Rorate Caeli
Communiqué 
of the Superior General
of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X [FSSPX / SSPX]

Pope Benedict XVI addressed a letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church, dated March 10 2009, in which he made them aware of the intentions which guided him in this important step which is the Decree of January 21, 2009.

After "an avalanche of protests was unleashed" recently, we greatly thank the Holy Father for having placed the debate at the level on which it should take place, that of the faith. We fully share his utmost concern for preaching to "our age, when in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel".

The Church lives, in fact, through a major crisis which cannot be solved other than by an integral return to the purity of the faith. With Saint Athanasius, we profess that "Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the Catholic faith: whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally." (Quicumque Creed)

Far from wanting to stop Tradition in 1962, we wish to consider the Second Vatican Council and the post-Conciliar magisterium in the light of this Tradition which Saint Vincent of Lérins defined as that "which has been believed everywhere, always, by all" (Commonitorium), without rupture and in a perfectly homogenous development. It is thus that we will be able to contribute efficaciously to the evangelization asked for by the Savior (cf. Matthew, 28,19-20).

The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X assures Benedict XVI of its will to address the doctrinal discussions considered "necessary" by the Decree of January 21, with the desire of serving the revealed Truth which is the first charity to be shown towards all men, Christian or not. It assures him of its prayers so that his faith may not fail and that he may confirm all his brethren (cf. Luke 22 32).

We place these doctrinal discussions under the protection of Our Lady of All Trust, with the assurance that she will obtain for us the grace of faithfully delivering that which we received, "tradidi quod et accepi" (I Cor. 15,3).

Menzingen, March 12 2009

+ Bernard Fellay

78 comments:

Anonymous said...

The other shoe drops. We are in agreement on all matters of importance. Only the details remain to be worked out.

Wm. Christopher Hoag said...

Given the pacific and encouraging tone of the response of Msgr. Fellay on one hand and the bitter tone of many lay supporters of the FSSPX as demonstrated by postings both here and on Angelqueen, my early suspicions are strengthening, namely...

The FSSPX may (will?!) be regularised by Christmas 2011. Nontheless, half if not more of its lay followers will defect to sedevacantist clergy, e.g., the CMRI and the SSPV (and its off-shoots).

Anonymous said...

Great Reaction

On are on good hands

Thanks Mons Fellay

God Bless You

Pedro

Paul Haley said...

Translation via "Haleyspeak": Your move, Your Holiness, we are always ready to view matters in accord with “what was believed everywhere, always, and by all”. Succinctly, we are not the problem.

Doesn't Bishop Fellay have a marvelous way of putting things? He completely disarms his opponents. But that is the way of truth, isn't it.

John E. said...

Thank you Monsignor Fellay and God bless you. Long live Pope Benedict the Great!

Dan Hunter said...

Excellent response, in all charity, to Bishop Fellays superior!

Watch things start to move very quickly now.

God bless His Holiness!!!
God Bless His Excellency!!

Anonymous said...

"Far from wanting to stop Tradition in 1962, we wish to consider the Second Vatican Council and the post-Conciliar magisterium in the light of this Tradition which Saint Vincent of Lérins defined as that "which has been believed everywhere, always, by all" (Commonitorium), without rupture and in a perfectly homogenous development. It is thus that we will be able to contribute efficaciously to the evangelization asked for by the Savior (cf. Matthew, 28,19-20)."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I am very encouraged by this clear affirmation from Bishop Fellay. My prayers are with the Holy Father and the SSPX.

schoolman

John (Ad Orientem) said...

WCH,
Your prognostications sound pretty reasonable to me. The Rad Trads will never accept anything less than a white flag flying over the Vatican. I suspect that they compose perhaps a third of the SSPX, and entertain but little hope for their being restored to the Roman Church. But Bp. Fellay seems determined to lead as much of the Society as possible back into communion with the Pope and to carry on the battle from within the church. If there is hope it would seem to lie with him.

In ICXC
JOhn

Anonymous said...

Notice Bishop Fellay's reference to "necessary" doctrinal disputes. He is signalling that the process of doctrinal discussions need not solve every problem before regularisation occurs. There could be a resolution of some key problems, followed by a provisional regularisation, followed by more doctrinal resolution, followed by a permanent structure (for example). Or it might just be three stages of this.

I think that an arrangement could be made for at least a provisional structure by the Feast of SS. Peter and Paul of this year, at the earliest. At the latest, it might be a period of three years.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Tough act to make!

Okie said...

Thanks be to the Holy Trinity that Msgr. Fellay read the Holy Father's letter in charity, the same spirit in which the letter was written.

Cooperator said...

Dear friends: whoever can read German, should have a look at the "goebbelsian" way the infamous German section of Vatican Radio (editor: the Jesuit father von Gemmingen) , has treated the news:

http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/ted/index.asp


I have no words, really. That's a HUGE shame. All the German "catholic" media version of the news, the (shameless, mostly) reactions from the episcopate and also mainstream lay association, should be translated in English, since all the word must know, how SYSTEMATICALLY , EVERY DAY, even the least bit of truth from Rome is TOTALLY DISTORTED or "neutralized" by the MSM north the Alps.

This must not be left unpunished forever...


(A self-commenting) Appendix :


"Der Leiter der deutschsprachigen Sektion von Radio Vatikan, Pater Eberhard von Gemmingen, ist dem Papst dankbar für seine Geste. Hier der Kommentar von Pater von Gemmingen:

„Ich bin Papst Benedikt dankbar dafür, dass er die Aufhebung der Exkommunikation der Lefebvre-Bischöfe persönlich erklärt hat. Ich bin dankbar dafür, dass er die Schwerpunkte seines Pontifikates nochmals benannte: Die Frage nach Gott soll nicht verdunsten, Einheit der Christen, Dialog der Religionen, Gerechtigkeit für die Armen. Der Vorwurf, es gehe ihm vorwiegend um den rechten Kirchenrand ist schwer haltbar. Gut, dass Benedikt auch die zwei Pannen benennt: Der Schein, er verharmlose den Holocaust und nenne die Pius-Bruderschaft eine kirchliche Organisation. Beides ist falsch. Und er stellt die kritische Frage, ob man gegen alles tolerant sein dürfe außer gegenüber den Pius-Brüdern. Die jetzt schon aufkommende Mäkelei an ihm und seinem Schreiben, finde ich kontraproduktiv. Der Vatikan wird aus dem Fall lernen.”

P. Eberhard v. Gemmingen SJ leitet das deutschsprachige Programm von Radio Vatikan.

"

Confiteor said...

God bless Pope Benedict XVI.

God bless Bishop Fellay.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand how the doctrinal discussion process will proceed. Pope Benedict XV1 has moved the matter out of ED to CDF. How will the SSPX have a voice when they will pushed around by majority rule of modernist college of bishops?

Jerry

Stanislaw Wojtiech, Stanislawów, Ukraine said...

The reconcilatory and charitable tone of Bp. Fellay, compared to the aggressive and insulting words chosen by Benedict XVI in his letter to describe "askew and sick elements" in the SSPX ("radical fringe group" etc.) is admirable.

However one things:

1) I fear neo-modernist-occupied Rome will not allow this kind of inquiry and criticism of Vatican II, "purifying" it from the alleged heresies it contains.

2) "perfectly homogenous development". This is a great thing indeed, as unlike Modernist antithesis-thesis-synthesis mechanisms of "evolution of dogma" (cf. Pascendi dominici gregis, 1907), there is also Catholic development of doctrine. To the holy Catholic deposit of faith cannot be added anything, but the deposit itself is like a seed, which will flourish into a flower.
This is the development into dogmatic definitions taught by Cardinal Newman.

But the Modernist theological "development" (evolution of doctrine, evolution of dogma) thinks, that later doctrines may or must contradict or reject former doctrines totally, or change them substantially. This is impossible.

Dignitatis humanae (1965) cannot mean something else than Quanta Cura (1864) or conflict with the latter, or else, DH is not a Roman Catholic act of the magisterium, but instead error. And the Holy Roman Church cannot err. Then DH will have proven to be defined not by a valid Roman Pontiff, but by pseudo-authority of Neo-Modernists and revolutionaries.

I sincerely hope Bishop Fellay's doctrinal discussion will happen in public view, and in the former Holy Office (now Conciliarist "Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith').

But I doubt, whether individual aspects of Vatican II will be able to be questioned, or that the doctrinal and ecumenist interconfessional creation and dubious theological content of the Bugnini Rite (Novus Ordo Missae) and the revised (totally newly invented) Bugnini sacramentaries (new Pontificále, new Rituále, entirely new Missále) can be questioned or criticized substantially.

If they accept a 1988 Protocoll, the SSPX will be silenced behind closed doors, like the FSSP.

I hope they will not become a Fraternity of St. Peter 2.0, with fine liturgical apostolate, but with no missionary support from the Conciliar modernist so-called bishops, and with a clear silence on the heretical doctrines after and at Vatican II. No criticism of John Paul II kissing the Quran and asking St. John the Baptist to "bless Islam [i.e. the false religion, not individual Muslems as persons]" (in Jordan, 2000, speech, 24 March). The FSSP is silent.

The Institut du Bon Pasteur (IBP) is 100 % silenced, and they are deploring the hostility of local Conciliar so-called bishops against their Work. Despite their initial triumphal tone on the "regularization".

The SSPX should not give in, one jota.

The letter of Bp. Fellay is mostly good.

Also by pointing out to Joseph Ratzinger, that hís faith may have failed or can fail too, and that he from a material pope (papa materiáliter) by re-conversion to orthodox Roman Catholicism will once become a formal Pope and Holy Father (papa formáliter) again to the sedeprivationists of Prof. Dr. L.B. Guérard des Lauriers O.P., the great Dominican Resistance theologian and former Lateran University professor. And to all the world.

Despite the rage and total rebellion of the Neo-Modernists, the neo-modernist worldly clergy serving Lucifer, and the Vatican II neocon fanatics, who will be disoriented too. Despite Marxist, Liberal Anti-clerical Secularist and other ideological threats by secular governments against the Holy See.

Rather a true Martyr Pope, than a not validly reigning pope, or line of pseudo-popes, like sedevacantists claim from John XXIII (or Paul VI) until including Benedict XVI (papa Joseph Ratzinger).

Martyrdom will purify the Church and save the souls of many worldly clergy who would otherwise be eternally lost in mortal sin.

Anonymous said...

Bp. Fellay must also realize that the Holy Father is not a young man and it is unlikely that a bishop so favorable to a resolution will ascend to the Papacy after him.

Stanislaw Wojtiech, Stanislawów, Ukraine said...

It is ironic to see a schismatic Eastern Orthodox sit in judgement over "traditionalist" and "radical" faithful Roman Catholics who are in doctrinal Resistance against innovations perceived as against Catholic dogma and not even near to be harmonized with it, and to hear a schismatic Orthodox judge that these "radicals" will not be integrated into the Roman Church, whereas in fact the Roman Catholics are the Holy Roman Church and faithful sons of it.

An Eastern schismatic attacking the (non-)schism of the SSPX is quite some hypocrisy indeed.

If the world and heretics want this "schism" to be healed by doctrinal compromise, we can know, that the SSPX should continue anti-Modernist resistance on theology and liturgy. The battle is far from over. It has only just begun.

Ferreira Jr. said...

"Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith – ecumenism – is part of the supreme priority" Pope Benedict XVI.


"The Church lives, in fact, through a major crisis which cannot be solved other than by an integral return to the purity of the faith. With Saint Athanasius, we profess that "Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the Catholic faith: whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally." (Quicumque Creed)" Msgr. Fellay.


How this can be reconcilied? Ecumenism "supreme priority" with "[w]hoever does not guard it [the Catholic Faith] whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally"?
Maybe we should read this profound disagreement in "charity"...
The naiveté of the commentators of this forum is very, very shocking.

Jordanes said...

Profound disagreement? How is concern to preserve the unity of Catholics in profound disagreement with the obligation to hold fast to the Catholic faith?

John McFarland said...

Friends,

I'm afraid that some of you think that Bishop Fellay is falling in with Vatican II, or close enough to cut a quick deal.

But it's just the opposite: he's giving notice that Vatican II must be weighed in the balance of St. Vincent of Lerins: Tradition as that "which has been believed everywhere, always, by all".

But if Vatican II is to be weighed in that balance, it will be found wanting; which is to say that everything that the Pope has devoted his life to will be found wanting.

As Mr. Haley says, the ball is now in the Pope's court. For His Holiness to accept Bishop Fellay's criteria for judging Vatican II as Bishop Fellay understands them (in eodem sensu eademque semper sententia, if you will) would be little short of a miracle, and one cannot bank upon miracles.

To say the least of it, there's no quick deal in these words.

Mr. Perkins' aching desire for a quick settlement continues to cloud his judgment. Given what he has said before, Bishop Fellay quotes "necessary" precisely to indicate that his notion of what is "necessary" is quite different from the language of the Decreee of Jan. 21. Note in this connection that Bishop Fellay talks of "doctrinal" discussions; the Decree does not.

Anonymous said...

Guys, Bishop Fellay's comments relative to accepting post-Vatican II teaching in the framework of "homogenous development" without "rupture" do not contradict what is believed "everywhere, always, by all." We have to take into account that all true beleivers believe "implicitly" all that has not yet been "explicitly" formulated pending "homogenous development" that does not constitute rupture.

schoolman

Ferreira Jr. said...

Jordanes:

In the quote I made the Pope was not talking about "the unity of Catholics", but about ecumenism, "the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith – ecumenism – is part of the supreme priority".

My question rests unanswered: how "ecumenism supreme priority" can be reconcilied with "[w]hoever does not guard it [the Catholic Faith] whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally"?

In "charity", my friends, in "charity"...

John McFarland said...

Jordanes,

Catholic dogma is that unity is founded on the integral faith. If a man disbelieves one jot or tittle of the Faith, he is not in the unity with the Church.

When the Pope talks about unity, he implicitly rejects that principle. One of the great projects of his life has been to set the unity of the Church on a ground other than belief in the Faith, the whole Faith, and nothing but the Faith. That's what all this Communio stuff is about. That's what this sliding scale of communion with the Church is all about.

All the Vatican talk about returning the SSPX to "full" communion is not Catholic talk. Each bishop and priest of the SSPX, and each other human being on earth, is either in the Church or out of it, depending on whether he accepts the whole Faith on the word of God revealing, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

If you use this yardstick, the point of the SSPX's "state of necessity" goes from being strange to being all but self-evident.

Jordanes said...

Mr. Cano, your concerns are noted and appreciated. Thanks. Of course we try not to "silence" anyone here unless we consider it truly necessary.

Jordanes said...

In the quote I made the Pope was not talking about "the unity of Catholics", but about ecumenism

That's what ecumenism, a common witness of all Christians to their faith, is all about. There is no "profound" disagreement between what St. Peter's Successor said and what Bishop Fellay said.

If a man disbelieves one jot or tittle of the Faith, he is not in the unity with the Church.

As others have pointed out, that's not what St. Augustine said -- and we know how highly the Holy Father esteems St. Augustine.

Son of Trypho said...

Jordanes
Indeed - I'm fairly certain St Augustine's correspondence with various Donatists would not agree with such a literal understanding either.

Guadalupe Guard said...

Wow! If you can't resist using a superlative that is the prerogative of historical retrospect, may I suggest Bishop Fellay the Great?

Anonymous said...

Being a life supporter of the SSPX I would suggest actually that very few, in fact a handful of faithful would not follow bishop Fellay in the event of a reconciliation. For instance in one of the largest SSPX schools in France Champagne was served and the Te Deum was sung when the excommunications were lifted!

Anonymous said...

Frankly, I agree with much of what Wojtiech says, and I don't much like the way the semi-traditionalists on this blog tend to denigrate him. He shows a great deal of intelligence and acumen in my view. I make this judgement despite the fact that he and I would disagree entirely on the matter of accepting a structure first. I advise his critics here to address his arguments and not emote over them.

I once again will not argue for an immediate acceptance of a structure now. While that is what I favour, it is clearly off the table, so there's no point in repeating it. I was saddened to hear Roman's news that they rejected the provisional society of apostolic life.

Frankly, I cannot see how there can be a reconciliation in the near future. If Bishop Fellay accepts full regularisation after having resolved only a few "necessary" matters, he will likely divide the S.S.P.X and cause a schism (we shan't bother debating which party would be the schismatical one). If, on the other hand, he insists on a full clarification of difficult texts, I expect a process which would take between twenty years and a century, for it cannot happen as long as the current crop of liberal prelates are prowling the earth, seeking the ruin of souls. I mean you, Mahony and you Daneels and, above all, Hummes, a liberation theology heretic ensconsed right in the curia.

What does Bishop Fellay mean by "necessary" clarifications? Well, I imagine that he first of all wants a clarification on exactly how much authority is borne by various documents. Then there would be at least some clarifications on distorted principles, such as religious liberty, œcumenism, and collegiality; also, some clarifications on the status of some parts of NewMass might follow.

I can't see how this process may succeed in just three steps. But it might work in five steps. After some initial clarifications, the S.S.P.X would accept a purely provisional society of apostolic life which would exist not as a replacement of the S.S.P.X but as a parallel structure, so the the S.S.P.X would continue to control all its property. Really, the purpose of a canonical structure would simply be to give Society clerics an acknowledgement of faculties from Rome, even though the Society would not admit needing them. That is the crucial step. It would create an interim period in which the Society would continue de facto 100% independent of Rome but with that acknowledgement. As a result, the Society would attract some new supporters, and S.P. would advcance and local bishops use it to keep the S.S.P.X at bay in their home towns. There is plenty of room for both, so tradition would be advanced throughout the world.

Then would come the really hard part: resolving major doctrinal differences. In my view (however mistaken it may be) there simply is no way to make all Vatican II teachings comport with earlier teachings. Essentially, we now have two different religions. This has been possible simply because lay faithful are not required by law to subscribe to the new fake secularist religion concocted by the liberals. So there are adherents of the old Religion, the True Catholic Faith, who are living under local ordinaries and not affiliated with the S.S.P.X.

But the Society position must be different than that of these lay faithful, for it has a mission to reverse the takeover. It will never accept a situation in which it is allowed to keep its interpretation while the liberals are also allowed to keep their opposite and contradictory theology.

So this next stage can only be soluble, deo volente, by the exit of the liberal prelates who made their 'careers' on the new faith. Some tell me that younger prelates are just as heretical. That may very well be the case. But there is a difference. Young prelates do not have the same investment of pride in the dogmas of NewChurch and, in fact, they would not mind becoming champions of something different were it presented to them from the top. Never forget that the first round of bishops who implemented the revolution were all appointed by Pius XI and Pius XII and many of these were not liberals themselves. The converse can also be the case.

If the Pope really wants to solve this problem but is not prepared to face the wolves in the episcopate and even in his own curia, he must become resigned to a long process during which the S.S.P.X is allowed to operate 100% independently but having his blessing for faculties. There must be this interim period; otherwise, he will have to concede much more to the regularised traditionalists. They will have to get the international apostolic administration instead. And no, Roman, not a p.p., which we shall fight against to the last breath. We must not tolerate any future structure which gives the local bishops a rôle and lets them exclude the structure under Canon 297. What is needed is a ritual particular church under Section 2 of Canon 372.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

God bless Papa and Bishop Fellay!

John McFarland said...

Jordanes,

1. What are you talking about in St. Augustine? Can you give me a cite, or a quote?

As for the Pope as a great fan of St. Augustine. Go read the opening pages of the Confessions. Then go read almost anything the Pope has ever written; his recent statement about the excommunication dustup is as good as anything. Then come back and tell me about Papa Ratzinger the Augustinian. Augustine talks constantly about God. The Pope talks constantly about man, and (less often)about God in relation to man; almost always in relation to man. To understate the case, the commandment to love the Lord thy with thy whole heart and soul and mind and strength is not one that leaps out from the Pope's lifelong theory and practice.

2. What is it that you are trying to say about ecumenism? Are you claiming that there is a "common witness" of Christians -- Catholic, heretics, schismatics -- to be sought? Can you find that in scripture? the Fathers? the Doctors? the councils before Vatican II? Where?

I'm beginning to wonder whether a fair number of you are just what the Vatican thinks all of us are: folks with an "attachment" to the traditional Mass, but without any real doctrinal problem with Vatican II.

Anonymous said...

McFarland writes:

"Mr. Perkins' aching desire for a quick settlement continues to cloud his judgment. Given what he has said before, Bishop Fellay quotes "necessary" precisely to indicate that his notion of what is "necessary" is quite different from the language of the Decreee of Jan. 21. Note in this connection that Bishop Fellay talks of "doctrinal" discussions; the Decree does not."

My judgement (with the e, please) is not clouded. You are confusing me with Bishop Williamson.

I think that it is you who are perhaps engaging in wishful thinking in reading Bsp. Fellay's words. His reference to "necessary" doctrinal resolutions suggests that some are necessary before accepting some juridical status, whereas others can wait; otherwise, he would have said all outstanding doctrinal difficulties.

One possibility would be for the S.S.P.X to accept a parallel and temporary society of apostolic life. Roman has suggested that the latter aspect has already been offered and rejected for the time being. But it could also be parallel. In other words, the S.S.P.X would continue exactly as it is and with all its property intact, but its members would also be members of a provisional society of apostolic life.

There could be five stages, then:

1. Some essential dogmatic difficulties are resolved, such as the status of various conciliar documents in terms of the assent they impose;

2. The S.S.P.X accepts this parallel structure but without surrendering its current one. Its members become double-listed, if you will.

3. A much longer process of doctrinal discussion ensues, taking, I should think, as many as twenty to one hundred years. It would require Rome's rejection of all innovation, and therefore require the exit of all the old liberal prelates.

4. The S.S.P.X would get its international and ritual apostolic administration and NOT a personal prelature, all under Canon 372.2. Don't listen to Roman and others on this. A personal prelature would be worse than death itself. It puts the Society supporters under the local Mahonys and forces the Society to seek the permission of local Mahonys to expand into their territory. That is a solution only for the devil. What is needed ultimately is a de facto international diocese in which traditionalist are united under their own bishop. Canon 372.2 affords this. A Campos writ large, writ international, is the way to go.

What I am looking for here is a way to extend the reach of both the S.S.P.X and "Summorum Pontificum" but without in any way jeopardising the mission of the former. This involves a recognition that Rome is poisoned with more than the odour of heresy. There are two religions involved here and one must ultimately defeat the other. In the mean time, however, there are a very large number of non-theologian non-canonist true Catholics who obey the Pope's every word in good faith, however mistaken they may be. They need the services of the S.S.P.X and of Masses under S.P. S.P. would be promoted with a recognised S.S.P.X because many bishops would suddenly use it to keep the Society at bay. But this would really harm the Society because there is WAY more than enough to go around in terms of needy faithful.

Why would the Pope allow a de facto independent S.S.P.X to have recognition of faculties? It is because His Holiness knows that Vatican II took a wrong turn. He can't admit this publicly either because he can't bring himself to admit it entirely or because he fears that such an admission would undermine his authority. He might also think that the truth lies somewhere between the Traditional formulation of the Faith and the New thingy. Whatever. That's how I see it.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Wonderful. Let there be peace and conformity to truth in the household of God!

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"Being a life supporter of the SSPX I would suggest actually that very few, in fact a handful of faithful would not follow bishop Fellay in the event of a reconciliation. For instance in one of the largest SSPX schools in France Champagne was served and the Te Deum was sung when the excommunications were lifted!"

That doesn't really prove that everyone will be willing to follow Msgr. Fellay as soon as he decides to effect a reconciliation with Rome. It simply means that everyone in the SSPX rejoiced over the lifting of the excommunications.

LeonG said...

Only socialist and liberalist clerics and bishops who represent the divisive, compromising church would fail to agree with St Vincent of Lerins. They would also prefer to keep St Athanasius excommunicated also.

Only the other day representatives of the pro-life movement have visited The Vatican to implore the removal of the many dissident and feckless bishops in USA who encourage dissident lay politicians in their disregard for normal church teachings on life issues. There are plenty of those in Europe also. But, there is no discipline for these. They continue with impunity, immune to any form of ecclesiastical prosecution. They will treat the papal letter of 10 March 2009 with their continued contempt for any authority because they consider it restricted by collegiality. This nefarious procedure is the brainchild of The Councils and the reorganisation of The Holy See. Considering the pope a mere a primus inter pares they will not listen to anyone but themselves. Therefore, these little despots of The Church need to be brought to heel, if any progress is to be made at all.

Angelo said...

The Athanasian Creed is the latest of the ecumenical creeds. Though seldom used in worship, it is one of the clearest definitions of the Trinity and the incarnation ever written.
--------------------------------

Whosoever will be saved,
before all things it is is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith.
Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled,
without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity
in Unity,
neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance.
For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son,
and another of the Holy Ghost.
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one,
the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son,
and such is the Holy Ghost.
The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate,
and the Holy Ghost uncreate.
The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible,
and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible.
The Father eternal, the Son eternal,
and the Holy Ghost eternal.
And yet they are not three eternals,
but one eternal.
As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated,
but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible.
So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty,
and the Holy Ghost Almighty.
And yet they are not three Almighties,
but one Almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God,
and the Holy Ghost is God.
And yet they are not three Gods,
but one God.
So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord,
and the Holy Ghost Lord.
And yet not three Lords,
but one Lord.
For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge ever y
Person by Himself to be both God and Lord,
so we are forbidden by the Catholic Religion, to say, there be three Gods,
or three Lords.
The Father is made of none,
neither created, nor begotten.
The Son is of the Father alone,
not made, nor created, but begotten.
The Holy Ghost is of the Father [and of the Son],
neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons;
one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.
And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other; none is greater, or l ess
than another;
but the whole three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal.
So that in all things, as is aforesaid,
the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
He therefore that will be saved
must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation
that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ .
For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess,
that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.
God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds;
and Man, of the Substance of His Mother, born in the world;
Perfect God and perfect Man,
of a reasonable soul in human flesh subsisting;
Equal to the Father, as touching His Godhead;
and inferior to the Father, as touching His Manhood.
Who, although He be God and Man,
yet He is not two, but one Christ;
One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh,
but by taking of the Manhood into God;
One altogether; not by confusion of Substance,
but by unity of Person.
For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man,
so God and Man is one Christ.
Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell,
rose again the third day from the dead.
He ascended into heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God
Almighty,
from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
At whose coming all men shall rise with their bodies
and shall give account for their own works.
And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting;
and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully,
he cannot be saved. Amen.

Anonymous said...

An act of faith in the One, Holy, Apostolic and Roman Mother Church from the SSPX is sufficient to the complete reintegration of the SSPX in a regular canonical status, previous to any doctrinal discussion.

The indefectibility of the Roman Church in faith and doctrinal matters (which is an article of faith defined previously to Vatican II) is enough for every single catholic in the world, and traditionalists are not "special" catholics.

With that article of faith in mind the SSPX must accept -as all catholics must accept- the doctrinal definitions from Rome about doctrinal discussions about Vatican II, before of after the start-up of the same doctrinal discussions. The only authority on earth to define that problems is Rome, where lives the Dolce Cristo in Terra. And that definitions are the voice of Christ himself.

Anonymous said...

I was rather shocked by the rapidity with which Bishop Fellay published an answer. I have always admired the slow, meditative and careful manner in which the SSPX has in the past always handled situations such as this. It takes a great deal of time to think out and write an appropriate and unambiguous response, it takes prudence and patience. I am suggesting that Bishop Fellay's answer was already prepared, and then I ask how can that be?

Jordanes said...

What are you talking about in St. Augustine? Can you give me a cite, or a quote?

On Baptism, Against the Donatists (Book I)

“For in all points in which they think with us, they also are in communion with us, and only are severed from us in those points in which they dissent from us. For contact and disunion are not to be measured by different laws in the case of material or spiritual affinities. For as union of bodies arises from continuity of position, so in the agreement of wills there is a kind of contact between souls. If, therefore, a man who has severed himself from unity wishes to do anything different from that which had been impressed on him while in the state of unity, in this point he does sever himself, and is no longer a part of the united whole; but wherever he desires to conduct himself as is customary in the state of unity, in which he himself learned and received the lessons which he seeks to follow, in these points he remains a member, and is united to the corporate whole.” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 1:2)

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/14081.htm

Clearly St. Augustine did not see communion as an all-or-nothing thing as you do. Your opinion that there is no such thing as partial communion is simply un-Catholic, not to mention philosophically problematic.

As for the Pope as a great fan of St. Augustine. Go read the opening pages of the Confessions. Then go read almost anything the Pope has ever written; his recent statement about the excommunication dustup is as good as anything. Then come back and tell me about Papa Ratzinger the Augustinian.

Yes, undeniably the Holy Father’s thought and outlook are imbued with an Augustinian spirit. His letter released March 12 is truly heartfelt and honest, and not unlike the Confessions.

Augustine talks constantly about God.

So does the Holy Father.

The Pope talks constantly about man, and (less often) about God in relation to man; almost always in relation to man.

So does St. Augustine.

To understate the case, the commandment to love the Lord thy with thy whole heart and soul and mind and strength is not one that leaps out from the Pope's lifelong theory and practice.

If you really think that, then if you’ve ever read anything the Pope has written, then you’ve not understood it. Judging from your comments here over the past several months or more, I have no doubt you don’t understand or even wish to understand Pope Benedict’s writings. You bring a hermeneutic of tendentiousness to the things he says.

What is it that you are trying to say about ecumenism? Are you claiming that there is a "common witness" of Christians -- Catholic, heretics, schismatics -- to be sought?

Yes, there is: it is the common witness of the Holy Catholic Faith and the unity of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church to which God is calling every soul.

Can you find that in scripture? the Fathers? the Doctors? the councils before Vatican II?

Yes, and in Vatican II as well, which also taught about the obligation to enter and remain in the unity of the Catholic Church.

I'm beginning to wonder whether a fair number of you are just what the Vatican thinks all of us are: folks with an "attachment" to the traditional Mass, but without any real doctrinal problem with Vatican II.

I’ve not yet found any insurmountable, genuine doctrinal problem with Vatican II, though there’s a good deal about it of a pastoral and disciplinary, provisional nature that I’m not especially keen on, and which I think parts of were probably already past their sell-by date by the time the council was convened.

Vatspy said...

Most recent anonymous:

You are quite right. Bishop Fellay did not have to think long about this. It appears that he and the Vatican already have everything worked out, and now it is only a matter of choreography before the media. Were it not for the Williamson debacle we might already have a canonical solution; as it is we shall have to wait a bit, but not too long.

Anonymous said...

On how long Fellay had:

Keep in mind that the Pope's Letter was leaked the day before. Fellay's response is very polished but the Pope's Letter is rambling.

I've read much of what the Pope has written and much of what D. Cardinal C.H. has written. This is the work of the Cardinal. Normally, underlings such as Perl would compose the text but this looks like the Cardinal's own work. There is the statistical section lifted right from one of his recent speeches, and then his love for this term 'one-sided'. But I do imagine that Fellay received an advanced copy. Remember that the release date was delayed for 12th March, the Commemoration of Pope St. Gregory the Great. Unlike John Paul II and others, this Pope really was Great.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Incidentally, Mr. McFarlanld, the reason for my "aching desire" for unity between the S.S.P.X is that I am Catholic. Every Catholic must have an aching desire for unity between the Vicar of Christ and the faithful. We live in strange--and estranged--times.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes,

You're equivocating on terms.
"Partial communion" is used today in contrast to traditional language of being "outside the Church." Augustine had no qualms saying that the Donatists had left:

Hence, in the immediately preceding sections, Augustine refers to the Donatists as "outside the Catholic communion," and as those who "in the sacrlege of schism, depart from the Communion of the Church..."

You're also quoting Augustine slightly out of context.

The portion of the paragraph you exercepted cited deals with the validity of baptism administered outside of the Catholic Church, and the illicity of rebaptism.

It might be best interpreted by the paragraph immediately following what you cited:

"And so the Donatists in some matters are with us; in some matters have gone out from us. Accordingly, those things wherein they agree with us we do not forbid them to do; but in those things in which they differ from us, we earnestly encourage them to come and receive them from us, or return and recover them, as the case may be; and with whatever means we can, we lovingly busy ourselves, that they, freed from faults and corrected, may choose this course."

If all "partial communion" means is that we have things in common, like sacraments or common points of faith, I don't think anyone will object to the definition. The problem people have with it is that individuals read more into "partial communion" that things in common. They want to make it sound like you're part-way inside the Church.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes:

"Clearly St. Augustine did not see communion as an all-or-nothing thing as you do. Your opinion that there is no such thing as partial communion is simply un-Catholic, not to mention philosophically problematic."

This is a classic example of attending to the meaning of a term but ignoring usage. From the Latin, 'union or unity or agreement' might easily be a translation here. But in traditional theology, Communion refers to a whole unity in truth, in discipline, and in law. In the latter sense, the theological sense, Communion is an absolute, like death or pregnancy: you either have it or you don't. This is the third sense mentioned in the O.E.D.; it is the "fellowship or mutual relation between members of the *SAME* [emphasis added] church". This usage of the term is first recorded in English in Chaucer, although he may have been using the word more generally, since there were no Protestants in those wonderful days. The first usage in the sense of 'being in communion with' either one another or the church seems to come from the Anglicans in the seventeenth century. In that sense, there is no such thing as partial communion, just as there is no such thing as partial union in matrimony. Union and disunion can only co-exist for the heretic. For the Anglican inventors of this usage of the term, the Anglican sacraments were all valid and hence there was a sacramental unity shared by Anglicans, Catholics, and Christians Orthdodox. Later, they would add Monosphysites and Nestorians to this, but they absolutely excluded all the Protestants who lacked bishops. There was no 'partial communion' originally in this sense: you either belonged to a club of churches or you did not.

This theological sense of unity among members of the same church fell out of favour after it was used by the Anglicans to advance their 'branch theory' of unity, whereby they were one branch of this communion. If you consult pre-conciliar Catholic dictinaries and encyclopædias, you will see that this sense of communion is not even listed. Then it suddenly re-surfaced in the 1960s. Before about 1965 (except during the Middle Ages), we Catholics did not speak about communion in the Church, only about a larger 'communion of the saints' mentioned in the Creed. But if we are to return to the older usage (under Protestant influence?: why should we?), then it means a unity of faith and law and doctrine among members of the *same* church (for they saw the one Church as a club of denominations with valid sacraments). In that sense, there is no such thing as partial communion: that is an oxymoron, like partial pregnancy.

All the Protestants, like the Donatists, have valid Baptisms and are therefore in partial communion with us in a *general* sense, but not in the theological sense.

I suggest that this revival of the older theological sense of the term was introduced to break down the barrier between Catholics and non-Catholics. That is ironic since the theological usage originally had the very opposite purpose. We we say that 'outside the Church there is no salvation' we point to the importance of being Catholic: that is the only 'communion' which can have any meaning for us. (Others can be saved through the Church but there is only one Church and you're either in it or not.)

To conclude, in the proper theological sense, there is no such thing as partial communion. In the general sense, there is such a thing but we must wonder what value the term may have, for it could be applied to almost any evidence of common practice. Hence, if the Hindoos pray for the living as we do, they have partial communion with us.

Clearly, liberals use the term in a new sense of their own devising, one which developed out of Anglican practice, developed from membership in one club to any evidence of common belief in Christ. By this, there must be certain commonalities, such as valid Baptism. Again, this has little value, as it puts us 'in communion with' raving evangelical lunatics who get down on all fours and bark like dogs.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

Someone said: You're equivocating on terms.

No, I'm not.

"Partial communion" is used today in contrast to traditional language of being "outside the Church."

That some people misuse the Church's language and reject her beliefs does not make the Church's language wrong.

Augustine had no qualms saying that the Donatists had left

Neither does the Church have qualms saying that those who formally leave the Church have left, even though they will still retain some elements of communion with her, as St. Augustine said of the Donatists.

Hence, in the immediately preceding sections, Augustine refers to the Donatists as "outside the Catholic communion," and as those who "in the sacrlege of schism, depart from the Communion of the Church..."

And yet he still said the Donatists were in communion with the Church where they shared her beliefs and sacraments and out of communion with the Church where they did not.

You're also quoting Augustine slightly out of context.

The context you provide does not change the meaning of his words that I quoted, in which he says that the Donatist schismatics have a partial communion with the Catholic Church despite being formally and unquestionably outside the Church.

If all "partial communion" means is that we have things in common, like sacraments or common points of faith, I don't think anyone will object to the definition.

What else could the Church possibly mean by "partial communion" than the kinds of things you mention?

The problem people have with it is that individuals read more into "partial communion" that things in common. They want to make it sound like you're part-way inside the Church.

"Part-way inside the Church" isn't all that bad a way to picture the Catholic doctrine of partial vs. full communion: standing in the front door way, so to speak, but not actually in the House of God.

Jordanes said...

Careful, Mr. Perkins -- someone might think you were equivocating!

;-)

Brian said...

Jordanes,
Are you saying, with regard to the SSPX, that they "standing in the front door way, so to speak, but not actually in the House of God"?

Dan Hunter said...

Would "partial communion" be like:
"near-excommunication?

Jordanes said...

Are you saying, with regard to the SSPX, that they "standing in the front door way, so to speak, but not actually in the House of God"?

Nah, they’re in the front room and are taking off their coats that they’d put on to leave. They’re not quite in full communion just yet, since the SSPX is not yet accepted by the Church as a Catholic priestly fraternity and their members are still suspended.

Would "partial communion" be like: "near-excommunication?

No. It’s a bit of a broader concept than the question of who is in good standing vs. who has been excommunicated.

Martin said...

Jordanes,

Although not a supporter of the SSPX, I have been to their Masses on a few occasions and see that their sermons are more in line with the official Church teaching. For instance they don't shy away from the need to go to confession, the sacrifice of the Mass, mankinds sin and need for repentence. In comparison to the mainstream, sermons can often be very watered down to such an extent that it could be a protestant sermon.

My point is that the SSPX are not in "full communion" but yet believe in every doctrine of the Church, preach it and display it in public (by wearing the cassock). On the other hand many priests in the mainstream are in "full-communion" but don't believe in essentiel Catholic beliefs, don't give time to preparing good Catholic sermons and don't wear their collars in public. Isn't then the word "full-communion just an meaningless empty word?

I do realise the negative elements in the SSPX but in comparison to the mainstream these problems are nothing.

Anonymous said...

Of course I think it would be reasonable as a proof that the FSSPX truely accepts the liturgical reforms as promugated by Vatican II for the FSSPX bishops to be 'invited' to concelebrate the Holy Mass of Paul VI with a representive of the Holy Father and publicly too. I would have thought not too much to ask for !

Jamie

Jordanes said...

My point is that the SSPX are not in "full communion" but yet believe in every doctrine of the Church, preach it and display it in public (by wearing the cassock). On the other hand many priests in the mainstream are in "full-communion" but don't believe in essentiel Catholic beliefs, don't give time to preparing good Catholic sermons and don't wear their collars in public. Isn't then the word "full-communion just an meaningless empty word?

I don’t think it’s a meaningless term, and I can’t see how priests who disbelieve essential Catholic beliefs are really in full communion, since they do not “share in” or participate in the Catholic faith.

Anonymous said...

Jamie con celebration is not something that many Traditionalists would want to do. For example the FSSP have been fighting against those requests for decades and they are in "full communion".

NO to the NO.

Anonymous said...

I can't believe some of the ignorance on this list. Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos has said that the Society members and supporters are fully Catholic and that their reconciliation with the Pope is, and I quote, "an internal matter" for the Church. That is why the P.C.E.D. is now becoming a mere Department in the C.D.F.: they are fellow Catholics who have troubling questions in regard to some matters of late doctrine.

All communion is full communion, but if it were not, Rome would say that they are in full communion but not regularised, just like a priest who has disobeyed his superiors but has not been excommunicated.

If you're not ex-coMUNicated, then you must be in communion. Duh.

Now there is the infamous case of 'Father' Raymond Gravel of the Diocese of Joliette, who argued on television in favour of the legalisation of both abortion and inverted marriage. He is under no censures, has not been suspended, and is celebrated by the Quebec media as the first former male prostitute (wich he openly admits) to become a Catholic priest. He is now more famous than any bishop in Quebec and was, for about a year, a Member of Parliament illicitly. He is in Jordanes's 'full communion' category I guess, since the Code requires us to assume the best of everyone and he has not been disciplined. In fact, he is a parish priest. By the way, this case is the most controversial one ever in Church history. To 'read all about it' and how it has developed, go here:

http://catholicinsight.com/online/controversy/article_689.shtml


But is Fr. Gravel Catholic?

We shouldn't ask. This is the Age of Aquarius, man.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes says of the S.S.P.X:

"Nah, they’re in the front room and are taking off their coats that they’d put on to leave."


Actually, the S.S.P.X are in the old dining room. The owner decided to add a new dining room to the side of the house in the 1960s and is in there. Unfortnately, the structure was unsound, since that side of the house is on th edge of a sandpit. The walls buckled and the roof collapsed. Thanks be to God, the owner was in a corner of the room at the time and is unhurt. Now he has to make his way through the rubble (and rubbish) to the door.

Meanwhile, the old dining room is part of a house that was built on a rock. Bishop Fellay is sitting in there and preparing for dinner after a long day of fasting.

Cardinal Hummes is sitting comfortably in the parlour but he entered the house across the street by mistake. It is owned by the Beelzebub family. Karl Marx is in the drawing room talking to Vladimir Lenin and George Bernard Shaw. Yezhov, Kaganovich, and Beria are in the kitchen slaughtering some Ukrainian lambs for dinner. But poor old Hummes is sitting in the parlour all alone. Nobody loves him. Upstairs in the bedroom, hooked to an I.V., Cardinal Arns holds on for dear life, attended by Silvestrini and Martini. Laghi has been taken away to the hospital and has not returned.

P.K.T.P.

Dan Hunter said...

"...how priests who disbelieve essential Catholic beliefs are really in full communion, since they do not “share in” or participate in the Catholic faith."

Jordanes,

And yet these priests are allowed to exercise, completely, a ministry within a diocese and have 100% canonical jurisdiction, even though many teach heresy and do not believe in the Deposit of the Faith themselves.

What kind of scandal and confusion does this cause the struggling faithful Catholic?
And its all sanctioned by proper Church authority.

An FSSPX priest teaches the Nicene Creed in its fullness, and he is outside the structure of the Church and ostrasized.
A Cardinal Mahony or Bishop Weakland teaches heresy and heterodoxy and they are fully in the structure of the Church.

Very irrational and, quite franky, insane.
Who is actually disobedient, and who actually is obedient?

Brian said...

Jordanes,
It seems to me that the SSPX are Catholics in the Catholic Church. Objectively speaking, the clerics are engaging in illicit and therefore objectively sinful acts and do not hold licit ministries in the Church - but they are fully Catholics. (The SSPX clerics, of course, do not perceive their actions as sinful due to a perceived state of emergency in the Church.)

The Catholics who attend those Masses are fully Catholic.

I do not understand these gradations of being in Communion or in the "front room and taking off their coats" to be vague and lacking in substantial meaning.

Anonymous said...

Once again, organisations cannot be in any kind of communion (even though there is only one kind), only people can.

The members of the S.S.P.X and its supporters are all Baptized Catholics and are not excommunicated. Therefore, they are ALL in communion and in what Jordanes wrongly calls 'full communion' in the Church.

The organisation called the S.S.P.X, and its clerics are not regularised. The clerics are irregular and autocephalous but not in any way or to any extent 'out of communion' with Rome.

Only infidels, schismatics, heretics, and apostates are 'out of communion' in any sense or to any extent. While the 1988 consecrations were a schismatic act, they were not a schismatic act sufficient to cause schism; they only tended to schism. That's what Cardinal C.H.says but, then, what does he know? He's not Jordanes.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

"Full communion"

"Partial communion"

Nonsense terms never heard of until the infamous 60s.

Anonymous said...

Once again, according to No. 3 of the O.E.D. entry under "communion", in the English tongue, the correct theological meaning of communion is "fellowship or mutual relation between members of the *SAME* [emphasis added] church". That is the sense in which the great Chaucer used the term in the first quotation under that meaning.

So where did this false definition of communion come from, the one Jordanes apes from the misusage of recent popes and prelates? It comes from the 1960s. You will not find one reference to it from before then--at least not in the Catholic Church, which is the only one which really is a church: the others are only ecclesial communities.

And where did the unCatholic radicals of the Age of Aquarius get this from? Answer: from PROTESTANT usage. In the Protestant theological terminology of the time, it refers to the varying degrees of agreement among their infinite number of sects, which babble their differences like the Tower of Babel.

And where did the Protestants get it? Specifically from the Anglicans and specifically from the late seventeenth century (1679 is the first quotation). The Anglicans used it to advance their HERETICAL branch theory of the Church, in which the True Church founded by Christ has three branches: Roman, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican. The Monophyistes and Nestorians were added a little later. (Incidentially, the term 'Roman Catholic' had the same origin and was originally a pejorative term.)

Under this HERESY, Anglicans are in partial communion with Romans, Romans with Greeks, Anglicans with Greeks, Greeks with geeks, and so forth; while Anglicans would be in 'full communion' with other Anglicans, and so forth.

Originally, this 'communion' was restricted to these three branches, but, after all, Anglicanism had been influenced heavily by Lutheranism, Calvinism, Arminianism: truly, the Church of England was the chatty parlour of all heresies. And what of the Old Catholics? Who were they in communion with?

So this error developed, for every virus doth spread and grow. And it came to mean an almost infinite system of degrees of agreement which binds together all Christians. Hence the Unitarian and the Catholic become brothers in an 'imperfect' or 'partial' or 'impaired' communion. Adopt the wording of your enemies and you absorb the erroneous principles from which those errors grow.

The problem is that Unitarianism and Universalism have themselves glided into paganism. Some Unitarians today are still 'Christian' but others are not and have as much respect for the Buddha or Mother Earth as for Christ. The lines are fuzzy; and woolly are the heads that draw the lines.

What is this common light which all these different believers move toward? It comes from Lucifer, who fell from Heaven like lighting; it is the light which cometh from the flames of Hell. It is not the Light of Christ.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

What Bishop Fellay is now trying to sell is that the Lex Orandi of the Novus Ordo is the Lex Credendi of Tradition

John McFarland said...

PKTP,

Give your fingers a rest and let's hear from Jordanes.

Jordanes? Jordanes?

Perhaps he's over at the Ratzinger Fan Club website, gathering ammunition.

FranzJosf said...

My prediction: The SSPX does not want a canonical solution until there are definitive doctrinal discussions, God Bless them. These talks will take time, and there will be a public aspect to them, because someone in the Curia will leak. Since the SSPX will simply hold the Deposit of Faith as the starting point, the Curia is backed into a corner on issues like Ecumenism. Is Our Lord the only way, truth, and life or not? Does any man come to the father except through him? The stakes are high because these discussions could permanently shut down some progessivist notions, with far-reaching implications. The real howling and knashing of teeth hasn't even begun. In my opinion, Bishop Fellay knows this, and he considers it the High Duty of the SSPX to stand for nothing less. Interesting times we're living in, Praise God.

Anonymous said...

I agree with FranzJosf on the doctrinal part. That is why it is urgent that there be a way to visible unity first. I just cannot see how major doctrinal difficulties can be resolved amicably in our time. Tissier de Mallerais, for example, and Claudio Hummes, for example, don't just disagree with each other of a few things. They subscribe to different religions, even opposite religions in many respects.

If the Pope tries to rule against liberal pet theories on œcumenism and inculturation, I just pray that his poison-taster has a strong stomach.

If the Pope tries to use intellectual subtlety to make two plus two equal seventeen, he will be condemned by both sides.

The only way to resolve doctrinal matters is to delay them. Both sides can agree on one thing (or, at least, they must pretend to agree on this): their view will be proved to be correct in the long term. Hence neither side has anything to worry about in the future, once they are safely dead.

It will take at least twenty years before the old liberals will be out of power. Tissier estimates thirty years and I think that to be correct as a MINIMUM.

Rather than to go into limbo for thirty years, we need a way for the Pope to recognise Society faculties NOW. We also need an international structure for the obedient traditionalists, so that the can be freed from the shackles of the local clown Mahonys.

Juridical matters are important because they afford a freedom of action which can reach souls and restore tradition. Let us *grow* in support while we wait for doctrinal matters to be determined. Let us not just tread water.

P.K.T.P.

Fr Anthony said...

P.K.T.P. - 15 March, 2009 00:19

It may take 30 years for the liberals to lose their influence. That is more time than what it will take for the Church to be completely dead in western Europe. We will be talking about deck chairs and the Titanic, or the dodo's feathers, take your pick.

Benedict XVI is a one-shot deal. If big questions are not resolved by the time he dies - then that's it.

Don't anyone think we can last it out as independent bodies, whether we are SSPX or TAC or whatever. Our days are numbered too. We are to weak even if we look strong to ourselves.

If this Pope can't do it, well then we can go on saying our prayers and saying Mass - but knowing that we are the last ones before the deluge.

Of course, there is still the Orthodox Church, which will remain strong just as long as they stay away from us westerners.

Fr. Anthony

Jordanes said...

I can't believe some of the ignorance on this list.

I can. For example, there is one frequent commenter here who recently explained his reasons for choosing to remain ignorant of what the magisterial documents of Vatican II teach.

Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos has said that the Society members and supporters are fully Catholic and that their reconciliation with the Pope is, and I quote, "an internal matter" for the Church.

Yes, though he has also spoken of the danger of schism, and there is the ongoing problem that the bishops and priests of the SSPX are exercising ministry without the permission of the Church. Thus, their communion with the Church is impaired to an important degree.

All communion is full communion, but if it were not, Rome would say that they are in full communion but not regularised, just like a priest who has disobeyed his superiors but has not been excommunicated.

What Rome may or may not say is debatable, but by no stretch and under no sense can it be rightly said that all communion is full communion. The fullest communion is experienced by those who now enjoy the Beatific Vision.

There is another, intimately related sense of the word communion, that can help to show that communion is not all-or-nothing: Holy Communion, of which there are there kinds of reception. One can make an act of spiritual Communion, or can receive the Sacrament without receiving the full grace and virtue, or can receive the Sacrament with the full grace and virtue. One's particular dispositions can impair the efficacy of receiving Communion.

By analogy, one can speak of degrees of communion in doctrine or in liturgy or in sacraments. This is what we see in St. Augustine's statement that the Donatist schismatics were simultaneously in and not in the communion with the Church.

If you're not ex-coMUNicated, then you must be in communion. Duh.

Most souls are not in formal communion with the Church and yet have never been excommunicated.

He is in Jordanes's 'full communion' category I guess, since the Code requires us to assume the best of everyone and he has not been disciplined.

No, he's obviously not in the Church's "full communion" category.

By the way, this case is the most controversial one ever in Church history.

More of your characteristic hyperbole. Take a step back from the Canadian trees and try to see the wider forest. Unfortunately Father Gravel's scandal is little known or talked of outside of the Church in Canada.

Once again, organisations cannot be in any kind of communion (even though there is only one kind), only people can.

What are organisations but gatherings of people?

The members of the S.S.P.X and its supporters are all Baptized Catholics and are not excommunicated. Therefore, they are ALL in communion and in what Jordanes wrongly calls 'full communion' in the Church.

No, that obviously does not follow at all.

While the 1988 consecrations were a schismatic act, they were not a schismatic act sufficient to cause schism; they only tended to schism.

That granted, it in no way establishes that the Catholic Church and her theologians are mistaken to appropriate St. Augustine's understanding of communion.

That's what Cardinal C.H. says but, then, what does he know? He's not Jordanes.

He's not St. Augustine, either -- not that what he says about the SSPX re schism is actually relevant to this question.

Once again, according to No. 3 of the O.E.D. entry under "communion", in the English tongue, the correct theological meaning of communion is "fellowship or mutual relation between members of the *SAME* [emphasis added] church". That is the sense in which the great Chaucer used the term in the first quotation under that meaning.

So we determine what is correct Catholic theology by consulting the OED?

So where did this false (sic) definition of communion come from, the one Jordanes apes from the misusage of recent popes and prelates?

As I showed, it comes from St. Augustine.

It comes from the 1960s. You will not find one reference to it from before then--at least not in the Catholic Church

I'm pretty sure you don't believe St. Augustine was not in the Catholic Church. There were also theologians before the 1960s who spoke of communion in the way the Church chose to speak of it around that time. And after all, as the Holy Father recently reminded us, the Church's magisterium did not cease or freeze in 1962.

which is the only one which really is a church: the others are only ecclesial communities.

The Catholic Church also recognises the Orthodox and certain other Eastern Churches as "really a church," as reaffirmed a few years ago in Dominus Iesus. But let us take your personal opinion as true, and consider it in light of your preferred OED definition of "communion." If it means "fellowship or mutual relation between members of the same church" and there is in fact only one church which with one can be in communion, what is to prevent a consideration of a baptised person's degree of communion with that One Church?

As for your disquisition on the alleged Protestant origin of the Catholic Church's understanding of full vs. partial communion, I wish to understand what the Church means and what she believes. Protestantism's defective understanding, no matter their degree of similarity to the Church's mind, doesn't inform the Church's belief.

Jordanes said...

Perhaps he's over at the Ratzinger Fan Club website, gathering ammunition.

I did not have access to a computer over the weekend.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes:

He calls me ignorant for not knowing Vatican II documents well. I did read them once long ago but try to forget them. A parallel will be accidentally hearing some rock noise and then coming home and listening to a Haydn symphony to cleanse that pollution out of my head. Anyway, most of these modernists know ONLY Vatican II and little of the other 21 councils; wheras traditionalists know the other 21 and just not the one which has borne no good fruit. So we know which group is more ignorant. They never quote Nicæa or Lateran IV or Trent from the pulpit but only those nauseating documents of Vatican II. Why is that? Don't they know dogmatic councils?

"Yes, though he has also spoken of the danger of schism, and there is the ongoing problem that the bishops and priests of the SSPX are exercising ministry without the permission of the Church. Thus, their communion with the Church is impaired to an important degree."

The danger of schism is not schism. You are no doubt referring to "Ecclesia Dei Adflicta", 3c. The law does not assume any penalty unless there is manifest evidence of the error in a particular case. The P.C.E.D. explained this matter some time ago. The 1988 act was a schismatic act but not sufficient to result in schism. Therefore, the four prelates were declared excommunicated for disobedience, not schism; they were simply declared excommunicated for receiving episcopal consecration without a papal mandate. However, Rome agrees that they are *entirely* Catholic. One is either Catholic or not, and that would be the case even if there were such a thing as partial communion, which there is not. Even an excommunicated person is considered to be Catholic in the Code. Under the 1917 Code, once Catholic, always Catholic. Under the 1983 Code, you remain Catholic unless you leave the Church "by a formal act".

"The fullest communion is experienced by those who now enjoy the Beatific Vision."

No, not so. For there are differing degrees of pleasure in Heaven, in accodance with our merits. Some up there get to feast on dark chocolate and Dom Perignon, whereas others are perfectly content but only get milk chocolate and sparkling wine. It is true that the Blessed in Heaven enjoy a greater bliss. But Communion is a state which unites all three parts of the Church: the blessed in Heaven, the Suffering in Purgatory, and the elect on earth. They are all 'in communion' in terms of their final state.

"There is another, intimately related sense of the word communion, that can help to show that communion is not all-or-nothing: Holy Communion, of which there are there kinds of reception. One can make an act of spiritual Communion, or can receive the Sacrament without receiving the full grace and virtue, or can receive the Sacrament with the full grace and virtue. One's particular dispositions can impair the efficacy of receiving Communion."

Once again, this is another example of Jordanes confusing the ordinary sense of communion with a supposed theological sense different from the only Catholic one of the Middle Ages in regard to persons. Communion in the general sense only means a union with. Period. Jordanes also forgot that there are four, not three ways of such communion. One can also receive the full grace and virtue of the Sacrament (which is more than a spiritual communion) by receiving what one thinks to be the Blessed Sacrament at an invalid Mass. This can happen if the invalidity is unknown to the communicant. But this is, again, a general sense of communion and does not relate to the sense in which people are members of the Church.

In regard to the Donatists, Jordanes refers again to a general sense of communion and, this time, from translated texts. The Donatists were not in communion but their Baptisms were valid. Communion is a unity of belief, discipline, and law; it is a wholeness in the theological sense of the term.

"By the way, this case is the most controversial one ever in Church history."

Correction. I meant to say that Gravel's case in probably the most serious in recent Church history, not the most controversial. It ought to be the most controversial but the Canadian hierarchy protects him.

"What are organisations but gatherings of people?"

Organisations are legal entities, legal persons, not real persons. You cannot attribute to a group properties which are proper to its members.

"So we determine what is correct Catholic theology by consulting the OED?"

Yes, absolutely. The O.E.D. is the best source for all definitions of terms in all sources in the English tongue. Again, Communion, in Catholic theological usage, means the unity of people in the same Church.

Another listmember has shown that your quotations from St. Augustine are incorrect. I suggest that this is a mistranslation done after 1965. St. Augustine did not speak English, unless you are referring to St. Augustine of Canterbury. So some post-conciliar dolt using Protestant terminology mistranslated the text.

"The Catholic Church also recognises the Orthodox and certain other Eastern Churches as "really a church," as reaffirmed a few years ago in Dominus Iesus."

You need to take a look at the Pope's (flawed) recent commentary on 'subsists in'. He makes it very clear there that they are NOT sister churches but ecclesial communities.

"what is to prevent a consideration of a baptised person's degree of communion with that One Church?"

A Baptized heretic or schismatic has no communion with the Church. He simply has a valid Baptism. Once again, this 'communion with' nonsense talk does not appear in Catholic sources between about 1700 and 1965. It was borrowed from the misusage of Protestant heretics, like the six heretics who advised Bugnini's little gang of Modernist liturgists. You will not find Catholic references to full and partial communion before 1965 except, perhaps, among a few Courtenay Murrays or Karl Rahners, who were aping Protestant usage. Birds of a feather flock together.

"Protestantism's defective understanding, no matter their degree of similarity to the Church's mind, doesn't inform the Church's belief."

No, but it does inform liberals' beliefs among those raised as Catholic, men who are Catholic in name only, perhaps?

We now have a generation of innocent Catholics who use this category in a Protestant way to break down the black-and-white distinction between the True Church and heresy. Whatever 'communion' may mean, it is not important. It is only important whether you are Catholic or not, so THAT is the only matter which needs discussion.

I note in closing that the Eastern Orthodox are not only schismatics but are also heretics, since they (most of if not all of them) deny the infallibly teaching of Vatican I that the Pope's jurisdiction is plenary, supreme, universal, and immediate.

The Anglicans' Branch Theory is false. They are not in the Church and nor are the Eastern Orthodox. However, I have a real liking for both groups and pray earnestly for their communion with Rome.

As for the S.S.P.X , its members have an invisible Communion with Rome. This can only be justified in a case of necessity. What is normally needed is a visible union with the Vicar of Christ.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

The danger of schism is not schism.

I didn't say it was. We do not disagree here.

However, Rome agrees that they are *entirely* Catholic. One is either Catholic or not, and that would be the case even if there were such a thing as partial communion, which there is not.

Yes indeed, one can be Catholic and yet still lack full communion. You still have not demonstrated that one either has full communion or no communion at all.

"The fullest communion is experienced by those who now enjoy the Beatific Vision."

And though you reply, "No, not so," you then proceed to agree with me that the blessed in heaven enjoy far greater bliss than anyone can experience here below. That there are differing degrees of pleasure in heaven does not mean heaven is not the place of the fullest communion possible.

But Communion is a state which unites all three parts of the Church: the blessed in Heaven, the Suffering in Purgatory, and the elect on earth. They are all 'in communion' in terms of their final state.

True, but that does not establish that communion is an all-or-nothing-thing as you claim.

Once again, this is another example of Jordanes confusing the ordinary sense of communion with a supposed theological sense different from the only Catholic one of the Middle Ages in regard to persons.

No, Mr. Perkins, once again it is you who are mistaken in your allegation that I have confused the senses of communion. It's obvious that I'm aware of and understand the differences in senses of communion. I could hardly propose the analogy if I didn't. Please try again.

Jordanes also forgot that there are four, not three ways of such communion. One can also receive the full grace and virtue of the Sacrament (which is more than a spiritual communion) by receiving what one thinks to be the Blessed Sacrament at an invalid Mass.

No, that is only a form of spiritual communion, since there is no validly confecting Sacrament that one could receive. There are three, not four, ways of receiving Holy Communion.

But this is, again, a general sense of communion and does not relate to the sense in which people are members of the Church.

It does relate to it, even though it's a different kind of communion.

In regard to the Donatists, Jordanes refers again to a general sense of communion and, this time, from translated texts. The Donatists were not in communion but their Baptisms were valid. Communion is a unity of belief, discipline, and law; it is a wholeness in the theological sense of the term.

Yes, you're right. It's good to see you in agreement with this truth. And of course where there is not full unity, where there is not the wholeness, there is only a partial communion.

Organisations are legal entities, legal persons, not real persons. You cannot attribute to a group properties which are proper to its members.

Yes, but one can properly refer to the members under the name of their group.

The O.E.D. is the best source for all definitions of terms in all sources in the English tongue.

It's an English dictionary (THE English dictionary). It's not a Catholic theological dictionary.

Again, Communion, in Catholic theological usage, means the unity of people in the same Church.

That's part of the meaning of the word.

Another listmember has shown that your quotations from St. Augustine are incorrect.

Not in this discussion thread, or anywhere else at Rorate, has he done so.

I suggest that this is a mistranslation done after 1965. St. Augustine did not speak English, unless you are referring to St. Augustine of Canterbury. So some post-conciliar dolt using Protestant terminology mistranslated the text.

You're wrong about when the translation was done. It's the old Schaff version, which is in the public domain. If it had been post-1965, copyright issues would have prevented New Advent from publishing it. You could possibly be right that Schaff, since he was an anti-Catholic Lutheran, mistranslated St. Augustine, but that's not likely -- he was a heretic, but a good scholar overall. If someone can find the Latin original we can settle that point. Otherwise we can only assume that Schaff's translation is correct, as it usually is.

You need to take a look at the Pope's (flawed) recent commentary on 'subsists in'. He makes it very clear there that they are NOT sister churches but ecclesial communities.

Your memory is faulty. It's the Protestant sects, not the Eastern Churches, that he called ecclesial communities rather than proper Churches.

A Baptized heretic or schismatic has no communion with the Church. He simply has a valid Baptism.

Or so you keep saying. Repeating your belief over and over again does not establish that your belief is correct.

As for the S.S.P.X , its members have an invisible Communion with Rome.

I disagree. Their communion with Rome is visible, not invisible, but less than perfect.

Anonymous said...

Open Letter to the General Superior of the Society of St. Pius X,
Bishop Bernard Fellay,

Fr. Basilio Méramo

Priory of Blessed Raphael Guizar y Valencia
Calle Sur 11 n. 1114
C.P. 94390
Orizaba - Veracruz - Mexico

Dear Monsignor:

Given the events that regard our whole Society (SSPX), both members and the faithful, it is with great sorrow and pain that I find myself obliged to direct this public letter to you. I cannot be silent in face of the lifting of the decree of excommunication by apostate Rome – called as such on more than one occasion by Msgr. Lefebvre – which had been requested by means of a crusade of one million rosaries delivered to Rome for this end. This is to at least implicitly acknowledge, whether we want to or not, that we have been excommunicated, notwithstanding the puerile excuses to prove the opposite.

You recognized this in your sermon at Flavigny (February 2, 2006) when you said: “We have requested the lifting of the decree of excommunication, its annulment; but to say annul is already to say that we acknowledge something.”



Among heretics and schismatics JPII opens the Jubillee 2000. In that year SSPX Bishops also started to merge.
Personally and in conscience, as a perpetual member of the Society, I feel myself obliged to manifest my total disagreement with this act. I speak out clearly and publicly before God and the Catholic Church, the sole Ark of Salvation, the exclusive and sole Spouse of Christ. She is not, as the reigning ecumenism desires, just another religion inside the Pantheon where all false religions dwell, each one with its own altar and rights, living together in a pacific and abominable coexistence similar to the reign of the Anti-Christ.

The bouquet of flowers (one million rosaries) delivered to the modernist and apostate Rome – the great red harlot riding the Beast, i.e., the prostituted, corrupted and adulterated religion, as Fr. Castellani used to call it – was an act of a saccharine, concealed concession

It was this [apostasy] which astonished the pure and virginal Apostle St. John the Evangelist, the most beloved, because it was the Gordian knot of the mystery of iniquity inside the Holy Place and an abominable desolation in the Temple: the falsified religion cohabitating with the worldly powers and fornicating with the kings of earth.

To ask for the lifting the excommunication implies recognizing its validity

To lift or to annul the decree of excommunication is not the same thing as declaring its invalidity and nullity from the start. Further, if one can annul and consequently declare the annulment from a decree that was until now valid and legitimate, it only serves to express and ratify that it was up to now valid and legitimate. It is only from this time onward that such excommunication ceases.

In short, while one can annul and considered annulled a just law that lost its reason for being, the same does not occur with an unjust law, such as the sanction of excommunication of Tradition [SSPX Bishops], because it is invalid and null given its lack of legitimacy, veracity, justice and right. An unjust law is per se invalid and null; it was never a law. Only a valid, legitimate and just law can be annulled. These two things may seem alike but are they are two different things.

To request the lifting of the decree of excommunication is not the same thing as to ask or demand the acknowledgement of its absolute nullity and total invalidity. These are distinct things, even though similar. Not to recognize this reveals a lack of understanding. Whoever does not accept this distinction is either a naïve fool or a malevolent man. No one can confuse nullity with the annulment of a decree.

It is clear that for modernist Rome this act means the remission of a punishment - the censure of excommunication – since the corrective penalties, as is the case of the censures, are lifted as set out in the Canon Law for the remission of a penalty. Therefore, is very clear that the one who accepts this lifting of a penalty does so because he considers himself guilty of it in juridical terms. And it is logical that the one censured should rejoice that, with the remission of the sanction, he is pardoned.

When a Bishop, son of Msgr. Lefebvre, requests this, he denies his father in the Episcopate, because he acknowledges that that act [of excommunication] was a due punishment. There is no other alternative in juridical terms. Yes is yes, and no is no. And as the saying goes: He who proves too much, proves nothing.

Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Mayer continue to be excommunicated

If one analyzes it well, the excommunication that fell over the two consecrating Bishops - Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Castro Mayer - was not lifted. The only excommunication lifted was that which fell on the consecrated Bishops - Bishops Tissier de Mallerais, Williamson, Fellay and de Galarreta. It is very clear that the excommunication was lifted only for those who requested it as a show of filial good will with the aim of moving the paternal feelings of Benedict XVI. There was absolutely no retraction on the part of Rome, which showed simply a paternal indulgence toward the four Bishops who filially asked the lifting of the excommunication from the magnanimous Benedict XVI.

Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Castro Mayer continue to be entirely excommunicated, unless they rise from their graves and also filially request - as a show of good will - the lifting of their excommunications, which Rome obviously considers just and legitimate. This is crystal clear.

Rome is deactivating the SSPX resistance

Actually, all the reasons alleged for this action have no weight and are superfluous. The basic question is the Faith. Protestantized and modernist Rome has managed to deactivate the resistance centered on the Society and Msgr. Lefebvre, 18 years after his death. Now the process of handing over [the SSPX] that started to manifest itself publicly in the Jubilee of 2000 reaches its end.



The 'paternal benignity' of Benedict XVI was to deactivate the SSPX resistance
I am in disagreement with this and always will be. I cannot prostitute myself intellectually and religiously to the power of evil that entered the Church and wants to pervert and invert everything. This is to be spiritually and religiously sodomized. This is the attitude of the Pharisees - a special corruption of religion - which governs today with all the prestige that comes from power to the detriment of the Truth. Let us not forget that the greatest victory of the Anti-Christian World Revolution is to transform men into “intellectual prostitutes.”

A bomb cannot be deactivated with blows of a hammer or axe, but requires a subtle maneuver to undo its internal mechanism. This is what is happening now with the Society of St. Pius X in order to neutralize it in its combat and heroic resistance against the errors of modernist and apostate Rome, as Msgr. Lefebvre called it in his time. Under a false mask and a false paternal benignity, the resistance and the combat against the ecumenical new Church - which cohabitates with world globalism subject to the empire of the prince of this world, Satan and his followers - has been de-activated.

It is inexplicable that the other three Bishops have said nothing and thus consent with their silence. For he who is silent, sanctions, and he who sanctions, accepts error, the deception and the lie contained in all this.

Our obligation to remain faithful to the Catholic Faith

These are difficult times. Even more, these are apocalyptic times, where each one of the faithful must be a soldier of Christ to heroically and valiantly defend his Faith, as the martyrs of the early Church did without any human help, facing their torturers alone with God.

Our sole duty is to remain firm in the Faith, faithful to Christ and to His divine Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is eclipsed today (De Labore Solis, as St. Malachi refers to the previous pontificate). As an apex of the evil we are witnessing, according to the Biblical language, the abomination of desolation established in the Holy Place, the destruction of everything that is sacred and invading the Temple, which is under the iron dominion of the Synagogue of Satan (De Gloria Olivae refers to this pontificate). Thus, we have the fulfillment of the prophecy of Our Lady of La Salette: “Rome will lose the Faith and will become the see of the Anti-Christ.” Today this is a fact, but to acknowledge it demands fortitude and a solid, erudite faith, which is rare in today’s world filled with darkness and apostasy.

We are not discouraged for we know with certainty that “the gates of Hell will not prevail,” that is, “They will wage war against you but they will not win,” as St. Thomas explains in his commentary of the Creed. He also knows by Faith that the one true Church, the virginal spouse of Christ, will remain, even though she be reduced to a small flock (pusillus grex, Lk 12:32), dispersed around the world. As St. Augustine says and the Council of Trent (Art. 9) confirms, “It is the faithful people dispersed throughout the world” awaiting their ransom and sustained by the blessed hope - of which St. Peter (2 Pet 3:12) and St. Paul (Tit 2:13) speak - who will see the return of Christ the King in glory and majesty.

We must be “firm in the Faith” as St. Peter exhorts us, since, as St. Paul says, “everything that does not proceed from the Faith is sin” (Rom 14:23), and “the just will live from the Faith” (Heb 10:38), and “we were saved gratuitously through the Faith” (Eph 2:8). This is what we have to do, remain brave and firm soldiers confirmed in the Faith by Baptism so that those words of St. Paul will be fulfilled in us: “Placed on trial for the testimony of the Faith, they were found faithful to Our Lord Jesus Christ” (Heb 12:39).

False pretexts to merge: to remedy the crisis and to give rights to Tradition

It is inconceivable that someone should say that the Society (SSPX) wishes to help the Pope to remedy the crisis since the modernist Popes are the first who are responsible and culpable for this unprecedented crisis - never before seen in History.



Rome transformed into a Pantheon of false religions
And, worst of all evils, Joseph Ratzinger throughout his whole life - either as an expert theologian in Vatican II or as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith during the nefarious pontificate of John Paul II, and now as Benedict XVI – has consciously sustained those same errors [that have caused the crisis] instead of condemning them.

Great diseases cannot be cured with half-measures. To speak of a crisis without pointing to its cause - the crisis in the Faith – does not lead anywhere. To point out the crises in vocations, religious practice, catechism, frequency of the Sacraments is just to point out effects. If one does not give their cause, one inverts and confuses the cause and the effects.

It is also wrong to speak of the rights of Tradition as if they were any other rights. If we are going to speak of rights, then we must say that only the Church, her Tradition and her Truth have exclusive rights. The rights of the human person, liberty of conscience and religious liberty - which includes liberty for Buddhists, animists, Muslims, Jews, Protestants etc - constitute a liberal and modernist conception of rights. They are false rights of man in consonance with the Anti- Christian Revolution.

The words of Msgr. Lefebvre confirm this position

Let us not forget that speaking about the invalid, null and Pharisaic excommunication, Msgr. Lefebvre said:

* “All the modernists were excommunicated by St. Pius X. Those imbued with the modernist principles are the ones who excommunicated us, while they were the ones who were excommunicated by St. Pius X. Why do they excommunicate us? It is because we want to remain Catholic, because we do not want to follow them in this spirit of destruction of the Church. ‘Since you don’t want to come with us, we excommunicate you.’ ‘Very well, thank you. We prefer to be excommunicated. We do not want to participate in this shocking work in the Church that has been carried out in the last 20 years” (Sermon in the Mass of July 10, 1988 - cf. Fideliter n. 65, 1988).

* “We never desired to belong to this system that calls itself the conciliar Church. … We have no place in the Pantheon of religions. Our excommunication by a decree of Your Eminence would only be an irrefutable proof of this. We ask nothing except to be declared ex-communicated from the adult spirit that has inspired the Church for the last 25 years; to be excluded from an unfaithful and impious communion (Letter to Cardinal Gantin, July 6, 1988 - cf. Fideliter n. 64, 1988).

* In Ecône Msgr. Lefebvre said this to a journalist who asked him about the excommunications: “If anyone is excommunicated it is not I, but the excommunicators.”

All these texts of Msgr. Lefebvre appear to have been treated the same way as the preparatory schemes of Vatican II, which ended in the wastebasket, so that everything would be done in a different way.

* Further, referring to Msgr. Castro Mayer and to himself, Msgr. Lefebvre affirmed: “Those who consider it a duty to diminish and even deny these riches [of Tradition] can do nothing else but condemn these two Bishops. Doing so, they confirm themselves in their schism with Our Lord and His Kingdom, because of their laicism and apostate ecumenism (Itinéraire Spirituel, p. 9). And he confirmed this further on: “This apostasy transforms the members [of the Church] into adulterers and schismatics opposed to all Tradition, breaking with the Church of the past (Itinéraire Spirituel, p. 70).

Vatican II is filled with errors and heresies

Finally, it is necessary to stress that regarding Vatican Council II, there is much more than the “reservations” that you affirmed. Because this atypical Council, which pretends not to be infallible, is as contradictory as a square circle, and for this reason pregnant with error and heresies (time bombs) to the point that Msgr. Lefebvre considered it an apostate Council for its ecumenism (text quoted above), and also schismatic. In fact he said: “This Council represents – to the eyes of the Roman authorities as well as ours - a new Church, called the conciliar Church.”

Analyzing the texts of this Council and its details in a critique - either internal or external - we believe we can affirm that it is a schismatic Council for it denied Tradition of the Church and broke with her past. The tree is judged by its fruits.

“All those who cooperate in the application of this metamorphosis accept and adhere to the new conciliar Church, as it was designated by His Excellence Msgr. Benelli in the letter he addressed to me in name of the Holy Father last July 25. They enter into schism … How could we, moved by a servile and blind obedience, play into the hands of these schismatics who ask us to cooperate in their task of destroying the Church?” (Un Évèque Parle, pp. 97-99)

In face of all this, we can only say: non possumus.

In Christo et Maria Virgine
Basilio Méramo, perpetual member of the SSPX and Prior de Orizaba
Monday, January 26, 2009


Posted March 16, 2009

Anonymous said...

On Fr. Méramo's comments:

1. Look, first of all, to request a remission of the censure of excommunication is indeed to acknowledge "something", as Bsp. Fellay said, but it is not to acknowledge the validity of the decree itself.

Can it be right to ask for this remission? Answer: YES!. Asking for this does NOT imply a change in Society beliefs. The fact is that the 1988 decree had a very negative practical effect on the Society. Large numbers of good faithful stayed away from Society chapels because they honestly believed in their hearts that they could not attend there. It is not for Fr. Méramo to judge them. He can say that they are mistaken but that is all. So the remission of this decree helps the Society practically.

And if you think not, just look at how pathetically slow has been the Society expansion, expecially in Latin America. Forty-six per cent of the faithful live there and, whether right or not, they will not go near anything not blessed by the Pope. If they are mistaken, so be it, but one cannot assume moral fault.


2. Fr. Méramoe refers to 'apostate Rome'. Does he mean that the Pope himself is an apostate? I ask because the 1988 decree was primarily a breach in visible communion between the Pope and the S.S.P.X.

If the Pope is an apostate, he loses all offices and is therefore no longer Pope. Is the Pope only a material apostate? Well, then, surely the S.S.P.X has failed to warn him of this. This looks to me as if we are seeing evidence of sedevacantism in the S.S.P.X. . . .


3. "Therefore, is very clear that the one who accepts this lifting of a penalty does so because he considers himself guilty of it in juridical terms."

No, in fact, Bishop Fellay said directly in his Letter of Gratitute to the Holy Father that the Society has never accepted the validity of the 1988 Decree. He said so directly. It follows logically that he is thanking Benedict XVI for another reason. And that is because the Decree has had a negative effect on the Society.

This Fr. Méramo is trying to foment a revolt. There is no need for this. Clearly, even if the Pope grants faculties to the Society, as I pray that he will do, there will be no regularisation for decades to come, certainly not as long as the current crop of prelates rule the roost in Rome.

But this revolt of Fr. Méramo is foolish. It may force Bishop Fellay to clean house and that brings division and discord to the Society. Better for the Society to remain united during the period of doctrinal consideration. Fr. Méramo and many others like him will no doubt have their chance to argue against every decision handed down by the C.D.F. From *their* point of view (not mine), they should stay in the Society in order to preserve a united front against 'apostate Rome'.

P.K.T.P.

P.S. One thing Fr. Méramo and I agree on is that there will be no formal union of the Society structure with Rome for the next several decades. Too many Méramos and Tissiers and Williamsons on the one side; too many Mahonys and Daneelds and Hummeses on the other.

Anonymous said...

Note to blog:

I did respond to Jordanes's last comments and did deliver, I thought, some excellent ripostes. I just want the blog to know that I have not simply left his response as is. Perhaps he'll be so kind as to let this note through.

P.K.T.P.

New Catholic said...

Dear Mr. Perkins,

I put your comment on hold, so that Jordanes may be able to read and approve it personally. He will certainly let it through, but he is very busy this week, and will respond, I believe, as soon as he reads your comment.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

1. Most of Jordanes's comments are false simply because he continues to use a sense of communion in regard to persons which comes not from Catholic tradition but from a Protestant usage, and a debased one from Anglicanism at that. It puts him in the company of all the Kasperites and Rahnerites out there, not with traditional Catholics. So I can saftely skip most of his comments. Let's move on to the others:

"No, that is only a form of spiritual communion, since there is no validly confecting Sacrament that one could receive. There are three, not four, ways of receiving Holy Communion."

I have established that there is only one Catholic theological sense of communion in regard to persons' relations with Holy Church, and that is the one used in the Middle Ages (and not much since then), not in Protestant and Rahnerite heretical usage. It means membership in the same Church. Period.

In all other senses, communion is an English word taken from Latin which merely expresses an effectuation of unity: any unity. There is no special sense of it otherwise defined by Holy Church. Hence there is a fourth way of Holy Communion, as I have mentioned, because receiving the whole grace and virtue of the Sacrament but not the Sacrament iself while in a state of grace effects a distinct unity with Jesus Christ.

2. "Yes, but one can properly refer to the members under the name of their group."

This has no theological or moral significance because there is no group soul or group mind. Communion means a spiritual unity of persons, a unity between, say, the soul of Jordanes, and that of the Vicar of Christ. We can say that a Society is in communion in the sense that all its members are but that is difficult to verify (especially if you admit to different degrees of 'communion': are they all in the same degree?). It is better to say that the members of the Society are in communion with the Church.

Groups, on the other hand, can be regularised if they are canonically erected. This means that an association of persons can be bound to one constitution through which they are connected to the other bodies in the Church, which are legal constructs, not persons with souls. A parish, for example, is more than the parishioners: it includes a legal relationship among them. The Church normally requires us to be bound to her in these relationships. That is not, perhaps, a necessity but it is valid because Christ's Vicar thinks it to be wise, and he is right.

3. It's an English dictionary (THE English dictionary). It's not a Catholic theological dictionary.


A Catholic theological dictionary written by whom? By the Modernists? The Church does not have a dictionary at present which is guaranteed to define terms accurately. Frankly, it's a good thing. That would open up a whole can of worms because vernacular words change in meaning. It would also open up the debate between prescriptivism and descriptivism.

The Church has only one official language and that is Latin. The O.E.D. is the greatest authority on denotation and usage in the English language because it is fully bibliographical, supporting each usage with quotations from earliest known sources. You won't find a Catholic theological dictionary to rival it in English, at least not one published after 1965.

4. "You could possibly be right that Schaff, since he was an anti-Catholic Lutheran, mistranslated St. Augustine, but that's not likely -- he was a heretic, but a good scholar overall. If someone can find the Latin original we can settle that point. Otherwise we can only assume that Schaff's translation is correct, as it usually is."

Well, there we have it. Obviously, Schaff, in his translations, would have been influenced by Protestant usage of the term. It is also possible, as I already stated, that he was using the term in the general sense, which means nothing more than a certain unity with another. The point is that this is not how Catholic writers have traditionally used the term 'communion' to denote relations among persons. From about 1700 to 1965, frankly, Catholic writers didn't use this term at all in that sense. They merely spoke of being Catholic or not. In the distant past, they used the term in the Chaucerian sense. You are, again, aping the misusage of Protestants and Modernist heretics. Adopt the wording of the enemy, and your thoughts will follow.

5. "Or so you keep saying. Repeating your belief over and over again does not establish that your belief is correct."

Are you referring your own repetitions here or to mine? So far, you have failed utterly to show that traditional Catholics used the term 'communion' before 1965 in the Protestant-cum-Rahnerite sense that neo-cons and semi-trads ape it today from our internal enemies.

Again, it was introduced from the Protestants to help erase the primary distinction between us and them, which is a black and white distinction between being Catholic or not. If you are not Catholic, you desperately need conversion, not 'dialogue'.

For fools on the liberal side who believe in the importance of this new anti-Catholic sense of Communion, note what fruits it has borne.

The Anglican were said to be theologically closer to us than are other Protestants. Look where they are now. A tiny remnant of true Anglicans is trying to become Catholic. But the other 99% have become the very worst heretics and now have less in common ('communion') with us than do raving Baptists.

6. On 'sister churches':

In Catholic tradition, these Eastern Orthodox communities were not called 'churches' by the Church, we did not use the term 'sister churches', and we asserted that their members are not only schismatics but also heretics.

Such terminology is not used by the Modernists and their successors, and it is not used by the neo-cons who ape their misusage. It is true that, out of politeness, we used the terms 'Church' and 'Orthodox' (as proper nouns, with capital letters) but these organisations are not churches in the true sense, sister or otherwise, and their members are both schismatics and heretics. Their false communities are not parallel to the Church, as if truth were a double-headed monster; and the Jews are not our 'elder brothers'; rather, we are the true Jews and they are properly masoretes, not Jews. But we call them Jews (proper name: capital letter) out of polite convention.

There is only one Church and there can be no toleration for people who would accept some but not all of her doctrines. We tolerate such people only for practical reasons, to preserve public order.

Imagine telling the Almighty Father that you 'agree' with some of his teaching and law but He goes too far when it comes to sterilisations or prayers to the Holy Ghost.

6. On visibility, it is clear that Jordanes is not familiar with the wording of ecclesiastical law. Visible is a metaphor for demonstrable. We say that we are in visible unity with the Vicar of Christ if that unity is expressed in legal structure. For example, a parish connects one to a particular church, which relates one to the Church Universal.

The members of the S.S.P.X and its supporters are in visible communion because they are connected through membership in parishes, but the Society itself, as a legal entity, is not canonicaly erected and therefore not in visible unity. It is in invisible unity in the sense that it is structurally Catholic, organised as a typical society of apostolic life. The problem is that Christ's Vicar does not permit such societies, given its 'fonctions' (French is better here) unless it is related to him by legal contract.

7. To step back from all these details for a moment, I'd like to return to my MAIN POINT. It is that traditionalists should not use the innovative terminology of their enemies, especially when it comes from usage among heretics. To do so risks intellectual and spiritual contagion because there is an intimate connection between thought and word. Words express not only distinctions but also approaches and tones. For example, should our approach to Protestantism be one of 'dialogue'? Do you sit down and listen to beliefs from those who are steeped in error, or do you simply invite those in error to consider explanations of the truth? There can be no two-way intercourse between truth and error. All we can do is to invite others to listen to what we have to say, but for us to consider what they have to say suggests that our beliefs are founded on mere opinion rather than sure Faith. And mere opinion can change.

Therefore, we must at all times and in all places reject any dialogue with heretics. Faith is a gift to be accepted, not a divine suggestion to be considered.

One cannot be in 'partial communion' with an Absolute Being because God is perfect and He Himself demands obedience to His very Word, all of it, not some of it. To be in union with any apparent part (He has no parts in His essence) of Him is to be completely in union with Him because all His qualities in some mysterious way contain one another. Consider what St. Thomas had to say about divine contingency: His omnipotence and his perfection and His omniscience and His omnipresence all imply one another; they are inseparable from one another. So to be in communion with any apparent part of Him is to be in communion with all of Him. So communion with an Absolute is full communion by definition. One can have partial communion only with a limited being, someone who is not perfect, someone perhaps who is very great but not perfect, someone like Satan, who is worshipped not by Catholics but by Freemasons.

What is true of God is true of His Church, for His Church is part of Him: it is the Mystical Body of Christ and not merely the 'People of God'. The Church is more than His people: it includes His very Self.

P.K.T.P.

P.S. Traditionalists don't 'dialogue' with anyone, they try to convert people. We are not part of the 'People of God', as if the people should be mentioned first in relation to Him; we are 'God's people' instead. And the Church is not a limited 'People of God' as if it could be limited by the number of limited persons in her; no, she is the Mystical Body of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Who is Perfect, not imperfect, and Unlimited, not limited.

All communion with God and His Church is full communion by definition. It means a 'catholic' (i.e. whole) integration into His Church; it is a relation among member of the one True Church, the only universal Church there is.

Jordanes said...

Most of Jordanes's comments are false simply because he continues to use a sense of communion in regard to persons which comes not from Catholic tradition but from a Protestant usage, and a debased one from Anglicanism at that.

Or so you say. If you disabuse yourself of those false assumptions and re-read what I've said, you might find it interesting what different conclusions you might reach.

I have established that there is only one Catholic theological sense of communion in regard to persons' relations with Holy Church, and that is the one used in the Middle Ages (and not much since then)

No, you have not established that at all. Quoting the OED and making and assertion about Geoffrey Chaucer's vocabulary does not establishe what the Catholic theological sense of communion is or was.

Hence there is a fourth way of Holy Communion, as I have mentioned,

None of the things you said establish that there are three ways to receive Holy Communion instead of three, so your word "hence" is erroneous.

because receiving the whole grace and virtue of the Sacrament but not the Sacrament iself while in a state of grace effects a distinct unity with Jesus Christ.

And yet it is still a form of spiritual communion, not sacramental communion. 1) Whole grace and virtue without the Sacrament, 2) Sacrament without the whole grace and virtue, 3) Sacrament with the whole grace and virtue. A fourth way would be not the whole grace and virtue without the Sacrament either, which is another way of saying "not receiving Holy Communion." Every other variation of Holy Communion falls under the three ways.


Well, there we have it. Obviously, Schaff, in his translations, would have been influenced by Protestant usage of the term. It is also possible, as I already stated, that he was using the term in the general sense, which means nothing more than a certain unity with another.

Whatever. Just show me that Schaff mistranslated the passage, or else concede that St. Augustine does not agree with you and that you disagree with the Catholic Church today about whether or not communion is all-or-nothing.

One cannot be in 'partial communion' with an Absolute Being because God is perfect and He Himself demands obedience to His very Word, all of it, not some of it.

That's one way to look at it, but not necessarily the right way.

Traditionalists don't 'dialogue' with anyone

Yes, but Catholics do.

kevin said...

P.K.T.P.,
In your point 7, you said:
"For example, should our approach to Protestantism be one of 'dialogue'? Do you sit down and listen to beliefs from those who are steeped in error, or do you simply invite those in error to consider explanations of the truth? There can be no two-way intercourse between truth and error. All we can do is to invite others to listen to what we have to say, but for us to consider what they have to say suggests that our beliefs are founded on mere opinion rather than sure Faith. And mere opinion can change."

Can you please clarify for me what you mean by "consider what they have to say"?

For instance, let's say I have a good friend who is a protestant, and we sit down and have a beer together. The conversation inevitably turns toward religion, and we start discussing indulgences--he starts giving me a typical misunderstanding of what an indulgence is, and I reply with an explanation of how he's got it wrong, and what the true understanding of an indulgence is. Let's imagine he then offers his own rebuttal, albeit a shaky one, and I thereafter level a definitive reply to him--the conversation ends with him yielding and saying how wrong he was on this subject.

What I'm asking here is, given that very realistic example I just posited, have I not just sat down and listened to beliefs from someone steeped in error? When my protestant friend has given his take on the matter--which is bound to happen through the natural ebb and flow of conversation--have I considered his viewpoint since I didn't talk over him? Should I put my hands over my ears when he tells me where he's coming from? If so, then how am I going to be able to make the proper Catholic apologetical reply?

If I've misunderstood you here, then please let me know.

God Bless

Anonymous said...

From:
Subject: The executioners arriveth?
To:
Date: Sunday, 22 March, 2009, 1:51 PM

An SSPX faithful spotted Fathers Schmidberger and Nely ( 2nd Assistant to Bishop Fellay) early AM, March 22nd in London.
Un SSPX fidèle tacheté Engendre Schmidberger et Nely (le deuxième Aide à Fellay d'Evêque) SUIS tôt, mars 22e à Londres.

Pepe said...

Opera Omnia Fr Basilio Méramo Chaljub: www.meramo.net
French and Spanish