Rorate Caeli

Years of discussions

Amidst some well-known talking points, the interview granted by Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta to District magazine Iesus Christus (one of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre for the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X - FSSPX / SSPX in 1988 and whose excommunication was lifted by Pope Benedict XVI last January) included the following:

-What prospects do you see for the Fraternity of Saint Pius X in the future? An agreement with Rome? A canonical recognition?

-[Galarreta:] No, absolutely not, whether in the immediate or in the mediate future. We specifically exclude this possibility. We know that while there is no return to Tradition on the part of Rome, any practical or canonical agreement is incompatible with the public confession and defense of the faith, and would mean our death. In the best of cases, humanly speaking, we will have several years of discussions.

Source: Iesus Christus, monthly of the SSPX District of South America, via Radio Cristiandad Blog (whole interview in Spanish).

88 comments:

Anonymous said...

Tragic!

The FSSPX is heading along the path of sectarianism and real schism.

Anonymous said...

Great. The quietest one among them makes the most provocative comment.

Jordanes said...

I’m not sure his was the “most” provocative comment, but in any case it seems pretty realistic to me. The disagreements between the SSPX and the Catholic Church are serious and not likely to be resolved in just a year or two.

Peter said...

Humanly speaking... but we have the Rosary Crusade and the Blessed Virgin's intercession!

Just a year ago the SSPX refused to abandon its positions, after the weird ultimatum of cardinal Hoyos, and so they have - the excommunications lifted!

When the Ecclesia Dei institutes are neutered, only the firm attitude of the Fraternity can bring Rome back to Tradition and, by God's grace, it will.

Have the faith, have hope, have courage!

Anonymous said...

The Vatican 2 "Springtime" Church is withering badly, what with Weakland outing himself, school closings, parish closings, decreased Mass schedules, seminaries as wastelands, the USCCB embracing "climate change" on and on and on....

H.E. de la Galaretta is SPOT ON. Rome is selling out to the NWO and that darn SSPX is such a pain, you know?

I personally hope the "discussions" take a HUNDRED years....

Anonymous said...

"We know that while there is no return to Tradition on the part of Rome, any practical or canonical agreement is incompatible with the public confession and defense of the faith..."
********************

So, those traditional communities in communion with the Holy See with a canonical mission are really "imcompatible" with the faith? What an astonishing statement! Must one now be cut off from the Pope in order to be a Catholic and defend the faith? This is crazy talk.

schoolman

New Catholic said...

He means it is incompatible for them, at this moment; this certainly should not be construed as a criticism of anyone else.

Peter said...

Humanly speaking, msgr de Galarreta is not a member of SSPX authorities, and we have negotiations going on, so there are tricks being used. Also, somebody has to appease the hardliners inside the SSPX.

@Jordanes:
The SSPX is a vital part of the Catholic Church, therefore it's no opposition between her and the SSPX. The catholic teaching has not been changed in any way due to the fact, that Vaticanum II has not pronounced anything infallible. And the Holy Father knows that. SSPX knows that. But most bishops and the liberal media do not want to hear that. So it is just a matter of courage and prudent acts of the Holy Father to say that loud, endure liberal media attacks, and prevent schism of the liberal bishops. That's the real issue.

Take part in the Rosary Crusade. Pray for the triumph of the Immaculate Heart.

Anonymous said...

"He means it is incompatible for them..."
************

No, he makes no such qualification. It seems that "outside the SSPX" there is no true Catholicism, no true defense of the faith, etc. This is sad.

schoolman

Anonymous said...

The thing is, if they wait too long and the Church goes into utter collapse it will because people have abandoned it...Those same people will not turn around and prop it back up after Rome announces they were wrong and the SSPX is fully restored as well as tradition to the Catholic faith. It will be too late and the SSPX will sit there with their righteousness and pride knowing they were right all along and they will be preaching it on deaf ears cause it will be too late. If they care about the souls of the faithful they will look for a way back into the workings of the Church sooner rather than later and start to change things from within while there is still a flock to preach too. Don't allow the utter ruination only to call yourself a saviour..That would be selfish pride...Think about it...

Anonymous said...

- Then it is possible to be said that these conversations finally must “turn Rome”? Such desire does not seem to him a manifestation of pride? An illusion?

The expression “to turn Rome” is not the correct one. One is rather a return, of a reconversion. On the other hand it is God that can illuminate intelligences and move the hearts so that this return to the Tradition can be done of the Church. Pride would be if we, on the basis of own, new ideas, were elevated in judges of the doctrine of the Church. But one treats rather otherwise: to judge a series of new features in the light of which one was always believed and it lived in the Church. Then there is nonmagnificent fidelity there and. Pride is exactly the attitude of which they despised the education of two thousand years of Church on the basis of totally opposite personal and own judgments to the faith. Illusion? No. Because we do not go with false expectations, that is to say that we do not have a determined expectation. It seems to us that he is ours to have to give testimony of the catholic faith, to defend it and to condemn the opposite errors, but we do not know how much fruit is followed of these conversations.
We do not know if little, much or nothing. We do not know if as soon as begun the conversations is going away to regret, or if we will be able to continue them. We have obligation to do it, is ours to have, but it is God that bears the fruit… nothing, thirty percent, sixty, one hundred percent? God knows only it and will provide, but for God nothing is impossible.
If you read the ENTIRE interview, you will notice that it sounds rather appeasing, and msgr de Galarreta is definiteliy NOT saying that there's no salvation outside SSPX. Far from sectarianism and schismatic mind.

Jordanes said...

Just a year ago the SSPX refused to abandon its positions, after the weird ultimatum of cardinal Hoyos, and so they have - the excommunications lifted! *** I still can’t see how Cardinal Castrillon’s request that Bishop Fellay reaffirm good will and good faith could be much of an “ultimatum,” and anyway Cardinal Castrillon said Bishop Fellay did respond favorably, in a way that enabled matters to continue to proceed to the lifting of the excommunications.

The SSPX is a vital part of the Catholic Church, therefore it's no opposition between her and the SSPX. *** But the SSPX is not even recognised and approved by the Catholic Church, so there has to be some kind of opposition between them, and there are undoubtedly some pretty serious disagreements between them as well.

Iakovos said...

'Nuff said folks -- and recall this is a SSPX publication. There is no way to avoid this situation at the very least is one of a schismatic mentality, though I think this is splitting hairs at this point after so, so many years of nothing more than "deal breakers" masquerading as hope. Do not lose hope, however, either in the Pope of Rome or the Church -- there is peace to be found with our Eastern brethren whose orthodoxy and traditions who recognize the primacy of Peter, and more recently thanks to Vatican II, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI.

Peter said...

But the SSPX is not even recognised and approved by the Catholic Church, so there has to be some kind of opposition between them, and there are undoubtedly some pretty serious disagreements between them as well.But it was recognized and approved for the experimental period of 5 (or 6, it doesn't matter) years. Then it wasn't dissolved in a valid way, so it's canonical foundation has expired. So they're waiting for new canonical foundation while being in canonical vacuum. It happens, but maybe not often for so many years. Such was the case of the Institute of the Good Shepherd for about 2 years, and the Neocatechumenal Way for 40 (!!!!) years.
The disagreement is not between SSPX and the Catholich Church, the disagreement is between SSPX and certain fallible opinions of church pastors. Everything is going inside the Catholic Church. You don't have to be canonically regular to be in the Church.

becket said...

Well when you got clergy running around like the president of Notre Dame, Fr John Jenkins, who even Archbishops can't touch, hanging out with pro abortionists can you blame the SSPX and their positions. I can't!.

Me said...

How awful! I hope this is just gossip because that would be ridiculous. I've been attending for years growing up and now have a family of my own. This needs to be done already. How will we spread the beauty of tradition if we just stay hidden in our little corners. I was starting to have hope that my children would have more traditional catholic friends to grow up with because tradition would spread. We really need to pray. I don't know what else we could do? There aren't many church options in my town.

New Catholic said...

20:44 anonymous:

I agree with you: it is a very appeasing interview (and very interesting in the last answers, which deal with vocations and seminarians).

I believe that the key words are: "humanly speaking". Humanly speaking, Cardinal Ratzinger would be writing books and resting in Regensburg at this moment; God had other plans.

NC

Jordanes said...

The disagreement is not between SSPX and the Catholich Church, the disagreement is between SSPX and certain fallible opinions of church pastors. Everything is going inside the Catholic Church. You don't have to be canonically regular to be in the Church. *** The SSPX bishops and priests are not in formal schism, and so they are in the church, but until the SSPX is regularised there is no community called the SSPX in the Catholic Church. Also, whether or not the disputed teachings of Vatican II are fallible (even if fallible, they’re obviously rather more than mere “fallible opinions”), the fact remains that those church pastors you refer to are the Catholic Church’s pastors, and practically speaking as well as sacramentally they are the Church. It’s not just “church pastors” and their fallible opinions with which the SSPX disagrees, but it’s the pope and all the bishops who teach in unity with him. The disagreements are serious and real, and can’t be waved away with claims that the SSPX doesn’t disagree with the Church. The only Catholic Church that exists on this planet clearly does have disagreements with the SSPX that she hopes to resolve. Else what would be the point of doctrinal talks?

David A. Werling said...

Jordanes, the clergy of the SSPX are Catholics.

The simple truth is that the Catholic Church is divided. This is the Wintertime of Vatican II.

Anonymous said...

As much as I pray for full communion with Rome for the SSPX, this is understandable. You'd have to suspend disbelief to think that this is the Church of our fathers. Rome needs to move towards tradition -- bottom line.

Anonymous said...

Pope will make his turn, as Peter did, but he needs our heroic sacrifices, prayars as Bishop Fellay asked:

What did our Lady say at La Salette, and for that reason She shed her tears?

She said, Rome will darken... all authority, secular and church athority W-I-L-L disappear.
Only Faith shall be the light of and be the guide for the faithful.
The Book of Revelation speaks of 2 prophets whom God will raise and be given the power to preach penance for which they shall be killed, but will on the third day be raised while the whole world will be looking on. Where would the witness of the papacy be? Should not the successor of Peter be a "witness for Christ and the true faith"? St Paul to the Thessalonians wrote a prophetic explanation, "when the restrainer will be removed, the anti-Christ will appear." for ages the speculation was about who that restrainer would be. It appears now clear, the restraning power was given to Peter, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it",
but of Peter gives up the true faith, the restrainer is not longer has the power to safeguard the flock, God takes over and shall Himself march and defeat the enemy. Our Lady did not speak of conditions. The faith weakened is no longer has the power to withstand the enemy.
when Pope Benedict speaks of the necessity to witness Christ to all peoples as only supernatural, he sounds to say, that is beyond my power. Did he give up having God's supernatural assistance? Why is he so slow and reluctant to proclaim Cbrist to the Jews and the Muslims?

You must recall Archbishop Lefebvre's spoken conclusion to which he arrived only after many years of reluctance and only hearing Cardinal Ratzinger's words when it dawned on the faithful Archbishop: "THEY HAVE LOST THE FAITH". then and only then, as he said the sign I was asking for from Heaven was given to me, and then he knew he had no choice but ordain 4 bishop to save guard the continuation of the Faith. The pope with our prayers Mary will receive from God the grace of returning to the Full Faith, Tradition. Let us take up the call for the Rosary, and the Holy Father will be the "witness" for Christ once again.

Anonymous said...

Look at all the wild reaction on this blog. It is the anti-S.S.P.X bloggers here who are foolishly unrealistic and outright silly. First of all, "the quietest" of them has not made the most outlandish statement. Bishop Tissier de Mallerais has said publicly that the talks will take "at least thirty years" and that Rome "must convert to Catholicism". As for Bishop Williamson, just to name him covers his attitude.

Of the four, only Bishop Fellay has been making friendly noises to Rome. I am not in the least suggesting a rift among the bishops. But there are some small differences in how they express their views. But even Bishop Fellay has spoken of "necessary talks" on doctrine before which there can be no acceptance of any canonical structure.

I reiterate yet again, this Pope must choose between a unilateral inclusion of the Society or allowing this situation to continue well into the next pontificate and probably the one after that. If he leaves the situation as it stands, he leaves it in limbo. The other three Society bishops are making it crystal clear to Bishop Fellay that they will not tolerate any canonical regularisation until doctrinal issues have been resolved.

A letter I received this very day from the P.C.E.D., dated 16 May, 2009, reiterates (and quotes) the Pope's statement that "until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers--even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty--do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church".

So the position of Rome would seem to be that canonical status is not about to be granted and that nor are its ministers, therefore, about to be given any ministries in the Church.

It remains possible that the Holy See will publicly clarify the status of Society Masses to fulfil the Sunday obligation, if only to remove confusion and because information about this has been circulated widely after a letter from Msgr. Perl from 2002 was put on the Internet by its addressee (and that was not I!). So the most we can expect is that Rome might clarify the bit about the Sunday obligation.

For more, I think that we need to look elsewhere. There is good reason so suppose that Rome might make further provisions for the old Mass, particularly in light of Article 1 of S.P.: the old Mass "***must*** [emphasis mine] be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage". Where must this due honour be given? Look to Vatican II itself (Lumen Gentium) (among other pre-conciliar and therefore better places) for the answer: in every diocese (to the extent possible). Perhaps the Pope will name an Apostolic Delegate to see to it that this is done. Better yet would be the international particular church--the Campos writ large--for tradition. There is a rumour afoot that the clarification of S.P. which we have been waiting for will allow the P.C.E.D. to send priests to traditional-less dioceses 'di imperio'. This function might be transferred to an apostolic delegate when the rest of the P.C.E.D. is integrated into the C.D.F.

The Pope really must do something if he wants to be assured that we move forward on providing for the old Mass. I know the numbers better than almost anyone and I can tell bloggers here this: S.P. is moribund. The bishops have discovered that they can obstruct it simply by threatening to exile its celebrants to the parochial gulags of their dioceses.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

The problem here is once again the false premise that Rome has lost the faith. Of course, this is impossible...and the See of Peter can't defect.

schoolman

Anonymous said...

While I understand the Bishop's statement in _theory_, the practical application is hard to endure. There are many of us dying on the vine out here in liturgical wastelands, making due with scraps whenever we can get them.

The Church is about love, saving souls, and being a hospital for sinners. Even those barely hanging on could slip away in 30 years time. It seems a sin against charity ON BOTH SIDES to allow this matter to go on 30 years.

Anonymous said...

As long as the Pope does not make some real changes in the Church, reconciliation is chimerical. Benedict XVI has not changed the Conciliar Church one bit, because he is a defender of the Conciliar Church, not of the Tradional Church. Positions are irreconciliable.

Anonymous said...

"If they care about the souls of the faithful they will look for a way back into the workings of the Church sooner rather than later and start to change things from within while there is still a flock to preach too. Don't allow the utter ruination only to call yourself a saviour..That would be selfish pride...Think about it..."

This is just silly...there ARE groups working from the inside, remember? Or are you admitting that FSSP, the Institute of the Good Shepard, the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer are accomplishing little or nothing?
There are many who want the SSPX to 'sign on' NOW whether it is the right time or not...and that is pure impulsive selfishness and naivete on the part of neo-trads who are looking for nothing but a hasty compromise. So think about THAT.

Fool for Christ said...

the Pope's statement that "until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers--even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty--do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church".

As you can see on this blog of SSPX supporters, their logic is impeccable: since Rome/Pope does not follow Tradition, is better but yet still a Modernist Pope of the Council, they cannot be taken seriously until they recant and toe the line; therefore, such statements by the Holy Father (above in quotes) can be dismissed. As long as I can remember -- and that goes back to the late 70s -- it has always been thus with the SSPX. The logic, as I said, is impeccable -- and that's exactly the problem.

Anonymous said...

Jordans writes:

"I still can’t see how Cardinal Castrillon’s request that Bishop Fellay reaffirm good will and good faith could be much of an “ultimatum'."

It was an ultimatum because the Cardinal, at the time, demanded that they sign the five points of the agreement by a particular date. Bishop Fellay was called to a meeting in Rome about this and essentially calmed the waters. Then he wrote a response that was not equal to signing the five points, some of which he claimed carried ambiguous meaning.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Basicly the bishop's view is unless Pope Benedict turns the clock back to 1950 the SSPX will never regularize its situation.I dont think Bishop Fellay is drinking from that glass of cool aid.The SSPX is definitely headed for schism.

Anonymous said...

On Peter's and Jordanes's comments:

It is best to say that certain Vatican II teachings are non-infallible and not to say that they are fallible. That is, some of them might be infallible teachings but have not yet been declared as such. But, again, no *new* teachings are infallible except, perhaps, some which accord with tradition. They must accord with the previous teachings of the Church.

Frankly, again, I see no problem with the Society accepting the structure as proffered by Rome and doing so *before* the doctrinal discussions. Everything in Vatican II which is ambiguous will be clarified in time. Ultimately, it is only the Pope's Sacred Magisterium which can determine an infallible truth, whether with or without the co-operation of other parties. Our adherence to lesser teachings is not by a 'divine and Catholic' faith.

However, there is no point in reiterating this, I suppose. Better to pray that the Pope take action to remove this limbo situation.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

"Basicly the bishop's view is unless Pope Benedict turns the clock back to 1950 the SSPX will never regularize its situation.I dont think Bishop Fellay is drinking from that glass of cool aid.The SSPX is definitely headed for schism."

23 May, 2009 00:22

Who is really in 'schism' here? How can you be in 'schism' when all you do is practice the Catholic Faith in all of it's purity of doctrine and it's truths?

Anonymous said...

By saying Mass and other sacraments while suspended from their duties. They are disobeying their superiors, namely the Vicar of Christ, Pope Benedict, the successor of St. Peter.

They need to come in to Holy Mother Church and stop acting as if they are the Catholic Church. The more they prolong reconciliation and ignore the Pope, the closer they come to complete schism. They are not the Church. They are not the arbiter of what is Catholic and what is not.

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

I must say that these are very comforting words coming from the good Bishop.

Deo gratias!

Anonymous said...

P.K.T.P.

"Limbo? What Limbo, get with it man"

Anonymous said...

"They need to come in to Holy Mother Church and stop acting as if they are the Catholic Church. The more they prolong reconciliation and ignore the Pope, the closer they come to complete schism. They are not the Church. They are not the arbiter of what is Catholic and what is not."

It is people like you that purposely throw out intimidating accusations such as the SSPX is "acting as if they were the Church" that cause confusion of thought for many. How can those who practice the faith as has always been practiced be "acting" anything? That is a hollow argument. Holy Mother Church is in the firm grip of the modernists at this time...or haven't you noticed? A pope is a pope, but a pope can be a bad pope. We are not bound to obey bad popes. Unless of course you believe the pope is infallible.

Anonymous said...

I must say this is very bad news from this bishop.

Joe B said...

I'm not sure this is even about the disputed views of Vatican II. It's about fidelity with all of Catholic tradition in it's entirety, even down to the rejection of the smallest novelty. War between the liberal and traditional philosophies - it has been building since the Protestant Revolt. Vatican II just put clear separation between the two camps - except for the Holy Father, who shows a divided allegiance between the two! He appears to have a love of the novel expressions of Vatican II advocates while also clearly being drawn to the beauty of tradition.

It is Rome who is running out of time, not SSPX. Since SSPX practices the faith as it was passed down to them, they are healthy enough for their mission. They have plenty of devout priests, even schools, monasteries, convents, and lots of large Catholic families. Rome, on the other hand, is a two-headed monster disintegrating from anarchy and the insatiable and suicidal demands of liberalism. It just doesn't seem that the two heads, liberalism and tradition, can coexist much longer. The Holy Father has thus far refused to deal effectively with either camp, but he cannot continue to flirt with tradition while working day to day with the liberal faction, because liberal factions all around the world, political as well as religious, all fed by Satan, are becoming increasingly brazen. It seems to me that the new will soon demand the execution of the old. The Holy Father will have to recognize the true enemy, like it or not. He will then need SSPX, and I don't think Vatican II theology will much matter then.

Since SSPX knows how to effectively call on Our Lady for God's help, and since the Holy Father seems unable to do so, it seems all the more that they are actually working together even now, and just don't get credit for it.

So, it is possible that these discussions are going to be irrelevant, swept aside by larger hostilities even before they can become interesting.

And the opinions of this bishop mean nothing, same as mine.

Mark said...

I don't agree with Mr. Perkins on everything and often disapprove of his tone, but his clarity of thought is a welcome change on this thread.

Anonymous said...

...and the See of Peter can't defect.

True enough, but the humans who hold office can. We all know that provisions have been made for such cases. The problem no one can agree about the gravity of the situation.

Prodinoscopus said...

Canonical existence!

The University of Notre Dame has canonical existence. What a joke.

All of the major religious orders that have undergone revolutionary reform since Vatican II have canonical existence. Splendid!

The diocese of Linz, Austria has canonical existence, and that cesspool of heresy has departed the Faith years ago.

Canonical existence, indeed. What does it really mean in these extraordinary times?

Welcome to the state of emergency.

Chris said...

This is a time of a great confusion in the Church and we are undergoing the greatest crisis in Church history.

There is going on, before our eyes, a clash of orthodoxies that have been battling for a century or more. There is a war between Thomistic thought and the constant teachings of Popes and Councils versus the "New Theology" given official life in the Church under Vatican II. The ideas underlying Vatican II are the same ones condemned repeatedly by previous Popes of our century.

The leadership in the Church have ascribed to this "New Theology" and are de facto, running the ship as if the Church before 1960 did not exist.

Thankfully we are guaranteed by Our Lord that the extraordinary Magisterium and ordinary Magisterium (that taught always and everywhere by the Church) can never err. Unfortunately, the authentic Magisterium is not protected in error in this way unless it simply echoes the ordinary Magisterium.

This entire episode/ crisis in the Church is eventually going to have a clarification and a fruit to it. Just as Trent settled the Protestant crisis, a future Council or Extraordinary decree from the Pope will set down and clarify the limits on infallibility so misunderstood by Catholics since Vatican I.

The twin errors created from VCI were that either all Papal pronouncements were to be accepted without question or that only Extraordinarily defined teachings were to be accepted. This divided the Church into liberals like Hans Kung who say that Humanae Vitae is not infallible, and those blindly obedient to the Pope who support various novel teachings on ecumenism soundly condemned by Tradition.

The result of this crisis will be a true understanding of authority and obedience and that they both serve the Faith and not the other way around.

Until Rome and the Society can agree on fundamental truths of the Faith and agree that many current Vatican policies contradict the faith, why should they make a canonical agreement? Why live a lie? A surface level canonical agreement is exactly the sort of ecumenism the Society has been fighting all of its existence. It gets nowhere and leads to linguistic compromises and a sweeping under the rug of real differences.

If one truly understands the crisis the only real answer is this Pope or a future Pope reversing course on the novelties of the past 50 years and steering the Barque back towards the Faith.

If one does not have eyes to see the crisis, then it simply seems that the Society is being obstinate for no good reason.

Let us pray for the restoration!

Anonymous said...

I think Rome should concern themselves with the Father jenkins of Notre Dame and his ilk who are far worst than anything the SSPX does. How can you be so critical of the SSPX being wary when they continually along with the rest of us see pro-abortion politicians recieve communion and honored by Catholic priests. Get their own act together before they worry about the SSPX.

Jay said...

"the clergy of the SSPX are Catholics."

Well, when you talk to the Anglican - he will tell you - we are Catholics!!

It is not that simple - Catholicism has only one option - Roman Catholicism. It is great the excommunication was lifted - but we wait for regularisation.

Oliver said...

Hard to say. Keeping the troops happy while they say their innumerable rosaries? A show of independence by another SSPX bishop to steady Fellay's wobbles? Mind you, reading daily accounts of what passes for Catholicism in the world is enough to send a serious trad into a very long retreat!

Londiniensis said...

Unless among the pseudonyms hide members of the Curia or of the SSPX leadership, all we can do is watch and pray, with the emphasis on the latter.

The Church needs the SSPX, but a vigorous, holy and rational SSPX grounded in reality, not a skansen of 1950s religiosity and naïve theologising.

Anonymous said...

Adeodatus writes that that S.S.P.X denies papal infallibility. That is rubbish. It does nothing of the sort. Look, the S.S.P.X has a perfectly plausible position. The question of whether or not there really is a state of necessity is a matter of judgement. And as long as a particular Society member is honest in his judgement, he is a good Catholic and in good standing with the Church, even if he be mistaken.

In contrast, those who deny tenets of the faith are the only traitors to Jesus Christ. The Pope has the duty to protect the flock from such vipers as the infamous Fr. Raymond Gravel of Montreal. Here is a former male prostitute who became a priest and, since then, has worked to keep abortion and inverted marriage lawful--and defended these evils right on television. So why does't the Pope sack him? Faithful are leaving the Church because of scandals like this. After a time, even the Pope betrays his charge if he does not remove the likes of Gravel, just as St. Peter denied Christ Himself. It can happen. To be fair about it, however, I note that only one prelate went after Gravel went he went wild, and that was a certain Cardinal Ratzinger. Unfortunately, he got elected Pope before he could remove this miscreant.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

The Holy Father wants to regularize the SSPX because they are Catholic. Similarly, he hopes to reform the Liberal wing because they are defacto schismatics. He wants to save both not loose them. He has a very tough job.

Just think, the man is over eighty, fighting a battle that would exhaust a much younger person. Some of us are not helping with the constant carping.

The Boss upstairs is in charge. Relax! It is not going to be 30 years. If it does not happen in a year or less then it probably will never happen because the next Pope is going to be a Liberal without the SSPX in the Church as electors.

If the SSPX ordained a Bishop of Rome would he be a Pope, an anti-Pope?

Jordanes said...

It was an ultimatum because the Cardinal, at the time, demanded that they sign the five points of the agreement by a particular date.And yet as I read Cardinal Castrillon's communique of 4 June 2008, I see no "demands" at all, nor any request or instruction to "sign" anything. The communique is titled, "Conditions which result from the meeting of June 4, 2008, between Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos and Bishop Bernard Fellay," and the fifth and final condition was:

"to respect the date - fixed for the end of the month of June - to respond positively. This shall be a condition necessary and required as an immediate preparation for adhesion to accomplish full communion."

Okay, I guess that could be called an "ultimatum," and it's how Bishop Fellay perceived it, but it doesn't seem like much of one. I guess in one sense any RSVP could be an ultimatum, though clearly Cardinal Castrillon's words are a good deal more than an RSVP. It's a call for a positive response (whether in writing or verbally) by the end of June. For whatewver reason, Cardinal Castrillon was trying to expedite matters, it seems.

Bishop Fellay was called to a meeting in Rome about this and essentially calmed the waters. Then he wrote a response that was not equal to signing the five points, some of which he claimed carried ambiguous meaning.Well, he signaled his agreement with some at least of the conditions, Cardinal Castrillon indicated he was satisfied with Bishop Fellay's response. Since then it would appear from things Bishop Fellay has said and done that he in good faith continues to adhere to those conditions, at least insofar as his conscience permits. Following June last year we've seen a number of encouraging, positive comments and actions on both sides, so the atmosphere apparently improved after the leaking of the 4 June 2008 communique.

Brian said...

Prodinoscopus, excellent points.

Archbishop Weakland's antics and the recent pro-Obama articles in L’Osservatore Romano also provide recent reminders of the state of emergency in the Church.

Ottaviani said...

"the clergy of the SSPX are Catholics."

Well, when you talk to the Anglican - he will tell you - we are Catholics!!
Jay - you know this example is untenable because Anglicans reject primary doctrines of the church, whereas the SSPX does not reject anything doctrinal that is within the magesterium of the church. If that were so, then the SSPX issue would come under the Cardinal Kasper, (sadly) head of the of affairs for ecumenism.

Anonymous said...

Well, my friends, this is politic. They are going to be regularized before end of the year. Make bets!

Prodinoscopus said...

As far as I can tell, the SSPX do not see themselves as "the Church". They see themselves as being FAITHFUL to the Church, where others have abandoned her or left her exposed to the enemy. They see themselves as a faithful remnant, where others have run away, made compromises, or attacked from within. The accusation that the SSPX have set themselves up as "the Church" strikes me as a hateful calumny, especially when one observes the hateful tone adopted by certain anti-SSPX people who comment here.

That said, I know from experience that there are people of good will who disagree with the SSPX position. Pray that more of that good might be exhibited in this forum.

Prodinoscopus said...

Let us put Bishop Galarreta's remarks into context. On the plane to Jordan en route to the Holy Land last week, Pope Benedict XVI explained his view of the future of "dialogue" between the Church and the Jews:

The important thing is that we really do have the same roots, the same books of the Old Testament, a Book which – both for the Jews and for us – conveys Revelation. Yet of course, after two thousand years of distinct, not to say separate, histories, it is no wonder if misunderstandings arise, because very different traditions of interpretation, language and thought have been formed, there is so to speak a very different “semantic cosmos”, such that the same words used in the two traditions mean different things; and with this use of words that, in the course of history have acquired different meanings, misunderstandings obviously arise. We must each do all we can to learn the language of the other, and it seems to me that we are making great progress here. Today it is possible for young people, future teachers of theology, to study in Jerusalem, at the Hebrew University, and Jews have academic contacts with us: thus an encounter is taking place between one “semantic cosmos” and the other. Let us learn from one another and let us go forward along the path of true dialogue, let us each learn from the other, and I am sure and convinced that we will make progress. And this will also help peace, indeed it will help mutual love.Can it be any more plain that the Pope's understanding of inter-religious dialogue (how I have come to loathe that term) has nothing -- NOTHING -- to do with conversion? It's all a question of semantics, not reality. The goal is to "learn from one another"; the mission to the Jews is replaced by a call to Catholics to learn the "language" of the Rabbis who hate Christ.

What rubbish. Bishop Galarreta is spot on.

Adeodatus said...

@PKTP:

I don't know why villains like Gravel haven't been removed. I'd rather be short one priest (or a thousand) than to allow such rank treason to be inflicted upon the faithful. I'm also well aware that I come from the Joe Stalin school of human resource management.

In my own dim and simple-minded view, you would get more people interested in the priesthood if you showed how meaningful it is by crushing those who abuse their privileges. I believe that the priesthood is something heroic and manly; how then can blatant misdeeds be tolerated?

On the other hand, because I'm not an upstart I wouldn't presume to dictate to His Holiness about how to put things in order. I assume that his methodology is calculated and subtle, because he is obviously a rigorous and subtle man. Maybe he's being careful about uprooting weeds for the sake of good plants. But just because the substance of his plan isn't "Take us to DefCon 1" (my type of plan) doesn't mean I'm going to assume that he's soft on evil.

Anonymous said...

I believe that the SSPX have remained faithful to what the Catholic Church was before the II Vatican Council, because even though the Vatican emphatically tries to defend that the Church did not change with the II Vatican Council, the thruth is that it did, not only in its liturgy but also in the ethos of the Church. And the existence of the SSPX is a testimony to what the Church was before the II Vatican Council. The Vatican would like to silence the SSPX so that the lie of the unchanging Church would remain, but thruth cannot be hidden. In fact the policy of ecumenism was a very clever policy of the Vatican to silence the most crude criticisms against the Catholic Church, and they have succeded, in a way. What would happen if the mainstream protestants would continue to call the Catholic Church the Whore of Babylon.

Lhd said...

We must take into account that the "doctrinal discussions" are determined to "declare" if the conciliar novelties are to be obeyed and the mesure of this obedience. But not with "ex nunc" (to the future) effects. Then, is illogic from the part of Rome to force the SSPX to obey this novelties while on the course of the discussions, and from the part of the SSPX, not to accept a canonical status if it is imposed upon them.

alban said...

As to the regularisation and the celebration of the sacraments mentioned by some on this thread:

Canons 966.1 and 1108-1111 require not only the sacramental power, but ecclesiastical faculty for marriage and confessions to be valid (unless the latter is in danger of death). As the SSPX clergy do not possess such faculties, canon law regards them as being incapable of validly administering marriages and confessions.

Jay (23 May, 2009 07:46) wrote:

"It is not that simple - Catholicism has only one option - Roman Catholicism."

Sorry Jay, but you are incorrect. The Catholic Church encompasses not only Latin (Roman) Catholicism, but over 20 Eastern and Coptic churches in union with the Bishop of Rome. (Check out "Eastern Catholics" on wikipedia for fuller information.) I'm sure people don't mean it, but it's erronious to equate Catholicism with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Catholics are offended by this perceived insensitivity on the part of our Latin brothers and sisters.

Anonymous said...

On Prodinoscopus's statement:

I agree. Society spokesmen have periodically reiterated that the S.S.P.X does not claim to be the Church, and that it recognises that there are good faithful who are not affiliated with the S.S.P.X. The Society does not claim jurisdiction for any of its bishops. They are bishops in the Sacramental sense only. None of them claims to be a diocesan bishop, as, for example, Bishop of Joliette or Archbishop of Milwaukee--or Bishop of Rome.

As we all know, Gilles Lussier, who protects 'Fr. Gravel, is the only one to claim to be Bishop of Joliette. What a good Catholic!

As we all know, it was Rembert Weakland who claimed to be Archbishop of Milwaukee. What a good Catholic!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Nothing new under the sun.
This was said ad nauseam before : Bp Tissier de Mallerais said 30 years in Summer 2008.

And at "human sight" indeed, the Fr. Jenkins-pro abortion Church has canonical existence, GermChurch Leader, abp Zoellitsch, is spreading heresies without being admonished etc.
So yes the talks between Roman delegates and SSPX delegates could take some years. That seems obvious.

However the statement, rather moderate indeed in tone, from Bp de Galarreta means that the SSPX is still committed to these talks and ready to start.
I feel that is the one and only "message" here.

I still notice on the other hand :
1. we have still nothing published from Rome re. these talks, apart from a vague interview of cardinal Levada
2. we are still waiting for the papal decree implementing the changes announced in the papal Letter of March 10.
I know that the pace of the Benedictine Rome is very, very slow but nevertheless that should be our only concern.

Alsaticus

Anonymous said...

Prodinoscopous,

You omitted to mention the SSPX supporters who adopt a hateful tone ( or even a condescending tone, a tone that says we are the better catholics, the true catholics, the purer catholics etc) towards mainsteam catholics, or even the pope. It would be unfair not to mention some of the more extreme sspx views, which has probably contributed to this 'hateful tone from the anti-sspx people' that you speak of.

Jordanes said...

If the SSPX ordained a Bishop of Rome would he be a Pope, an anti-Pope? *** If the SSPX were to choose a pope under the current circumstances, yes, it would be another modern antipope. But that's just not going to happen -- a lot would have to change about the SSPX before they would ever make such a definitive break with the Church.

Jordanes said...

As we all know, it was Rembert Weakland who claimed to be Archbishop of Milwaukee. *** If only he'd merely claimed to be Archbishop of Milwaukee, that archdiocese and the Church as whole would be immeasurably better off.

Prodinoscopus said...

Wonder of wonders, Archbishop Weakland had canonical existence while despoiling his flock! Thus he is "in" the Church and the SSPX is "out".

What utter nonsense.

Anonymous said...

Anon 22:02 (cool time stamp- it is a sign :), wrote:

"What did our Lady say at La Salette, and for that reason She shed her tears?"

Your comment is very interesting. I would like to hear from you on how you deal with the controversy surrounding La Salette.

I am a confused Catholic on La Salette. I have read about there being phony documents - both approved and unapproved, Melanie discredited, V2 interpretation saying there is no warning, etc.

If you could touch on the main points and include some references with citation or links that would be very helpful. Thanks.

Anon Anon

Jordanes said...

Weakland is a real person, the SSPX only a juridic person, that is, a person in a manner of speaking. It's the members of the SSPX who are in the Church, apart from the canonical status of the fraternity. As for Weakland's status, given his apparent impenitence and adherence to false moral doctrines (based on his most recent published statements this year), it seems pretty likely that he's not at this time fit to receive Holy Communion, and thus could not be fully incorporated into Christ's Mystical Body. I pray he refrains from receiving Our Lord lest he eat and drink his own damnation.

Mark said...

Can someone explain to me the refusal by so many people to use a login?

Following the communication is extremely difficult with so many people refusing to identify themselves.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"If it does not happen in a year or less then it probably will never happen because the next Pope is going to be a Liberal..."

We don't know that, do we?

God is more powerful than the Liberals.

Anonymous said...

EXTRACTS FROM A FIDELITER INTERVIEW WITH ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE, END OF 1990, A FEW MONTHS BEFORE HIS DEATH

..........................

FIDELITER: Rather than a question of the liturgy, you often say, it is now a question of Faith which stands between us and present-day Rome.

ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE: Certainly the question of the liturgy and sacraments is very important but it is not what is most important. What is most important is the question of the Faith. As far as we are concerned the question is settled. We have the Faith of all time, of the Council of Trent, of the Catechism of St Pius X, of all the Councils and of all the Popes prior to Vatican II.

For years they have striven in Rome to show that everything that was in the Council was perfectly in conformity with Tradition. Now they are taking off the mask. Cardinal Ratzinger had never stated his mind with such clarity. There is no Tradition. there is no longer any Deposit of Faith to transmit. Tradition is what the Pope today says it is. You must submit to what the Pope and the Bishops today say. For them that is what tradition is, their famous "living tradition", the only reason for our being condemned.

Now they are no longer seeking to prove that what they say is in conformity with what Pius IX wrote, with what the Council of Trent promulgated. No, that is all over, that is out of date as Cardinal Ratzinger says. It is clear, and they might have said so sooner. It is not worth their getting us into talks and discussions with them. Now we have the tyranny of authority because there is no rule. there can no longer be any reference to the past.

In one sense the situation is becoming clearer. It is more and more proving that we are right. We are dealing with people who have a different philosophy from ours, a different way of seeing things, who are influenced by all the modern subjectivist philosophers. For them there is no fixed trueth, there is no dogma. Everything is in evolution. That is a wholly Masonic way of thinking. It is truly the destruction of the Faith. Fortunately, we ourselves are continuing to lean on Tradition!

FIDELITER: Yes, but you are alone against the world.

ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE: Yes, that is a great mystery

........................................

FIDELITER: What can you say to those amongst the faithful who are still hoping in the possibility of some agreement with Rome?

ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE: The Catholics who are truly with us, those who have understood the problems and who correspondingly have helped us to keep the straight and firm line of Tradition and the Faith, were afraid of the steps I undertook at Rome. They told me that it was dangerous and that I was wasting my time. Yes, of course, I hoped up to the last minute that at Rome they would show a little honesty. I cannot be reproached for not having done the utmost to achieve a reconciliation. And so now to those who come and tell me that I must come to an understanding with Rome, I think I may say that I went further even than I should have gone.

Paul Archibold said...

Perkins writes:

I agree. Society spokesmen have periodically reiterated that the S.S.P.X does not claim to be the Church, and that it recognises that there are good faithful who are not affiliated with the S.S.P.X. The Society does not claim jurisdiction for any of its bishops. They are bishops in the Sacramental sense only. None of them claims to be a diocesan bishop, as, for example, Bishop of Joliette or Archbishop of Milwaukee--or Bishop of Rome.Though they may not say so explicitly in official communications, practically-speaking jurisdiction exists for SSPX adherents.

You've never been to an SSPX chapel. If you do you'll find that priests and laity commonly refer to SSPX chapels as 'parishes' and regular-attendees as 'parishoners' in sermons and in conversation.

And of course within the church buildings, schools, seminaries and religious houses that they have permanently set up in various locals, people are encouraged to attend SSPX Mass centres and altogether avoid diocesan-affiliated churches.

This is practical jurisdiction and constitutes a parallel jurisdictional structure. Just because they don't say so explicitly is a mere technicality.

LeonG said...

"The FSSPX is heading along the path of sectarianism and real schism."

This is the genre of ill-informed remark that demonstrates what little "anonymous" has comprehended. Better to say nothing than make such a poorly-considered comment.

The bishop is commendably realistic about what will take place and the situation is clearly mutually understood: both SSPX and Rome have embarked on a long careful process. It needs patience and plenty of discussion. The former virtue will irritate many who want push-button decisions. In the meantime, the Holy Mass in Latin is no longer under the mistaken notion of being abrogated because it never was. The SSPX bishops are no longer excommunicated. This gives equal grounds for all parties concerned to do what is imperatively necessary.

The future of Sacred Tradition demands an appropriate outcome.

Adeodatus said...

Interesting that my first comment was approved, commented on by others, and then deleted.

I wonder why people here are so afraid of straight talk? I guess if I wore lace and took cheap shots at Benedict XVI it would be alright?

New Catholic said...

Please, dear Adeodatus, read anew the Epistle for today's Mass. That is our only policy here.

Alas, we commit lots of mistakes as moderators, but God knows we mean well.

Anonymous said...

Archbold writes first:

"You've never been to an SSPX chapel. If you do you'll find that priests and laity commonly refer to SSPX chapels as 'parishes' and regular-attendees as 'parishoners' in sermons and in conversation."


Irrelevant. Most faithful don't seem to realise the distinction, for example, between a church and a parish. Few think of the latter as a juridical structure; they think of it as a building. I've had to point out the distinction to well-meaning *non*-S.S.P.X people countless times. How laity miuse terms is irrelevant. The question is whether or not the clergy and laity recognise the jurisdicition of the Pope and the local bishops. They do so because (a) they say so and because (b) they pray for both in each and every Mass.


Then we get this:

"And of course within the church buildings, schools, seminaries and religious houses that they have permanently set up in various locals, people are encouraged to attend SSPX Mass centres and altogether avoid diocesan-affiliated churches."


Irrelevant once again. It is possible to recognise the legitimate authority of a parish and yet advise people to avoid it owing to the misdeeds perpetrated there. I know of parishes in which the Masses are not only illicit (I'm thinking of a certain Franciscan who composes his own Eucharistic Prayer for each Mass) but even invalid. Would you like me to name one in my area? The Eucharist there is little cakes. Yummy. But not the Body of Christ.

Then Archbold ends on a weak note and misses a strong argument:

"This is practical jurisdiction and constitutes a parallel jurisdictional structure. Just because they don't say so explicitly is a mere technicality."

That argument might be true if it were the case that they declared the legitimate structures to be illegitimate or even said nothing about them. But they do the very opposite.

A smarter neo-con argument would be that there is a practical schism since they exercise jurisdiction in marriage tribunals: they claim legal judgements. There is an answer to that but I'll leave it for now. No point in mentioning it when the Rome herself proclaims that, while the 1988 consecrations were a schismatic act, they were not one sufficient to create a schism. That is what the P.C.E.D. has said. It's not me saying it.

Sure, separation from Rome risks gradually falling into schism by imbibing a schismatic attitude, but then, so does regular attendance at a N.O. Mass in which every rubric ever written in frequently violated. The real question is how much of NewChurch is already in Mr. Archbold's 'practical schism'. Judging from statements from Cardinal Mahony, Archbishop Zöllitsch, Bishop De Roo (Sir 'Mass is only a Meal') and the infamous 'Fr.' Gravel--oh, and good old pink Rembert, I'd say that half of them are out of communion gnashing their teeth in the darkness of liberal heresy and schism.

P.K.T.P.

John McFarland said...

"An agreement with Rome? A canonical recognition?" is referring to a deal before the dogmatic discussions. That is what His Excellency is rejecting out of hand, and that rejection is the settled policy of the SSPX. Barely a month goes by in which Bishop Fellay doesn't say it publicly, yet another time, at least once.

For those of you interested in understanding better what the SSPX understands itself to be about, I'd suggest your getting hold of the May 2009 Angelus. I don't know if the print version is out yet, but you could also get a year's online subscription for fifteen bucks, which would get you a lot of back numbers for good measure.

I would suggest in particular the critique in one of the articles of the "deal first" thinking of which Mr. Perkins is a notable proponent.

Anonymous said...

People choose anon because it is the easiest way to post..The other choices bounce you out if not entered correctly or asks "url" information..For someone like me who knows little about computers anon worked for me where the others confused me..Ignorant with tech, maybe you got me, but no intention to mislead of people not to follow..Signed Mitch, does that help? BTW I pray this will be wound up during ths Pontificate. The next may not be as humbled..

karyn said...

Without the SSPX, the indult won't even exist. Think about it before you criticise this holy society of priests.

karyn said...

Let me get this straight: the various bishops who ignore and hotly criticise the Pope's Motu Propio and continue to treat Traditionalists as pariahs (despite a large enough demand for the Traditional Mass within their dioceses and the availability of priests who can say the Mass) are considered Catholic. The SSPX however in remaining faithful to tradition and in requesting a series of theological dialouges with Rome are however thought of as "excommunicated" and "schismatic"... What is going on here?

Mark said...

People choose anon because it is the easiest way to post..The other choices bounce you out if not entered correctly or asks "url" information..For someone like me who knows little about computers anon worked for me where the others confused me..Ignorant with tech, maybe you got me, but no intention to mislead of people not to follow..Signed Mitch, does that help?It's very easy to sign up for a google or blogger account (just click onthe link under the 'choose an identity' section when you're commenting, go to google and use your current email address and pw to create an account), and it will allow you to post under a name very easily. It makes dialogue much easier.

P.S. I have more trouble with that darned word verification than I do anything else...

Dan Hunter said...

Meanwhile I and many others continue to be unable to go to confession to FSSPX priests even though in many places they are the only, and I mean ONLY priests that use the correct form of absolution.

How does one recieve absolution from mortal sins if every NO priest he goes to completely alters the words of absolution.

But they have faculties and the FSSPX do not.

It defies logic.
But I suppose the area of jurisdiction is not located in a rational neighborhood.

Please Holy Father, unilaterally grant the FSSPX, at least, temporary faculties!

Jordanes said...

Without the SSPX, the indult won't even exist. *** Whether or not that's true (even if it is, the credit is not solely to the fraternity), there isn't any "indult" any more. Summorum Pontificum supersedes the prior laws in which celebrating the traditional Roman Rite required an indult. Every qualified priest in the Roman Rite has the right to celebrate the traditional sacraments without needing an indult from his bishop or the pope.

Jordanes said...

How does one recieve absolution from mortal sins if every NO priest he goes to completely alters the words of absolution. *** What you describe is a dreadful offense. Have you spoken to these unfaithful priests and asked them to adhere to the Church's doctrine and law? If they've not repented, have you taken the matter to your bishop? And if he's not given you redress, have you brought the matter to the Holy See? It may be a lot of trouble preparing documentation of these offenses, but many souls are being harmed (not least the souls of the offending priests), and something has got to be done to stop this.

I pray you can find a good priest to whom you can confess your sins. If, however, there really isn't any other option available to you (driving to another diocese is probably not convenient or reasonable for you) and it's been a long time since you've been able to go to confession, "ecclesia supplet" would probably apply to your circumstances if you were to request absolution from an SSPX priest.

Anonymous said...

For all I know I may be in schism because I have been in opposition to what goes on in my parish. My Bishop supports the dissenters in opposing the Holy Father not those who try to be faithful. Is he in the Church?

I would venture to say that I am not alone like this. I do not mean to be but the alternative is to loose my Catholic identity completely.

Where does this leave me and other Catholics like me?

Anonymous said...

St Athanasius wrote: Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ. Louis

Mark said...

Anonymous (that posted 25 May 16:57):

You're not in schism for opposing heresy or scandal. St. Paul warned us that this would happen. (Acts 20:29)

My own solution is to frequent the chapels of the FSSPX. I know they are irregular, but I believe their intentions to be pure and the state they operate in to be unjust.

How can you go to a Priest who, by his own actions, implies or explicitly states that things you wish to confess are not truly sins? For years I did this, and eventually my wife refused after she was repeatedly told that she was being 'too hard' on herself and instead of receiving absolution, the Priest forced her to pray to let go of her 'scrupulosity'. My wife is a devout woman, but let me tell you, she is not overly scrupulous.

My friend Gerry Matatics (who is a sede, btw), compares our current situation to that of faithful Catholics during the English Reformation. By all appearances they had the sacraments, the clergy, etc., but they had lost the faith. The Martyrs refused to submit due to their errors.

We are very near that point now, if not already in the midst of it.

LeonG said...

"The simple truth is that the Catholic Church is divided. This is the Wintertime of Vatican II."

Who could disagree with Fr Paul Marx OSB when he said that the (Catholic) Church was in a state of chaos? That is exactly it - when you live and work overseas and travel around this is the most notable phenomenon - complete and utter disorder with a systemically flexible liturgy to match.

The traditional doctrinal and liturgical clarity that SSPX brings with it provokes unease in the neo-modernist mind. This characteristically prefers alleged "unity in diversity" and "cultural relativism" that creates the schismatic mentality which in its turn leads to manifest disobedience. This is why discussions with Rome are a long road because there has been a philosophical paradigm shift since the councils. It is this spirit which has disorientated The Church from militancy for Christ to compromise with the secular world. This is amply demonstrated everyday in the life of this neo-catholic church.

SSPX continue to embody what a traditional Catholic would expect of The Church in any age: order, self-discipline, certitude of Faith; clarity of teaching and the perfectly embodied Roman Catholic liturgy that carries with it the faith in all its magnificent splendour inextricably connected with its glorious past, the hopeful present and its redemptive future. The Confraternity propagates The Faith for which we make absolutely no apology since none is necessary.

Dan Hunter said...

"SSPX continue to embody what a traditional Catholic would expect of The Church in any age: order, self-discipline, certitude of Faith; clarity of teaching and the perfectly embodied Roman Catholic liturgy that carries with it the faith in all its magnificent splendour inextricably connected with its glorious past, the hopeful present and its redemptive future. The Confraternity propagates The Faith for which we make absolutely no apology since none is necessary."

LeonG:

I wish the Holy See would recognize this fact and grant the FSSPX, at least faculties to hear confessions and validate marriages as the lengthy doctrinal discussions are taking place.
Otherwise mortal sins cannot be forgiven outside of ignorance of the law or danger of death.

John McFarland said...

I am stupified that some of the contributors to this site still insist that the faithful can't resort to the fountains of living water unless and until they are given permission to do so by the proprietors of conciliarism's cracked cisterns, which hold no water.

This goes beyond servile obedience to something verging on blasphemy. Is the arm of the Lord our God shortened to the length of the arms of his (at best utterly confused, at worst perfidious) underlings?

Jordanes said...

I would think that a traditionalist would appreciate Catholics seeking to understand, apply, and abide by the Tradition of the Church, Mr. McFarland.

By the way, "conciliarism's cracked cisterns" may be neatly alliterative, but it's still an erroneous use of the proper term for a condemned heresy that does not apply to the Church's hierarchy post-Vatican II.