Rorate Caeli

SSPX Ordinations canceled in Germany
Transferred to Écône


The rumors are apparently being confirmed: several German-language news agencies report today that the ordinations which had been planned for next Saturday at the Seminary of the Sacred Heart of Jesus,of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), in Zaitzkofen (near Regensburg, Bavaria, Germany) have been canceled.

UPDATE: The ordinations have not been canceled, but merely transferred, "at the request of the Holy See", to the Swiss seminary of the SSPX, the Seminary of Saint Pius X, in Écône, as confirmed by the Superior General of the Fraternity, Bishop Bernard Fellay (Source: DICI - permanent link).

Full text of the communiqué (our thanks to the Rev. Fr. Anthony, our reader, for the translation):

At the request of the Holy See, we decided to move the ordinations to the sub-diaconate that were supposed to take place at Zaitzkofen, in Germany, this Saturday March 28th. They will take place at the seminary of Ecône, in Switzerland, on the same date.

This decision is intended to be a peaceful gesture after the lifting of the unjust condemnations that weighed on the Bishops of the Society and the violent reactions that followed. In fact, we regret that some Episcopates have taken advantage of this to conduct an open rebellion against the Sovereign Pontiff. We are particularly disheartened by the attitude of the German Episcopate that has not ceased to show its hostility stripped of charity and its continuous judgements of intention, treating us “hatefully, without misgiving or restraint”, as the Holy Father justly said in his letter of last March 10th.

We know that our situation, before the law of the Church, is imperfect. This is not new, and is intimately linked with the crisis that is affecting the Church and the state of necessity that flows from it. Then, it is useless to invoke law to try to suffocate the life of our priestly society. The other ordinations will take place as planned. There has never been any question of cancelling them. Indeed, the kind act of the Holy See should not be interpreted as a determination to strangle the Society of Saint Pius X.

We are sticking to the schedule as indicated by the decree of last January 21st which provides for the “necessary talks” concerning the Council Vatican II and its novelties. To the Holy Father, we repeat our promise of our prayer so that the full light of the whole Truth may bloom from these doctrinal discussions.

Menzingen, March 24th 2009.

+ Bernard Fellay

126 comments:

Anonymous said...

I didn't even know ordinations were planned for next Saturday? On the seminary's website there is no such announcement, either.
Usually ordinations take place on a Sunday around June 29th.

beng said...

This is a good sign.

Anonymous said...

The ordinations are not cancelled, but will take place in Ecône.

Because of the behavior of the german bishops.

Official "communiqué" by Mgr Fellay

A la demande du Saint-Siège, nous avons décidé de déplacer les ordinations du sous-diaconat qui devaient avoir lieu à Zaitzkofen, en Allemagne, ce samedi 28 mars. Elles auront lieu au séminaire d’Ecône, en Suisse, à la même date.

Cette décision se veut un geste d’apaisement après la levée des injustes condamnations qui pesaient sur les évêques de la Fraternité et les violentes réactions qui s’ensuivirent. De fait, nous regrettons que certains épiscopats en aient profité pour mener une fronde ouverte contre le Souverain Pontife. Nous sommes particulièrement écœuré par l’attitude de l’épiscopat allemand qui n’a de cesse de nous manifester son hostilité dénuée de charité et ses continuels procès d’intention, nous traitant « avec haine, sans crainte ni réserve », comme l’a justement relevé le Saint-Père dans sa lettre du 10 mars dernier.

Nous savons que notre situation, au regard du droit de l’Eglise, est imparfaite. Ceci n’est pas nouveau et est intimement lié à la crise que traverse l’Eglise et à l’état de nécessité qui en découle. Dès lors, il ne sert à rien d’invoquer le droit pour tenter d’étouffer la vie de notre société sacerdotale. Les autres ordinations auront lieu comme prévu ; jamais il n’a été question de les supprimer. En effet, l’acte bienveillant du Saint-Siège ne saurait être interprété comme une volonté d’asphyxier la Fraternité Saint-Pie X.

Nous nous en tenons au calendrier indiqué par le décret du 21 janvier dernier qui prévoit des « entretiens nécessaires » au sujet du concile Vatican II et de ses nouveautés. Nous réitérons au Saint Père l’assurance de notre prière pour que de ces discussions doctrinales jaillisse la pleine lumière de la Vérité tout entière.

Menzingen, le 24 mars 2009

+ Bernard Fellay

Paul Haley said...

It seems that this is a diplomatic gesture by Bishop Fellay so as not to exacerbate relations with either the local Ordinary in Germany or the Holy See. It brings up the matter of the doctrinal discussions and the status of same.

Bishop Fellay has consistently said that those discussions must come before any juridical solution for the SSPX. And so, the question is: What is the status of those discussions and have they even begun? Apparently, unless they have been taking place in secret, there is nothing to report and no change in the status of the SSPX, and, by consequence, no intent on the part of the SSPX to discontinue ordinations.

The exact meaning of ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, the "old Covenant " still being in effect, etc, - these are stumbling blocks that must be overcome otherwise there will appear to be two religions and the faithful in the pews will continue to be confused. Diabolical disorientation anyone? I can only repeat what another blogger friend has said: "Wotta Mess!"

Anonymous said...

So the Holy See doesn't say "don't ordain priests" they just say "do it somewhere else."

That's a great move on their part and shows they're moving in the direction of the SSPX and not the other way around.

Ogard said...

Bishop of Regensburgh obviously wanted to be difficult, and wasn't all that wise: typical for what the SSPX call the "conciliar church". Bishop Fellay acted intelligently.

Anonymous said...

What a circus. You're suspended but go ahead and ordain illicitly in Switzerland. Only in Novus Ordo Land! To be sure the SSPX will have to make the same allowances for the liberals. This, in effect, is another way to eventually silence the SSPX.

John Walker said...

Bernie Fellay's turned into a grovelling newChurch yes man. First bowing to Jewish pressure and disciplining his senior for expressing a valid opinion on a historical question, then a crawling communique in response to Benedict-Ratzinger's 'clarification' letter which attacked the Society, and now this. Where is the man's spine, where are his principles? Seems all he is concerned about is getting in bed with Modernists. Forget the faith, forget the Mass, the Sacraments, let's all just be friends!

Anonymous said...

Indeed an intelligent decision due to the reckless opposition of GermChurch, greatly helped by the deplorable Williamson case.

However, the last paragraph of Bp Fellay's statement is stressing the openness of SSPX for the "necessary talks". The papal letter of March the 10th was indirectly postponing these talks, due to the future administrative reshuffle announced by the pope. Announced but without a precise agenda in sight.

This time it's Menzingen asking for the talks to start and ... Rome moving with cold feet.

Alsaticus

Arnobius said...

While I have to rely on a Babel Fish translation ("Sacerdotal Fraternity Saint-Magpie X"???), the phrase in question seems that they are moving the ordinations in response to a request from Rome.

(According to BF, it reads "At the request of the Holy See, we decided to move ordinations of the subdiaconate which were to take place with Zaitzkofen, in Germany, this Saturday March 28. They will take place with the seminar of Ecône, in Switzerland, at the same date.")

It doesn't say Rome requested them to move it seems. It could be Rome told them not to go through with the ordinations in Germany so the SSPX decided to move it to Écône.

Parents I am sure will recognize this...

Dad: Don't throw the ball in the living room!
Kid: OK..
(two minutes later a crash comes from the dining room)
Dad: I said don't throw the ball in the house!
Kid: Nuh uh! You said don't throw it in the living room. This is the Dining room!

Of course I recognize that the Babel Fish translations can err and I would wait for an official translation before saying this *IS* the meaning.

Anonymous said...

There seem to be many who are borderline sedevacantist but are not quite ready to come out of the closet. They seem to like to hide behind the SSPX for shelter but are constantly crying fowl and accusing Bishop Fellay of compromise and going astray. These people will never be happy. If Bishop Fellay and the SSPX engage in any communications with the Pope and Rome, they will consider them to have gone the way of the modernists. They consider themselves experts on everything and on how things should be handled, even thought hey have no first hand knowledge of anything. They are clueless and yet have no idea that they are so.

Dan Hunter said...

This seems very encouraging:
The Holy See apparently now allows the FSSPX to ordain priests!

I guess no official statement has been made to the world on the lifting of the suspensions, or can the Society licitly ordain whilst even under suspension?

Or, does Pope Benedict XVI not recognize the seemingly unjust measures taken against the Society by he predesessor Pope Paul VI?

Rich said...

Can we get a clarification as to whether or not Rome sanctioned these ordinations? There is a big difference between "Don't ordain in Germany" and "Ordain in Econe." One does not condone the actions, one does.

unusmilitum said...

Anonymous said (15:14) "...crying fowl" - suely he meant Saint-MagpieX.

Unus Militum

Mary said...

From Bp. Fellay's communique:

We know that our situation in the eyes of the law (or 'right' droit) of the Church is imperfect. This is not new and is intimately tied to the crisis throughout the Church and to the state of necessity flowing from it. Therefore, it doesn't help anything to invoke law (or 'right' droit) to try to suffocate the life of our priestly society. The other ordinations will take place as foreseen; there has never been a question of suppressing them. In fact, the benevolent act of the Holy See should not be interpreted as wishing to stifle the FSSPX.

dolorosa said...

I'm happy to hear the ordinations have not been cancelled. The SSPX can't just blend in with the modern Novus Ordo Vatican. We still are living through the apostasy warned about in sacred scripture and various marian apparitions. I pray the SSPX will be careful and continue to ordain priests as the danger of enemies within has NOT gone away and is the same today as it was with Archbishop Lefebvre. I pray for the Pope because the enemies of Christ continue to heat up the media against him.

Paul Haley said...

What comes first - the chicken or the egg? Does recognition by the Holy Father in the form of faculties given to the SSPX bishops and priests come before doctrinal discussions are completed or vice versa? However, I hasten to add that the Holy Father could grant temporary faculties in a heartbeat if he deemed it necessary. That he hasn't speaks volumes, I think.

Frankly, considering the import of the issues involved (doctrinal), I believe those issues must come first. In that regard I don't think much will happen until after Easter when the principals are freed from their responsibilities in the Lenten season and other liturgical functions and can devote the needed time and reflection to the issues involved.

Dan Hunter said...

Paul Haley,

For all we know, the Holy See might have already granted faculties to the FSSPX.

After all the Vatican is aparently allowing the Society to ordain priests in Econe.

Would She really allow this to happen if the Society is canonically still supressed?

I do not think so.

Anonymous said...

Bishop Fellay is playing a dangerous game with giving in to Novus Ordo Bishops. As more of the SSPX faithful see this Bishop Williamson could end up going off with the majority of them.

Anonymous said...

Wishful thinking. Bishop Williamson has not given any indication recently that he disapproves of Bishop Fellay's leadership and decisions, nor that he intends to jump ship. Many layman are doing so under the pretext of supporting Bishop Williamson but I fail to see how one can claim to support him, but fail to follow him. To support him is to follow his lead.

Dan Hunter said...

I have heard with my own ears from two different FSSPX priests, one who is my uncle and another a pastor, that the priests of the Society will all follow the lead of Bishop Fellay.

Anonymous said...

Bishop fellay has a difficult job and people should stop running him down. He won't do anything without consulting the other bishops and we must trust that Archbishop Lefebvre is guiding him.
Pray for the bishop and pray for the Pope.

Paul Haley said...

Dan Hunter said...

Paul Haley,

For all we know, the Holy See might have already granted faculties to the FSSPX.

After all the Vatican is aparently allowing the Society to ordain priests in Econe.

If faculties have been granted, Dan, it's news to us. As for Rome allowing the Society to ordain priests in Econe, the suspensions a divinis levied in 1976 remain in effect so far as I know. If so, this would make these ordinations valid but illicit.

However, you bring up an interesting point and that is, if the Holy See has already offered the SSPX a "Rolls Royce" solution indicated by Bishop Fellay, does this not also mean that they have tacitly admitted to the faculties question? And, I'm speaking here of "Ecclesia supplet" type faculties granted by the Church in emergency situations? Maybe so, but I think we'll know more after Easter.

Peter Haddad said...

Fr. Rostand's Conference on current SSPX issues (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spaKQ70_Wjs&feature=related)

States that Rome offered the SSPX (even AFTER the lifting of the excommunication) a canonical solution - and the lifting of the suspension of the priests - with independence but Bishop Fellay REFUSED. The reason being that if they were regularized BEFORE the 'doctrinal discussions', such discussions will never really take place in the future.

Dan Hunter said...

Mr Haley,

I am sure that you read this update on Rorate:

"UPDATE: The ordinations have not been canceled, but merely transferred, "at the request of the Holy See", to the Swiss seminary of the SSPX, the Seminary of Saint Pius X, in Écône, as confirmed by the Superior General of the Fraternity, Bishop Bernard Fellay (Source: DICI - permanent link)"

The Ordinations have not been canceled, but have been transferred, AT THE REQUEST OF THE HOLY SEE.
The Holy See did not prohibit the ordinations, but by asking that they take place in Econe, they are telling the Society that they are allowed to ordain priests.

Am I reading the above correctly or not?

catholic said...

Dan Hunter:

you said "I have heard with my own ears from two different FSSPX priests, one who is my uncle and another a pastor, that the priests of the Society will all follow the lead of Bishop Fellay."

How comforting!

My best wishes to the brethren of the dear SSPX.

I have alway known that you are great.

Anonymous said...

Bishop Fellay's communiqué does not say that Rome approved of any ordinations. Apparently, owing to a request of the Holy See, the Society merely moved them. So the Holy See might have simply said, *Please don't hold any ordinations in the Diocese of Regensburg / in Germany* but without saying where or if to move them. This is all being done, presumably, because Bishop Müller of Regensburg (and his brother bishops of Germany) has threatened to impose sanctions, something previously reported. He's such a sweetheart, Müller.


Écône happens to lie in the Diocese of Sion, which is where the S.S.P.X's first house of studies (and later, its seminary)was opened with the permission of the Bishop there, in October of 1970. In the very next month, November, 1970, the S.S.P.X was erected canonically as a society of common life for a period of six years ad experimentum [to be renewed automatically for a further period of six years (unless the Bishop of Sion were to cancel it) and thereafter permanently by the Holy See].

It was argued by canonists at the time that the suppression of the Society in 1975 was illegal and that, therefore, it continues to exist canonically. Should Rome find this to be correct (perhaps she has already done so), the Society would have a motherhouse in the Diocese of Lausanne, Geneva and Fribourg, and a seminary in the Diocese of Sion, both in Switzerland (and might also exist in two other dioceses in the world). So, for example, if Rome has now recognised (quietly) that the actions of 1975 were ultra vires, the Society might exist in the eyes of Rome at Écône but not in the Diocese of Regensburg.

That would explain the move to Écône. Of course, it is also possible that they moved the ordinations to Écône simply because it is their other nearby house and the Bishop of Sion has not objected.

I note that this Pope loves to work by questioning an issue in its origin. He did not grant permission for the old Mass to be celebrated by priests on their own authority; rather, he 'found' in "Summorum Pontificum" that this right had existed all along. The articles of S.P. merely point out limits to it, given the legal validity of the New Mass and the obligation of priests to celebrate both in limits of time and place.

Sorry. Only thinking out loud. It's just that I cannot imagine the S.S.P.X having to move its ordinations from its six seminaries spread all over the world every time a local bishop issues a canonical threat. Who would pay for the aeroplane tickets? This sets an unworkable precedent. And that suggests that a juridical solution--even if only temporary--is indeed on the horizon.

Most of Bishop Fellay's letter merely registers his complaints against the German bishops, thereby distracting us from the canonical implications of this news. If Rome has 'found' that the suppression of 1975 was illegal, or if she has overrided it secretly, or if the matter is under canonical review, it may be that nobody but the Pope can forbid ordinations at Écône.

Just a thought.

Whatever the case, if the S.S.P.X is prepared to obey every local bishop who forbids an ordination, given an added (and necessary) request from Rome, how can it operate effectively? It can't. Which means that the Pope is preparing to extend faculties or declare its regularisation. Something is acoming.

But when? Why not before 28th March? It's because our Pope also loves significant dates; and also because he wants the Williamson affair settled first. We hear the news yesterday that Frs. Schmidberger and Nély, both members of the ruling body in the S.S.P.X, have made a 'low key' visit to Bishop Williamson this Sunday. Something might be acoming on Low Sunday. Those N.O. people call it 'Divine Mercy' Sunday. Of course, to us, it's Low Sunday. Period. I don't think that a 'fix' will come during Lent; it will come as a result of penance during Lent. And it can't come in the Easter Octave because that is simply too important for this dispute: it would be inappropriate. Low Sunday is a possibility but it might be too soon before the papal trip to Palestine early in May. The fix could come on 29th June, the Feast of SS. Peter and Paul. Presumably, then, L'Affaire Williamson will be resolved sometime between now and then.

P.K.T.P.

Adeodatus said...

Interesting. I wonder what precisely is meant by "at the request of the Holy See"... was it at the request of the Holy See that the ordinations not be held at Regensburg (negative request), or that they be held at Econe (positive request)? The former would imply far less than the latter.

I am most troubled by the phrase "la levée des injustes condamnations"... I don't really read French. Is Fellay speaking here of the excommunications? If so then I object to his referring to them as "unjust". When a man is punished by his legitimate superior, he ought at least to appear contrite.

Anonymous said...

Dan Hunter asks:

"The Ordinations have not been canceled, but have been transferred, AT THE REQUEST OF THE HOLY SEE.
The Holy See did not prohibit the ordinations, but by asking that they take place in Econe, they are telling the Society that they are allowed to ordain priests.

Am I reading the above correctly or not?"

From the French text I've seen so far, I'd say "not". Perhaps there is more text I am not aware of. The French text of Msgr. Fellay says that, At the request of the Holy See, we have decided to move the subdiaconal ordinations which were to have been celebrated at Zaitzkofen, in Germay, this 28th March. They have been re-scheduled to the Seminary at Écône, in Switzerland.

Strictly speaking, it was the S.S.P.X which decided to make a change of location. This change came as a result of a request from the Holy See. But we don't know exactly what that request was. The Holy See could have requested merely that ordinations not take place in Germany or in the Diocese of Regensburg, given episcopal opposition there. We do not know from this text that Rome encouraged or recommended a move to Switzerland for them. She might have been silent on that. This idea that Rome has requested a *move* to Écône comes from the English interpretation from our esteemed blog moderators. Now that might be derived from other text elsewhere, so it might be correct. We need more information to know for sure.

P.K.T.P.

Fr Anthony said...

Unofficial translation. Priority has been given to precision and an exact rendering of the Bishops words. No attempt has been made to give a "polished" English style as I would normally be expected to do in a literary translation (I am a professional translator).

Fr. Anthony

-----------------

Official "communiqué" by Mgr Fellay

At the request of the Holy See, we decided to move the ordinations to the sub-diaconate that were supposed to take place at Zaitzkofen, in Germany, this Saturday March 28th. They will take place at the seminary of Ecône, in Switzerland, on the same date.

This decision is intended to be a peaceful gesture after the lifting of the unjust condemnations that weighed on the Bishops of the Society and the violent reactions that followed. In fact, we regret that some Episcopates have taken advantage of this to conduct an open rebellion against the Sovereign Pontiff. We are particularly disheartened by the attitude of the German Episcopate that has not ceased to show its hostility stripped of charity and its continuous judgements of intention, treating us “hatefully, without misgiving or restraint”, as the Holy Father justly said in his letter of last March 10th.

We know that our situation, before the law of the Church, is imperfect. This is not new, and is intimately linked with the crisis that is affecting the Church and the state of necessity that flows from it. Then, it is useless to invoke law to try to suffocate the life of our priestly society. The other ordinations will take place as planned. There has never been any question of cancelling them. Indeed, the kind act of the Holy See should not be interpreted as a determination to strangle the Society of Saint Pius X.

We are sticking to the schedule as indicated by the decree of last January 21st which provides for the “necessary talks” concerning the Council Vatican II and its novelties. To the Holy Father, we repeat our promise of our prayer so that the full light of the whole Truth may bloom from these doctrinal discussions.

Menzingen, March 24th 2009

+ Bernard Fellay

Anonymous said...

Adeodatus asks:

"Interesting. I wonder what precisely is meant by "at the request of the Holy See"... was it at the request of the Holy See that the ordinations not be held at Regensburg (negative request), or that they be held at Econe (positive request)? The former would imply far less than the latter."

If you look at the French text, the phrase, "At the request of the Holy See" precedes and governs one clause that follows. It does look as if the Holy See asked the Society to *move* (déplacer) them but this does not look certain because it does not, in itself, say where they might be moved. It might mean only to move them to where a local bishop does not object. The announcement that they will be celebrated elsewhere comes in a second sentence, one not modified by that phrase.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

By the way, I forgot to ask about the "les autres ordinations". What other ordinations does he have in mind? Does any Society supporter here know what this refers to specifically?

P.K.T.P.

Paul Haley said...

As an observer separated from what is happening in Germany, Switzerland and Rome, I have to think that Rome merely asked Bishop Fellay not to have the ordinations in Germany and Bishop Fellay then made the decision to have them in Econe. I do not read the text of Bishop Fellay's remarks to indicate that Rome "approved" the ordinations.

I also agree with PKTPs remarks that something else appears to be in the wind and I hope very much it is regularization of the Society under the Ecclesia Dei Commission with faculties to function worldwide. It seems to me that they would need the independence from local bishops, at least initially, in order to function properly.

It is said that "time heals all wounds" and maybe down the road with Tradition firmly implanted in the NO structure by the express will of the Holy Father, things could change and local bishops might even invite the SSPX into their dioceses. But, for the immediate future, I just don't see that happening. Right now, too many local bishops seem to be able to frustrate the will and the intent of the Holy Father but with future appointment of bishops by this Holy Father, who knows? One thing appears evident to me: Thou shalt frustrate the will and the intent of the Holy Father at thy own peril."

Anonymous said...

What a scandal! All catholics should be ashamed that all of this has happened. What a diservice to Jesus Christ!

Dan Hunter said...

When we look at the ordination situation, practically speaking, we must come to the obvious conclusion that the Church needs good orthodox priests very badly and the Church must assuredly be open to more vocations and more priests, especially ones that shepherd the faithful and teach the Gospel message, the way Christ wants them to.

And that describes the FSSPX precisely.
Ordinations to the priesthood are ALWAYS a salutary thing and Pope Benedict XVI knows this.
God bless our Holy Father!

Neal said...

One might get the impression from all this that +Fellay accedes to the will of Rome, while +Muller is beyond the reach of papal authority or influence. It's a good thing the latter enjoys full communion; otherwise he might be sort of in schism or something.

Robert said...

It is not surprising that we are finding schismatic-minded people who disagree with this excellent gesture of Bishop Fellay. As another poster so eloquently said, there are many such who hide behind the SSPX...

Anonymous said...

On Mr. Haley's remarks:

We already know that the Pope, through Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, suggested to the S.S.P.X. that it be erected as a society of apostolic life of pontifical right and then incorporated, along with all its affiliate religious orders (e.g. the Dominicans of Avrillé) into ITS OWN international and ritual diocese or apostolic administration which would be directly subject to the Holy See and presumably governed by the superior-general of the S.S.P.X. Fellay himself called this the 'Rolls Royce' structure in 1993, and it was granted locally to the Campos in 2002. It does not put the S.S.P.X under the local bishops in any way but makes them 100% independent of the local bishops and subject only to Rome. There is no bloody way that Rome will offer them less today than what it suggested as early as 2000. Neo-conservative 'canonists' will move Heaven and earth to prevent an apostolic administration for the S.S.P.X but Fellay is no fool and will not take less.

Again, they would have their own international apostolic administration or even diocese under Canon 372.2, which allows for a diocese or its equivalent (a 'particualr church') in any given territory (including the entire world) in which lay membership is determined by rite or "some other similar quality". This exactly fits. There is no question of putting them into a personal prelature, and Bishop Fellay would rightly never accept this. Under Canon 297, a p.p. can expand into new dioceses only with the permission of the local Mahonys. That would be suicidal. I'd rather put myself under Obama bin Laden than under Roger Cardinal Baloney.

The structure, again, is an exempt international and 'ritual' apostolic administration or diocese under Canon 372.2. To say that it is exempt means that it is directly subject to the Holy See and therefore not a part of any ecclesiastical province. To say that it is international means that it exists in many countires but not necessarily all (it might be impeded by some concordats, and, for symbolic reasons, would not exist in Rome or the Vatican). Dioceses do not have to be territorially continuous. To say that it is 'ritual' means that its lay members are those who register in it in accordance with their attachment to a rite or "some other similar qualtiy" under Canon 372.2.

This would be full regularisation, however, and it will not come before major doctrinal issues have been resolved. Fellay has said so again just today. He is adamant about that.

In the shorter term, the Pope could recgonise that the 1975 suppression of the Society was illegal, as many canonists argued at the time. That would give them canonical standing and would give them faculties in the four dioceses in which they existed in 1975, two in Switzerland, one in Spain, and one on Réunion, in the Indian Ocean.

Then the Pope could extend faculties to them everywhere ex cathedra, in virtue of his universal and immediate authority, acting through papal nuncios where need be to satsify the conditions of concordats with some countries.

None of this will happen, of course, until L'Affaire Williamson has been settled. Hence the secret meeting between Williamson, on the one part, and Nély & Schmidberger, on the other, which was discovered by a nosy lady just two days ago, on Sunday, at London.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

A Shift in Terminology

I have noticed that, in at least one statement from Rome recently, the misexpressions 'partial communion' and 'full communion' (which, as I have explained, are absurd, since all communion is full by definition) has been REPLACED. The new expression being used is 'visible communion'. I shall try to track this down. I think it appeared recently here on this blog on some statement from Rome.

Significance? Well (irrespective of my disagreement with Jordanes over relative states of communion), if the suppression of the Society in 1975 was illegal, as some canonists of the time argued (see the Cambridge Review of the time, e.g.), then the Society would be in communion (or in Jordanes's absurd 'full communion') with Rome but this would not be a visible communion, since its legal status is not widely known. Hence the change in jurisdiction. Does this reflect a legal finding made recently but not yet published? Is the Pope merely waiting for Williamson to be dealt with before publishing it? Is the new expression just a little hint, a little warning to the nasty liberal bastards who govern most dioceses?

I'm betting that the Holy Father is about to 'find' that the 1975 suppression was illegal, just as he 'found' (not granted) that every priest had a right to say TrueMass all along. S.P. was a finding which, incredibly, indirectly 'found' that the Instruction "De Missali Romano" of 1971 (not to be confused with "Missale Romanum", 1970) was ultra vires.

Such a finding in regard to the 1975 suppression would suddenly give the Society standing, even if it is operating illegally except in four dioceses where it existed in 1975. If it exists canonically in even one diocese, then it exists in [full] communion with See of Peter.

Just a thought.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

Jordanes's absurd 'full communion'

Speaking of absurdity . . .

Anyway, you may well be right that Pope Benedict is going to overturn the SSPX's suspension in the way you suggest. That he has made a decision regarding the excommunications not in accordance with the SSPX's claim that the bishops were never validly excommunicated does not in any way rule out a separate finding that there were no valid grounds for the Pope's suppression of the SSPX.

Anonymous said...

On Jordanes's last comment:

Yes, exactly. The excommunications issues has nothing at all to do with this. Keep in mind the argument of Bishop Müller and his pals that the excommunications are gone but the suspensions a divinis remain in place. This would allow Müller of Regensburg to re-excommunicate, presumably. Hence Fellay's move to the D. of Sion, where the bishop is not so disposed--possibly because Rome has told him that the Society exists there canonically whether he likes it or not.

Now the suspensions a divinis of 1976 are not identical to the suppression of the Society of 1975. However, if the Pope found an error in law in the 1975 act, the suspensions of the next year would be a violation of natural justice. Thereofore, the Pope would have to revoke them.

Admitedly, this would only 'regularise' the Society and give its clerics faculties in four dioceses in the world. But, again, given the fact that the intrusion into other dioceses is derived from the unjust act of 1975, the Pope, as a matter of justice, would want to extend those faculties to all the sees where the Society now says Mass and even where it may wish to say Mass in the future, until an international regularisation is achieved.

The Pious Union of St. Pius X, a Society of common life under the 1917 Code, needs to become a society of apostolic life incorporated into its own international and ritual apostolic administration under the 1983 Code, especially under Canon 372.2. But that is down the road. In the mean time, His Holiness could grant faculties to all their priests everywhere ex cathedra in virtue of his universal and immediate authority, acting through his nuncios, legates, and emissaries where need be in order to honour concordates with various countries.

I wonder what Nély and Schmidberger said to Williamson on Sunday. Wish I'd been a fly on the wall there. . . .

And I was just ribbing you, Jordanes, about your "absurd" partial communions, although I do argue honestly that you are dead wrong on that. But who cares in exciting times like these? At any rate, I am guessing that we have here no 'impaired' or 'partial' communion (even should such a thing exist) but an invisible one, invisible in the sense that few know about it. Let's pray that Benedict XVI (and not some 'Benedict') may make the invisible visible--and soon.

P.K.T.P.

Joe B said...

Never seen so much made over a little phrase. Most likely neither man wanted more trouble right now, the larger issues of regularization and theological discussions being in such a delicate state, so the one suggested and the other agreed out of prudence, not out of any canonical considerations.

Anonymous said...

I think it's pathetic that the German bishop would object to the SSPX ordinations of several seminarians to the holy priesthood.

How many new priests has this bishop ordained according to the Novus Ordo in the last 10 years...3 maybe? Not much more than 3 in the last 10 years (if he's lucky).

I think he should take some lessons from the SSPX regarding EVERYTHING.

TJ said...

I'm convinced that there has been a secret agreement to say and do nothing until after His Holiness returns from Israel. Doing anything before the trip would turn it into a journey into the belly of the beast. The left-wing fringe Jews and the media, each of whom detest the Catholic Church, would have a field day. But after HH comes home then I'll bet the SSPX finally does, too.

Anonymous said...

Suspension being suspended before ordinations...Hmmmm...Just wondering...

Anonymous said...

Joe B. opines:

"Never seen so much made over a little phrase. Most likely neither man wanted more trouble right now, the larger issues of regularization and theological discussions being in such a delicate state, so the one suggested and the other agreed out of prudence, not out of any canonical considerations."

I don't see any delicate state on the surface of it. I see a process of discussions on doctrine which could perdure, in Bishop Tissier de Mallerais's estimation, "for at least thirty years". At the end of it, and only then, will regularisation follow. Therefore, nothing should be urgent right now, and yet we have requests from the Holy See and secret visits to Williamson in London.

If there were no canonical considerations, the Society would not be cancelling the ordinations at Zaitzkofen in the first place. After all, they supposedly rely on supplied jurisdiction right now, so they don't need Bishop Müller.

It may be that they've moved the ordinations to Écône simply because the Bishop there doesn't object. Or it may be because they already secretly exist there canonically, which would be the case of the suppression of 1975 was illegal, as some canonists judged at the time. In either case, it has much to do with canonical considerations.

We have two actions here in response to Müller. First, in the 'little phrase', the Vatican asks the S.S.P.X not to ordain clerics in the D. of Regensburg. Secondly, Fellay responds to this by moving them to Écône. Then we have the quiet visit of Nély and Schmidberger to Williamson. And nothing is going on here. Right. I'll try to remember that, but I'll no doubt forget, since it's risible.

P.K.T.P.

John McFarland said...

As usual, a significant part of what it going on here is roughly equal parts wishful thinking and vivid imagination.

I have no idea what's going on here, but it's still the case that nothing has changed.

Assuming that the story is true, I have no idea what Fathers Schmidberger and Nely went to see Bishop Williamson about, unless it was to beg forgiveness for treating him so badly; but it's still the case that nothing has changed.

Bishop Fellay is still saying that the doctrinal settlement must come first.

There's still not the proverbial scintilla of evidence that the Pope has any interest in granting faculties to the Society's priests; and given the hell that's already being raised by the German and French episcopacies, it's hard to imagine his throwing gasoline on the fire.

I would also note that the Pope is a devout collegitarian, and so I doubt that he could in good conscience cram down SSPX faculties in the face of (if you'll forgive my understatement) strongly opposed national episcopacies, even if he thought he could bring it off without schism.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous says:

"Suspension being suspended before ordinations...Hmmmm...Just wondering..."

I see the point. However, again, we don't know the full content of the Holy See's request. Did the Pope merely ask that the ordinations at Zaitzkofen not proceed? Or did he ask that they be moved to Écône. That makes all the difference. If he asked for a re-location, then suspensions have indeed been suspended, and we have a secret regularisation, at least in the Diocese of Sion (and presumably three others) and at least temporarily.

The first sentence of Bishop Fellay's letter does suggest a re-location (déplacer) but the sentence does not say to where. It is only the next sentence, which is not modified by that phrase, which identifies the new location. So this could simply be an inaccurate expression on Fellay's part.

So this is ambiguous.

But if the Holy Father *asked* them to ordain clerics *anywhere*, the request itself would suggest a regularisation (and therefore also a standing to ask doctrinal questions).

I think, again, that more is coming. But the Williamson Affair will likely have to be resolved first. It also seems likely that any sort of regularisation or granting of faculties may have to wait until the Pope returns from Palestine. Political reasons, of course.

P.K.T.P.

John McFarland said...

PKTP,

Did you get the story about Frs. Nely and Schmidberger from (you should pardon the expression) traditio.com?

Anonymous said...

McFarland (not the Far in the name, as in 'far out'):

"Assuming that the story is true, I have no idea what Fathers Schmidberger and Nely went to see Bishop Williamson about, unless it was to beg forgiveness for treating him so badly; but it's still the case that nothing has changed.Z"

I think that they travelled unannounced all the way to London to discuss the weather or to exchange old stories about experiences in seminary.

Some might speculate that they came armed with an ultimatum. Nah, not possible.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

McFarland writes:

"There's still not the proverbial scintilla of evidence that the Pope has any interest in granting faculties to the Society's priests; and given the hell that's already being raised by the German and French episcopacies, it's hard to imagine his throwing gasoline on the fire."

Given S.P., I think that Pope likes to address canonical questions in the origin, all on the grounds of assuring natural justice. Therefore, he did not enact a right for priests to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass; rather, he 'found' that it was there all along, since it had never been juridically abrogated and was therefore intact "as a matter of principle". What 'interest' did he have in making that finding? What 'interest' did he have in remitting the censures of excommunication? He did these things because he knows that, without the S.S.P.X, the Church faces devastation.

A number of canonists argued in the mid 1970s that the act of suppression of the S.S.P.X was also illegal. There is evidence that the Society has been offered canonical structures and has refused them (especially admitted openly in 2003). But what if the Pope were to rule that its original society of common life had never been legally suppressed in the first place? See the connexion with S.P.?

True, that would give the Society regularisation only in four dioceses in the world (one of which is in the middle of the Indian Ocean, on Réunion). But it would also give the Society 'standing' to engage in the process of theological inquiry.

Could the Pope, as a matter of justice, extend the faculties worldwide if this finding in law were made (by Burke, incidentally: 'Re would have no say').

McFarland asks why the Pope would throw gasolene on the fire. My answer is that he would put out the fire by 'firing' Williamson and then he could throw his gasolene on the cinders. Hence the trip to London.

Yes, it's speculation but it is plausible. McFarland and his friends don't entirely get the picture, I think. The Church is dying in Europe (in particular) and it is happening on this Pope's watch, both as peritus and then as Doctrinal Tsar and now as Supreme Pontiff. He doesn't have forever to clean up this bloody mess.

He can say to the bishops of the world what he said over S.P.: don't blame me. I didn't change the law. As an intellectual, I merely removed an unjust interpretation of the law. It's the same technique that John Paul the Small used when he introduced Altar girls: I didn't change the law; the law already allowed them.

The German bishops are only able to stoke the fires because they can use the Jews to stoke them. Remove Williamson and the Jews disappear. Out of sight, out of mind. Much of this brouhaha is just manufactured junk. The Jews don't really give a damn what the S.S.P.X does. They were only 'used' by liberal European prelates to forestall a reconciliation with the S.S.P.X.

My guess is that W. will be asked to leave or to accept an 'early retirement package' in civil law or something like that. I don't think that Nély and Schmidberger visited him to apologise to him. Not a chance.

By the way, I'm not arguing here against W. I'm just pointing out what views others are taking.


P.K.T.P.

Josephus Muris Saliensis said...

While it is undoubtedly true that New Catholic is a loyal Catholic, whom I have defended in the past against foolish accusations of being "quasi-lefebvrist", it cannot be denied that a large proportion of the posters on this comments page are sedevacantists and that many uncharitable comments, particularly directed toward the Holy Father, are made here.

This is a most unfortunate, and not at all helpful to oecumenical unity.

Anonymous said...

McFarout writes:

"As usual, a significant part of what it going on here is roughly equal parts wishful thinking and vivid imagination."

Yes, there is Mr. McFarland's wishful thinking that nothing is happening and that the S.S.P.X can continue on uncontaminated by any contact with Christ's Vicar. And then others have enough imagination to conceive a different outcome.

But McFarland need not worry. Fellay does not intend to seek or accept regularisation until the doctrinal issues are settled. He has mentioned that yet again today, in this statement.

However, a granting of faculties by the Pope would be a good thing for the S.S.P.X and a good thing for everyone else in the traditionalist movement. It would also 'patch us through' for he years of doc talk to come and would be therefore good for the Pope and his mission as well.

It would only be bad for the liberals 'in' the Church. So pardon me if I engage in a little wishful thinking.

P.K.T.P.

Romanus said...

It is incorrect to say that the SSPX was approved for six years ad experimentum. The statutes were, not the institution.

Anonymous said...

Wait a minute.!!! These aren't priestly ordinations (deacon, priest, bishop), but minor orders-sub-deacon. They aren't ordaining priests, but seminarians in preparation for sacerdotal ordination. Let's pray for the Holy Father that he finds a way to re-integrate these wonderful Catholics into service for the whole Church and also for Bishop Fellay as he struggles to respond.
God bless them both!!!!

Son of Trypho said...

Some speculations;

I agree with another poster here; it is extremely unlikely that the issue with the SSPX will be resolved before the visit to Israel/Palestine. Benedict doesn't need the grief that would accompany such a trip from the liberals attacking him over the issue. It would be a total PR disaster.

Similarly, I agree with PKTP that it is most likely that, if Williamson was visited, then it was probably not to apologise. They might have spent some time outlining the damage his remarks have done to the SSPX and the Church/Benedict.

I'm curious to see if he'll turn up in Switzerland - I doubt it.

Similarly, there is another area of speculation on the German opposition. Remember, because of Williamson's actions, the SSPX are now probably being investigated by the govt. in Germany as a far-right or hate group. This might have had some impact on each of the parties decisions to relocate?

Anonymous said...

Please, everyone, pray more for the Pope, for his protection and to do the will of God. Given the speculation on this forum, I would imagine that the Pope is in more danger now than at other times.

Is it just me or does anyone else also feel that evil is strengthening very quickly now? I feel the neo paganism is going to escalate and be violent against Catholics.

God protect our Pope, His Church and the Holy Latin Rite.

Jerry, SFO

Anonymous said...

On Son of Trypho's remarks:

I was being sarcastic in response to McFarland when I said that Nély and Schmidberger were not there to apologise. I think that they were there to deliver an ultimatum to him. Remember, they travelled some distance and at some cost. It also suggests that they needed the time to present a case and possibly present a document or two for him to consider signing (like, oh, I don't know: a recantation, a resignation, a testament about his opinion on British weather). I think that they were there to put pressure on him either to recant or retire. What else would likely warrant such a visit at this time?

Some here are speculating that any sort of decree from Rome on the Society's status or faculties will come after the visit to Palestine. I tend to agree with this, although I would not rule out a Low Sunday Decree if Williamson leaves before then. Remember, if he leaves or retires, one strategy would be for Rome to react very quickly so that the public will connect his exit and their approval of it; this would imply that anti-Semitism is SO horrible--worse than denying the Blessed Trinity, worse than wilful murder, &c.--that it was the only thing preventing an arrangement. Such a reaction would instantly silence the leftist press and its Zionist and Freemasonic bosses--and their liberal friends in NewChurch. It would also cast the Holy Father as a lover of Judaism just before he sets out to the land they stole from the Palestinians. This is all about diplomatic smoke signals. The Society is only 'toxic waste' as long as Williamson is seen to be an active part of it. Once he's gone, Rome will want to 'bless' it before some nasty little liberals can dig up more dirt on it for the press. You don't want to give the bastards time to build a case.


On Anonymous's comments:

Actually, the subdiaconate was not a minor order but a major or sacred order. But that question gets us into endless discussions where we don't want to go. The point is that it requires jurisdiction for any sort of ordinations.

Despite Romanus's correction in terminology, the fact remains that the Society was canonically established from 1970 to 1975, at least. If its suppression was ultra vires, it might still enjoy its former status. I don't want to go further with this except to say that expert canonists did advance and publish such arguments at the time. One appeared in the Cambridge Review, for instance. So there is a real possibility that the Pope could 'find' this to be the case. That would get around having to offer the Society something which it refused to accept. You just tell it that it has had it all along.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

"The Jews don't really give a damn what the S.S.P.X does."

Rubbish. They care when anyone says anything that in anyway threatens the holocaust industry.

Just ask the author of the work so entitled, Norman Finkelstein.

Anonymous said...

"The Jews don't really give a damn what the S.S.P.X does."

Rubbish. They care when anyone says anything that in anyway threatens the holocaust industry.


Response:

Come, come, I'm no fan of the masoretes. But they became involved in all of this because the libbies put them onto it. Williamson had been expressing these views on them since the 1980s but they never complained in twenty years; in fact, they hardly noticed. Same with the Good Friday Prayer fiasco. Suddenly, they said we had restored a pre-conciliar anti-Semite prayer. But that prayer which they didn't like had been restored from 1984. From 1984 to 2008, a period of almost 25 years, they didn't even notice.

This is all coming from our very own home-grown secular commies in the Church. That's why the Swedish journaloser knew what question to ask. Rumour has it that it was passed to him from a French lesbian politician, and not a Jew.

Again, I'm no fan of the masoretes but I believe in giving credit where credit is due. There is nothing, and I mean nothing, worse than a 'Catholic' liberal.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Fther Nelly was indeed in England on Sunday but as he preached at the 10a.m. Mass in Preston there is no way he could have been in London on Sunday morning. Another Traditio lie!

T.D.

Anonymous said...

Josephus Muris Saliensis said...

This is a most unfortunate, and not at all helpful to oecumenical unity.

Are you serious?

John McFarland said...

PKTP,

It seems a little odd that you should style me as "McFarout" when you in effect admit that what I say about the prognosis is right, and that you are indulging in wishful thinking (though by your lights a good sort of wishful thinking).

I'm also afraid that you make heavier weather out of the motu proprio than is necessary. The Old Mass was never abrogatedor abrogated. Everybody with any brains in the Vatican knew that from no later than 1998, when the deep thinkers (including Cardinal Ratzinger) got together and came to that conclusion. Pope Benedict, God bless him, for whatever reason, simply came out of the closet on the issue. The notion that is was carefully thought out is refuted by the net effect of the motu proprio, as noted by Bishop Fellay: since the Old Mass as canonized by Pius V is a universal rite, we now have TWO universal Latin rites! As Bishop Williamson is wont to say: 2+2=4, AND 2+2=5.

On the Jews and the SSPX: the Society is now on the screen of organized Jewry (OJ). There are elements of OJ one of whose functions is to constantly push the identification of Christianity and antisemitism, with an eye to ultimately using this identification to stamp out Christianity. Catholics who deny the Holocaust are obviously grist for their mill. But so is anyone who maintains the Church's traditional doctrine on the Jews. I think that the relevant people in OJ knows that the SSPX maintains the traditional doctrine; but if they don't, it's just a matter of time. There is therefore no question that the SSPX, and traditional Catholics is general, will be made to wear the scarlet AS whenever the opportunity presents itself. The gag order regarding "politics" within the SSPX will not prevent this strategy, because for OJ and for all "enlightened" opinion, the gospel of John is as antisemitic as denial of Nazi exterminationism.

I have no insights on the relationship between the liberals and OJ regarding the current firestorm. But it's not a matter that particularly interests me. The liberals don't worry me at all; OJ worries me a great deal.

As regards Bishop Williamson, his view of things is set out quite clearly in his Dinoscopus post of March 21. He has no interest in leaving the Society; but he figures, based upon Bishop Fellay's remarks to Der Spiegel, that he's going to be left in limbo indefinitely. He also notes that he'd sooner keep silent than say only what is acceptable to "the gentlemen of the press" -- an implicit judgment on his superior's grovel before Der Spiegel, and a pretty clear indication that there will be no recantation. I would add that I very much doubt that the Society is trying or will try to get a recantation from him: even if they're tempted to try, they know him better than that.



Whether OJ is aware that the SSPX does so is There is a Exactly what OJ makes of the SSPX is a nice question. The likely answer is: depends on whom you talk to. But those whose job it is to

Jordanes said...

Mr. Perkins, and all:

No more mocking of other commenters' names.

Thanks!

Anonymous said...

obedient charity..

beautiful!

Jordanes said...

will be made to wear the scarlet AS whenever the opportunity presents itself

Um, this analogy may not be the best thought out. The woman who was made to wear the scarlet letter really was an adulteress.

Anonymous said...

On Mr. McFarland's commentary:

First of all, I meant no offence, Jordanes, on the name. Doesn't anybody here have any sense of humour?

So, McFarland writes this:

"I'm also afraid that you make heavier weather out of the motu proprio than is necessary. The Old Mass was never abrogatedor abrogated. Everybody with any brains in the Vatican knew that from no later than 1998, when the deep thinkers (including Cardinal Ratzinger) got together and came to that conclusion. Pope Benedict, God bless him, for whatever reason, simply came out of the closet on the issue. The notion that is was carefully thought out is refuted by the net effect of the motu proprio, as noted by Bishop Fellay: since the Old Mass as canonized by Pius V is a universal rite, we now have TWO universal Latin rites! As Bishop Williamson is wont to say: 2+2=4, AND 2+2=5."


Actually, Mr. McFarland, you would be really surprised at my own views on this. Immediately after S.P. was published, I wrote a short but very pointed analysis on the implications of "two universal rites". I think that you would really favour what I wrote but, to be honest, I am afraid to publish it here. The neo-cons and semi-trads who dominate this list would be outraged at my conclusion, and I don't want to make unncecessary trouble there. Necessary trouble is troubling enough.

On the first part of what you've written, I'm not making heavy weather: others did. I had a long and very detailed battle over several years with two canonists. I am extremely (perhaps too) happy to say that S.P. proved me right and also strongly implied that my reason was the correct one. I had argued that the old Mass was never abrogated NOT owing to the effect to "Quo Primum Tempore" but owing to a law derived from immemorial custom which had, in fact, not been replaced by the written law of Q.P.T., since that had not been the intention of the Legislator in 1570.

But while you seem to think that the 1986 Commission of Cardinals proved this, their findings were disputed and rejected by scores of neo-cons and semi-trads, all because they had never been promulagated because never signed by Pope John Paul II, thanks, in large part, to Cardinal Benelli.

So what we are glad to celebrate as 'obvious' today was not at all obvious to most people until 2007.

P.K.T.P.

Neal said...

I don't agree that Mr. McFarland's analogy is bad. He notes that OJ defines what antisemitism is, and therefore people not genuinely antisemitic could still be branded thus.

On the other hand, saying that the pope "came out of the closet" with Summorum Pontificum is a poor analogy.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland continues:

"I would add that I very much doubt that the Society is trying or will try to get a recantation from him: even if they're tempted to try, they know him better than that."

I think that a recantation is a possibility but, more likely, they are after a resignation. At this point, a recantation would not be very useful to Rome anyway. If you decide to play the Zionist media game, then (a) Williamson is already toxic waste permantely, unless he converts to the Unitarian Church and becomes a part-time abortionist (which won't happen) and (b) the S.S.P.X is toxic waste until it either axes Williamson or else makes it appear that he has been axed. They want blood.

I was hoping that this whole thing would blow over, which, I think, is why the moderators here wisely changed subjects, helping that process as much as they could. The problem is not us, however. The problem is that Rome apparently won't let this go. The secret visit of Nély and Schmidberger suggests to me that, behind the scenes, Rome is putting pressure on Fellay to ditch Williamson. Fellay would probably prefer to let him just fade away, but Rome won't allow it. Federico Lombardi has spoken: no recognition of the S.S.P.X until W. recants fully or leaves.

I think that you're right that he won't recant. His two visitors might have carried a recantation document with them (hope springs eternal) but I figure that, by now, he's finished his 'historical re-study' and has conveyed a conclusion to them which they regret.

More likely, though, they're now seeking some form of exit for him. It could be an early retirement package which would keep him as a member of the Society. After all, Fellay has made it clear that he won't be given any assignments anyway. They need to be able to say to the Zionist press: he's gone. We've obeyed you and we've dumped him. Then the Pope, acting fast, can 'fix' the Society's status. The faster the better, before the liberal rats dig up more dirt.

Once one starts playing the Zionist Media game, there is no limit to how far it will go. That is why one should refuse to play in the first place. But the Pope is playing their game, whether we like it or not. I don't agree with this (in fact, it sickens me) but there's little I can do about it. Prayer is the recourse on that one.

I figure that Bishop Fellay is just trying to remove obstacles so that Rome will either regularise the Society or at least grant faculties to its clerics. Knowing how Benedict XVI works, I'm betting that he'll do an S.P. on them: Preso! We don't need to regularise you because you have existed canonically all along! The suppression of 1975 was illegal! The fact that canonists argued that at the time makes this a real possibility.

As long as Fellay doesn't have to engage in a quid pro quo, and as long as regularisation is only theoretical from the Society's perspective, and as long as the Society is de facto independent and Rome quietly accepts that, this would be a good thing.

Again, I feel that McFarland's difficulty is that he has regarded the Pope and Rome as 'the enemy' for so long that he cannot imagine a broader perspective. This Pope is not, in my view, the man who will correct the liberal error. But he is a man who could prepare the way for that, and this is what he senses he must do. Hence S.P.; hence the remission of the censures of excommunication; hence the present manœuvrings. Be honest: none of this could have come from John Paul II; and the few good things which did come from J.P. II (e.g. the 1984 Indult) could not have come from Paul VI. There is a Divine Plan here, I think.

It's true that some of the Romans are trying to trap the Society. (For example, Perl and company would like to 'merge' teh two Missals and create an ideal made-in-paradise-by-man-not-God 'classical' liturgy.) But I think that the motives in Rome are mixed. What reigns most there now is disorder and confusion, as the Faith disappears throughout Europe from the Brave New Conciliar Church. And there are signs are of a spreading decline and a massive one.

While I do favour complete regulariation for the Society, to occur yesterday, I can see that this is not about to happen (at least de facto). So I don't bother wasting too much time arging, as before, that Rome is offering much more than Lefebvre was prepared to accept in 1988.

More to the point now, a de jure regularisation with recognition by Rome of Society faculties would very much help the Society, the approved traditionalist groups, traditional-leaning diocesan priests, and Rome. It would hurt only the clown Mass liberals. I see this as an important preparation for a counter-revolution.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Another comment:

McFarland worries about the Jews but not about the liberals in the Church. I can't agree with this at all. The liberals have failed utterly. Their new springtime was a colossal failure and a bitter winter. They hitched themselves to the Titanic and are now enraged to be associated with the ship they sunk. Egos are at stake and that makes them dangerous. They will continue to do everything in their power to deracinate tradition. Fortunately, the leading liberal pundits and sages of the past are now being retired, some by God Himself. Their power is now waning but it is by no means gone.

I can't help but notice how traditionalism enrages these people. For example, there has always been a real hostility in my very liberal Diocese against traditionalists. Traditionalists typically mind their own business and keep to themselves, but the unprovoked attacks are always coming. The libbies can feel a panic now and are becoming hysterical. They seem to fear some sort of traditionalist resurgence. I can't figure out why this is so because there is little evidence of any such thing. I suppose it is the memory of the way things were which scares them: they can imagine thousands of faithful returning to the piety of the past, whereas they cannot imagine the Clown Mass inspiring anyone. Some are indifferent to the Clown Mass whereas others ridicule it, but few celebrate or laud it.

P.K.T.P.

John McFarland said...

Jordanes,

PKTP wasn't making fun of my name; he was making fun of me, in the classic manner of Anglophone North Americans: by accusing me of being (shudder) Extreme.

But don't worry about me: if he keeps it up, I'll start vilifying him as an Anglophile pedant with three first names who mispells words like labor and check.

Jordanes said...

He notes that OJ defines what antisemitism is, and therefore people not genuinely antisemitic could still be branded thus.

That may have been what he meant, but he did not in fact make the point in his comment that (what he calls) "Organised Jewry" defines what antisemitism is.

Although I'm not "Organised Jewry," to my mind some of the comments of Mr. McFarland and Mr. Perkins have antisemitic shibboleths or tropes. The traditional doctrine of the Church is not antisemitic, and Catholics ought to try to avoid giving people the false impression that it is.

Jordanes said...

PKTP wasn't making fun of my name; he was making fun of me

That's why I told him to cut it out. Let's all try and keep it civil and polite here.

Anonymous said...

In spite of what Romanus is suggesting with a weird distinction, SSPX was fully approved from 1970 to 1975, when Bp Mamie legally suppressed it. It was a Pia unio according to the Canon law of that time.
The fact was acknowledged by Bp Tissier de Mallerais in his biography of Abp Lefebvre.

Priests ordained between 1970 and 1975 were incardinated in a few dioceses like Cayenne, La Réunion etc. FrenChurch expressed a high displeasure of the existence of the Ecône seminary in 1972 and called it "séminaire sauvage" (independant seminary with a negative tone). However this was FrenChurch throwing mud on an institution that was enhancing the dramatic failure of FrenChurch seminaries of this period.
It had no impact on the legal position of SSPX.

The agenda today is not any canonical status. It is how and when the "necessary talks" can take place. And the immediate question is : what is going to happen to PCED soon ?
I hope we won't have 3 different statements from Fr. Lombardi plus a Fisichella-like maneuver in the Osservatore Romano to throw more mud and generate a maximum of confusion ...

Alsaticus

John McFarland said...

Jordanes,

Kindly supply at least a rough definition of antisemitism, so that Mr. Perkins and I can examine our respective consciences, shibboleths and tropes.

Jordanes said...

Dictionary.com offers the following handy definitions:

Intense dislike for and prejudice against Jewish people.

Prejudice or hatred against Jews.

Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism; discrimination against Jews.

Anti-Jewish theories, actions or policies.

Al said...

Mr. McFarland: "On the Jews and the SSPX: the Society is now on the screen of organized Jewry (OJ). "

The SSPX has been in their sights long before the flap over Bp. Williamson's measured remarks:

"Radical Powerhouse-The Society of St. Pius X, which has chapels and schools across the United States, remains a font of anti-Semitic propaganda"
by Heidi Beirich http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=397

As usual, where mountains of evidence are to be found against the enemies of Christ, Jordanes' persistent conceptual disorder finds only "antisemitic shibboleths or tropes." Seems the man has a large blind spot on the matter.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. McFarland:

Anti-Semitism, to neo-cons and semi-trads, simply means that you don't agree that Israel is the centre of the universe. If you think that it is an illegitimate state having less international importance than Belgium (a lot less, actually), and if you wonder how it can be that a state of some five million souls gets more news in Flin Flon, Manitoba, than does India, China, the U.K. and France combined, then, dear sir, you are an anti-Semite.

But we really should not veer back onto this subject. The interesting question in hand regards the relation between the Holy See and the S.S.P.X, not between the Zionist media and the Catholic Church.

What interests me right now is the possibility that the Pope, instead of regularising the Society, will simply 'find' that it has been regularised all along. It's an interesting approach. But this Pope will not bend the law. No, he's an honest man. The question is whether or not he's put this question to Burke over a the Apostolic Signatura.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Bishop Fellay would make a wonderful Cardinal....or even the Pope some day.

Wouldn't that be amazing!

John McFarland said...

Jordanes,

Catholic doctrine is certainly anti-Jewish in the sense that by its lights, no one should be a Jew. It is certainly prejudicial, in the sense that it applies irrespective of particular characteristics of particular Jews. Is it anti-Semitic?

It was once the virtually universal view of Catholics, very much including Catholic saints and doctors, that Jews should be kept under close watch and tight control, and in general denied the same rights as Christians. As recently as 1890, Civilta Cattolica, the Jesuit magazine closely tied to the Vatican (traditionally, and perhaps still, the proofs were reviewed by the Vatican), called for taking the vote away from the Jews. Was all of this anti-semitic?

What distinctions in treatment of Jews vs. anyone else constitute discrimination in a pejorative sense?

It would also help to have a few examples of those tropes and shibboleths.

Neal said...

(New Catholic, this one's up to you, for the common good, etc.)

Per dictionary.com:

Antisemitism:
Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism; discrimination against Jews.

Hostility:
Opposition or resistance to an idea, plan, project, etc.

Judaism:
The monotheistic religion of the Jews, having its ethical, ceremonial, and legal foundation in the precepts of the Old Testament and in the teachings and commentaries of the rabbis as found chiefly in the Talmud.

It seems therefore that one who opposes the ideas of the religion of the Jews as expressed not only in the Old Testament but also in the Talmud is an antisemite.

Wikipedia has a brief history of the Talmud, including the popes who blacklisted it and/or ordered it burned.

Richard Perez said...

Wonder why the holy father told them to move the ordinations but not cancel them completely?He did not say do not ordain priest but simply asked that the ordination be moved.

Does that mean the pope approves of the sspx bishops ordaining priest?

something you should think about..

Anonymous said...

"Anti-Jewish theories, actions or policies."

There are many people who insist that Catholicism is "anti-Jewish"...the Traditional Good Friday Prayer for the Jews (including Pope Benedict XVI's new "traditional" prayer)is "anti-Jewish"...

...The New Testament is "anti-Jewish"...the Holy Cross (Crucifix) is "anti-Jewish"...

Tim

andyjourn said...

Unjust condemnations? I still think the Society of St Pius X don't get it.

The Holy Father lifted the excommunications not because they were unjust, but as an act of mercy to those who were suffering because of being placed outside ecclesial communion.

It is best for them to treat the events of June 30 and July 1, 1988 as history, and to cease from commenting on the motivations of the Holy See at that time.

Then it would look like there is genuine gratitude for the lifting of the excommunications on their part, and a desire now to move on.

Jordanes said...

As usual, where mountains of evidence are to be found against the enemies of Christ, Jordanes' persistent conceptual disorder finds only "antisemitic shibboleths or tropes." Seems the man has a large blind spot on the matter.

I’m sorry, Al, but your words that I've quoted here really are way off the mark and frankly have nothing to do with anything being discussed here.

Anti-Semitism, to neo-cons and semi-trads, simply means that you don't agree that Israel is the centre of the universe.

No, Mr. Perkins, I’d say Israel is more the center of an antisemite’s universe than it is to those who are not antisemitic.

Catholic doctrine is certainly anti-Jewish in the sense that by its lights, no one should be a Jew.

Not a Jew religiously, that is, Mr. McFarland. Our Lord and Our Lady are Jews, as are the twelve apostles and St. Paul. Catholic doctrine is that everyone, Jews included, should be a Catholic.

It is certainly prejudicial, in the sense that it applies irrespective of particular characteristics of particular Jews.

That is not the sense of the word “prejudice” involved in antisemitic prejudice.

Was all of this anti-semitic?

Much of it was, or was motivated at least partly by it, and/or helped to foster it. But none of those things were integral to Catholic doctrine, and in any case even when those positions and practices were justified or understandable given the state of society at the time, it would not follow that they are proper today.

What distinctions in treatment of Jews vs. anyone else constitute discrimination in a pejorative sense?

One example would be giving Jews the option of converting to Catholicism or else forfeiting their property and getting out of the country.

It would also help to have a few examples of those tropes and shibboleths.

“Organised Jewry,” “Zionist media,” “Zionist and Freemasonic bosses,” “masoretes” (instead of “Jews”), and revisionism or “denial” of the Shoa. Of course none of these things is necessarily evidence of antisemitism, but antisemites do use such language or engage in such discussions. Those who wish to “Be without offence to the Jews, and to the Gentiles, and to the church of God” would want to be careful in his speech when talking about non-Christian Jews.

It seems therefore that one who opposes the ideas of the religion of the Jews as expressed not only in the Old Testament but also in the Talmud is an antisemite.

There are many people who insist that Catholicism is "anti-Jewish"

Neal, Tim, there are those who think that is antisemitism, but they are wrong. Also, one can be opposed to or disagree with Judaism without being “hostile” or prejudiced.

Anonymous said...

". . .one can be opposed to ordisagree with judaism without being 'hostile' or prejudice." How? When anything and everything anyone says about them is considered antisemitic? Quite frankly, I'm getting sick of being labeled.

It's like everything else. They can say whatever they want about Catholics and Catholicism but we can't say a word in our defense or about them without being brow beaten with charges of antisemitism.

Jordanes said...

"Anything and everything"? How does such hyperbole meaningfully advance the discussion?

John McFarland said...

Jordanes,

Here's the question: why is it that criticism of organized Jewry, and of things that organized Jewry feels strongly about, makes you, well, nervous; indeed, very nervous? Nervous enough to have constituted yourself a sort of one-man committee of vigilance to police us on the matter?

Son of Trypho said...

As a Jewish Catholic I have to state that, as far as I understand, the majority of US Jews wouldn't even fit with the criteria of association with the Talmud in any capacity and certainly wouldn't be living in the Orthodox community which does.

I'm really not sure what some of the posters actually think Jewish life is like or what they get up to, especially those in the Orthodox communities? Or that they have actually ever read any Jewish works in depth aside from the Tanakh?

It seems that a lot of the points that do get quoted are sourced from, when all is said and done, racist/extremist/hate sites and groups - not reasonable sources of enquiry or research.

It would be like people getting their info concerning Catholicism from a humanist/atheistic source which has an axe to grind.

I'm also willing to engage in sensible discussion with people on Jewish and Catholic topics and I commend Jordanes' patience in doing the same despite the prejudice and ignorance being displayed here.

Its really harmful for those who classify as "conservative" Catholics to have to fight this extremism in our community which is doing enormous damage to our collective credibility.

Anonymous said...

On Anonymous's comments:

"Actually, the subdiaconate was not a minor order but a major or sacred order. But that question gets us into endless discussions where we don't want to go. The point is that it requires jurisdiction for any sort of ordinations."
I stand corrected. It is a major or sacred order, but it is not an ordination into the sacredotal orders of deacon, priest, and bishop which is the sacrament of Holy Orders. Nothing like just dismissing my follow on comment saying we don't want to go there. Well you had enough to say about off topic. The point I was trying to make before being given the back of someone's hand was that all the comments about SSPX ordaining these guys to be priests was incorrect. All I wanted was for people to use the correct term. They weren't going to be ordained priests, period. Use the correct terminology. Then continue you arguments.

pclaudel said...

Neal wrote, "Wikipedia has a brief history of the Talmud, including the popes who blacklisted it and/or ordered it burned."

I hope that Neal isn't suggesting that Wikipedia should ever, ever, ever be regarded as an authoritative source of information about anything. In fact, its primary purpose on earth seems to be to demonstrate to the willfully blind and ignorant that there really is such a thing as a pro-Semitic cabal prepared to lie, threaten, distort, and bully to whatever extent is required to advance the cause of rabbinic, talmudic Jewishness and its armed-to-the-teeth weapon of conquest, the state of Israel. Exhibits A and B for the prosecution—I could exhaust the alphabet several times over before my memory had to leave automatic-pilot mode—are the entries on the USS Liberty and the poet Roy Campbell (everything about the former and especially the Discussion page of the latter).

Before chronic illness recently cost me my job, I had worked for more than two decades in academic and scholastic reference publishing. I can say without hesitancy or fear of contradiction that literally no editor or publisher in the United States—despite the fact that these folks are not precisely paragons of intellectual independence or of sympathy to the teachings of Christ—permits his charges to treat Wikipedia as a citable, reliable source for anything. Its prejudices, slantings, distortions, sloppiness, and general immaturity are so patently obvious that even those (i.e., the majority) that would see its worldview not simply ascendant but unchallenged are embarrassed by its bared fangs.

Of course, I'm aware that suggesting that there is such a thing as pro-Semitic bigotry is proof positive to many commenters on this site that I'm an anti-Semite. "What further need have we of witnesses!"

Mar said...

It may be hyperbole but the meaning is surely clear enough. Anonymous was answering the claim that one can be opposed to or disagree with judaism without being "hostile" or prejudiced. Actually, as it stands the claim itself is somewhat unclear.

Does it mean: I oppose and disagree without any attendant feeling or intention of hostility or prejudice on my part?

Or does it mean: I oppose and disagree without this being taken to be hostile or prejudiced according to universally accepted criteria?

Or does it mean: I am allowed to oppose and disagree only in ways that the target group has deemed to be "without hostility or prejudice", regardless of the integrity of my intentions, and regardless of universally accepted criteria?

What the "hyperbole" of Anonymous concerning "anything and everything" highlights is that on
the subject of judaism it has become well-nigh impossible to oppose and disagree according to
the first two examples without incurring a label. He has a point. These days even the most innocuous and neutral statement can have the most malicious motives imputed to it.

As one person somewhere expressed it: it used to be that if you disagreed with judaism you were considered anti-semitic, but nowadays if judaism disagrees with you you are considered anti-semitic.

Anonymous said...

There is much I could write in response to Jordanes's comments, but every time I prove him wrong (as I did on the 'communion' question), he simply censors me.

Really, I don't mind much. I just wish that he and McFarland would get off this Jewish business. the Jews are not at the centre on the question in hand and it is mainly the liberal media which wants to divert attention, as usual, to them. Real anti-Semites see a masorete under every bed. While I agree that, as a group, they are a dangerous enemy to the Church, they are only one of several such enemies, and we should not obsess about them.

I, for one, do not regard the Jews as the source of this problem with the S.S.P.X. I think that the entire Wiliamson débâcle was hatched by liberal Catholics, not Jews. Ditto for the Good Friday issue. The liberals are merely using Jews and Jewish issues to create difficulties. Most Jews don't care about the internal workings of the Catholic Church. If they cared, they would have screamed about the Good Friday Prayer back in 1984, when the J.P. II released the initial Indult; or in 1988, when he expanded it. We had Indult litergies all over the world for two decades, and they didn't even notice the Good Friday Prayers. The Good Friday issued was concocted by liberals. They were furious over Summorum Pontificum and wanted some revanche.

Similarly, the Zionist militants must have known about Williamson's views for decades. They were hardly a secret. He made them very public continuously over the last twenty years, and yet no Jews screamed.

This entire mess is from the Kaspers and the Mahonys, not the Foxmans.

Incidentally, I don't use 'masorete' in any bigoted way at all. It's the correct term for those who rejected Christ and who follow the masorah, as all modern religious Jews do. Really, we Christians are the true Jews because Jesus fulfilled the promise. We only call the masoretes 'Jews' as a courtesy, just as we call the Eastern Schismatics 'Orthodox' as a courtesy.

Now could be please return to the subject of the relation between the S.S.P.X and Rome? I am bored stiff of more Jew talk. They are not the centre of my universe, Jordanes, but just a nuisance.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

Mr. McFarland, I assure that it is not I who have constituted me to "police" the comments of this weblog to screen out antisemitic comments. Nor is it "criticism of organized Jewry" that makes me "nervous," it's certain kinds of criticism, which given various sad and regrettable episodes in the history of Christianity and Judaism ought to make anyone "nervous." Those who really desire the salvation of non-Christian Jews won't want to discuss various matters using certain terminology or veering into certain areas.

Mr. Claudel, Wikipedia's unreliability is infamous. But it's not your suggesting that there is such a thing as pro-Semitic bigotry that would alarm anyone about your comment -- of course there is pro-Semitic bigotry as there is antisemitism. What is troubling about your comment is your statement that the primary purpose of Wikipedia seems to be to serve as a tool of an international Jewish conspiracy.

Mr. Perkins, you are not censored every time you prove me wrong (assuming you've ever done that), and the Communion question remains with the ball in your court and the onus on you to show evidence to support your suggestion that Philip Schaff may have mistranslated St. Augustine. You've not cited a single magisteral document or writing of the Fathers or Doctors to support your position. Again, if your really wish that I get off this Jewish business, and are bored stiff of this subject, then you should stop posting comments on it. Finally, I think it is unlikely that a disinterested bystander would regard your personal nickname for Jews not to be bigoted, or at least less than charitable or fair.

Adeodatus said...

I would say that it is potentially anti-Semitic to hold that there is an organized conspiracy of "Jewry". This position can only be held for one of two reasons: either the person who holds it really believes it, and therefore is so out of touch with reality (and likely doesn't even know any actual Jews) that his viewpoints ought to be entirely discounted by the mentally stable. Or else the person is not so daft as to believe it, but utters it as a lie to incite ire against Jewish persons; in this case the man in question is an anti-Semite.

Anti-Semitism is a sin in several ways. First, all bigotry is a sin against charity. Second, it is especially a crime to heap calumnies and insults upon the race of Jesus Christ. When the Living God became incarnate, He became incarnate as a Jew. The Jews are also God's chosen people, the first among nations to carry the heroic banner of monotheism against the pagan world. Because God Himself is incarnate as a Jew, to slander the Jewish race as such is tantamount to blasphemy.

Finally, I have noticed that some Tradsheviks attempt to claim that at some point in the Christian period the Jewish religion became false. That claim is heretical, being a species of Marcionism. The Jewish religion is incomplete because it fails to recognize Jesus as the Christ and Messiah. It is in error insofar as it teaches that the Messiah has not yet come, or is of some other character than the actual person of Jesus Christ. It is also incomplete insofar as it fails to recognize the triune character of the Living God. However, the Law was not abolished but fulfilled. The observance of the Law remains a good act. Furthermore, any claim that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is a false God is blasphemy and heretical in the extreme.

Jordanes said...

Adeodatus, your comments are appreciated. However, the discourse is not at all aided by rhetoric such as "Tradsheviks," etc.

In addition, it cannot be denied that, according to the Catholic faith, "the Jewish religion" that denies the Messiahship and divinity of Jesus, and that maintains the continued obligatory nature of the Mosaic law, is indeed "false." That is not at all a form of Marcionism.

Anonymous said...

I would like to return to the original purpose of this thread...SSPX ordinations.

Are the upcoming ordinations in question approved by Rome?

Tim

Anonymous said...

Anonymous wrote:

"I stand corrected. It is a major or sacred order, but it is not an ordination into the sacredotal orders of deacon, priest, and bishop which is the sacrament of Holy Orders.

I asked that we not go there. The reason is that there is a long-standing argument in the Church about whether or not the subdiaconate is one of the three sacred orders or not. One group says that the three are priest, deacon, and subdeacon, the episcopate not being separate from the priesthood but being merely its fullness and completion. The second group says that the three are bishop, priest, and deacon. The entire issue has been argued for centuries.

My point was that the subdiaconate was considered by some to be a sacred order. In any event, any such ordination to the subdiaconate would require jurisdiction. Hence the intervention of Müller, Bishop of Regensburg.

P.K.T.P.

Adeodatus said...

Jordanes,

Thanks. I used the term "Tradshevik" because I don't think that the term "Traditional Catholic" belongs to the sedevacantist or schismatic camps. A "Traditional Catholic" is obedient to the Church and the Pope. Thus I don't think of the SSPX as traditional... if they rebel against the authority of the Church then they can no longer claim the Tradition as their own.

On the question of "falsity" in Judaism... I hope that I was sufficiently careful in noting that insofar as any element in Judaism fails to recognize Jesus Christ as Messiah, that element is in error. However, there are those who wish to say that Jewish worship is false or that they worship a false God. That claim manifestly savors of heresy. Modern Judaism contains false or erroneous elements. The same is true of Protestantism. But in no way is, say, the worship (latria) of a Lutheran or the God of a Lutheran false... the Lutheran's practice is false only insfoar as it fails to acknowledge indisputable truths such as the Real Presence, etc.

That might seem to be a "scholastic" sort of distinction, but I'll cop to that.

Regardless, it appears that we agree in substance and it only remains to hash out the technicalities of language.

Anonymous said...

I agree strongly with Mr. Claudel's remarks about Wikipedia. I got into a long debate with various people about whether or not the term 'Dominion' remains as part of the proper title of my country. It does. My country is properly 'The Dominion of Canada'. When some constitutional experts proved this to Wikipedia (by referring to three amendments made to our constituion in the 1920s which were subsequently incorporated into the new constitution of 1981), the bastards just ignored them. They refused to post the proof. The reasons are political, I suspect: liberals don't like the 'Dominion' title and Wikipedia leans to the left from what I can see). I tell everyone to disregard Wikipedia as a source for anything, although it is useful for finding simple information on things. Some professors in my university (and they are on the left) also seem to discredit Wikipedia.

Jordanes, I was referring to a long post on the Communion issue which you simply censored. But, no, I don't want it back because that would divert this discussion from another thread. I was hoping that bloggers here would return to the more interesting discussion of Rome-S.S.P.X talks and not turn this entire thread into yet another endless discussion of world-dominating Jewish conspiracies.

I have watched these various controversies rather closely. In the Good Friday issue, the first people to react loudly in 2008 were liberals, not Jews. It was only later that the two rabbis from Palestine and that Foxman creature got involved. I suspect that liberals in the Church contacted and insensed some Jewish leaders. In my view, these issues are coming from liberal 'Catholics', not from Jews.

I must say that I disagree with Mr. McFarland if (and only if) he is suggesting that this all came from Jews. There is not a masorete under every bed. Again, they are an enemy to the Church and the evidence for that is rather substantial (whether we cite Wikipedia or not), but they are only one of many. I think that most opposition to traditionalism comes from the liberals 'in' the Church. Most Jews just don't care much about our internal wranglings. Again, if they really cared so much, they'd have screamed about the S.S.P.X and the Good Friday Prayer twenty years ago.

I expect that we shall see much more of this opposition from liberals. The Pope is following a programme which they will oppose at every turn. They are angry because this Pope is taking us away from the policies they have advanced for the last forty years. Egos are at stake and that is where the real anger is coming from. I expect that the liberals (with or without any Jewish help) will oppose the following:

1. a clarification of "Summorum Pontificum" (but they will not be able to do much about this);

2. any recognition of or grant of faculties to the S.S.P.X;

3. Orthodox Magisterial interpretations of Vatican II made at the behest of the S.S.P.X;

4. Changes to NewMass to make it more traditional (there is a project in the works for this, with Bux et al. involved, I believe);

5. Reconciliation of the TAC;

6. Imposition of the new translations of the current N.O. Missal. We are already seeing not organised Jewry opposing this but 'organised' liberal opposition coming from South Africa, where the new translations are being introduced early.


On the matter of the doctrinal clarifications at the behest of the S.S.P.X, I agree with McFarland (and with Bishop Tissier de Mallerais) that these should take decades to resolve. I can't see how they can be resolved given the current crop of archliberal prelates running around Rome.
That's why it would be good for Benedict XVI to effect some sort of juridical arrangement in the short term.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

Jordanes, I was referring to a long post on the Communion issue which you simply censored.

It was not because you had proved me wrong that that post was not approved. You should consider that a subsequent comment of yours was approved that made all of the same points as the one that was not approved.

Anonymous said...

What worries me . . . .


As I watch the numbers rather closely for Traditional Latin Masses throughout the world, what worries me is that this most recent issue over the S.S.P.X is affecting permissions by parish priests for Mass under "Summorum Pontificum".

The numbers of new permissions under S.P. slowed to a crawl last June and has not recovered since then, so the cause may lie elsewhere. But certainly progress is gone altogether since 21st January. Since October, we've had some progress on every-Sunday 'Indult' Masses in Germany (Diocese of Aachen) and England (Dioceses of Middlesbrough and Plymouth), and Portugal (low key and private at Fatima) and, most recenty, the U.S.A. (D. Owensboro, in Kentucky). There was also some F.S.S.P. progress for Mexico late last year (Guadalajara and Mexico City) That's about it, ladies and gentlemen.

I think that the long-awaited clarification on S.P. would be welcome now. Supposedly, it has been sitting on His Holiness's desk for over a year now.

Comments on this? Do fellow bloggers think that this entire Society business has hurt growth of Traditional Latin Masses under S.P.? Are liberals bishops obstructing S.P. more now as a reaction against more 'acceptance' of the S.S.P.X?

P.K.T.P.

pclaudel said...

"Mr. Claudel, . . . [w]hat is troubling about your comment is your statement that the primary purpose of Wikipedia seems to be to serve as a tool of an international Jewish conspiracy."

Shame on you, Jordanes! I never used the word conspiracy, nor would I. A conspiracy, whatever else it may be, is a plan hatched by two or more people in secret. The confidence (and if truth be told, stupidity and egotism) of the Wikipedia cabal is such that they operate in the open. I initially bridled in disgust at the possibility that Wikipedia's masters were overtly acting as agents of cultural and religious destruction, but their own words are undeniable testimony to that intent and that effect.

I do not recommend that others waste as many of their precious God-given hours as I have reading and examining this monstrous construct, but I do urge caution—the kind of caution on the moral plane that, mutatis mutandis, a nurse would exercise in handling the clothing and effluvia of a gravely ill patient—in approaching and using Wikipedia, and I urge it in the strongest possible terms.

John McFarland said...

Adeodatus,

The SSPX does not "rebel against the authority of the Pope." Rather, it refuses to obey the Pope in those matters in which obedience would imperil the salvation of souls, the supreme law. The rebellion is against the misuse of authority, not against the authority. Compare a child ordered by his father to lie. If the child disobeys, he is not rebelling against paternal authority; he is rebelling against its abuse.

You may argue that the circumstances do not justify the SSPX's decisions to disobey; but even if you're right in your argument, that doesn't make the SSPX rebels against the Pope's authority. Rather, it would make them people who made a faulty moral judgment, which is a rather different kettle of fish from schism.

As regards Judaism:

If you reject one jot or tittle of the Faith, you reject it all. Jews (like heretics, schismatics, Muslims, pagans, agnostics or atheists) gain no points for what truth they retain, because they don't embrace the whole truth.

In the First Epistle of St. John 2:23 we read: "He who disowns the Son has not the Father." So Jews (and Muslims, and the other unitarians)do not believe in the same God as we do.

Nor would I necessary rush to conclude that Lutherans woship the true God. Luther, after all, believed in a "justification" in which God, sort of like a bleeding heart liberal judge, lets the sinner off even though he's guilty, if the sinner has faith, which on Luther's account is confidence in the salvific character of his faith. Recall Luther's famous characterization of the justified man as a snow-covered dunghill. It is not obvious to me how this snow-covered dunghill stuff comports with the Catholic doctrine of the all just God whom no one but the clean of heart can see.

John McFarland said...

Jordanes,

Tell us more about these "certain kinds of criticism," and the "various sad and regrettable episodes in the history of Christianity and Judaism" to which (you imply) such forms of criticism give rise.

I'm not playing games here. I think I'm not wrong in guessing that you find the history of Catholic treatment of Jews an embarrassment, and I'd like you to explain why. In particular, I'm interested in knowing if you have CATHOLIC reasons for your embarrassment.

John McFarland said...

M. Claudel,

What are the Wikipedists' "own words" to which you refer?

Son of Trypho said...

McFarland

St James the Just prayed in the Temple and followed Jewish observances (as recorded by St Jerome) well after the Lord's resurrection. Was he wrong?

Anonymous said...

Fellay's text appears itself to contain 'further' clarification. Fellay states: "The other ordinations will take place as planned. There has never been any question of cancelling [sic!] them. Indeed, the kind act of the Holy See should not be interpreted as a determination to strangle the Society of Saint Pius X." The phrase, "the kind act," seems necessarily to refer to the Vatican's intervention regarding the ordinations - what "kind act" other than the Vatican's request that the ordinations be conducted elsewhere might be interpreted (or, according to Fellay, misinterpreted) as an attempt to strangle the SSPX? Fellay is saying, 'Don't misinterpret our move, carried out at the kind request of the Vatican, as the Vatican's attempt to stifle the SSPX." Is some other interpretation of the above-quoted text possible?

As for whether the SSPX is antisemitic, the SSPX itself answered that question, not only in words, but in deeds, when, under Lefebvre's guiding hand, its French organization fully engaged in hiding Paul Touvier, the French nazi war criminal. (Or did they do that because of Touvier's stand on the Latin mass...?) Hiding *some* of the Jew-baiting texts posted on their websites can not alter the fact: the SSPX stands for clerical fascism.

--Jared Israel, www.tenc.net

Mar said...

Adeodatus said: "I would say that it is potentially anti-Semitic to hold that there is an organized conspiracy of "Jewry". This position can only be held for one of two reasons: either the person who holds it really believes it, and therefore is so out of touch with reality (and likely doesn't even know any actual Jews) that his viewpoints ought to be entirely discounted by the mentally stable. Or else the person is not so daft as to believe it, but utters it as a lie to incite ire against Jewish persons; in this case the man in question is an anti-Semite."

Let us put the shoe on the other foot, as follows, shall we?

I would say that it is potentially anti-catholic to hold that there has been organized conspiracy of "the Catholic Church" (against the Jews). This position can only be held for one of two reasons: either the person who holds it really believes it, and therefore is so out of touch with reality (and likely doesn't know any actual catholics) that his viewpoints ought to be entirely discounted by the mentally stable. Or the person is not so daft as to believe it, but utters it as a lie to incite ire against catholic persons; in this case the man in question is an anti-catholic.

Care to comment, Adeodatus?

Adeodatus again: "First, all bigotry is a sin against charity...Finally, I have noticed that some Tradsheviks attempt to claim that at some point in the Christian period the Jewish religion became false."

So, bigotry against those of another faith is a sin against charity but bigotry against fellow-catholics (calling them Tradsheviks) is not? Are you familiar with the saying: charity begins at home?

Jordanes said...

Mr. Perkins, since by your own words it is uncourteous and impolite of you to call Jews "masoretes," from now on in your comments here please refrain from misusing the term "masorete." This isn't just a matter of accuracy but of basic respect for your fellow man.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Jordanes said...

Mr. Claudel, your suggestion is even less defensible if you are really going to insist that Wikipedia is openly and unapologetically a tool of "a pro-Semitic cabal prepared to lie, threaten, distort, and bully to whatever extent is required to advance the cause of rabbinic, talmudic Jewishness and its armed-to-the-teeth weapon of conquest, the state of Israel."

Mr. McFarland said: Jews (like heretics, schismatics, Muslims, pagans, agnostics or atheists) gain no points for what truth they retain, because they don't embrace the whole truth.

No, they gain no points, though to the extent that they might be invincibly ignorant they would be less culpable than Catholics who reject even a jot or tittle of the Faith.

In the First Epistle of St. John 2:23 we read: "He who disowns the Son has not the Father." So Jews (and Muslims, and the other unitarians)do not believe in the same God as we do.

In the sense that their understanding of God is erroneous or deficient, no, they don't. In the sense that they direct their worship to the God of Abraham (the only God there is), yes, they do.

Recall Luther's famous characterization of the justified man as a snow-covered dunghill.

Though your summary of Luther's heresies is correct, on this particular point it should be pointed out that there's no evidence that Luther ever uttered the "snow-covered dunghill" metaphor. Lutherans and other Protestants have uttered it, of course, and they've even attributed it to Luther, but so far this metaphor has not been found in any of Luther's massive heap of writings nor in Table Talk.

Tell us more about these "certain kinds of criticism," and the "various sad and regrettable episodes in the history of Christianity and Judaism" to which (you imply) such forms of criticism give rise.

I find it hard to believe that you don't know what I'm referring to.

I think I'm not wrong in guessing that you find the history of Catholic treatment of Jews an embarrassment, and I'd like you to explain why.

I wasn't just talking about the history of Catholic treatment of Jews, but also the history of Jewish treatment of Christians as well as the history of Christian treatment of Jews.

One ready example of un-Christian treatment of Jews are the attacks of the Crusaders on Jewish communities of Germany that St. Bernard nobly intervened to stop. One can also note the shameful history of the blood libel.

John McFarland said...

Son of Trypho,

I can go you one better than that. At the end of St. Luke's gospel we read that after the ascension, the disciples "were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God."

But there is no more temple. The old order passed away nearly two millennia ago, in death and destruction and horror. The murderous husbandmen were destroyed, and the vineyard let to new tenants.

Are you a Catholic or (presumably unwittingly) a judaizer? That's what you have to figure out. If you are in any sense affirming a supernatural status of the Jews of the present day -- other than their salvation upon their repentance and baptism -- you are the latter.

John McFarland said...

Jared Israel,

I don't know the particulars regarding Paul Touvier. But I do know that after the Liberation, something on the order of 100,000 Frenchmen were killed, under color of law or otherwise, most of them for nothing worse than a lack of enthusiasm for the rule of the Third Republic and (therefore, in many though not all cases) support of the Vichy Regime. It is certainly true that the SSPX includes people who share these views; and so my guess is that Touvier was hidden to protect him against what they deemed victors' justice -- that is, lynching under color of law.

And just so we understand each other: I don't believe that having supported or even served the Vichy regime is in and of itself grounds for loss of life, liberty or property; nor would I convict a yellow dog on evidence from the kind of people who were after Touvier. They were the same kind of people as those who just succeeded in deporting John Dejmanjuk, acquittal in Israel and all, aged 89 and with one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel.

As for the Bishop Fellay's remarks on today's ordinations, the tea leaves are easily read: Bishop Fellay doesn't want people to assume that the Pope is trying to stop the SSPX from ordaining, but also wants to make clear that ordinations will continue.

Al said...

No pejorative implication is mentioned in the dictionary:

Masorete |ˈmasəˌrēt| (also Massorete)
noun
any of the Jewish scholars of the 6th–10th centuries ad who contributed to the establishment of a recognized text of the Hebrew Bible, and to the compilation of the Masorah.
DERIVATIVES
Masoretic |ˌmasəˈretik| |ˈmɑsəˈrɛdɪk| |-ˈrɛtɪk| adjective
ORIGIN from French Massoret and modern Latin Massoreta, from Hebrew māsōre t ; related to māsōrāh (see Masorah ).
Massorete |ˈmasəˌrēt| |ˈmɑsəˈrit|
noun
variant spelling of Masorete .

*******

On point, note that these "scholars" were altering the text up to 1,000 years AFTER the temple veil had been torn. The mere fact that the "hebrew Bible" is printed in Hebrew is no sign of authenticity. Further, at the time of Jesus, the Greek Septuagint was dispositive for Jews. Many of the texts in Hebrew and Aramaic had been lost to the Jews. The "Hebrew Bible" therefore reflects a post-Christian attitude that connived to dethrone Jesus as Messiah by introducing changes from the dispositive Greek.

Jordanes said...

You're right about the definition of Masorete, Al, though your summary of the textual history of the Old Testament is a little off. Anyway you've shown that Mr. Perkins' uncourteous use of "masorete" is erroneous.

Jordanes said...

If you are in any sense affirming a supernatural status of the Jews of the present day -- other than their salvation upon their repentance and baptism -- you are the latter.

Well, there's also St. Paul's affirmations that God has not forsaken His people whom He foreknew, and that the gifts and promises of God are irrevocable.

John McFarland said...

Jordanes,

If they repent, believe the gospel, and are baptized, they will be grafted back in. Unless and until then, they are the olive branches that have been broken off to make way for the grafting in of the wild olive branches.

The point of all the conciliar theology regarding the Jews -- very much including that of Cardinal Ratzinger, and of Pope Benedict in his revised Good Friday prayer -- is to excuse the Jews from the necessity of repentance, faith and baptism, and Christians from the necessity of evanglizing them.

It is all a Great Mystery, and so no one has to do anything.

Conciliar theology is very big on Great Mysteries in the face of which we don't have to do anything but lift our eyes piously to heaven -- and, of ocurse, work for World Peace.

Anonymous said...

John MacFarland,

Pope Benedict's Good Friday prayer calls for the conversion of the Jews and the same theological standpoint as the old.

Jordanes said...

If they repent, believe the gospel, and are baptized, they will be grafted back in. Unless and until then, they are the olive branches that have been broken off to make way for the grafting in of the wild olive branches.

Well, they weren’t exactly broken off to make way for us wild olive branches, but for their unbelief – but their breaking off did open space on the olive plant for us. St. Paul also warns us not to boast against the branches that were broken off, since they are the natural branches and thus can be grafted in more readily than we wild branches can be. Jesus minced no words in his dialogue with the unbelieving Jews, but he also reminds us that salvation is of the Jews, and St. Paul is clear that God’s promises to Abraham and to his seed are unconditional and irrevocable. If they were not, we could have no confidence in God’s mercy. The Catholic Church rests upon those promises as a house on a foundation.

The point of all the conciliar theology regarding the Jews -- very much including that of Cardinal Ratzinger, and of Pope Benedict in his revised Good Friday prayer -- is to excuse the Jews from the necessity of repentance, faith and baptism, and Christians from the necessity of evanglizing them.

That’s the point of some post-conciliar theology, but that theology is erroneous, and it’s clearly not the theology of Pope Benedict.

Al said...

If you tell people that their gift is irrevocable without reminding them of the conditions upon the gift, you have done them, not charity, but an injustice.

You are too quick, Jordanes, to gloss over the CONDITIONS of those "irrevocable gifts." Mention of the irrevocable nature of the gifts without due attention to the CONDITIONAL award of those gifts is only half the truth.

Read Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26, and you will see that God's irrevocable gifts and promises were CONDITIONAL from the very start.

Obey and receive the gifts; disobey and be damned. That was God's promise.

Note the disobedience, the ABROGATION OF THE COVENANT:

1 Kings 8:7-8 And the Lord said to Samuel: Hearken to the voice of the people in all that they say to thee. For they have not rejected thee, but me, that I should not reign over them. 8 According to all their works, they have done from the day that I brought them out of Egypt until this day: as they have forsaken me, and served strange gods, so do they also unto thee.

1 Kings 13:13 And Samuel said to Saul: Thou hast done foolishly, and hast not kept the commandments of the Lord thy God, which he commanded thee. And if thou hadst not done thus, the Lord would now have established thy kingdom over Israel forever.

3 Kings 18:18 And he [Elijah responding to King Ahab] said: I have not troubled Israel, but thou and thy father's house, who have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and have followed Baalim

See also:
Isaias 65:11-12, Ezekiel 8:18, Jeremias 2:13, Ezekiel 20:23-25, Jeremias 8:7-10, Jeremias 44:23, Baruch 2:10, Daniel 9:25-27, Osee 4:1-2, Osee 5:1-2, Amos 8:2, Amos 9:1, Malachias 2:8-12, and Psalms 68:22-29.

Those instances are a fraction of what is in the Old Testament. Then there is the judgment of Jesus in the New Testament. Jesus made their abrogation of the Mosaic Covenant quite clear in nearly 100 verses, most salient among them Mark 7:8-9 and John 5:45-47.

The Church has always taught that it is obedience that is rewarded, not defection from the Mosaic Covenenat and rejection of Jesus and the New Covenant.

I reiterate, it is a false charity to tell people that their gift is irrevocable without reminding them of the conditions upon that gift. They must be told the whole truth.

Anonymous said...

And how does one accomplish the evangelization if one conceals the means to salvation?

What kind of Pope goes into multiple synagogues and doesn't mention the Holy Name of Jesus even once? Is it love of Jesus or love of the Jews that prompts such a Pope to hide Him?

Believe, be baptized, and behave as Jesus commanded. That is what they must be told ---nicely, but they must be told.

Jordanes said...

Things that are unconditional cannot have any conditions attached, Al. Gifts that are irrevocable cannot be revoked. The material blessings of the Sinaitic covenant were conditional upon obedience, not the promises to the Fathers and the divine calling (which would be a form of Pelagian heresy). Also, the Jews did not abrogate the Old Covenant, God did when He fulfilled it and then ratified the New Covenant in the Blood of His Son. The Scriptures also reiterate God’s promise that He will never abandon Israel even if they abandon Him, and that He would again choose Israel, which is just what He did when He established the Holy Catholic Church.

Al said...

You're serious?

You are suggesting that Heaven awaits people who disobey God? that there is a racial back door to Heaven? It is not the calling that is conditional, but the gift.

You say, "the Jews did not abrogate the Old Covenant," but, as already cited, both the Old Testament and the New Testament contradict you. Jesus said "there is one that accuseth you, Moses" and "you void the commandments of God for the traditions of men."

You are completely upside down in claiming that God did not pronounce judgment that the Pharisees had abrogated the Mosaic Covenant. Read the Torah and you will quickly understand how utterly the Torah has nullified God's Law, the Ten Commandments, using pilpul, casuistry, "traditions of men."

It is not the calling that is conditional, but the gift. God continues to call them, but disobedience, rejection, and replacing God's Law with the traditions of the rabbis begets no gift.

There is no racial back door to Heaven.

Al said...

Your personal interpretation contradicts the infallible definitions of the Council of Florence.

Council of Florence: Ҥ 712 It [the Holy Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to Divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the Sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors....

“§714 The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire 'which was prepared for the devil, and his angels,' (Matthew 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, alms deeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” ---Cantate Domino, from the infallible ecumenical Council of Florence under His Holiness Pope Eugene IV defining the Solemn Doctrine: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, promulgated by papal bull, February 4, 1444 [Florentine calendar] in Denziger Enchiridion Symbolorum, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, § 712-714

To be clear:

Since the temple veil was rent, not even obedience to Mosaic Law is salvific.

For you to suggest that DISobedience is salvific, obtaining an unconditional gift of Heaven, is astonishing heresy.

Jordanes said...

You are suggesting that Heaven awaits people who disobey God?

All people disobey God, and Heaven awaits all people, until they repent.

that there is a racial back door to Heaven?

It is blazingly obvious that I am neither suggesting nor saying that there is a “racial back door to heaven.” There clearly isn’t.

It is not the calling that is conditional, but the gift.

And yet the gifts and calling and promises are still irrevocable. You also need to be more clear and precise, because many of God’s gifts to the Jews were not conditional.

You say, "the Jews did not abrogate the Old Covenant," but, as already cited, both the Old Testament and the New Testament contradict you.

You don’t know what the word “abrogate” means. The Jews violated the covenant, they disobeyed it, they broke it. They did not “abrogate” it. God did.

You are completely upside down in claiming that God did not pronounce judgment that the Pharisees had abrogated the Mosaic Covenant.

God pronounced judgment on them, but the Scriptures nowhere misuse the term “abrogate.”

Read the Torah and you will quickly understand how utterly the Torah has nullified God's Law, the Ten Commandments, using pilpul, casuistry, "traditions of men."

The Torah, which is divinely inspired, has nullified God’s Law? Please recant your heresy and blasphemy.

It is not the calling that is conditional, but the gift. God continues to call them, but disobedience, rejection, and replacing God's Law with the traditions of the rabbis begets no gift.

Well, at least that statement of yours is right, so far as it goes.

Jordanes said...

Since the temple veil was rent, not even obedience to Mosaic Law is salvific.

When was it ever salvific? And how does the Florentine decree contradict the things that St. Paul teaches?

For you to suggest that DISobedience is salvific, obtaining an unconditional gift of Heaven, is astonishing heresy.

Enough with your foolery, Al. When did I suggest that disobedience is salvific?