Rorate Caeli

Pope: "Vatican II: the Pope protects legitimate differences"
"Pray that storms do not shake the Church"

The Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter also falls on this Sunday, an important liturgical event which underscores the ministry of the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles. The Chair of Peter symbolizes the authority of the Bishop of Rome, called to accomplish a peculiar service for the whole People of God. Soon after the martyrdom of Saints Peter and Paul, the primatial role of the Church of Rome is in fact recognized in the entire Catholic community, a role already recognized in the Second Century by Saint Ignatius of Antioch (Ad Rom., Pref.: Funk, I, 252) and by Saint Irenaeus of Lyon (Ad Haer.III, 3,2-3). 

This singular and particular ministry of the Bishop of Rome was reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council: "Within the Church particular Churches hold a rightful place; these Churches retain their own traditions, without in any way opposing the primacy of the Chair of Peter, which presides over the whole assembly of charity (cfr. S. Ign. Ant., Ad Rom., Pref.) and protects legitimate differences, while at the same time assuring that such differences do not hinder unity but rather contribute toward it." (Lumen gentium, 13).

Dear brothers and sisters, this feast grants me the opportunity to ask you to join me with your prayers, so that I may faithfully accomplish the high responsibility which Divine Providence entrusted me as Successor of the Apostle Peter.
...
[From the greeting to the German-speaking pilgrims:] Let us ask Saint Peter for his intercession so that the bewilderment and the storms do not shake the Church, that we remain faithful to a genuine Faith, keep unity, and live together in charity.
Benedict XVI
February 22, 2009

69 comments:

Dan Hunter said...

Hopefully the Holy Father will regularise the FSSPX today.
I'm missing confession very much at the FSSPX chapel.

God bless His Holiness!

James said...

Dan: Are they no longer offering confession, or are you just not going to confession there out of recognition the priests cant validly absolve. I have heard rumors that some of the SSPX priests in my area are holding off on giving any sort of absolution until this situation is worked out.

James said...

But again those are just rumors (and they did not come from any of the SSPX parishioners so I am really unsure of their validity).

Dan Hunter said...

James

The priest FSSPX chapel that my wife and I go to, at leas as of last week is stilling hearing confessions.

Its just that since the Society does not have faculties to hear confession they are invalid and we have to go to Diocesan priests who in my experience have also invalidated confession by using invalid words of absolution.

I wish that the FSSPX could hear confessions validly because they are excellenct confessors and sometimes we cannot go anywhere else.

Faculties Soon!!!

Anonymous said...

Form his words, I believe the Pope is preparing the Church for something big.

I would not be surprised if he does even more for Catholic tradition...not only the restoration completely of the SSPX, but new rules allowing total freedom of the Tridentine Latin Mass everywhere in the Church, in every parish every Sunday, without and problems from Bishops at all.

I also think that the Pope will not accept the resignation of Msgr. Wagner.
Finally, I would not be surprised if the Pope does some disiplinary/reordering of Bishops in Austria, appoints traditional/traditionalist Bishops to Manila , New York, St. Louis and Westminster, and also sacks some people in the Curia before Easter (Re, Levada, and others)

elliot said...

Anonymous...

I'm inclined to believe that too...
please God you're right...

Anonymous said...

Dear Brethren

An off topic request. Today is the Feast of St Margaret of Cortona of the Franciscan tertiary. A signal grace has prompted me to find a Traditional novena or prayer to this Saint. I have not found anything on the internet except a novus ordo prayer from a novus ordo parish named after her in the US. Your gracious response would be appreciated.
Giuseppe di
Balthazar

Fr. BJ said...

Has there really been nothing further made public about Bishop-elect Wagner? I am wondering what his status is; many people seem to be taking it for granted that he submitted a withdrawal request, and it was granted, but I have yet to see anything public from the Vatican about either his request having been submitted or its being accepted.

Anonymous said...

I wish that this would just end. We need a recogniton of the status of Society Sacraments as licit so that we can move on and actually accomplish something in tne months and years to come. This has become interminable. Some families have spent their entire lives waiting for this nonsense to end.

The liberals will wail and scream as usual but for no good reason. According to any figures one cares to consult, the entire traditionalist movement is a tiny apostolate. The NewMassers will still have 99% of the churches, chapels, Massgoers, priests, schools, seminaries, and money. If they fail with all that, that's their problem. Just leave us alone. Their problem can't be our wlid success, because there hasn't been one. So it has to be their own wild failure. Now that's something there is overwhelming evidence for.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous wrote:

"I would not be surprised if he does even more for Catholic tradition...not only the restoration completely of the SSPX, but new rules allowing total freedom of the Tridentine Latin Mass everywhere in the Church, in every parish every Sunday, without and problems from Bishops at all."


Well, I can't see how H.H. could go quite that far. Is that logistically possible? I don't think so. However, if you read Article 1 of S.P. carefully, we can see another possibility. I have argued elsewhere that Article 1, long-term, is the most important one of all. Most people skim over it and say, yeah, yeah, general right, venerable and ancient usgage, right, blah, blah, blah. But this Pope does not tend to write pablum. Not at all. If he writes something, he means it.

I saw the "must" in Article 1 and then checked the Latin formula used. Then I consulted some legal texts to determine who had the responsbility to enforce this Article. The answer is that the local bishops have the first responsibility. But if they are unable or unwilling, it falls to the Pope.

What the Article means in law is that there is an ordinary duty to offer at least one T.L.M. in every diocese of the world--all 3,000 of them--not just on Sundays but DAILY. However, presumbly, such a norm will not be enforced unless at least one person (and I'm guessing three) from the diocese insist on this.

The Pope might want to clarify that Article. It does impose an ordinary duty. The "must" does indeed express an ordinary requirement, a duty.

More realistically, however, a recognition of S.S.P.X faculties will have a far greater effect. It will have a direct effect on the Society but also an important indirect effect on the local bishops. I'll explain more once it happens--if I live that long. I only have about fifty years left and, at this rate, I might be dead before anything more gets done.

P.K.T.P.

John McFarland said...

As I've indicated before, I'm pretty amazed that people are worried about the validity of SSPX sacraments.

I'm still more amazed that people think that it's something that the Pope cares about, or might be expected to do anything about.

Can anyone find anything in his papal pronouncements that reflects any concern about the matter? I would also note that if he had some concern, we would fairly expect him to be speaking often and forcefully about the irregularities in the Novus Ordo Mass and other sacraments, which have been endemic since the day before their introduction.

But whether traditional or NO, I think that what you're going to find from His Holiness on the matter is the proverbial silence of the grave. It's all part of that discredited neo-scholasticism that he's been wrinkling his nose disdainfully at since about 1948.

But I'm most amazed that anyone sees the Pope's anodyne remarks, complete with the standard reference to the Fathers and quote from Vatican II, as evidence that Something Big is in the offing from he who is On Our Side. Heck, he isn't even willing to admit that the storms have long since begun to shake the Church. If nothing's broke (yet, anyway), we don't have to fix it, now do we?

Margaret said...

+UIOGD I find the confession questions interesting re: the SSPX, many diocesan priests do not even give absolution or do so in right form, and some priests in the traditional groups do not understand the Sacrament of Confession. I would not trade a confession in the Society for any other, and we are relatively new to the society, their priests are excellent confessors and grace abounds among their people and through their confessionals. By their fruits you shall know them! Viva Cristo Rey! Margaret

Isabelle said...

I would just like to make a humble comment regarding the validity of the confessions from SSPX priests, and especially direct this to Dan Hunter. The fact that you recognize the probable invalidity of the absolutions from diocesan priests tells me that you are fully justified in seeking absolution from the SSPX priests. Personally, I haven't given it a second thought and feel confident that I am not wrong in having my confessions heard by my SSPX priests. What do I use as my guidepost? When in doubt, look at the fruits. If you see the effects of grace in your life, you know that you are doing the right thing.

Paul Haley said...

Having been one who lobbied for the Holy Father to grant faculties to the FSSPX on this day, the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter, one might ask: "Are you not disappointed"? The answer is; "No, because I continue to trust in the Providence of Our Lord and may His Will be done." Apparently, He wants us to wait a little longer and who are we to question His Will?

I'll continue to pray and pray hard for the complete lifting of the sanctions and humbly ask others to join me as we storm the gates of heaven with our petitions.

Joe B said...

Would somebody give us a quote that proves SSPX absolutions are invalid, or is this just an assumption based on a lack of specified jurisdiction, which, for all kinds of good reasons, has all kinds of holes in it?

On an aside, would you also say that the absolutions of Eastern Orthodox priests are invalid as well?

Alex said...

John McFarland do you have chronic constipation, or are you just naturally grumpy?

Anonymous said...

Some of you have taken issue with Mr. Haley concerning invalidity of SSPX confessions, but I think your arguments lack substance. First, whether or not pope discusses sacramental validity often is not relevant. If SSPX confessions are invalid, they are invalid regardless of whether the pope thinks it is important or not.

In addition, Margaret, whether or not SSPX confessors do a great job is irrelevant to the validity of the sacrament.

And Isabelle, I am fraid it is this way with you as well. The guidepost is not the effects of grace in your life, for that would make it subjective and entirely protestant. The guidepost is the law, the guidepost is the pope, and until he eliminates that barrier, we have no choice but to assume he wants the barrier there still.
You are very right Dan Hunter. God reward you for your suffering. Offer it up for the reconciliation.

Guadalupe Guard said...

Just in case there is any disturbance of the peace of mind of the dear ladies that have posted above about the remission of sin and grace their SSPX confessions has brought, I answer as I have before:

It is absurd to think the Holy Father doesn't care whether sins are forgiven or not. As such, because in practice (in word or warning) the Vatican is silent and thus not enforcing the law that would require the granting of faculties from local ordinaries for SSPX priests it can be assumed that the law is in abeyance.

So too, since a state of emergency surely still exists overall on diocesan levels jurisdiction is supplied for those who act in accord with informed Catholic conscience.

As for the rest of you, your rather obsessive-compulsive legalism is a personal issue. Not that you shouldn't continue to follow your informed Catholic conscience, but please since the Pope hasn't deemed it necessary to warn others who are following their own informed Catholic conscience neither need you.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"...but new rules allowing total freedom of the Tridentine Latin Mass everywhere in the Church, in every parish every Sunday, without and problems from Bishops at all."

Summorum Pontificum was supposed to have accomplished that. ENFORCING that Motu Proprio -- not merely a new piece of paper -- is what we need.

Isabelle said...

Thank you, Guadalupe Guard, for your comment. My peace of mind is entirely intact. To the anonymous poster just prior, I would like to say that my way thinking is not in the least protestant. "By their fruits you shall know them." In times of turmoil in the Church, we are to use our intelligence and knowlege of tradition to carry us through and help us make the right decisions. Where the good fruits are, there is the Holy Ghost. We must not have fear of unjust censures when we know that the Holy Ghost is present. I have personally seen the effects of grace in my life since my move to an SSPX chapel. I have no fear that I am doing the right thing. I do hope and pray that the Holy Father will make some sort of pronouncement soon to clarify the issue for the benefit of those who are strictly concerned with the legality issue.

Oleg-Michael Martynov said...

Concerning the validity of absolutions made by Eastern 'Orthodox' priests: in this case, as well as in other cases when a validly ordained priest lacks faculties from the Catholic Church, there is a principle of 'supplit Ecclesia': the Church Herself fills the want, making the otherwise theoretically invalid absolution valid. It is possible to confess to and receive valid absolution from a priest from another diocese, or a priest suspended from hearing confessions, or even an excommunicated priest, or from a priest with whom you have sinned against the 6th commandment, etc., in case of being in danger of death and lacking the ability to go to a priest with faculties. I believe this applies to non-Catholics who confess to their non-Catholic (but valid) priests and can't go to Catholic priests with faculties because of the schism; and if so, it would of course and all the more apply to FSSPX priests to whom people go because of possibly invalid formulae in the diocesan parishes - or because the diocesan priests would turn them down because of their attending FSSPX Masses. It should also be remembered that if the penitent sincerely, though mistakenly, believes that the priest does have faculties to give valid absolution, he or she receives this absolution validly.

Anonymous said...

The Holy Father's concern is what I voiced here a couple of days ago that did not get through the censure:

"When the Church would restore the tradition, she abandoned with the allowed and approved reforms in the name of a new 'spirit' of the council, the violent shift of direction will be more resisted than the reaction to the Revolution of Pope John XXIII."
You will live to see it. Then the Church will be pure, holy and faithful once more. But only

"the ligth of faith will give direction to the faithful." ... Our Lady of LaSalette.

Anonymous said...

Yes, the conditions for ecclesia supplet remain as always: danger of death, etc. I didn't think that Mr. Hunter or any of the others here considered themselves in danger of death nor so remotely far from a Catholic priest who would be willing to hear their confessions. You cannot cook up extraordinary situations when they are not there. That sounds like a lot more 'legalism' to me.

John McFarland said...

Alex,

Even old Brooklyn street kids like me are not inclined to discuss the state of their bowels in public, so I propose to move the conversation to a somewhat higher plane.

My ambition is to help people to understand that the issue here is faith; and that when it comes to the faith, the Pope is remiss both in explaining it and in defending it. It follows that to trust him, or to expect much from him, in the absence of a conversion on his part, is (to understate the matter) highly imprudent.

The good things he has done for tradition are best understood as right-modernist; that is, he wants to bring tradition back into the Church so that he or like-minded successors can integrate it into a right-modernist "reform of the reform." As near as I can tell, he doesn't pretend otherwise.

To be sure, he is a minority in the (virtually entirely modernist hierarchy) as regards this strategy: most of the others favor some combination of ignoring us and suppressing us, and don't take kindly to his initiatives on the matter. But the ultimate aim is the same: to get rid of us as a separate element of the Church, whether by killing us off or combining us with the other 99% of Catholics (or better, those who -- with greater or lesser accuracy -- think that they are Catholics).

Most of the folks who frequent this site think that His Holiness's initiatives mark a new dawn. I want them to realize that it's a false dawn, and that there'll be no real dawn if we take the bait.

There are also those who don't trust the Pope any more than I do, but who think that the SSPX can work better inside than outside the Church. PKTP is the chief theorist of this tendency. Here I want to argue that to accept the leadership of one who, at bottom, doesn't share the complete and unadulterated Faith, makes no sense.

The blank incomprehension of many (you among them, it would seem) doesn't improve my disposition, but I think that grumpy is overstating it.

P.S. I also would like a few of you to ask yourselves why, as regards Bishop Williamson, you are either so certain as to the merits of the matters at issue, or so indifferent to those merits, that you're not only prepared to throw him to the wolves, but to tear him limb from limb first in order to save the wolves the trouble. Doesn't standing shoulder to shoulder with Abe Foxman make you just a little bit nervous?

Sedes sapientiae, ora pro nobis.

John McFarland said...

Anonymous 1:44,

The danger that gives rise to the current state of emergency is indeed danger of death -- spiritual death. Those who consider themselves Catholic are not being taught the Faith, and often enough are being taught something other than the Faith. Without faith it is impossible to please God. So the SSPX has taken up the battle for the Faith, and hasn't paid much attention to the analytical niceties of better days that were formulated to deal with individual cases, not the decadence of the institutions of practically the whole Church. No legalism here!

Dan Hunter said...

From the PCED on FSSPX confessions and marriage's:

"Concretely, this means that the Masses offered by the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit, i.e., contrary to Canon Law. The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, however, require that the priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid. It remains true, however, that, if the faithful are genuinely ignorant that the priests of the Society of St. Pius X do not have proper faculty to absolve, the Church supplies these faculties so that the sacrament is valid (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 144)"

Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland, I (Anonymous 1;44) think that you can be right, on a case by case basis. Not everyone, not even most can claim to be in such a place. But I know there are such places. So it is possible. But your reasons are not those of the others. Yours is an example of a reason in conscience.

Anonymous said...

Hom many people would you think would go to confession to the SSPX who actually believe that it is invalid? By my reckoning ..... none.

If they are right or if they are wrong is not relevant. In this area the 'subjective' makes all the difference.

John L said...

'To accept the leadership of one who, at bottom, doesn't share the complete and unadulterated Faith, makes no sense.'

this is the Pope we are talking about - it's not a question of accepting his leadership; we're bound to do that, unless there is a necessity to do otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Feb 22, 2009. An exerpt is quoted below from the life of St. Peter Damian, as per the Catholic Encyclopedia. His story seems to me to be remarkably similar to the present day situation (sans the miracles).

“Pope St. Leo IX was enthroned at Rome, 12 Feb., 1049, to succeed Damasus II, and about two years later Peter published his terrible treatise on the vices of the clergy, the "Liber Gomorrhianus", dedicating it to the pope. It caused a great stir and aroused not a little enmity against its author. Even the pope, who had at first praised the work, was persuaded that it was exaggerated and his coldness drew from Damian a vigorous letter of protest. Meanwhile the question arose as to the validity of the ordinations of simoniacal clerics. the prior of Fonte-Avellana was appealed to an wrote (about 1053) a treatise, the "Liber Gratissimus", in favour of their validity, a work which, though much combatted at the time, was potent in deciding the question in their favour before the end of the twelfth century. In June, 1055, during the pontificate ofVictor II, Damian attended a synod held at Florence, where simony and clerical incontinence were once more condemned. About two years later he fell ill at Fonte-Avellana and nearly died, but suddenly, after seven weeks of pain, recovered, as he believed, through a miracle.”

The story continues and gets more dramatic, "Early in 1072 he was sent to Ravenna to reconcile its inhabitants to the Holy See, they having been excommunicated for supporting their archbishop in his adhesion to the schism of Cadalous."

St. Peter Damian pray for us.

gabrielle said...

John McFarland

While I agree with some of the things you say it is your attitude that upsets me. It is the typical attitude of a many of the followers and Priests of the SSPX. I know what I am talking about as I was one of them for many years but my conscience made me say enough is enough. They have the elitest attitude that say "the rest of the Traditional Catholics are less Catholics" because we follow the Pope. That is not so. I am as much a Catholic as what you are. Who knows, maybe more. The SSPX could do a lot better in "full" communion with Rome. You underestimate the power of the Holy Ghost. Pope Benedict has come a long way from Cardinal Ratzinger and I believe that is with the help of the Holy Ghost.
John, you are obviously a really holy man but please give the rest of us a bit of credit.

Anonymous said...

John McFarland,

You are so right about what you write. You understand Bishop Lefebvre extremely well. The only reason there is hope for us all in regard to Tradition is because of his understanding of how the Body of Christ on Earth was designged to work. This included ecclesial disobedience in the few cases when it was necessary. The order of obedience belonging first to God, then the Church, then His Vicar, then His Bishops, then His Priests.

A.M. LaPietra

Paul Haley said...

I implore all who post in this forum to refrain from personal ad hominem attacks no matter the individual in question. As to the matter ecclesia supplet and faculties for the SSPX, this is a matter in which the Holy Father could supply faculties and render the whole subject academic.

It is difficult for me to view a video of a missa cantanta said by an SSPX priest in St. Nicholas du Chardonnet before loyal catholics of all ages and not view that as a licit Mass before God. But, dear readers, that is the confusing state of affairs we are asked to accept by the Ecclesia Dei Commission. And no one in the church can clear up this confused state but the holy father himself. Hopefully, he will do that before too long.

John McFarland said...

Dan Hunter,

To cite the PCED is to beg the question of whether there is supplied jurisdiction based on a state of emergency. It is not news that Rome does not accept the existence of a state of emergency. The question is whether Rome is right.

Anonymous 3:37,

I don't understand what you are saying. Could you try it again?

Gabrielle,

Holy? Me? What a notion!

I come from rather humble stock; my only "elitism" is the "elitism" of the truth. If and when I think people are wrong about the most important thing of all, I try to set them right.

Recall that when the Lord felt sorry for the mass of men, as being like sheep without a shepherd, he sent the apostles and then the 72 others to evangelize them. If and when the successors of those evangelists show themselves hirelings, and deceive the flock, it's not enough to feel sorry for the deceived; one must try to undeceive them.

I would also note that I'm not generating my remarks from my own brilliance. Other than some turns of phrase and the wisecracks, I'm generally a faithful parrot of the SSPX. I'm not holy, but I am smart, and I know the goods when I see them. In making the diagnosis and explaining the cure of the Church's ills, the SSPX and its allies are men among boys; and any traditionalist who doesn't go to school to the Society is making a big mistake.

Stanislaw Wojtiech, Stanislawów, Ukraine said...

Those writing lies and nonsense about the validity of the SSPX confessions and marriages here, have fallen aprey to the false notion and political words of the Ecclesia Dei commission to blackmail the SSPX and its faithful.

Their confessions and marriages are 100 % valid due to supplied jurisdiction.

Those who question this, like the infamous Fr Z., do not know Canon Law or abuse it in a legalist and perverted way to do politics, not to serve truth.

Of course no SSPX would or should or can morally abstain from giving absolution, as the emergency situation continues to endure.

This "unity in diversity" essence of this speech of Benedict XVI is again disappointing. It seems the Vatican is more afraid of some Israeli and Jewish lobbyists and the controlled mass media lies' propaganda, than of the eternal punishment by God for allowing modernism and questionable sacramental rites.

Kissing the Quran and praising Lutherans is no problem. But you have to be expelled if you deny some historical discussable era. Or if you celebrate the traditional Roman Rite Mass.

I still do not see any possibility that the theologian Joseph Ratzinger, with his subjectivist notion of Revelation and his collaboration with declared neomodernists like Karl Rahner and Henri de Lubac and H. Urs von Balthsar, is allowing a doctrinal critical discussion of the 2nd Vatican Council, post-conciliar decrees and teachings, innovations, new questionably valid sacramental rites (ordination, episcopal consecration, the Addai and Mari eucharist validity controversy, the Novus Ordo words), the utter contradiction of pre-conciliar Roman Catholicism by the Conciliar religion.

No preparedness to face these issues.

Anonymous said...

Mr/Ms. La Pietra,

1. There is no love or obedience to the Church in abstract. Obedience to the Church occurs through and with the Vicar of Christ.

2. There is no obedience of God in abstract either. We must worship and obey Jesus Christ, whose Body the Church is, which we are members of only in union with His Vicar on earth.

3. Either way, according you your own principles, we must obey Christ's Vicar before Bishops, such as Mgr. Lefebvre.

Joe B said...

I thought so. All we have is a letter from Msgr Perle stating that he believes the confessions at SSPX chapels are invalid based on schism, excommunication, and lack of a bishop's approval. But that letter is chock full of ERRORS. Let's look at a bit more of it:

"With regard to the SCHISMATIC Society of St. Pius X we can say the following:
1. The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained,
but suspended, that is prohibited from exercising their priestly functions BECAUSE they are NOT PROPERLY INCARDINATED in a diocese or religious institute in full communion with the Holy See (cf. canon 265) AND ALSO BECAUSE those ordained after the SCHISMATIC episcopal ordinations were
ordained by an excommunicated bishop. They are also excommunicated if they adhere to THE SCHISM (cf. Ecclesia Del, #5, c). While up to now the
Holy See has not defined what this adherence consists in, ONE COULD POINT TO a wholesale condemnation of the Church since the Second Vatican Council and a refusal to be in communion with it (cf. canon 751 on the DEFINITION OF SCHISM). Further, it is likely that these priests, after eleven years
in a society whose head is now an excommunicated bishop, effectively ADHERE TO THE SCHISM. . .
2. Concretely this means ..."

So far, we have a house of cards built on two now false assumptions - that SSPX was in schism and that they are excommunicated. Strip those away and all you have is 'not properly incardinated'. But we have since learned that SSPX never met the conditions of schism because they didn't set up a parallel and competing government with the church, and, of course, that the excommunications are clearly now lifted. Continuing:

"Concretely, THIS MEANS that the Masses offered by the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit, i.e., contrary to Canon Law. The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, however, require that the priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid. It remains true, however, that, if the faithful are genuinely ignorant that the priests of the Society of St. Pius X do not have proper faculty to absolve, the Church supplies these faculties so that the sacrament is valid (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 144)"

So we're back to the many conditions under which the church supplies jurisdiction for a priest neither excommunicated nor in schism, including such trivial and common cases as priestly travel and retirement, and escalating to such conditions as charity and a state of emergency. Now, I'm not a canonical lawyer, but because of the wrong assumptions in this letter of Msgr Perle, we have to take seriously the arguments that SSPX jurisdiction is being supplied by the condition of a state of emergency. In fact, the clearly erroneous bias of the letter seems to me to render it unreliable, and thus worthless in this matter.

And I cannot conceive of a rational denial of a state of emergency in the church at this time and extending back to the time of VCII.

And if the case cannot be made with conclusiveness and certitude, I'm quite comfortable with the supreme law of charity for souls trumping all else.

Over to you.

Anonymous said...

It's interesting to note, in light of his past prayer request about fleeing from the wolves and our recent prayers for his fortitude, that the Holy Father is asking us to pray that the storms do not shake the Church. It's almost as if he's saying, 'don't worry about me, it's the Church that worries me.' Benedict XVI is a rock!

Anonymous said...

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mershon/070807

The link above is to an excellent article by Brian Mershon and referred to by the good priest of Papa Stronsay.

It sheds some light on the status of the SSPX and has good citations. To be honest I am not sure how it squares with the one posted by Dan Hunter and I am hoping for enlightened comments.

Anon Anon

Anonymous said...

John McFarland: You're 100% correct in all you write.

Gabrielle: We are tired, very tired, of being told how horrid we are. Physician, heal thyself!

Jordanes said...

Joe B. said: I thought so. All we have is a letter from Msgr Perle stating that he believes the confessions at SSPX chapels are invalid based on schism, excommunication, and lack of a bishop's approval.

Incorrect. Msgr. Perls’ letter did not say he believed SSPX confessions are invalid based on schism, excommunication and lack of a bishop’s approval. He addressed the matters of schism and excommunication separately from the question of validity of SSPX confessions, and did not at all predicate his observations on confession upon the obsolete questions of schism and excommunication. As for confession, he clearly says it comes down solely to the fact that SSPX priests (regardless of whether or not they are excommunicated or in schism) are suspended and have no faculties, and in those circumstances there is normally no valid absolution – the exceptions being common error or genuine emergency on the part of the penitent. (This letter of Msgr. Perl’s is several years out of date, but a few months ago he gave the same answer regarding SSPX confessions in a letter to Brian Mershon.) As far as I can tell, “The Church is in a state of emergency” is not a recognised exception: “I am honestly convinced the Church is in a state of emergency” could fall under “common error,” but the rule for “emergency” is that the penitent must have an emergency for an illicit absolution to be valid, not the entire Church be in a state of emergency.

Alexander said...

Hasn't the Church already been shaken many many times during and since Vatican II?

When will we have a Holy Father that will recognize the ambiguities in Vatican II, the inferiority of the New Mass, and the erroneous approach to ecumenism that bishops, priests and even past popes have taken?

When will it end O Lord?

Joe B said...

Thank you, Jordanes, for your insights. One more detail if you would. Taking away the lengthy discussion of schism and excommunication, it seems the whole basis for invalid absolutions, then, is that of Msgr Perle's suspension of the entire class of SSPX priests based on ... what?

Anonymous said...

You are very right, Jordanes. People who would like to claim that there is a "state of emergency in the Church" as a reason are, in effect, arguing in favour of there being collective absolutions in NO parishes. Same principle, and same idea: an abuse of an exception to justify what they simply WANT to do.

Jordanes said...

Most SSPX priests who are suspended would be so because of their illicit ordinations. I don't know, but there could be SSPX priests who joined the Society after their ordinations: I don't know if, or under what circumstance, such priests would incur a suspension from priestly ministry, but being illicitly ordained a priest automatically incurs a suspension.

Apart from the consideration of being suspended or not, I'm pretty sure that any priest, even those not suspended, must have faculties from the local ordinary to be able to absolve validly and conduct valid marriages (again, the exceptions of common error and genuine emergency always apply). A priest from one diocese visiting another diocese must get permission from the bishop of that diocese to celebrate a wedding or hear confessions. Because the SSPX is still in an irregular status, their priests don't have faculties from any bishop canonically exercising his ministry, a most regrettable situation that, please God, will end very soon.

Anonymous said...

To those who post as anonymous without any identifier. Is this helpful to addressing your comments?

Regarding the comment that we can only be odedient to the church through the Vicar of Christ. When Christs' Vicar kisses the Koran he is in error. If you think you are a good Catholic in following this error you had better learn what the faith teaches. Ditto His Vicar partaking of animist rites, ditto what transpired in Assisi, and other travesties. We are duty bound to obey Giod first as I posted earlier.

Bishop Lefebvre was often referred to as another St. Athanasius. Most of us remember his ecclesial disobedience as just. Or, do you think that the Pope who excommunicated him continued to provide him jurisdiction and faculties? I owe the fact that I am not a Sedevacantict Catholic primarily to the late Archbishop's logic. What do you really know of this great Catholic?

A.M. LaPietra

Joe B said...

Thanks, again, Jordanes. I think I have enough information to make my own conclusion now. First, the only written form of suspension is erroneous (not outdated, as SSPX never was in schism) and exhibits a bias that makes it an unjust document, in my opinion. Second, the canonical bias toward granting jurisdiction is rather overwhelming:

# OC 2261 §2 (NC 1335). The Church suspends its prohibition for an excommunicated OR SUSPENDED PRIEST CELEBRATING THE SACRAMENTS OR POSING ACTS REQUIRING JURISDICTION, PROVIDED IT BE IN FAVOR OF THE FAITHFUL WHO REQUEST IT FOR ANY REASONABLE CAUSE AT ALL, and especially if there is no other minister. (Note the phrase for any reasonable cause at all, not just for emergencies or common error).
# OC 878 §2 (NC 970). Ordinaries and superiors are not to restrict jurisdiction. If the priest is SUITABLE and the good of the faithful requires his services THIS JURISDICTION CANNOT BE REFUSED TO HIM. (Clearly such restrictions are intended for 'unsuitable' priests, which implies individual considerations not to be used for a class of priests altogether. In fact, SSPX is right in arguing that this well appears to apply even to most 'independent' priests, as the Motu Proprio, combined with this liberal granting of supplied jurisdiction, seems to answer the issue of the good of the faithful). (NC 967)

Jordanes said...

First, the only written form of suspension is erroneous (not outdated, as SSPX never was in schism) and exhibits a bias that makes it an unjust document, in my opinion.

Do you mean Msgr. Perl's letters, or the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei adflicta? The law is clear that any priest who is illicitly ordained in automatically suspended. There's no question that SSPX priests are, as a rule, illicitly ordained.

Here is the text of Canon 1335 from the Vatican website:

"If a censure prohibits the celebration of sacraments or sacramentals or the placing of an act of governance, the prohibition is suspended whenever it is necessary to care for the faithful in danger of death. If a latae sententiae censure has not been declared, the prohibition is also suspended whenever a member of the faithful requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of governance; a person is permitted to request this for any just cause."

The key to this canon is "any just cause," which can include or exclude any number of conditions or circumstance, depending on a person's case. I'm not sure it can be used to justify habitually confessing only to SSPX priests.

NC 970). Ordinaries and superiors are not to restrict jurisdiction. If the priest is SUITABLE and the good of the faithful requires his services THIS JURISDICTION CANNOT BE REFUSED TO HIM.

Sorry, but that's not at all what Canon 970 says, nor does that interpretation agree at all with the subsequent canons (971-975). Canon 970 says:

"The faculty to hear confessions is not to be granted except to presbyters who are found to be suitable through an examination or whose suitability is otherwise evident."

As the canon presents it, this faculty is not to be granted lightly: the presumption is on the ordinary being very careful about granting the faculty, which is the opposite of "they are not to restrict jurisdiction." Once granted, however, the faculty is not be revoked except for a grave cause (974 §1). The faculty ceases by revocation, loss of office, excardination, or loss of domicile (975). SSPX priests are not incardinated anywhere.

John McFarland said...

Jordanes et al.,

The issue is not what Canon Law says. The issue is whether, given the state of things -- and of the 1983 Code itself -- one is permitted or even obliged not to pay it much mind when the salvation of souls is at issue.

The issue is indeed an issue of whether to obey a particular person. The particular person currently occupying the Chair of Peter is not a man to whom we can entrust the well-being of our immortal souls.

These are inexpressible hard and sad words, but they are true. In substance, the Pope has changed not an iota since his days in his undertaker's suit writing first drafts for the big heresiarchs at Vatican II. He wants to calm down the Revolution; but he still wants the Revolution.

Jordanes said...

You'll forgive me, Mr. McFarland, if I'm hesitant to accept your diagnosis, having found fault previously with certain aspects of your general appraisal. I simply don't have confidence that my immortal soul is safer in your hands than in the Holy Father's.

Anonymous said...

Dear A.M. LaPietra,
"Regarding the comment that we can only be odedient to the church through the Vicar of Christ. When Christs' Vicar kisses the Koran he is in error. If you think you are a good Catholic in following this error you had better learn what the faith teaches."

Did the pope ask you to kiss the Koran? No he did not. But he did ask you to stay away from the SSPX until they return to full communion. In addition, it is Church Law that priests are not to hear confessions without faculties, Church Law that was in existence long before JPII.

"Ditto His Vicar partaking of animist rites, ditto what transpired in Assisi, and other travesties."

Ditto to you. Dod he ask you to participate? No he did not. Do you imitate every act committed by Archbishop Lefebvre? Do you sin if he sins? Nonsense.

"We are duty bound to obey Giod first as I posted earlier."

Exactly. By obeying His Vicar on earth. And to abstract obedience to God from obedience to His Vicar is Protestantism.

"Bishop Lefebvre was often referred to as another St. Athanasius. Most of us remember his ecclesial disobedience as just."

So was Luther, Calvin and every single disobedient person with a follower on earth. St. Athanasius is an exception, not a rule.

"I owe the fact that I am not a Sedevacantict Catholic primarily to the late Archbishop's logic. What do you really know of this great Catholic?"

I am very glad to hear this. However, if you were a Sedevacantist Catholic, what would be the difference? From your perspective, none, because you would still be without valid confessions and your priests would stiull be acting under imaginary faculties. Sometimes I feel more sympathy for Sedevacantists becasue their position seems more consistent. You either have a Vicar of Christ or you don't. If you have one, you must obey him.
And by the way, I think it would be great if the SSPX reconciled with the Church. I think they would be fantastic, and I would not want them to make absurd concessions to VII or anything of the sort.

Stanislaw Wojtiech, Stanislawów, Ukraine said...

Jordanes,

Your opinion on SSPX confessions and matrimony celebrations is not based on a neutral reading of the Codex Iuris Canonici of 1917 or of 1983.

Especially as every priest without faculties who absolves a layman or lay woman who believes he can validly absolve, will receive this extraordinary jurisdiction.

The SSPX made a lenghty study. Not some political letter like Msgr. Perle, "Fr. Z." or other self-appointed authorities who want to defend their anti-SSPX and anti-traditionalist position over 40 years of Crisis by attacking the validity of the SSPX.

God is not a legalist-positivist, not an archivarian.

Salus animarum suprema lex.

Receiving absolution from a modernist is no option, nor is a requirement to attend an objectively sacrilegious Mass an option. And other false counsel given by Novus Ordo priests.

Jordanes said...

Your opinion on SSPX confessions and matrimony celebrations is not based on a neutral reading of the Codex Iuris Canonici of 1917 or of 1983.

The 1917 Code is not relevant here except where Holy Mother Church has incorporated its canons into the 1983 Code.

Especially as every priest without faculties who absolves a layman or lay woman who believes he can validly absolve, will receive this extraordinary jurisdiction.

Yes, as I said, that falls under the common error or genuine emergency exceptions.

The SSPX made a lenghty study. Not some political letter like Msgr. Perle, "Fr. Z." or other self-appointed authorities who want to defend their anti-SSPX and anti-traditionalist position over 40 years of Crisis by attacking the validity of the SSPX.

Self-appointed? Msgr. Perl did not appoint himself, the Vicar of Christ did; and as the Roman dicastery with jurisdiction in these matters, one can regard the answers to dubia issued by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei as having moral certitude. If anyone is a self-appointed authority here, it is the SSPX, not Ecclesia Dei. There can be no disputing the fact that the Church does not yet recognise the SSPX as a lawfully constituted religious family, and that its members are suspended a divinis, a situation that hopefully will change soon.

Receiving absolution from a modernist is no option, nor is a requirement to attend an objectively sacrilegious Mass an option.

Attending an objectively sacrilegious Mass is certainly not an option (of course one should apply the Church's definition of sacrilege rather than one's personal idea of it), but receiving absolution from a modernist is, so long as the priest adheres to the lawfully establish rite and canonical form of the sacrament. If one cannot find a priest who faithfully celebrates the sacrament of penance within a reasonable distance, but a suspended priest is at hand, one may request the sacrament from him.

Anonymous said...

And so, if we all obeyed the Popes since V2 there would be no TLM any where in the world. Thank God for Archbiship Lefevre. In my mind there was a necessity to disobey until there is a solid home for Traditional Catholics. Does that exist today? It is up to Pope B16.

I attend the FSSP mass exclusively and am tired of looking over the NO table to the altar. I am tired of having to set up and tear down before and after each mass. I am appalled at watching women lay people go to the tabernacle in preparation for the NO mass. I am tired of waiting for the Church to quiet down after the NO parishioners talk about anything and everything with littler respect for the Lord in the Sanctuary...this includes the NO Priest who does this on purpose to get under the craw of the Latin Mass Community. Apparently even this rector now has to pay the TLM community more respect since so many parishioners now attend the TLM and the revenue collected is substantial.

Someone commented that posters to this blog need to chill about commenting on the efficacy of the NO mass. All I am going to say is the NO may have a valid Eucharist and the attendees call themselves Catholic...good for them. Just say NO to the NO.

In most respects I feel safe with the FSSP though I feel they are kind of a half way house at best and disrespected pawns at worst. I have great respect the FSSPX but I can not in conscience attend their Mass. I continue to study and discern the argument for attending the FSSPX Mass and sacraments. The contributions to this blog are insightful.

I pray daily that Peter would act quickly do the right thing.

Anon Anon

Anonymous said...

To anonymous disputing Mr. LaPietra

You did not seem logical in any of your statements. Did St. Athanasius
obey God by obeying His Vicar? No,
because His Vicar was wrong. Why do you think Bishop Lefebvre is today referred to as the 2nd Athansius? Because Lefebvre's Vicar of Christ was likewise just as wrong. In the mid seventies the Archbishop was supended for ordaining priests to celebrate the Tridentine Mass against the wishes of Pope Paul VI. Since the Tridentine Mass was never in fact forbidden, do you insist that Paul VI was right?

A.M. LaPietra

Jordanes said...

Did St. Athanasius
obey God by obeying His Vicar? No,
because His Vicar was wrong.


The historical record is uncertain that St. Athnasius in fact was disobeying Pope Liberius.

Why do you think Bishop Lefebvre is today referred to as the 2nd Athansius?

In order to associate Archbishop Lefebvre with one of the greatest of saints and the heroic champion of orthodoxy, and to attempt to draw parallels between what they think St. Athanasius did and what Archbishop Lefebvre did, without due regard for their very different circumstances and historical contexts.

In the mid seventies the Archbishop was supended for ordaining priests to celebrate the Tridentine Mass against the wishes of Pope Paul VI.

And without permission of the local ordinary in whose diocese Archbishop Lefebvre celebrated the ordinations.

Since the Tridentine Mass was never in fact forbidden, do you insist that Paul VI was right?

The (now settled) question of the abrogation or non-abrogation did not enter into the canonical reasons that the Church suspended Msgr. Lefebvre, which was for illicitly celebrating the sacrament of order without permission of the local bishop, not for celebrating the ordinations according to the pre-Vatican II rite nor for ordaining priests to celebrate the Tridentine rite. Even if Paul VI had not believed that the old rite now required an indult, he still would have been right to suspend a bishop for illicitly consecrating priests contrary to his instructions.

Joe B said...

Jordanes, thanks for updating my canon lawlessness. But I believe you have confirmed my view, as best as can be done under our circumstances:

"Do you mean Msgr. Perl's letters, or the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei adflicta?"

Both, if they are used to conclude SSPX priests are 'unsuitable'. That's absurd on the face of it.

"The law is clear that any priest who is illicitly ordained in automatically suspended. There's no question that SSPX priests are, as a rule, illicitly ordained."

We're going in a circle here. That's the question, not the conclusion. SSPX took necessary steps to defend Catholic tradition in accordance with a scriptural mandate ("Hold fast ..."). Pope John Paul II acted unjustly as an enemy of Catholic tradition, especially in acting against the TLM and Quo Primum, but also in doing direct harm to the wide spectrum of traditional Catholicism. Therefore no suspensions were just and the actions of SSPX are showing themselves to have been necessary and just, and there's even more to come.

"The key to this canon is "any just cause," which can include or exclude any number of conditions or circumstance, depending on a person's case. I'm not sure it can be used to justify habitually confessing only to SSPX priests."

Exactly. Even you don't know. Charity prevails.

"The faculty to hear confessions is not to be granted except to presbyters who are found to be suitable through an examination or whose suitability is otherwise evident."

Same, same. I'll take that. Judging by their fruits, only a tradition hater would not find SSPX priests 'evidently suitable'. Millions of rosaries for the Holy Father, Jordanes. And that's more proof of the great injustice done against the first line defenders of Catholic tradition.

Anonymous said...

Attn Jordanes:

I may be an idiot but the people I get my information from are not. If you think for one moment that your research is better than that of Michael Davies the Catholic historian I think it is time your attitude should be reviewed. Mr. Davies was respected by Catholic and non Catholic clergy around the world for his concise reporting of church history. By Novus Ordo and Traditional Catholics alike. One of them being no less than Cardinal Ratzinger. They developed a friendly relationship and Michael always insisted that Cardinal Ratzinger was friendly towards Traditionalist concerns.

I suggest you read his book on St. Athanasius.

A.M. LaPietra

Jordanes said...

Mr. LaPietra, I certainly cannot think my research is better than Davies’ was, since I haven’t done any. However, I have done some reading of other historians on Pope Liberius and St. Athanasius, and having obtained a university degree in history I’m not entirely unfamiliar with this discipline. Historical sources must be analysed and interpreted, and sometimes the evidence available is insufficient to reach a solid conclusion about what really happened and why. This is one of those cases. Ascertaining the facts here is complicated by a number of factors, and one of the important ones is that heretics wrote and circulated forged letters that they claimed were written by Pope Liberius. We also know that a heretical emperor and his party put Liberius under duress. If Davies did not acknowledge these basic and essential facts, then I’d have to say that his reconstruction of the Liberius affair is of questionable value. There are no such analogues in the conflict between Paul VI and Msgr. Lefebvre, so St. Athanasius’ apparent disobedience (if it was that) of something Liberius may not in fact have approved, or if it had his approval it almost certainly was not valid due to duress, cannot be compared to Msgr. Lefebvre’s disobedience of Paul VI, whose instructions to the archbishop were genuine and lawful.

Jordanes said...

We're going in a circle here. That's the question, not the conclusion.

The law is very clear on that point, so there can be no question what it means. Men are not supposed to receive ordination from bishops who lack faculties to ordain. It endangers the unity of the Church, weakening her witness as Christ’s Body and fracturing her magisterium. That’s why the Church suspends such priests from exercising priestly ministry.

SSPX took necessary steps to defend Catholic tradition in accordance with a scriptural mandate ("Hold fast ...").

I think it is very questionable whether or not those steps were really necessary, and it is for the Church, not the SSPX or anyone else, to determine if they were or weren’t. On that score, it’s noteworthy that the Holy Father remitted the excommunications of the SSPX bishops rather than rule that the excommunications were never valid. That might suggest he is not likely to agree that the SSPX illicit ordinations were justifiable and therefore the suspensions invalid. But of course we can only speculate about that. Until the Church rules on that question we won’t know for sure.

Pope John Paul II acted unjustly as an enemy of Catholic tradition, especially in acting against the TLM and Quo Primum, but also in doing direct harm to the wide spectrum of traditional Catholicism.

Or perhaps he was exercising the Petrine Office in order to safeguard the Church’s unity, and to try to steer us through the storms and treacherous waters she had sailed into?

Anonymous said...

Jordanes: "Safeguard the Church's unity"? The Church's unity was shot after the Second Vatican Council. We still have no unity of doctrine. Ask ten priests in a diocese the same fundamental Catholic question and you'll get ten different answers. Forget the laity, most of them won't even know what you are talking about!

I don't know where you live but in my neck of the woods there is no unity.

Anonymous said...

It looks as if Bishop Williamson is about to speak. Go here to learn more, moderators:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5804758.ece


Apparently, he arrived in London this morning, not by ship, as I had expected, but by aeroplane.

At the airport in Buenos Aires, he was disguised, wearing a black baseball cap and a pair of sunglasses. He shoved a journalist, an action which makes me consider switching sides and supporting him.

Judging from the people who met him at Heathrow, I predict that he will not back down as the Pope has requested. For example, one of his greeters there was a lady who has been banned even from National Party public addresses because her views are considered to be too extreme.

His supporters in London are 'not ruling out' a public speech from him in the very near future, at a church. I don't know if the S.S.P.X controls that church or not. Given that Saturday is the deadline set by Bishop Fellay for a response from W., I'd say that we shall know more in three days or fewer.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

Our late pontiff, may his soul be at rest, was aware of the problems you mention and took certain measures to address them, though perhaps not forcefully enough. Still, the problems of doctrinal disunity are noticeably lessened, particularly since John Paul II issued the new Catechism. In my diocese we are not immune from the problem of ignorant or dissenting priests and laity (though of course that has always been and will always be something for the Church to address, and it was much worse in past centuries than it is today, even after the post-conciliar disasters), but my general impression is that it is nowhere near as much a problem here as elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

"Still, the problems of doctrinal disunity are noticeably lessened, particularly since John Paul II issued the new Catechism."

Huh. How many times have they re-written that piece of work?

Anonymous said...

It's just occurred to me that, if Williamson is planning on making a public speech at a church on the subject of the Holocaust Industry, he must be planning to break with the S.S.P.X. Why so? Because Bishop Fellay has put a gag order on him. So unless he merely plans to stand up and repudiate his previous words on the topic (which he could more easily do by direct letter to Fellay), a split is acoming. The suggestion that he will deliver a Sermon or a speech is a smoke signal to Fellay in itself: get ready to expel me.

If Williamson receives a pink slip, I'm willing to bet that other hardliners in the Society will come out and support him. That will force Fellay to expel others.

A S.S.P.X purged of its hardliners will then be more likely to accept regularisation fast. Why? Because the authority and prestige of the Holy See will help the Society to marginalise the extremists. The Society could become more and more divided without unity with Rome. L'union fait la force.

But there is another consideration in all of this. Should Williamson be forced out of the S.S.P.X, Rome will have to reconcile the Society pronto or, at the least, extend jurisdiction for its Sacraments. Why? It's because Williamson and his friends have dirt on the rest of the Society: Holocaust dirt. Over the last thirty years, many in the Society have made so-called 'anti-Semitic' remarks, and they have done sone right from the pulpit and in published articles. I've heard that this applies particularly to one of the Society leaders who is not supporting Williamson (so far, anyway). Just try to imagine the impact as Williamson says, "Oh, lookely, lookey what Fr. Schmidberger said in 1993? Lookey at what Bishop Tissier said in 1989? Oh, lookey at the shocking thing Fellay himself said in 2001?" Now close your eyes and imagine how the international press, from Reuters on down, will react to that! "Nazis!", they'll scream. "Den-eye-uhs", they'll bitch. "Help, help, I can feel the gas!", some will gasp. And all hell will break loose.

Frankly, I'm not sure that the Pope *can* reconcile the S.S.P.X at this point. It might be too dangerous. It might make it look as if this German Pope, once a member of Hitler Youth and the German Army, is welcoming back a bunch of fascists.

That brings me, yet again, to the solution. Fellay has signalled that he won't accept regularisation until doctrinal issues are settled. And before that happens, there could be more controversy generated than we can possibly imagine right now. The liberals could win on this.

The answer is that the Pope should grant the Society faculties directly from his universal jurisdiction. Once that happens, everyone can relax and work on resolving the doctrinal difficulties, and the hardliners will be less tempted to go wild on the Society leadership.

The Pope can justify this on the correct grounds that it would be unjust to resolve doctrinal difficulties for a group which continues to break Church law while asking them.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

Huh. How many times have they re-written that piece of work?

The Church's Catechism has only had to be revised a few times, but has never been rewritten. My copy indicates all of the revisions in a short appendix.

Jordanes said...

Mr. Perkins, I'm afraid your appraisal of things is likely to be correct. I hope and pray you're wrong. It would be far better for the Church, for the SSPX, and for Bishop Williamson if he does not lead a split.

Anonymous said...

Apparently, Williamson may be delivering a speech at the S.S.P.X church hall at St. Joseph and St. Padarn in Holloway, London. I'm wondering why Bishop Fellay doesn't just simply issue an order to Fr. Morgan, the Society Superior in England, to ban him from speaking. He might do so to distance himself from what's coming. We shall see.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Saturday, 28th February: Williamson's deadline for recanting.

Thursday, 12th March: Feast of St. Gregory the Great on the old calendar.

Hmm. I wonder.

P.K.T.P.