Catholic perspective, it is the Church or more precisely, it is the pope who will decide what will happen to it; noone else has authority. The pope is the supreme authority in the Church and it is only him, alone, who can decide what to do. Whether it takes ten, twenty or whatever the number may be, all we can do is pray. The SSPX would do well to reflect on the authority of the pope.

I'm surprised that you have no objections Bishop Tissiers de Mallerais comments. I bet even some of the SSPX were embarrassed by it. I read various comments by traditional priests (not in the SSPX) and they thought it was excessively harsh and not very level-headed. I'm referring to his prinicpals as well, the one on Vatican II!

Yes, time will tell whether the Sons of the Holy Redeemer will regret their decision. It certainly wasn't an easy move considering the amount of nonsensical comments they received treating them as modernists. It would have been nice and easy to remain as they were, and ignore the Motu Proprio. Instead Fr Michael Mary said:

"It is a fundamental principle of the Church and of the Faith that in the person of the successor of Peter is to be found the lasting principle and the visible foundation of the double unity of Faith and communion. It is "in his person" that this unity is found, not in the Vatican bureaucracy. This is why we feel particularly touched by the personal intervention of the Pope in our favor." Refers to the Motu Proprio.

Time will tell whether the SSPX will regret their decision. It would be sad to see them end up isolated and forgotten in todays world.

Martin said...

hello John Mcfarland,

I really enjoyed reading your comment, especially the last bit about not getting through content moderation!! Good to have a sense of humour despite our diverging viewpoints.

Anyway, I'll stick to this point. "Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia" - In case you dont have the Latin, let me do the honours "Where Peter is, there is the Church". You mention how the conciliar Gospel is not the same Gospel that the apostles have handed down. So you are saying in indirect words that the Church is officially preaching another relgion?

You define exactly what the indult was and list the problems surrounding it. I have to admit I was less informed than you were on the various details. In any case, it is official documents from the Church that bring results such as the Motu Proprio.

Listing the abuses of the present hierarchy doesn't change anything either. If the SSPX are waiting for an apology, they'll be waiting quite some time.

Joe B said...

I mean that for the Pope not to see the need for the Fatima consecration, he must be blinded by something non-Catholic like worrying more about displeasing Russia than pleasing Our Lady. As you know, the failure of all our Popes since then to accomplish the consecration exactly as Our Lady commanded is a great mystery since all of them expressed confidence that the visions were authentic. The only explanations that have been offered are (1) not offending Russia, and (2) the consecration was done. But the first is truly cowardly (not very Catholic), and the second, if true, was done very late, and not exactly as Our Lady asked (again, not very Catholic). She made a clear and simple demand and I know all our Popes have loved her, so I assume they are being blinded by something unholy on that issue.

Anonymous said...

Dear Martin,

The traditional priests you consult with wouldn't be from the FSSP by any chance? Even traditional priests have their lenses through which to understand things. Let be clear, I attend mass with the FSSP and have high regard for them. But I know their ilk, their training and their regard not to speak out against V2.

From reading 'Rhine Flows into the Tiber' I believe V2 was hijacked and the council,along with the aftermath, can be summed up in the fashion noted by the SSPX. I don't necessarily like how the SSPX preach their message but I can not disagree.

And so what? The Motu Propio is here today for the taking, a gift for all traditionalists to join unimpeded? Not quite...but maybe worth trusting? The SSPX have reason to be extra careful.

The lifting of the excoms will not so much vindicate the SSPX as it will justify traditional Catholic teaching and liberate profound awareness for it. That is what really matters and the reason for the SSPX fight...imho.

The SSPX have publicly stated again and again they care not for an apology and simply want the true faith back for all. I am glad they are a 'burr in the back side' especially with the abuses just noted in the youth mass in Vienna.

The SSPX bishops speak of being tired and praying for the day the Society is no longer needed. May God grant them wisdom and humililty. Oremus.

Lastly, the New Coke analogy isn't meant to be an oversimplification of scrap it and forget it. Perhaps Br. Bugnolo's salient points can be those finally spoken of by this pope or another concerning V2.

Until then I truly pray for Our Lady's intention to be done on these matters.

Pius Layman

Anonymous said...

Dear Martin,
Re: Your concern for the SSPX to reflect on obedience.

We all would do well to do that. The SSPX have clear positions on the subject.

Please read:

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2002_January/Popes_Infallible_Magisterium.htm

http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/can_obedience_oblige_us_to_disobey.htm

And while we are at it, see -
http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/post-conciliar_church_a_new_religion.htm

Pius Layman

Martin said...

Dear Pius layman,

Don't get me wrong I'm all for critizing Vatican II, but will not under any circumstances accept disrespect for the pope. Bishop Tissier has consistently addressed the pope as "Ratzinger" and noone in the SSPX has reprimanded him for it. I find that unacceptable and very impolite, especially coming from a "Tradional" Bishop. Archbishop Lefebvre was always very strict at attacking the false spirtit of Vatican II, even virulent, but never did he attack personally the pope.
Bishop Fellay is not without exception. In Paris in June if I'm correct, he attacked the person of the pope by saying "in Rome we have a perfectly liberal pope". I mean in fairness, for a pope who is bringing back Catholic doctrine, can you really say that those comments are well grounded?

I havent had time to read those documents yet but will get around to it as soon as possible

Anonymous said...

Dear Martin,
Re: "Ratzinger"

From reading the article, I believe the "Ratzinger" comment was in relation to Cardinal Ratzinger not Pope Ratzinger.

Not that it really matters, I agree a little honey and less vinegar would go alot farther.

I too think Pope Benedict XVI is a liberal Pope guided by the synthesis agenda.

"Pray much for the Pope"

Pius Layman

Martin said...

Pius layman,

When I said that Bishop Tissier referred to the pope as "Ratzinger" I was referring to another article. Unfortunately I don't have the link.

I glanced at the articles on false obedience. I came across them a few years ago, when I had more confidance in their opinions. Since then it has become more obvious to me that the SSPX are just a tiny fragment of the Church with their own viewpoint, which are no less superior to others. It is the Church who will have the last say.

The analysis on false obedience doesn't apply to the SSPX of today. The New Mass isn't being pushed upon them nor are they or anyone for that matter required to accept problematic areas of Vatican II.

The SSPX undermine the popes authority. They say they accept the pope (I don't doubt that) but then they reduce his authority to little or nothing. They can't have it both ways.

The new Good Friday prayer is an example of this. They reject it and say there was no need to change it. Lets not forget the new prayer is exactly the same as the old prayer from the theological point of view. Personally, I prefer the previous one but nobody has the right to refuse to accept it. I just cannot understand how the Church can operate if everyone decides to start objecting to the way the pope chooses to govern the Church.

Obviously you will disagree with me, and thats ok. I accept our differences in opinion. I'm not so sure Bishop Tissier would think alike. In his book, if you're not with the SSPX, you are either dishonest, a modernist, or quite, simply both!

Anonymous said...

"...SSPX are just a tiny fragment of the Church with their own viewpoint, which are no less superior to others. It is the Church who will have the last say."

Perhaps for the word "fragment' you could use the word 'remnant'.

Perhaps after the word view point you could add, "in keeping with Catholic tradition before V2" and after the word 'others' you could add, "according to the teaching of the conciliar church."

What parts of V2 are not problematic?

John McFarland said...

Dear Martin,

Yes, I know the meaning of "ubi Petrus ibi Ecclesia." But I'm not sure that you really do.

The fact that the pope is the pope, the vicar of Christ on earth, does not mean that his "authentic" magisterium -- that is, the things he teaches as pope from day to day -- is infallible. He is infallible when he teaches ex cathedra, and when he repeats the ordinary and universal magisterium -- that is, what the Church has always taught.

Now if one asks whether Pope Benedict has ever made a statement that purported to be ex cathedra, the answer is pretty obviously no. Despite his denunciations of relativism, the Pope is a relativist. He thinks that world has changed, and that the Church has changed with it, and must continue to change with the world's subsequent changes. The previous sentence in, in fact, a rough approximation of what he means by "living tradition." What doesn't change in the Pope's eyes is, roughly speaking, the dignity and hence the rights of man. Our notions of God, by contrast, are very much changeable.

To be sure, the Pope doesn't say this clearly. He doesn't say anything clearly, which itself puts him at odds with the magisterium of the Church's first 1930 years.

It's certainly the case that the Church is where the current Pope is; but since his teaching is deficient and adulterated, where the Church is, is -- in a terrible state. The faith is the ground of everything else; and when it is not being properly taught, all hell can break loose --and has.

Inexpressibly sad as it is to say, the Pope is like a father who has started to say and do strange things. The Fourth Commandment is not repealed when one's father starts to say and do strange things; but its application becomes quite different. The children can't trust his judgment, and they can't do what he tells them to think or do if what he tells them to think and do is wrong.

So too with our Holy Father.

Bishop Tissier is the mildest of men. I'd suggest to you that his argubly intemperate remarks (on one or two occasions) reflect not his hot temper, but the extent to which he has been provoked by the things that the Pope says and does.

My son is an SSPX seminarian, and one of the things they beat into them is that the Society can not use the dreadful state of things as an excuse for behaving as if it were the Church, or that the current state of the Society is anything but abnormal and exceptional. This is not easy to do; but one thing that will help the SSPX (and tradition in general) to stay on an even keel is the take the full measure of how bad things are, right up to the top, and not look for comfort, safety and protection where there is mostly confusion and double-mindedness.

As for the Good Friday prayer: Cardinal Kasper stated quite flatly that the changes in the prayer were meant in effect to put off the reconciliation of the Jews until the end of time. So far, the pope has not denied this interpretation from his chief subordinate on ecumenical matters. This was of course no news to those of us who to their sorrow can no longer confidently accept what comes from the Vatican.

Finally, the point of laying out the history of the status of the traditional Mass was not to show my superior knowledge. It was to point out to you that each and every indultist has been had -- deceived, misled, humbugged, fast-shuffled, all but literally lied to -- for nearly twenty years before the MP. Pope Benedict, among others, knew and said nothing. The indultists were played for suckers; and don't assume that such behavior is no longer in the bag of tricks. If ever there was a time when we need to follow the Lord's injunction to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves, this is it.

Martin said...

Dear John Mcfarland,

I am aware that the pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra. And if I'm correct the last time this happened was in 1950(Dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary).

Your view that the pope is a relativist is quite simply your own opinion. Naturally I disagree strongly. I find your opinion naive and

Also regarding SSPX priests and seminarians. I don't doubt for a moment that there are great priests and seminarians who are and who will do great things for tradition and the Church.

As for the Good Friday Prayer. So just because some cardinal in Rome gave a ridiculous interpretation of the prayer, the SSPX decide to reject it. I fail to see the logic. Why should someones comments on the prayer dictate whether or not the SSPX accept it. Its nonsense. The prayer was changed in the 60s and the word perfidious was removed even though the word perfidious has a different connotation in Latin. Everyone accepted it back then despite the fact it need not have been changed.
We find ourselves in a similar situation today. The prayer didn't need changing but the pope decided to. the theology remained the same. Therefore we must accept it. It is as simple as that. The SSPX have no reason to not accept it.

All other traditional priests have accepted it. Some of these include The Good Shepherd Institute, The Sons of the Holy Redeemer. Perhaps in your view, they have betrayed tradition.

As for Bishop Tissier being the mildest of men. I don't know where to begin with that description. Do you have the same bishop in mind as I do?

"indultist has been had -- deceived, misled, humbugged, fast-shuffled, all but literally lied to" Simply not true. Many many people in the world have known the issues with this indult. The politics behind it are irrelevant. People care about the Mass. I hope you're not trying to say the indult is bad. I agree that it wasn't the best thing available but without it many would have been without the Latin Mass. And anyway, the indult no longer exists thanks to Benedict XVI.

Anonymous said...

Dear Interlocutores omnes!

Some points here in defense of Bishop Mallerais (though I am not affiliated in any way with the SSPX):

It is accepted theological practice when refering to the writings of a Roman Pontiff before he was the Pope to use his civil name or his name in religious life (if he was a monk previously), to indicate that one is speaking about the fallible man not the infallible shepherd.

This is customary, respectful and entirely Catholic; it in no way supports Sedevacantism.

As for his comments on the heresies professed by the Pope.

The Bishop is refering to an explanation of the dogma of the Redemptin in certain aspects which pertain to the Tradition of the Church but which have never been so specifically defined, namely, whether the Divine Justice demaned explicitly human sacrifice or the shedding of human blood; Ratzinger's rejection as a theologian is on the basis of modern notions of law, which reject human sacrifice and blood for blood contracts etc...

Here we have a question far deeper than mere verbal disagreements: and the Bishop therefore condemnes this criticism of Ratzinger's of the customary explanation as a heresy.

In such cases where a dogma or its explanation pertain to Tradition, even when much of it has been defined, yet in those aspects where one is not yet bound by official decree to hold, the conscience of one believe can lead him to deny what another believe knows rightly must be held, because he is better in formed.

Here we have a case of what appears to be a non-pertinacious act, for clearly Ratzinger does not reject the necessity of satisfaction per se, but only the necessity that the satisfaction be through a violent bloody death: he posits in the same book that the immolation or destruction of the person of Christ was sufficient -- though in this he commits a grave philosophical and theologican error, since Christ as a man had not personhood to immolate, only that of the Divine Second Person which could not be destroyed.

So it is respectful and very necessary to call a theologian out for rejecting this necessary mode of satisfaction, otherwise we would have to deny the teaching of St. Paul "There is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood" and the consequent universal tradition of the Fathers and Doctors in explaining the reason for the necessity of the manner of Christ's Death. Indeed if this manner of death was not necessary, then we have to posit that the Son of God did something unjust and unnecessary and self-inflicting, which imputes at least a psychological deficiency and some sort of natural failure in Him in whom nothing of the kind can exist.

Thus Ratzinger's critque is nonesensical, on theological terms, even if its appeals to modern sentiments. Yet we can and ought concede this, that the redemption is wrought principally not through the suffering and shedding of blood, or even the death, but through the charity of Christ and His intention and acceptance of these, which are only a means, though a necessary one by a title of justice.

indeed if we compare the offense given the Divine Majesty, then there is an analogical necessity of human sacrifice to repair the offense of the entire Majesty, because man must give all of himself to repair offending all of God...

This does not mean that the Pope is a heretic, and thus has lost his office, since this precise aspect has not been defined (namely the strictly absolute necessity of human sacrifice to make reparation, apart and before all other means). I believe that if you asked him in detail, that the Pope would explain that he is not criticizing but the exaggeration of the means over the principal meritorious cause, the charity of Christ, and would thus retract what he said in the manner he said it. Which I pray that he do.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo
franciscan-archive.org

John McFarland said...

Dear Martin,

I am 64 years old, hold a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Brandeis, a J.D. from Yale, have practiced private firm and in-house corporate law from Park Avenue to Boca Raton to the D.C. area. I've been around a lot of leagues, seen a lot of things, read a lot of things. I have any number of character flaws, but naivety is not one of them.

It's just my opinion, eh? Well, how are we going to settle the issue as to whose opinion is right? Have you read in any detail the analyses of the Pope's writings, and the writings of his various allies, by what we might call the critical traditionalists? Or are you taking refuge in that all-American (but hardly all-Catholic) view that you have your opinion and I have mine, so have a nice day.

Cardinal Kasper is not some cardinal in Rome. He carries the ecumenical portfolio. He and the Pope are friends, and fellow liberal theologians from way back. The notion that his view of the prayer is much out of line with the Pope's is, to put the matter diplomatically, hard to credit.

I am no Latinist, but my old Latin dictionary makes it quite clear that "perfidiosus" already had the meaning of treacherous and faithless in classical Latin as far back as Horace. So the notion that the term was neutral in the Good Friday prayer is another thing that I find difficult to credit.

And while we're at it, you may have noticed that Jesus was not neutral about the faithlessness of the faithless Jews. He lets into them pretty good at various points in St. John's gospel, not to mention laying a seven-fold curse on them in Matthew's gospel.

In any event, the elimination of "perfidious" was, as far as anyone could tell back when Pope John XXIII did it, just a minor if peculiar gesture. The changes made by Pope Benedict are not minor, and come in the midst of a campaign to back away from the obligation to convert the Jews, if not to adopt something close (if not identical) to the two-covenant theory.

The whole point of the Transalpine Redemptorists was to re-establish the traditional Redemptorist rule and practice. It seems to me that abandoning the very name is a fair symbol of what has happened. To my cynical old lawyer's nose, Father Michael Mary's arguments for putting himself under the thumb of the local modernist bishop have the very definite smell of rationalization. I would not bet much money on its staying power.

The Institute of the Good Shepherd is a marriage of convenience between Father Aulagnier, who lost his heart for the fight, and Father Laguerie, who wants to do his own thing, and quit the SSPX when Bishop Fellay wouldn't let him to his own thing. I would not bet much money on its staying power.

What do you know about Bishop Tissier beyond the one or two standard sound bites? Have you read his biography of Archbishop Lefebvre (in which he mentions that his vote was against the 1988 consecrations)? If you can find a single manifestation of righteous indignation in it, please advise.

It's becoming pretty clear that you just don't want to see what the indult was. But just for the record: The current Pope knew, since sometime before the issuance of Ecclesia dei adflicta, that since the traditional Mass hadn't been abolished, no indult was required. So he knew in 1988 what he didn't say until 2007.

Now: if a friend of yours did something like that to you, would you trust him quite as much after you found out the real story?

John McFarland said...

I would make two observations about Brother Alexis's analysis.

One is that this is by no means the only example of grave error in Josef Ratzinger's theological corpus, much less the only example of his seeming to look to "modern" opinions as in same sense a justifiable basis for modifying Catholic doctrine.

The other is that, notwithstanding the lack of ex cathedra definition of the matters Brother Alexis discusses, if anyone had published such opinions in, say, 1910, the roof would have fallen in on him unless he retracted quickly and unconditionally. Given the language of Hebrews, it is hard to conceive that the doctrine of the necessity of blood is not part of the ordinary and universal magisterium and hence infallible.

Martin said...

pDear John Macfarland,

I said it was just your opinion regarding relativism because that's exactly what it is. You have made a claim (illogical in my view)and I disagree, as would many more traditionalists.

Cardinal Kasper is "friends" with the Pope. Really? Are they still friends? And more importantly, what has friends got to do with anything. I disagree with my friends all the time! What the SSPX should do is READ the New Prayer. The prayer is clear and concise and requesting the conversion of the Jews, plain and simple. Either they accept or they don't.

The word perfidious in the vernacular has a different connotation to that of Latin. The word taken in the Latin sense is indicating someone who has an obstacle regarding the faith, which is the case with the majority of Jews who don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel or less again that this Messiah is the Only Son of God. They are therefore "perfidis" in the Latin meaning of the word which has a theological qualification. Nobody has the right, especially by falsely quoting the traditional Liturgy to assume that the Church has qualified them in the past as "traitors" or "disloyal". Now to get back to the point I wanted to make. The 1962 change to the Good Friday Prayer was unnecessary but it happened and everyone accepted. Why not the SSPX...

By believing that Cardinal Kaspers friendship with the Pope proves that the new prayer doesn't desire the conversion of the Jews, the SSPX is falling into a trap. Firstly because they are making a personal judgement on the Pope that they cannot substantiate (that the Pope doesn't want the Jews to convert)and secondly because they use their opinion as if it is an authority higher than the Church. Who are the SSPX to say this? Don't get me wrong, I prefer the old prayer because it goes back to the 300s (but thats just being nostalgic to be fair) and secondly because the powerful image of removing the veil is not in the New Prayer. Still, it is a solid theological prayer that works just like the old.

The Redemptorists having to change their name is nothing new in the Church. There are different branches of Franciscans as well. Their bishop whether modern of not is irrelevant. They have the Latin Mass and traditional sacrements.

Being more familiar with the Good Shepherd Institute, I'll begin with a number of facts in contrast to your rather simplistic understanding of Fr Laguerie. You know, History is never black and white. If it was, lies would not be so easily concealed(by the SSPX). Fr Laguerie was expelled from the SSPX for complaining that Econe had serious problems that discouraged vocations. These problems blew up in France in 2004, which the SSPX tried to sweep under the rug. He was transferred to Mexico as a punishment which he didn't accept on the basis that he had been refused an appeal which every priest is entitled to. I could easily list other priests who were disgracefully expelled in France.

Regarding Fr Aulagnier, did you know for example that Msgr Lefebvre on several occasions wanted to stop everything and in fact had decided and announced it? Without the valiance of Fr Aulagnier, there would be no SSPX! Also some of the few to support the consecrations in 1988 were Fr. Laguerie and Fr. Aulagnier. Isn't that interesting!
Their institute is growing and expanding in a canonically normalised situation. Tradition is becoming more widely known thanks to these great priests.

It's a pity that the narrow-mindedness of the leadership of the SSPX is stopping them from becoming what their founder desired so greatly.

Anonymous said...

Dear John McFarland,

You wrote: "Given the language of Hebrews, it is hard to conceive that the doctrine of the necessity of blood is not part of the ordinary and universal magisterium and hence infallible."

All which Scripture teaches is de fide, and if you disbelieve even an iota you are a heretic before God.

But in canonical terms you can only be censured for disbelieved a teaching taught by the Church with an obligation that it be held by you.

What Scripture teaches explicitly, the Magisterium does not teach equally explicitly: it does teach it all virtually, but you are not, e. g. explicitly required by the Magisterium of the Church to believe that Tobias' dog greeted him when he returned home, even though if you disbelieve such a Scriptural truth, you would be a heretic before God, but not before the law.

That is why the Bishop was right to call Ratzinger out on the point, but anyone who takes offense or who says that what the Bishop said means the Pope is not the Pope, is wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that a denial of the necessity of human sacrifice, and of the shedding of blood, as well as the quantity shed, were al neccessary, and that you must believe in these necessities as de fide truths.

But my opinion is not sufficient to try in you Canon law court....:-)) !

John McFarland said...

Dear Martin,

Read my lips. Cardinal Kasper is in charge of ecumenism. If Cardinal Kasper didn't interpret the prayer correctly, why was there not a correction from his boss?

The absence of faith on the part of the Jews is denounced in no uncertainly terms by Jesus. Among other things, he calls the unbelieving Jews sons of the devil, and asks rhetorically how they are going to avoid hell. The rejection of faith is never morally neutral. It is damnable. In this matter, your misplaced faith in the Pope looks to be drawing you into very grave error.

Yes, I know what Father Laguerie says about his break with the Society. You might look into what the Society says about it. I'll find the cite when I get a chance.

The Transalpine Redemptorists changed their name because they were told to. Their agreeing (better, capitulating) was in effect the abandonment of their raison d'etre, the re-establishment of the Redemptorists according to the mind of St. Alphonsus; and like all things that have no purpose, they will wither and die.

I think you overstate the importance of Father Aulagnier's interventions (see the Tissier biog, and the Archbishop's La Petite Histoire), but there is no question that he was an important figure from the gitgo. That's why his failure of heart is a matter of such great sorrow in the Society.

As for the notion that a minority prevailed in 1988, I'd be a little careful of reading your own strong desire for peace into the events of 1988. But even if you're right, it's long since ceased to be much to the point. The consecrations went forward, and the Society became the heart and brains of the resistance to conciliarism. If the Archbishop ever had any regrets, I've never heard of them.

Martin said...

Dear John MacFarland,

You are still using Cardinal Kaspers interview as a reason not to accept the Good Friday Prayer. you ask why the boss hasn't corrected his false interpretation. Well to be honest we don't know why. I'm not going to jump to any conclusions about the Pope. That would be a pitfall the sedevacantists fall into.

Regarding Fr. Aulagnier. Obviously you know little about the SSPX in France. It is impossible to qualify him as a mere "failure of heart", especially seeing the success of the Good Shepherd Institute, which he belongs too. Fr. Aulagnier played an enormous role in establishing the SSPX in France. As right-hand man of Msgr Lefebvre, the SSPX owe a lot to him. Sadly he is considered as a traitor or even perhaps as a modernist among the narrow-minded. Many in France have disassociated themsevles from the SSPX since his and in particular Fr. Laguerie's expulsion. It was inevitable that these problems would come to the surface, taking into account the seminary issues. If you informed yourself on how many priests were expelled between 2002 and 2006, you would be slower to defend the SSPX. They have this bizarre mentality that if you have a different opinion, you should be expelled. It's no wonder some of their priests feel muzzled.

Another issue of concern: do you know that the SSPX has no system of appeal for priests who feel they have been unfairly treated? If there are disputes, which was the case with Fr. Laguerie, Bishop Fellay has the last say. This is not a very healthy system and as a result Fr Laguerie was a victim of this abuse in the leadership.

From reading your posts, it appears that everyone is wrong except your SSPX!

John McFarland said...

Dear Martin,

Still don't see the elephant in the room, eh?

Let me try it from this angle. The Pope's VP-Ecumenism interpreted the Good Friday prayer in a way you don't think is right. But the Pope has said nothing to correct this (mis)interpretation. That would seem to mean either (1) that the Pope agrees with his VP-Ecumenism or (2) that he doesn't mind having some people believe one thing, and other people believe that other. Of course, it's the liberal view that has the official backing: the interpretation of the Pope's VP-Ecumenism. You have only your certainty that (1) you're right, even though at least some traditionalists disagree with you, and (2) the Pope agrees with you, although the Pope so far has said no such thing.

Don't you think the Pope's behavior is, well, a little odd. If he's On Our Side, why doesn't he speak up?

I'm reminded of the traditionalists who hug to their bosoms the one or two mild apparent criticisms by the Pope of evolutionism, but ignore the recent big evolution shindig in Rome to which not a single anti-evolutionist was invited. If he's On Our Side, couldn't he have invited at least one anti? For half a day at least? Or maybe play an anti-evolution DVD for half an hour? fifteen minutes? five?

What do you know about the SSPX in France, and from what sources? Do you have chapter and verse on the expulsions and the reasons therefor? Can you point me to anything in writing from an SSPX member that accuses Father Aulagnier of modernism?

Whom did you have in mind to take appeals from Bishop Fellay? Father Laguerie? Father Hans Kueng? In the pre-Vatican II Church, with exceedingly rare exceptions, the head of a congregation was the final arbiter for the members. That's what obedience is all about. Father Laguerie was sacked for being disobedient. If he were a good member of the SSPX, he would have gone to Mexico even if it did constitute a raw deal. Accepting raw deals is something that Christians do, unless they involve doing what's wrong. Do you think that going to Mexico is morally wrong?

It is only bizarre to expel members of the SSPX for disagreeing if the disagreements in question are matters that clearly do not justify expulsion. What were the bases of the disagreements in question?

In my view, everyone is indeed wrong who does not agree with the SSPX that the conciliar magisterium is deficient and adulerated. But that's not because the SSPX said it; it's because it's true. As regards anything else, I'm prepared to accept demonstrations that they've gone wrong in great things or small. But I am fairly particular about what I'll take as evidence.

John McFarland said...

Martin,

The SSPX's account of l'affaire Laguerie can be found on www.sspx.org., under SSPX in the Articles index. Or you can just punch up Laguerie + SSPX on Google, and it will the first or one of the first cites.

There's also a lot of other material on the site that you might find informative. But I must warn you that it will make it very hard to keep ignoring that elephant.

John McFarland said...

Dear Martin,

You can also find a briefer account of l'affaire Aulagnier in the same place.

Anonymous said...

Dear Pro and Anti SSPX,

"Submission to Peter is the Right Way to Go"
http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/

To assist in the discourse between Mr. MacFarland, Martin and Others please the link that tells of the Papa Stronsay experience to date, i.e. a positive experience to date with no compromise.

I hope and pray that the Papa Stronsay priests are resolute and have clarity in their new direction.

Martin said...

Dear anonymous,

I am certainly not anti-SSPX. In fact I'm all for them. I know a number of their priests who are excellent. I've been to many of their Masses and have heard great sermons.

But as I've said in previous posts I'm not unaware of their shortcomings. I believe that now is the time for the SSPX to be canonically recognised. They could do much good within the mainstream. The Pope wants them to be recognised but unfortunately, there is a mindsight in the SSPX but not among everyone, that the SSPX have all the answers to the problems in the Church and unless you agree with all of their ideas you are not a true traditionalist.

Kevin said...

Martin,

You may be banging your head against a wall in arguing with Mr. McFarland. Keep in mind that he believes that "The 'living magisterium' is the true doctrine of the Faith, living in the hearts of the faithful."--an absurd claim that he he makes in his second post of the following thread, and which Confiteor had the sense to describe as "pure protestantism":

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19978542&postID=2070652294695450068

Rather, you may find a more sobering approach to these traditionalist issues in Dr. Brian Sudlow's blog, "the sensible bond"--he has written what is, in my opinion, a very reasonable critique of the sspx:

http://thesensiblebond.blogspot.com/2008/07/confessions-of-nobody-or-why-i-quit.html

Martin said...

Dear John MacFarland,

Be careful about assumptions you make about the pope. They may very well be wrong. I think we both agree that the Church is in an extremely precarious state today. The Church is sharply divided between liberals and conservatives like never before, and Benedict finds himself as the leader, amid this chaotic situation. Not an easy job to say the least. One of the most important responsiblities of the pope is to ensure unity within the Church. This is not so easily obtained, and therefore, sometimes other methods must be applied. I think that you were expecting the pope to come out and bash his fist down on the table and reprimand Cardinal Kasper for his disgraceful interpretation! I would never underestimate the popes intelligence. At times subtlety can be a marvelous tool for getting the message across, especially with such a contoversial topic.

Anyone who has read the prayer will immediately see what the intentions of our Holy Father were. From this side of the world where I come from, we would say "if if was a dog, it would bite ya!"

I have included the prayer beneath. Sometimes a second reading works wonders!

"Let us also pray for the Jews that God our Lord should illuminate their hearts, so that they will recognize Jesus Christ, the Savior of all men.

Let us pray. Let us genuflect. Rise.

All-powerful and eternal God, you who wish that all men be saved and come to the recognition of truth, graciously grant that when the fullness of peoples enters your Church all of Israel will be saved."

I don't see any theological errors!

Do I have chapter and verse? I think the SSPX are doing their very best to forget about the embarrassing Laguerie affaire. Canal Fraternite Historique is a french site that has official documents showing the injustices of the leadership of the SSPX.

Fr. Laguerie was one of few priests who had courage to stand up for the serious problems at Econe. He was not alone in his criticism. Other priests spoke out in his defence and were subsequently thrown out. Relegating Fr. Laguerie to merely a disobeidient priest is the pure signs of an empty intellect. He was showing his concern for vocations that the leadership were uninterested in. The seminary had become very strict on what they considered to be a good vocation and many seminarians were told to leave because they apparently didn't have vocations, when in actual fact the opposite was the case.

Anonymous said...

Martin,
Is not the Good Shepard full of homosexuals? Are these the ones rejected by the SSPX as not having a vocation?

John McFarland said...

Dear Kevin,

You have misunderstood my point about living magisterium, perhaps due to my own bad explanation.

The Faith is a body of knowledge. St. Paul and the whole tradition of the Church speaks of the deposit of faith, in the sense of a deposit in trust. It is an objective reality. But it only "lives" in a particular Christian when he believes and is baptized, and goes on to live the spiritual life in accordance with that faith.

The "living tradition" of the concilar Church, by contrast, is living in the sense that an organism is living; it adapts to the different circumstances of times and places. As a practical matter, this means that the Church adapts itself to the political, social and cultural forces that are dominant at a particular time, as understood by the leaders of the Church at that particular time. In the Pope's "hermeneutic of continuity," all that is really continuous is constant change. For example: in the nineteenth century, the Church condemned Rosmini's teachings. In the twentieth century, he will probably soon be beatified, because that was then, and this is now.

But this is not compatible with the concept of the changeless deposit of faith. There is nothing in the gospels or the pre-Vatican II tradition that supports living tradition in the concilar sense. It is just historical relativism with holy water sprinkled on it.

Martin said...

Dear Kevin,

Yes I couldn't agree more with you. I guess you can't change some people!

The Sensible Bond on the other hand has some of the most logical are clear arguments I have ever read. "Confessions of a nobody and why I left the SSPX mileu" is my favourite. Dr Brian Sudlow has an inside knowledge of the SSPX and his thoughts are conveyed very clearly.

John McFarland said...

Dear Martin,

Here are the traditional, 1962 and new prayers for the Jews. The translations are mine, but close enough, I think:

OLD AND 1962
Oremus et pro [perfidis Judaeis] [Judaeis] : ut Deus et Dominus noster auferat velamen de cordibus eorum, ut et ipsi agnoscant Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum.
Let us pray also for the [perfidious Jews] [Jews]: that our God and Lord may remove the veil from their hearts, that they also may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord.

Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui etiam [Judaicam perfidiam] [Judaeos] a tua misercordia non repellis: exaudi preces nostras, quas pro illius populi obcaecatione deferimus: ut agnita veritatis tuae luce, quae Christus est, a suis tenebris eruantur. Per eumdem Dominum…
Almighty and eternal God, who does not repel even [Judaic perfidy][the Jews] from thy mercy, hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people: that by acknowledging the light of thy truth, which is Christ, they may be rescued from their darkness. Through the same Lord...

NEW

Oremus et pro Iudaeis. Ut Deus et Dominus noster illuminet corda eorum, ut agnoscant Iesum Christum salvatorem omnium hominum.
Let us pray also for the Jews. That our God and Lord may enlighten their hearts, that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ the savior of all men.

Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui vis ut omnes homines salvi fiant et ad agnitionem veritatis veniant, concede propitius, ut plenitudine gentium in Ecclesiam Tuam intrante omnis Israel salvus fiat. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.
Almighty eternal god, you who will that all men be saved and come to acknowledgment of the truth, mercifully grant, that [in? by?] the fullness of the [gentiles? nations including the Jews?] coming into thy Church, all Israel may be saved. Through Christ our Lord.

Note two things in particular.

Gone are the references to the veil over Jewish hearts, and to Jewish blindness. This omissions can fairly be read as eliminating any notion that Jewish failure to acknowledge Christ is culpable. Now their elimination doesn’t have to be read that way; but then why didn't the Pope just leave them in? The "veil" reference is to 1 Corinthians. Jesus famously calls the scribes and Pharisees fools and blind. Why remove them, if not to at least give the impression that the Jews are not to be denounced for their unbelief?

Added is, most notably, reference to the fullness of the nations coming into the Church, an obvious allusion to Romans 11:25-26: “blindness in part has happened in Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles should come in. And so all Israel shall be saved.” This is widely read as referring to a general conversion of the Jews at or near the end of time. (Note, however, that the “blindness” is not alluded to.) So at a minimum, the Pope has added language that can fairly be read as Cardinal Kasper has read it. But if the Pope didn’t mean that, or didn't at least want to have it as a possible interpretation, why did he put in the “fullness” language, since of all the passages he could have picked from St. Paul’s extended teaching on the Jews in Romans 9-11, it is the one most subject to an end-of-time interpretation? If he'd left that out, the prayer would have continued to cover, as it had covered since about the 2nd or third century A.D., both the conversion of Jews in larger and smaller numbers AND a possible general conversion of the Jews in the last times.

Why, Martin, is the Pope unclear? Why can the liberals read it their way, in good faith?

Is your answer that he must maintain unity? Does that mean that his strategy for unity is to formulate things in such a way that both the “left” and the “right” can read it their way? But how does this square with our Lord’s injunction to let your yes be yes, and your no be no, and that anything else comes from evil? Can you find me a passage in the gospel that says or implies that unity comes before truth?

So as between the two of us, who is being naïve?

P.S. My name is McFarland, not MacFarland.

Anonymous said...

Rosmini

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/csaints/documents/rc_con_csaints_doc_20071118_beatif-rosmini_en.html

John McFarland said...

Kevin,

I took a look at Dr. Sudlow's critique of the SSPX. Its fatal flaw is the usual one: it pays little attention to the conciliar magisterium, and this enables it to deploy the ultimate weapon: giving the Vatican the benefit of the doubt.

Once you read and understand the conciliar magisterium with the help of those who understand the traditional doctrine of the Church (Romano, Doermann, SiSiNoNo, the SSPX and their allies), there is no giving the concilar popes the benefit of the doubt. Their magisterium is deficient and adulterated. Once this is recognized, then the SSPX's state of emergency goes from being a subject of debate to an obvious truth. If the Pope is not giving the Faith to you straight, that's a terrible problem that requires drastic measures, and those measures take precedence over everything. If we don't have the Faith, we don't have anything.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland,

You spoke quite a bit about your concept of living tradition in your post, but you haven't clarified what it is you mean by living magisterium. When it comes to these two things--living magisterium and living tradition--we can think of them as the teacher and the material being taught.

The living magisterium is the body within the Church that is the safeguard and interpreter of tradition, and which determines teaching--specifically, the living magisterium is the current Pope and the bishops.

Your explanation of the way it can be said that the deposit of faith "lives" places too much emphasis on the "individual Christian" when the emphasis should be more on the Church as a whole.

I've become convinced that the way we think about the deposit of faith in relation to how development of doctrine occurs can be compared to the Lord leaving the Church with a room--inside, the room is filled with all sorts of marvelous furniture and things. As time passed by, of course, the Church contemplates more and more the deposit of faith it was left with, and understands more and more about it. Thus, with the room analogy, you can think of the light switch being turned up brighter and brighter over time, revealing the objects in the room more and more clearly. Now, there's nothing new in the room--it remains as it was given to the Church. But our understanding of those objects becomes clearer--the Church itself learns more about that which Christ left it.

It should also be noted that, in relation to any given topic, the Church may emphasize a particular theological point or aspect at one time, while emphasizing a different point or aspect at a different time. We see this early on in the Church's understanding of soteriology--earlier on, Ransom theory was the understanding of the day--but the Church's understanding developed (while correcting certain excessive emphases in old theories) and Aquinas became moreso the standard. Are any of the previous understandings of the atonement incorrect, per se? No, but some are certainly more balanced in their understanding and representation of the subject than others. When it comes to "tradition" the sspx's narrow notion of this subject does not line up with the Church's--and I mean that in a way that excludes the error of evolution of dogma. You can almost think of it as evolution of dogma as an error on on the left side of the spectrum, and the sspx's idea on extreme right side. As the sspx is fond of telling us sometimes, the truth is in the middle.

Incidentally, you're sometimes going to get someone in the Church who emphasizes and advocates a certain point or even an entire theology too forcefully over other legitimate possibilities--a lesson I first learned first-hand upon hearing an sspx priest tell his congregation during a sermon that "If you're not a Thomist, you're a heretic!"

Ironically, someone on a Rorate Caeli thread cited the following Ratzinger quote on as "proof" of his "modernism" when, rather, it's an excellent explanation of the way in which the Church learns more about its own tradition and improves its expression of this truth as time goes by:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_093_Rat-TheologianVocation.html

I recall a random "anonymous" giving a wonderful explanation of Ratzinger's words there--an explanation that is totally pertinent to this discussion:

"It was Pope Pius XII that loosened restrictions on Biblical studies--restrictions that were tightened in response to Modernism. Such restrictions were not the final say.

Likewise, restrictions as to religious liberty were greater when the threat of radical libertines were undermining the very basis of the Catholic society--however, in a more diverse society, again as Pius XII pointed out, the restrictions often must be less.

The underlying truths remain unchanged, but the decisions applying them may change depending on the circumstances."

It must've been a typo when you said that Rosmini will probably be beatified in the "twentieth century". Anyways, the Church has "condemned" and censured all sorts of theologians during its history, only to come to a different reassesment later. What the Church often does is revise its understanding of what certain people say as the Church itself grows. I'm sorry, but given the Church's history, it's simply too short-sighted to point to someone who has been condemned or censured at one point, is now being re-evaluated (or in this case, considered for beatification) and cry "foul!"--you're essentially attacking the Church for doing something it has always done. If Rosmini is a saint, then he'll be canonized one--if not, then he won't. Leave it Christ's mystical body to determine.

In closing, I'll cite Humani Generis 21 again as I did on a previous thread we both wrote on: "This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church." Both you and I obviously fall into the category of "each of the faithful" so it's really none of our business to dictate to the magisterium what does and does not constitute legitimate expression and interpretation of the tradition that has been handed down to us. In short, while you may have received your First Communion a year early because--as you once made sure to point out--you "knew all the answers in the catechism" you still need to realize that there is always more in Roman Catholicism that a person can stand to learn--even the sspx bishops, believe it or not. Perhaps, like you, I have given a poor explanation of things here in this post (i'm certainly no expert), and you're going to level me with a barrage of criticisms.

I pretty much expect that, but remember this--you're never too old to learn more about the faith--even from the current magisterium, with all of its shortcomings.

God Bless, and please keep me in your prayers, as I will keep you in mine.

--Kevin (was having trouble getting the openid to work)

Anonymous said...

Dear Martin,

Thanks for quoting the prayer,

"Let us also pray for the Jews that God our Lord should illuminate their hearts, so that they will recognize Jesus Christ, the Savior of all men.

"Let us pray. Let us genuflect. Rise.

All-powerful and eternal God, you who wish that all men be saved and come to the recognition of truth, graciously grant that when the fullness of peoples enters your Church all of Israel will be saved."

NOW TRY READING THE 1962 ONE:

"Let us also pray for the Jews: that our Lord and God take away the veil from their hearts; that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ to be our Lord.

"Almighty eternal God, who also does not repell the Jews from Your mercy: graciously hear the prayers which we are conveying on behalf of the blindness of that people; so that once the light of Your Truth has been recognized, which is Christ, they may be rescued from their darkness."


---------

1. Now ask yourself, what has been left out.

2. Now ask yourself, why has it been left out.

3: Now ask yourself, who attending our liturgies would be offended by what is included in number 1.

4: Now ask yourself, what is liturgy for, pleasing God or pleasing those who are offended by what is in number 1.

5: Now think about it.

6: Now ask if the implicit assumptions contained in the pastoral practice regarding changing the prayer have anything to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ recorded in the 4 Gospels or the writings of St. Paul.

Please cite chapter and verse, if you can.

Thank you.

When you have done this, I believe in all sincerity you will have to retract your words about there being nothing theologically wrong in the New Prayer.

A pray can contain errors in what it says, or in what it does not say and needs to say, or in the manner it says it, or with the implications of what it says.

If we dont pray for the specific spiritual problems of the Jews, pretending that they don't exist so as not to offend them, then can we reasonably expect God to hear us, since He condemned the pharasee at prayer for his hypocrisy?

Sincerely,

Br. Alexis Bugnolo
franciscan-archive.org

Kevin said...

Really, the Catholic encylopedia's explanation of Tradition and the Living Magisterium--particularly sections III through V--demonstrate the full richness and depth of the Church's understanding of these subjects.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

"Once you read and understand the conciliar magisterium with the help of those who understand the traditional doctrine of the Church (Romano, Doermann, SiSiNoNo, the SSPX and their allies), there is no giving the concilar popes the benefit of the doubt"

Considering that one of the reasons I left the sspx milieu was because I disagreed with their analysis/interpretation of Ratzinger's writing, you should be able to understand why I don't find that appeal very convincing.
Furthermore, even though I'm sure you don't mean it to come off this way, you should know that what you say there can sound to people like George Orwell's notion of "goodthink"--we simply need to be re-educated.

Martin said...

John McFarland,

You might be surprised to read that I actually agree that the old prayer is much better in terms of reflecting on scripture, especially for the powerful image of removing the veil. We can lament the fact that it was not in the new prayer.

But in saying that, I go back to my original point. The new prayer is not ambiguous in its content and calls for the conversion of the Jews, plain and simple.

By the way, do you know who told me that new prayer is identical from the theological point of view (which is the most important view)? An SSPX priest! Maybe Bishop Fellay says no to the New Prayer but not every SSPX priest agrees with Bishop Fellay and rightly so! And also, Bishop Fellay has absolutley no jurisdiction to stop priests from using the new prayer. I doubt they will use it though.

Well, I think we have worn out this discussion by now. The next thing to look forward to the the lifting of the excommunications in a short few weeks, hopefully.

John McFarland said...

Dear Kevin,

Yours is the standard conservative analysis. Its conceptual axis runs between authority and the individual conscience, and argues that between authority and the individual conscience, authority rules. What you end up with is that the Church authorities, or at least the Pope, is de facto infallible as regards EVERYTHING.

Let me offer a different analysis -- the Catholic analysis. Its axis runs between the doctrine of the Faith revealed once for all, and finished by the death of the last apostle, and authority; and argues that as between the deposit of the Faith and authority, the deposit of Faith rules.

The Church only teaches infallibly when it repeats what the Church has always taught, or when the Pope, under the very narrowly drawn circumstances of an ex cathedra pronouncement, purports to teach infallibly. Note the exquisite care taken in the definition of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.

For the first 1930 years of the Church, nobody needed to pay much attention to these distinctions. The good popes taught the doctrine of the Church; the bad popes ignored it because they were interested in other things, which is what made them bad popes.

But in the last generation, something new has arisen: authority, up to and including the Popes, has begun teaching a deficient and adulerated version of the Faith, and has used its authority to impose that doctrine on the vast majority of Catholics.

But Jesus said that it is the truth that will set you free -- not authority.

To be sure, the necessity of looking elsewhere than the hierarchy for the integral and undefiled Faith entails grave dangers. But they are not as grave as the danger of accepting through servile obedience a deficient and adulterated version of the Faith: the road through obedience to apostasy.

The Church has of course always recognized that the Chuch's understanding of the faith can develop. It is also true that different times and places emphasize different aspects of the faith. But (for example) ecumenism, religious liberty and collegiality are not homogeneous developments or differences of emphasis; they are a gospel different from the gospel handed down until 1962, and still being handed down among those few who understand -- and therefore reject -- the different gospel.

It is certainly not the case that to deny Thomism is to be a heretic. But since Thomism is at bottom the refinement of common sense, its rejection is, to say the least of it, not a good sign. It would interesting to know how many of my fellow intellectually pretensious Catholic college students of the early to mid 60s, who laughed Thomism to scorn, go to church on Sundays. As regards my own alma mater, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's just me-- and one other guy who became an Episcopal priest a few years back.

St. Pius X wanted nobody but Thomists teaching in the seminaries. Does that reflect his intellectual narrowness -- or the dangers lurking in the rejection of the philosophy of common sense?

Let me put it this way: I am more scandalized by your obvious lack of understanding of where Thomism used to fit -- and no longer fits -- into the life of the Church than I am about the SSPX priest's error or misstatement or exaggeration or whatever.

John McFarland said...

Dear Martin,

I think you must have inadvertenatly deleted your explanation of why the Pope added the language about the plenitude of the nations, even though it strongly implies an eschatological understanding of the conversion of the Jews. Could you send it along?

John McFarland said...

Dear Kevin,

I'm not sure what your point is about Father Bainvel's article in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I'm quite familiar with all the concepts, although I think that Bishop Tissier's SiSiNoNo article, which is republished on www.sspx.org, is probably a better treatment for an age in which "living" and the "mind of the Church" have been construed in Hegelian and Bergonsian -- that is, heterodox -- ways. In any event, I don't see any material difference between Father B and Bishop TdeM.

Since you're a devotee of the Pope's theology, perhaps you could explain to me, at least in rough outline, the deep and rich connection between love as grounded in eros, as in the Pope's first encyclical, and the traditional theology of Christian love?

P.S. "The SSPX milieu"? That was Dr. Sudlow's phrase, too. Do all of you guys go through the same deprogramming camp?

Jordanes said...

Is not the Good Shepard full of homosexuals? Are these the ones rejected by the SSPX as not having a vocation?

I've not heard any such reports or rumors. Perhaps you are thinking of the Institute of Christ the King?

Martin said...

Dear John McFarland,

I came across an interesting article on the Good Friday Prayer. It might be of interest to you. I haven't finished reading it yet.

The link:

http://uvcarmel.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/the-good-friday-prayer-by-michael-j-matt-editor-the-remnant/

Martin said...

Jordanes,

Who made that comment about the Good Shepherd priests?

Jordanes said...

It was an anonymous comment. There's no way to tell who made it.

Anonymous said...

Martin,
"Who made that comment about the Good Shepherd priests?"

I'll 'fess up, it was me. I really didn't intend to offend anyone with that comment but I see that I used a poor choice of words in that post. Sometimes I blow it and I apologize if it came across poorly.

I did read (somewhere?) that the Good Shepard has problems that way. I hope it is not true for all our sakes, especially for the Traditional movement.

Jordanes said...

Er, thanks for "fessing up," Anonymous. . . .