Rorate Caeli

IMPORTANT INTERVIEW
"Similar to Opus Dei?"
Schmidberger responds: "Somewhat."

Some ordinations of new priests by the Bishops of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) took place in the United States last Saturday. New ordinations are expected for next Saturday in Germany - despite the overreaction of several German ordinaries. Amidst the controversy, the German Catholic News Agency (KNA - Katholische Nachrichten-Agentur) interviewed the former Superior General of the SSPX and current Superior for the District of Germany, Father Franz Schmidberger (source: DomRadio):

The German Superior of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, Franz Schmidberger, has defended the ordination of new priests planned for the coming weekend. In an interview with the Catholic News Agency (KNA), Schmidberger also commented on his assessment of the Second Vatican Council and what he expects from further discussions with Rome.

KNA: Herr Schmidberger, are you a priest of the Catholic Church?

Schmidberger: Of course. I was ordained to the priesthood in 1975 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in Econe.

KNA: You say that without any qualifications?

Schmidberger: Yes. I live and work in the heart of the Church.

KNA: What does the Second Vatican Council mean to you?

Schmidberger: There is no doubt that it was an ecumenical council, but among the 21 councils it possesses a unique status as a pastoral council. Both popes of the council declared that they wished to define no new dogmas. Therefore, the Second Vatican Council does not have the same status as the other councils.

KNA: What about its content?

Schmidberger: The spirit of the council has been described as an evil spirit, even by Pope Benedict XVI. There are ambiguous statements in the documents, and many others that do not agree with traditional doctrine.

KNA: What should the theological dialogue between the society and Rome regarding the council look like?

Schmidberger: As far as the external form goes, it could be both oral or written, but primarily it should be written. We have selected representatives from our side and Rome also has chosen its people. The discussions will consider: what is ambiguous in the council? What contradicts the traditional doctrine of the Church?

KNA: Frankly, do you believe that the old and new rites can continue to coexist over the long term?

Schmidberger: Well, we will have to see how things develop. There are profound differences between the two rites; for example, the direction of the celebration. The old rite is God-centered. The new is man-centered. Many of the gestures, symbols, and rituals have been fundamentally changed. Today, the old rite is like a solid rock amidst the pounding surf, that must remain unchanged. The new rite requires radical reworking so that the sacrificial nature is once again explicitly expressed.

KNA: What does the Society think of the Council's Decree on Ecumenism [Unitatis Redintegratio]?

Schmidberger: It says that other [Christian] denominations are means of salvation. If that is true, then there is no longer any point in engaging in missionary activity. That needs to be cleared up.

KNA: What about Nostra Aetate, which concerns the relationship with the Jews?

Schmidberger: Not only the Jews, it also concerns Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. These non-Christian religions are heaped with praise. This has encouraged the expansion of Islam, for example. Today there are 4.3 million Muslims in Germany. The Church has a mandate to work for their conversion, but I do not know of a single German bishop who has made any plans to do so. As far as the relationship with the Jews goes, the statements of the Council cannot be criticized in their essence. But, since the Council, the idea keeps popping up that the Jews have their owns path to salvation. That is completely opposed to the missionary command of Jesus Christ.

KNA: And you also have problems with the description of the Jews by Pope John Paul II as the older brothers of Christians.

Schmidberger: Certainly Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the prophets are. But the Jews of today are not, because they do not recognize Jesus Christ as the one and only redeemer. How could they then be older brothers?

KNA: Is the impression correct, that you, with your positions, wish to set the price for unity with the Catholic Church.

Schmidberger: We want the truth to triumph. It has nothing to do with subjective opinions, it is all about the truth.

KNA: As you define it.

Schmidberger: No, we read all of the previous statements of the Councils and the popes. Pope Pius IX spoke out against religious freedom, for example. The question is: do these false religions possess natural rights? The Second Vatican Council answers differently than Pius IX. That is a rupture.

KNA: Canon law requires priests to submit to the local bishop. Why is that difficult for you?

Schmidberger: It isn't difficult at all. But we are our own society, that was even praised by Rome in 1971. Afterwards, we developed our own life. Then tensions developed because we refused to participate in the destructive protestantizing reforms. We have questions about the faith of the Church and the bishops only respond by demanding obediance. But faith is superior to obediance.

KNA: In connection with the Williamson scandal, Pope Benedict XVI accused the SSPX of arrogance and urged you to refrain from provocations. But the opposite has happened. How can you help to put the pieces back together?

Schmidberger: Naturally, every man has his weaknesses and unfortunate things have been said. But we want to live together peacefully. I have written a private personal letter to the chairman of the bishops conference, Archbishop Zollitsch, but the bishops are not willing to engage in discussions. They reject any dialogue with us. Why do they demand that we obey canon law to the letter while at the same time they assert that we are outside the Church?

KNA: In 2005 there was a conversation in Castel Gandofo, in which, in addition to the Pope, curial Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, and Traditionalist Bishop Bernard Fellay, you also took part. What was agreed at that time?

Schmidberger: We discussed the entire situation with the Society and agreed on the path which we are now following. The Motu Proprio of 2007 and the lifting of the so-called excommunications were the first steps. Now comes the theological dialogue. Next, we have to find a canonical structure for the Society with its 500 priests. We are satisfied with the solution that Rome is considering.

KNA: Which is?

Schmidberger: In the direction of a personal prelature.

KNA: Similar to Opus Dei?

Schmidberger: Somewhat.

KNA: More ordinations are planned for the coming weekend, although Rome has said that they are illict. Why do you insist on these ordinations?

Schmidberger: The supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls. The faithful have a right to the celebration of the traditional form of the Mass. The point is making priests who desire to proclaim the Gospel available. The ordinations are not meant to be an affront to anybody. They are actually being done to help the Pope and the bishops. But it like dealing with patients who do not see what medicine does for their health.

KNA: And so you claim the role of physician.

Schmidberger: Yes, that is true. Tradition is the only guide to bringing the Church out of the present crisis. In 1950, 13 million Catholics went to Sunday Mass. Now it is just under 2 million. That is a drop of 85 percent. In ten years, all of the Churches will be empty. Is that what the bishops want? What is going to happen to our children? It is about preserving Christianity in the West.
__________________
Translation: reader (adapted).

132 comments:

Iakovos said...

Same old, same old, pretty much. Back to the future circa 1980s - 90s. Plus Fr. Schimdtberger's manners haven't improved any. Read again his arrogant (public) swipes at the Pope of Rome, the Documents of the Council, and the Church in general.

Long-Skirts said...

"We want the truth to triumph."

THE
REAL
GOOD
NEWS

The Good News is…
In fear and joy
That apprentices are
Still altar boys.

And Tabernacles on
Sacrificial altar
Rebound the sounds
Of David’s Psalter.

The entire year
Our missals hold
Celebrating cerebrally
The new and the old.

Sarcophagus seasons
Of abstinence and fast
Absolves the flesh
Buries sins past.

And liturgy’s vernacular
Constantly feigned
Pales ‘fore Precambrian
Death’s Latin had reigned.

For truth nails eternal
In Catholicity
Through minutes of centuries’
Mediocrity.

Anonymous said...

A very interesting interview, especially regarding the possible offer of a Peronal Prelature. This is what PKTP has long advocated and hopefully will be at the very least what transpires in all due time. May God continue to bless the efforts of all those associated with bringing back TRADITION to Holy Mother Church and most especially those at the vanguard which is known by many as the SSPX! VIVA CHRISTO REY!!!

Anonymous said...

Great interview! At the very least I hope for a Personal Prelature for the SSPX. May God continue to bless the efforts of all those associated with keeping Tradition alive within Holy Mother Church, especially those at the forefront, namely the SSPX! VIVA CHRISTO REY!!! T Massett

Anonymous said...

Fr. Schmidberger, and by extension the SSPX is 100% right.

The "Spirit of Vatican II" bishops are 100% wrong.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

If I am not mistaken, PKTP advocates a worldwide Apostolic Administration, not a Personal Prelature, which would still ultimately subject SSPX to the control of the local bishops.

bedwere said...

Mr. Perkins will correct me if I'm wrong, but he has been advocateing an Apostolic Administration, with its own Bishop and free to operate everywhere, not a Personal Prelature. But maybe there is hope in the "Somewhat".

Anonymous said...

Mr. Palad is exactly right!

However, I am relieved at the statement because Schidberger is saying that it is definitely NOT A personal prelature but only somewhat like one! Thank God! Alleluia! May the Lord be praised! It is not a personal prelature! Therefore, disaster has been averted!

It is true that the correct solution, the one which HAS been offered to the S.S.P.X according to Bishop Fellay, is 'somewhat' like the personal prelature structure. It is like it insofar that both can be international in scope and that both are autonomous from the local bishops in terms of governance. In those ways, they are alike.

But the differences are also important. For example, the apostolic administration is equivalent in law to a dioceses. Therefore,

a. It does not require the permission of the local bishop to establish apostolates in his territory and

b. It includes lay subjects, just like any diocese. The lay subjects are those within its international territory who are registered in it. The laity need to be included! They share with their clerics attachment to the previous Latin liturgical discipline. It is their character!

There are other advantanges of the 'ritual apostolic administration', as I call it. It is the Campos structure except that it would embrace the whole world.

If S. is saying that the offer is only "somewhat like" the p.p., then it is not the p.p. Thank the good Lord for that. A personal prelature would leave lay Society supporters as subjects of the local bishops (for Baptism and Marriage, for example) and could be excluded from territory by the local bishop. That's why the Prelature of the Holy Cross (for the Opus Dei priests) has been impeded in most U.S. dioceses.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Like a thunderbolt!

It is high time some real criticism of the post-conciliar hierarchy was heard in the mainstream Catholic press! Schmidtberger was not disrespectful or insulting. He is stating facts people.

Joseph

Prodinoscopus said...

Lakovos, you didn't read the interview very closely. There are a number of surprises in Fr. Schmidberger's answers:

1. He suggests that the New Mass needs some "radical re-working". Reform of the reform???

2. 'As far as the relationship with the Jews goes, the statements of the council can't be criticized in their essentials.' Nostra Aetate says that the Jews should not be considered under a curse as if that follows from Scripture -- which is, of course, in direct opposition to Scripture. Fr. Schmidberger knows this, so his comment is a bit odd.

3. The biggest surprise: a personal prelature??? Carlos is right: PKTP will have something to say about this. :-)

The odd points aside, I like what Fr. Schmidberger has to say. The KNA interviewer was hostile, to say the least. Too bad for him (or her). The SSPX isn't going away. Get used to it.

I'm not affiliated with the SSPX, by the way, but I welcome them with great enthusiasm.

NCTradCatholic said...

Lakovos, why do you lie about Fr. Schmidberger?? Where does he take "arrogant (public) swipes at the Pope" in this interview?? Go back and read his remarks again. All his criticism is of the German bishops, and it is well deserved. Please retract your claumnious accusation.

John McFarland said...

Note that for Fr. Schmidberger as for Bishop Fellay, the ball is in the Vatican's court. The Vatican is presented as figuring out what to do.

It is difficult to see how the personal prelature can work for the SSPX unless the Society has the right (or reserves the right) to ignore bishops who refuse the Society the right to operate in their dioceses. So it may all depend on what you mean by "somewhat." I'm no canonist, but I continue to find it difficult to credit that the Pope will grant the Society the right, as I've put it before, to roam the countryside, which I take it is what PKTP is talking about. That is very much against how the Church has organized itself since all but the very earliest times.
In order to work, the Pope must in effect institutionalize the state of necessity; and I suspect that that's a bit much even for our Hegelian Holy Father.

As regards the SSPX's substantive position, Iakovos is certainly right about the same old, same old, except that he seems to imply that it was different in the earlier '00s. If that's what he means, he's wrong: it's been the same old, same old right along.

Paul Haley said...

Iakovos said...
"Same old, same old, pretty much. Back to the future circa 1980s - 90s. Plus Fr. Schimdtberger's manners haven't improved any. Read again his arrogant (public) swipes at the Pope of Rome, the Documents of the Council, and the Church in general."

26 June, 2009 00:08

Did we read the same interview? It appeared to me that the interviewer was trying to provoke Fr. Schimdberger and the good padre refused to engage in polemics and, instead, showed the greatest restraint by merely stating their position.

As for the Personal Prelature idea, I'm sure P.K.T.P. would prefer the apostolic administration but I have heard the motu proprio under development as we speak will somehow restrain the hands of local bishops in regards to the SSPX. How this will be done, however, is not clear to me.

Anonymous said...

P.K.T.P. won't be happy with "personal prelature." But Fr. Schmidberger most likely is using this just as a reference. The Pious Union is unique, this it's canonical solution must be unique.


Phillip C. in S.F.

Dan Hunter said...

Iakovos:

"Schmidberger: We want the truth to triumph. It has nothing to do with subjective opinions, it is all about the truth.


KNA: As you define it."

It seems to me that Catholic News Agency has the manners problem here.

Bernadette said...

It seemed insulting to start the interview by addressing Fr. Schmidberger as Mr. Schmidberger, and asking if he was a priest of the Roman Catholic Church. Or am I only unaware of what is considered typical European manners?

LeonG said...

"Tradition is the only guide to bringing the Church out of the present crisis."

Here, here!

The NO bishops have lost their way and are heading towards obsolescence along with their vernacular rite of Mass.

Anonymous said...

Whatever form or guarantees the SSPX is granted, I sincerely hope the same is extended to all the traditional orders. Basically let all them just get on with what Christ commanded them to do without the interference of those who have spent 40 years putting obstacles in the path to salvation.

Prodinoscopus said...

It seems that PKTP has outwitted us again! :-)

I dunno, though, "in the direction of" seems to favor the PP more than "somewhat" favors the AA.

Bernadette, I think that the "Mr." was probably a typo.

The KNA reporter definitely needs to learn some manners:

[F]r. Schmidberger, are you a priest of the Catholic Church?
...
You say that without any qualifications?


What a jerk.

Anonymous said...

On McFarland's points

I do disagree with you Mr. McFarland. With all due respect, the Pope, through C.H., has been offering the apostolic administration solution since 2000. We have this as a matter of public record. When the S.S.P.X refused it in 2000, it was offered to the Priestly Union of St. John-Mary Vianney (Campos priests). They took the structure and rightly so, at least in terms of legal principle (let us set aside the issue of timing before doctrinal matters were settled). Originally, the structure was to embrace all of Brazil but, when the Brazilian Bishops Conference was informed (as required by Canon 372.2), its members hit the roof and screamed bloody murder. That's why it got reduced to the territory of just one of the 266 dioceses of Brazil, plus a right to maintain two or three chapels in neighbouring dioceses. Nevertheless, the fact that Rome actually granted a parallel diocese in the Campos PROVES, PROVES, I say, that this possibility is being admitted.

Rome has repeatedly made this offer for the S.S.P.X. It would be a Campos writ large, existing internationally. Hence its territory would be all or most of the world (probably excluding the City of Rome for symbolic reasons). Bishop Fellay mentioned this offer publicly in 2003 and called it the "Rolls Royce" solution at the time. He mentioned just this year that the offer has been renewed. This is also a matter of public record for this year: 2009. On another occasion, he said that the structure might not be exactly an apostolic administration but would be similar to it.

The problem with the 'ordinariate' structure used for Eastern churches is that it is cumulative with the authority of the local bishops. We definitely don't want that. Rome could devise a unique structure, of course. The Pope can do what he wishes.

What is important about the Campos is that it sets a *PRECEDENT* which goes against previous norms. However, there have been similar structures in the past, such as the priory nullius and the abbacy nullius; the military ordinariate also intrudes on traditional episcopal authority. It is possible to erect a diocese or other particular church in which the subjects are those registered in it instead of all those living in the territory. The 1983 Code specifically provides for this in the all-important Section 2 of Canon 372, and the Campos, which invokes this, is the guide.

(I note that the parallel Canon for personal prelatures requiring that episcopal conferences be informed was waived in the case of Opus Dei because the structure was international. The same applies here.)

To be continued: P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

"[Unitatis Redintegratio] says that other religions also possess the means of salvation. ***

No, it doesn't. Here's is what it actually says:

"Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

"The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

"It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

"Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life-that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation."

Nowhere else does the document use the phrase "means of salvation," and never does it say that other religions possess the means of salvation. It clearly discusses ONLY Christian religions, and it says that the Spirit of Christ has used them as means of salvaton, not that they possess the means of salvation. It also says it is only through the Catholic Church that those non-Catholic Christian communities can benefit fully from the means of salvation.

If that is true, then there is certainly still a great need in engaging in missionary activity.

Anonymous said...

Continuation, P.K.T.P. to McFarland:

Mr. McFarland doubts that Rome would allow the Society to roam freely. I disagree entirely. Rome did not create that expectation over the last nine years only to deny it. But why would Rome take such an action, an action which would intrude on the turf of the local bish? The reason is simple: the T.L.M. apparently poses almost zero threat to the New Mass and local bishops. We trads are like the Ukrainians or the Armenians: they can have parallel dioceses because they are no threat to anyone.

As I've tried to explain in my statistics, the S.S.P.X and 'approved' Masses combined are, at the very most, only one-third of one percent of Masses, and that is *only* in Western Europe, Northern America, Aussieland and Kiwiland. In the rest of the world, our situation is even more pathetic. And, even combined, all told we have every-Sunday T.L.M.s in only 16% of the world's dioceses, which almost always means just one measly Mass. For example, in my City of Victoria, there is one every-Sunday T.L.M., one every-Sunday Ukrainian Byzantine Divine Liturgy, and about 25 Novus Ordo Masses. Two of the N.O.s at the cathedral have huge congregations. We get 50 people on a good day. The Ukrainians get about the same number. They are strikingly like us in terms of numbers here.

Again, the main reason for episcopal opposition is not the threat we pose to the New Mass but the impression which might be conveyed by a 'free-ranging' apostolic administration: the impression that the local bishop does not control his own turf. Turf and testosterone is everything! But Benedict XVI has given these bishops a weapon to protect that turf: it's called "Summorum Pontificum". It can be implemented in order to keep the Society at bay or to limit its presence. McFarland, of all people, should know chapter and verse how it works. First, the S.S.P.X spends a lot of money to build a chapel in, say, Post Falls, Idaho. Then the local bishop 'asks' (i.e. commands) the local parish priest to offer the old Mass at a good time, or he brings in the F.S.S.P. to drive out the Society. Result? The S.S.P.X is forced out.

In closing, I reiterate my point that the reason for the the failure of the reforms is not the grandeur of TrueMass but the banality of NewMass. Our Mass is not the threat to NewMass. The only lethal threat to NewMass is NewMass itself. That's why, once this nonsense is over and done with, H.H. intends to reform the reform. Paul VI sent in the clowns (one of whom is Cardinal Baloney); Benedict XVI has decided to send in the panzers to drive out the clowns.

Now, as for the use of S.P. to attack the S.S.P.X, I can only say that there is plenty of cake around for both the S.S.P.X and the 'regularised' Masses. I larger cities, in particular, there can be both. The way I see it, H.H. can use a free-ranging S.S.P.X to pressure his bishops into implementing "Summorum Pontificum". S.P. caused an enormous increase in Masses in its first eleven months (to be precise). Then it crashed and died. It is now on life support. This makes the Pope look bad; it makes it look as if the local bishops have outflanked him. In fact, they finally found the Achilles' heel in S.P.: it leaves intact a power of bishops to threaten to send tradition-loving priests to the diocesan gulags. How would you like to be a chaplain for a hospice for twenty comatose patients, Fr. Goodman? Whopee! The Pope can't stand for this. If he does, they'll make him look like a fool. So he'll unleash a free-ranging S.S.P.X. First, he'll simply 'recognise' their claim of supplied jurisdiction; then he'll given them a Campos writ large. He'll give them an international diocese, in effect, and not some prelature which is limited to priests and needs the permission of Bishop Bozo to establish a chapel on his circus turf.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

A Short Note on Personal Prelatures and Ignorant Journalists:

I have been arguing over this structure business on the Internet now since 1997 and I'd like to suggest why that evil term 'personal prelature' keeps coming up. It has to do with linguistics. P is a memorable initial sound, probably owing to the effort it takes to enunciate it; and 'personal prelature' repeats the sound (alliteration). This impresses the name more surely in the minds of men. And Journalists are almost men too.

What has become obvious to me is that this term has stuck in the minds of the brainless twerps who report news. Then they put it into their notes. Every time a story about a canonical structure comes up, they consult those notes and back comes that memorable term. It comforts their readers because it is so easy to remember, so they insist on it. Then it worms its way into the questions these journalists ask prelates. I worry that it will create an expectation which might influence Rome. Really, though, that is not all that likely: Roman canonists simply ignore the press. Thank goodness that there are some people out there who ignore the press.

Unfortunately, even prelates can come to think in terms of the wrong structure, owing to this mnemonic effect. Hence Schmidberger's comment: "in the direction of a personal prelature": he answers in terms of an expression which will be familiar to most readers. Schmidberger probably feels, as do most priests involved in this business, that mentioning long unmemorable names such as 'apostolic administration' will only confuse the masses.

Anyway, I am comforted by his "somewhat". We don't want the Opus Dei structure for the S.S.P.X: that would spell disaster. Sure, the Pope could give the Society a p.p. and simply suspend Canon 297 but it's still not appropriate in the circumstances: traditionalists are a people marked by their charism of spirituality, and they need a shepherd who understands his sheep because he shares that charism. That's why it needs to be a structure which includes lay subjects. A p.p. can't do that. One of the few glories of the 1983 Code is that Canon 372.2 foresees the exact circumstances with which we are faced. Why not use what the Code provides! The Pope did so in 2002 in Brazil!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Poor Jordanes quotes V2 to defend Catholic doctrine with lines such as, "For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation."

I think that the UR is one that needs to go to your repair shop idea. To me it reeks of double speak and can easily be interpreted as if salvation is also possible other than in the Catholic Church.

Did not Pope BXV1 at one time speak about the protestant martyrs and Catholic martyrs dying for the same ultimate end though on opposing sides (something to that effect)? I am sorry I can not quote the source.

If you go to any NO church today many of the attendees will espouse a non Catholic sense about our protestant brethren - that they are ok just as they are, kumbaya.

Seems the missionairies need to start right in the Nuchurch. However the NO missionairies are the ones teaching this garbage. For example check out the link below and the 'Golden Rule' poster and dialogue empahisis. Is this even Catholic? Jordanes can you defend this missionary group? http://www.scarboromissions.ca/

It seems to me that poor documents plus poor leadership equals lost souls.

God help us.

wsxyz said...

Bernadette, I think that the "Mr." was probably a typo.

The address in the original was "Herr Schmidberger."

"Herr" corresponds to "Mr." for the most part in common speech, but it actually is a more formal address. For example, where an English Bible would refer to God as "The LORD", a German Bible would say "Der Herr."

Nevertheless I do think it was an intentional attempt to provoke Fr. Schmidberger by implicitly questioning his priesthood.

Romanus said...

Once again, an apostolic administration is a temporary circumscription for a geographically limited entity.

What was offered and what corresponds to the case of the SSPX is definitely a personal prelature, which is a flexible posconciliar structure with a capacity of adaptation to diferent circumstances.

wsxyz said...

Nowhere else does the document use the phrase "means of salvation," and never does it say that other religions possess the means of salvation. It clearly discusses ONLY Christian religions, and it says that the Spirit of Christ has used them as means of salvaton, not that they possess the means of salvation.

I made a slight error in translation in this case. The original says "Dort steht, dass auch andere Konfessionen Mittel des Heils sind." which is more correctly translated "It says that other [Christian] religions ARE means of salvation."

It seems to me that Fr. Schmidberger would argue that if the Spirit of Christ uses other Christian religions as means of salvation, then there is no need for non-Catholic Christians to convert to Catholicism. This interpretation seems to be widely accepted by, at least, many European members of the hierarchy, who have been known to discourage protestant conversions to the Catholic faith.

Further, I have to admit that I am extremely poorly read in this area, but I don't recall having come across any preconciliar teaching that protestant religions are means of salvation. In fact, my impression is that the opposite was taught.

Anonymous said...

Well said!

And the German philosopher Prof. Dr. Spaemann has spoken out in behalf of the SSPX. If he says that nobody with common sense can demand from the SSPX that they stop the ordination, as the German bishops hope, then we know that the Pope and Rome allow the ordination tacitly.

And the last sentence: "It is about the conservation of Christianity in the Western civilization": How true!

God bless the SSPX.

New Catholic said...

The translation has been revised now.

NC

Peter said...

"Konfession" comes from confession of faith ("Credo..." and so on), so the probable English equivalent for "andere Konfessionen" is "other creeds", or "other denominations" - sth like that.

Whatever form the canonical solution
will have I am sure that SSPX will be exempt from the power of local bishops. In other case they will simply not make an agreement. They have been saying that at least for 20 years. So we don't have to worry about that.

It's both sad and funny together that people like the guy who interviewed Fr. Schmidberger talk to them about "obedience" trying to harass the SSPX.

The agreement is the will of the Pope. I wonder how it is possible that trying to sabotage the agreement by mocking and harassing the SSPX in public, like this "journalist" is doing, is not contrary to their perception of "obedience" ? Novus Ordo Obedientiorum?

Anonymous said...

Romanus writes:

"Once again, an apostolic administration is a temporary circumscription for a geographically limited entity."


Once again, Romanus is wrong. He is right that it is a temporary structure but only in the sense that it is not *yet* a diocese: "An apostolic administration is a certain portion of God's people which for special and particularly serious reasons, is NOT YET [emphasis added] established by the Supreme Pontiff as a diocese, and whose pastoral care is entrusted to an apostolic administrator, who governs it in the name of the Supreme Pontiff [meaning that it is exempt from ecclesiastical provinces]" (C.I.C. 371.2). Hence the Campos structure is destined to be a diocese one day, if all goes well.

Romanus is deceiving us if he means to imply that an a.a. is only meant to be established for a time, later to be dissolved. That only happens if the experiment fails. But the Holy See does not erect circumscriptions with that intention.

Where Romanus is totally wrong, however, is in the second part of his claim here. The territory of an apostolic administration need not be geographically limited except in the sense that the planet earth is geographically limited (it doesn't include Mars). An apostolic administration is one of several "Particular churches" (cf. C.I.C. 368). Normally, these are indeed geographically limited by other surrounding dioceses and other particular churches (cf. C.I.C. 372.1). However, under Section 2 of Canon 372, they can be non-geographical in the sense that they do not "[comprise] all the faithful who live in that territory (ibid., sect. 1)". Under Section 2 of Canon 372, which is the law under which the Campos a.a. was erected, they may be non-territorial in that sense: "... There may be established in a given territory [which could be the entire planet or most of it] particular churches distinguished by the rite of the faithful or by some other simillar quality." This is an exact fit for us. Traditionalists are attached to a separate Rite (in my view) of, if you must agree to that nonsense about a 'form', then to "some other similiar quality"--a liturgical and disciplinary qualilty.

Romanus is exactly wrong. Canon 372.2 allows for an apostolic administration which is destined to become a diocese and which is exempt from ecclesiastical provinces and is international, territorially discontinuous (as all dioceses can be), and having subjects who are registered in it in accordance with their Rite or some other similar quality.

The section could have been written for the S.S.P.X. It is perfect. That's why Rome gave it to the Campos priests and why it was, at first, meant to cover an entire country, Brazil. The Armenian Exarchate for Latin America covers more then thirty countries and it is also equivalent in law to a diocese: dioceses can cover huge areas, even the entire earth.

To be continued: . . . P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Continuation from P.K.T.P.:

Romanus again:

"What was offered and what corresponds to the case of the SSPX is definitely a personal prelature,"

No, totally wrong. Bishop Fellay has said otherwise on several occasions. I have a file somewhere of some of these. He has definitely said that what was offered was an apostolic administration. He said this more than once since 2000. He called this "apostolic administration" the "Rolls Royce" structure in 2003 and, as I have said, mentioned it again this very year. I can dig up the records for this if need be. I hunted them down once before, on that neo-con site of a certain priest from Minnesota.



Romanus wants the Society to take the poison:

"which is a flexible posconciliar [sic] structure with a capacity of adaptation to diferent circumstances."

Flexible my posterior! Canon 297 means that the prelate needs permission from the local bishop to establish an apostolate in his territory. Fellay would be better to take a bullet in the head than that. Imagine needing permission from Cardinal Baloney or Bishop De Rogue to establish a parish or chapel! You might as well ask the devil for a ticket to Heaven.

Also, as already explained, it leaves the lay Society supporters under the local De Rogues, Hunthausens, Daneelses and Mahonys. For example, for Baptisms, Marriages, and Confirmations, the personal prelate needs permission from the local Bozo bishop. That's because the p.p. comprises only "deacons and priests of the secular clergy" (C.I.C. 294) So much for the Society bishops (although not technically excluded, since they remain priests, they are not foreseen in the Canon either). So much for the religious orders affiliated with the S.S.P.X, such as the Dominicans of Avrillé. They're out too, since they're not secular clergy. so much for the lay supporters of the Society. They're out. Romanus literally does not know what he's talking about, unless he's on the other side.

If a personal prelature is what has been offered, I would counsel Bishop Fellay to remain separated from the Pope on a permanent basis. If that is what has been on the table, we do indeed have an emergency invoking supplied jurisdiction.

Who are you, Romanus? Who would suggest that the S.S.P.X put itself under the local bishops? That's suicide. It sounds like an idea hatched by Msgr. Perl or Msgr. Calkins. It would be the Protocol 1411-99 of the S.S.P.X. Come into my parlour said the spider to the fly.

Campos is the precedent. A Campos writ large under Section 2 of Canon 372 need NOT, I repeat, NOT be geographically limited by other dioceses. Read the bloody Canon!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

What Bishop Fellay said in 2003, to my recollection, was that the S.S.P.X would be erected as a society of apostolic life. The religious orders affiliated with it would be erected as institutes of consecrated life. All of these would then be incorporated into what I call a ritual apostolic administration under Canon 372.2. That is definitely what is being offered, or something comparable to it, such as a new structure.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Canon 294:

"Personal prelatures ... are composed of deacons and priests of the secular clergy".

The S.S.P.X is affiliated with several orders of nuns, friars, canons, and monks. None of these belong to the secular clergy; they belong to the religious clergy and those not ordained as deacons don't belong to the clergy at all. Therefore, they cannot be members of a personal prelature.

It follows logically that a personal prelature cannot include the affiliates of the S.S.P.X.

But the S.S.P.X and these affiliates will insist on being related as they presently are.

As a result, a personal prelature is definitely not flexible enough to meet the needs of the S.S.P.X.

Q.E.D.

P.K.T.P.

P.S. Of course, there are other reasons it will not fit the bill, but I've mentioned them. The most important, however, is pastoral: we need a structure which joins clerics and faithful in one particular church. They share the same charism. Let the sheep be governed by a shepherd who knows his sheep and they him.

Anonymous said...

The interviewer didn't have a clue what Father Schmidberger was saying. Plus, the arrogance and stupidity was on the side of the interviewer. It hurts how little they understand these seminal questions which the Council provoked and which Rome does acknowledge as problematic--also lost on the interviewer.

Peter said...

Translation tips:
"If that is true, then there is no longer any point in engaging in missionary activity." - father Schmidberger says (about these Christian denominations) - "If that is true, then there is no longer any point in engaging in missionary activity among people belonging to those religions/religion systems (?)." ("Angehörige dieser Religionssysteme").

"The Church has a mandate to work for their conversion" - "Auftrag", I think it's rather obligation than mandate.

"Afterwards, we developed our own life." - "entfaltet" - shouldn't it be rather "expanded".

"and urged you to refrain from provocations" -"demanded a friendly attitude" (einen friedlichen Umgang miteinander angemahnt).

"But the opposite has happened." - "But the reality is opposite" (Das Gegenteil ist Realität).

"Similar to Opus Dei? Schmidberger: Somewhat." - "A bit", "a little" (Ein bisschen).

You may consider my humble tips relevant or not, right or wrong. I'm no expert in English nor German, but if my considerations are right it may be considered important for some people.

Anonymous said...

Just a brief q. for bloggers here. I am now saddled with something truly infernal on my computer. It is called a Shopper's Report bar and it appears on the left side of my screen every time I do a google search. It's driving me batty. I've tried to make it go away but I can't think of how to achieve this, other than by throwing my entire system in the garbage. Can anyone help? Help!

P.K.T.P.

Gideon Ertner said...

"It seems to me that Fr. Schmidberger would argue that if the Spirit of Christ uses other Christian religions as means of salvation, then there is no need for non-Catholic Christians to convert to Catholicism."

That is what he is arguing, but that is not what UR says.

There undeniably is one means of salvation to be found in other Christian faiths: Baptism. As for what can be found beyond that in these faiths, there are many elements of that Faith whose fullness is only found in the Catholic Church: Holy Scripture, the teaching of the redemptive sacrifice of Christ, etc. Possessing these is not enough to make these faiths in themselves means of salvation - and UR certainly does not claim that it does - but it does potentially make them channels of grace which the Holy Spirit can make use of. And this grace may be salvific if a person receives it and is invincibly ignorant of the fullness of the Truth. That is the point UR tries to make.

This takes nothing away from the fact that every person still has a grave obligation to seek the fullness of Christian truth and accept that fullness of grace which is found in His Church once he comes to knowledge of it. However, UR would have done well to spell this point out more clearly.

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

Jordanes,

No non-Catholic Christian religion can be used as a "means of salvation". The Holy Ghost works only in individual souls completely apart from those religions. The statement in this VII document is bordering on heresy, if not heretical.

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

Vatican II was an evil council, not only in its spirit, but in many of its texts.

Bern. said...

It annoys me when people make exaggerated, generalised statements that the EF is God-centred whereas the OF is man-centred. It seems to implicitly insult those who celebrate and attend the mass - as if they are all centred on themselves, rather than God.

- The OF, celebrated reverently and according to the rubrics, is God-centred too. Argue that there is MORE emphasis on man, if you must, but lose the hyperbole.

LeonG said...

There are those here who really do not understand the nature of the modernist spirit in the pronouncements of the Vatican Councils. The liberals and their uneasy socialist allies have used the very nature of ambiguity in those documents to destroy missionary activity and to create a liturgy that creates the nefarious and subversive impression that one can belong to any religion and still be saved. This is one of the salient reasons why so many people have abandoned church going or have recourse to false religions in the place of The Roman Catholic faith.

The last pontiff was adept at sowing the seeds of relativism and eclectic approaches to the concept of "faith". His own words described conversion and faith as emanating from his own efforts and that Christ is linked to all men by certain means which he never was able to clarify. The object of his greatest admiration the liberal pope of the councils Paul VI (RIP) was also quite liberal in his concept of saving faith by implication - the buddhists being a case in point and his symbolic use of public occasion to send the message out at the UNO.
This is a massive problem for neo-catholics and those who are come lately into the traditionalist arena: they do not comprehend events from a global perspective but merely try to quote doctrine. This does not fit with the ecclesiastical climate of the last 50 years and even beyond. Modernists and neo-modernists are excellent at making it all seem so continuous and so hermeneutically orthodox. However, the meanings and significations which are deconstructed by phenomenological philosophies and immanentist-pantheist superdogmas are very easily confused in post-conciliar-speak :- yes someone here calls it "double-speak" but in fact it can be "multi-speak" because you never know where you stand with that oxymoron type modern liberal "catholic". Conciliar documents must be read in this light too in order to fully appreciate how The Church has become so liberal, lax and undisciplined in all that it does today. Who can objectively deny this?

A few traditionalist commentators are correct to remind us that had we truly understood the nature of the conciliar process once it was wrested out of Pope John XXIII's (RIP)by the Lienart's and the Rahner's (of which Fr Ratzinger was a supporter) at the councils we would have taken up the fight against the modernists and their destructive manoeuvres. Instead we are at this point now trying to move into a position where we can undo the mess bequeathed to us by 50 years of liberal modernist tyranny and its anti-Catholicism. It has endeavored to "destroy bastions" in The Church in accordance with von Balthasar and it has managed to effect a rapidly accelerating downturn in every chief statistical indicator used by The Church to gauge the health of The Faith at any time-point.

Quoting and requoting Conciliar documents does nothing to assure Roman Catholics as to the validity of their faith because they were designed to appease two distinct camps. It is in this that they may only be understood. Furthermore, they are capable of being interpreted from many perspectives, thus lacking the unequivocal clarity and assuredness of pre-conciliar teachings on The Roman Catholic Faith.

How many times do we have to cry out from this website alone today for clarity on the statements of modernist churchmen? This has been a continuous process ever since the Councils of the 1960s began uttering public statements. This alone should admonish their use alone to instruct Catholics on their Faith. We would do much better to trust in what is clear and consistent that avoids novelties of expression and transient meanings.

Jordanes said...

No non-Catholic Christian religion can be used as a "means of salvation". ***

Are you claiming that sacraments and the Scriptures only have effectiveness and/or validity in the Catholic Church? If you are, you are contradicting the Catholic faith.

The Holy Ghost works only in individual souls completely apart from those religions. ***

No, it's obviously not "completely apart" from them. A great many people have been baptised, been introduced to the inspired Scriptures, and even received valid Holy Communion through those religious bodies.

The statement in this VII document is bordering on heresy, if not heretical. ***

That's your opinion, but I've yet to see any evidence that it's correct.

Vatican II was an evil council, not only in its spirit, but in many of its texts. ***

The Church will never do an about face and proclaim Vatican II a Latrocinium.

Jordanes said...

To me it reeks of double speak and can easily be interpreted as if salvation is also possible other than in the Catholic Church. ***

But it is true that salvation is possible even for those who are not in visible communion the Catholic Church, as long as they suffer under invincible ignorance.

If you go to any NO church today many of the attendees will espouse a non Catholic sense about our protestant brethren - that they are ok just as they are, kumbaya. ***

Of course you can -- for a long, long, long time it has been true that most adult Catholics know little of their faith, and the problem got immensely worse after Vatican II. Most Catholics have never read RU or any other magisterial or conciliar document. Anyone who reads RU should notice that it comes right out and says Protestants are NOT okay right where they are. That's why the "spirit of Vatican II" types rarely if ever actually quote from what Mother Church said at Vatican II, or else they do so in isolated soundbites.

For example check out the link below and the 'Golden Rule' poster and dialogue empahisis. Is this even Catholic? Jordanes can you defend this missionary group? http://www.scarboromissions.ca/ ***

I don't see how any orthodox Catholic could defend that. They obviously have an un-Catholic notion of interreligious dialogue -- contrary to the Catholic faith of all 21 oecumenical councils. The "spirit of Vatican II"'s calamitous effect on the missions has long been evident.

It seems to me that poor documents plus poor leadership equals lost souls. ***

But even excellent documents plus poor leadership equals lost souls. Anyway, I can find no error in RU, and its contents harmonises pretty well with the perennial faith of the Church.

Anonymous said...

PKTP: Check if something similar to "Shopper's Report" (whatever it is) is listed under Internet Explorer/Tools/Internet options/Programs/Manage add-ons.

Anonymous said...

PKTP says, ..."It would be the Protocol 1411-99 of the S.S.P.X. Come into my parlour said the spider to the fly."

In other forums you argued that 1411-99 was not so bad or had little effect on the FSSP. Could you further comment on the nuances and gravity of the protocol to the FSSP today and relate that to the FSSPX situation.

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes,
Thank you for commenting to my questions.

I appreciate how you try to defend V2 though I am not a neo con. I am one who thinks something has gone horribly awry and lost trust V2. I don't read the harmony, see the harmony, taste the harmony. You go for the reform of the reform but please don't advocate changes the TLM and liturgy.

I think LeonG has provided some serious commentary. My heart is there.

"Vatican II a Latrocinium", apropos indeed.

Paul Haley said...

LeonG said...

" There are those here who really do not understand the nature of the modernist spirit in the pronouncements of the Vatican Councils. The liberals and their uneasy socialist allies have used the very nature of ambiguity in those documents to destroy missionary activity and to create a liturgy that creates the nefarious and subversive impression that one can belong to any religion and still be saved. This is one of the salient reasons why so many people have abandoned church going or have recourse to false religions in the place of The Roman Catholic faith."

Well said, LeonG, I couldn't agree more about the ambiguity factor. Since most of the younger generation have not been educated in the Faith prior to Vatican II, they do not see this ambiguity. It's like the Vatican II proponents want it to appear that persons can be saved through other religions but, when cornered, they deny it. It is precisely the diabolical disorientation spoken of by Sr. Lucy and the "timebombs" inserted by the agents spoken of by Bella Dodd. Thank God we have traditional priests who speak out against such nonsense.

Iakovos said...

Here are some "swipes", to put it mildly (if not raw misinformation))
1) "the Second Vatican Council does not have the same status as the other councils."
-- If true, does it follow we pick and choose, and otherwise refuse to study with the heart of the Church? Remember that for many Eastern Rite Catholics Vatican II is considered as nearly as important as the 7th Ecumenical Council. Fr Schmidtberger does not speak for the Church, simply one man's opinion.
2) "The spirit of the council has been described as an evil spirit, even by Pope Benedict XVI. There are ambiguous statements in the documents, and many others that do not agree with traditional doctrine."
-- Show me the quote where Benedict XVI says the spirit of the Council is evil!! The Pope of Rome, like John Paul II, has said the manipulations (spirit?) of the Council are have terrible results in some cases. The Pope distinguishes between a real Spirit of the Council, i.e., in the Light of the Traditions of the Church, and the false modernist "spirit" so called, that corrupts the Council. Similar confusions existed after Trent, for example.
3) It is simply old news that the New Rite of Mass for the Western Church needs reform. Recall that in the first years of Econe, SSPX priests said a kind of hybrid, the Mass of 1965. You can still find a Missal (1965) here and there.
4) "What about Nostra Aetate, which concerns the relationship with the Jews?
Schmidberger: Not only the Jews, it also concerns Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. These non-Christian religions are heaped with praise., etc."
-- What's new here? This has always been the SSPX view of this document.
5) The possibility of Personal Prelature, Apostolic Administration, has been on the table for the SSPX since the early Pontificate of John Paul II. It is simply the same old impasse that may be improving, however.

Maynardus said...

P.K.T.P. (who could also be abbreviated as "P.P." - horrors!) wrote: "What is important about the Campos is that it sets a *PRECEDENT* which goes against previous norms."

Indeed. Equally important is that this precedent has *SUCCEEDED* in Campos! The Holy Father has acknowleged as much to Bishop Rifan personally, which would seem to pave the way for it to be used in other situations...

Andrew said...

PKTP:
Try this answer site:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080222123503AAzWMAB

Nicholas said...

PKTP,

Just one question. At some point in this thread you remark, "S.P. caused an enormous increase in Masses in its first eleven months (to be precise). Then it crashed and died." What are you talking about? When did SP die? How? Have all the Masses that began evaporated? Do you mean the increase of Masses has slowed to a trickle?

Prodinoscopus said...

4) "What about Nostra Aetate, which concerns the relationship with the Jews?
Schmidberger: Not only the Jews, it also concerns Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. These non-Christian religions are heaped with praise., etc."
-- What's new here? This has always been the SSPX view of this document.


Yes and I'm glad that they're sticking to it.

The SSPX isn't going away, Lakovos, and they aren't changing their tune. Time for you to learn some new dance steps.

Peter said...

Iakovos: "-- Show me the quote where Benedict XVI says the spirit of the Council is evil!!"

There's no such statement in the German text of the interview. Instead there's a hard-to-translate wordplay. Some people translate it like "spirit of the council" vs "spook of the council" (Geist vs Ungeist).

Jordanes said...

N.B. It is "Iakovos," not "Lakovos"

Melchior Cano said...

Iavokos,

In the end, though you had a larger amount of numbers, only two of them could possibly qualify as "swipes," which they still don't appear to do. I did want to comment on your statement:

"The Pope distinguishes between a real Spirit of the Council, i.e., in the Light of the Traditions of the Church, and the false modernist "spirit" so called, that corrupts the Council. Similar confusions existed after Trent, for example."

I am so tired of hearing this. Prove it! Prove that within 40 years of Trent, Mass attendance was at an all time low, thousands of priests left the priesthood, nuns left convents to become social workers, the majority of Catholics no longer believed in the Church's teachings, etc. Its baloney. Its the old story of a lie being told enough and eventually being believed. The proof simply isn't there.

And, as far as distinguishing between Councils, here are comments from then Cardinal Ratzinger, given in Santiago, Chile while discussing the "traditionalist question" :

"The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest."

Prodinoscopus said...

Jordanes,

If someone is entrenched in a schismatic and / or heretical sect, the Catholic sacraments that validly exist within the structures of that sect (e.g., Baptism in the protestant sects, Eucharist in Orthodoxy) will be of no avail. Those sacraments are means of salvation ONLY if their graces prompt the person to RETURN to the Catholic Church. UR creates the impression that those sacraments are means of salvation WITHIN the heretical / schismatic sects within which they are validly yet illicitly situated.

Anonymous said...

I think Romanus is either wrong or perhaps being intentionally vague so as to mislead. The idea that Bishop Fellay would accept a personal prelature in the idea of Opus Dei only to be under the thumb of local ordinaries is short sighted. One only has to look back to the interview he did with the Remnant to realize that this point is non-negotiable to the Society.

Mershon: Do you foresee any oversight by territorial diocesan bishops once the Society is regularized?

Bp. Fellay: That would be our death. The situation of the Church is such that once the doctrinal issues have been clarified, we will need our own autonomy in order to survive. This means that we will have to be directly under the authority of the Pope with an exemption. If we look at the history of the Church, we see that every time the Popes wanted to restore the Church, they leaned upon new strength like the Benedictine Cistercians whom the pope allowed to act as best as possible during the crisis, in a status of exemption, in order to overcome the crisis.

Mershon: Do you expect a personal prelature or perhaps an Apostolic Administration for the SSPX, reporting directly to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei?

Bp. Fellay: It would seem that the project Rome has in store for us is going in that direction. But I am not certain.


link:
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-mershon-interview-fellay.htm

Paul Haley said...

Schmidberger: "Naturally, every man has his weaknesses and unfortunate things have been said. But we want to live together peacefully. I have written a private personal letter to the chairman of the bishops conference, Archbishop Zollitsch, but the bishops are not willing to engage in discussions. They reject any dialogue with us. Why do they demand that we obey canon law to the letter while at the same time they assert that we are outside the Church?"

Fr. Schmidberger asks the right question and for this he is vilified? He obviously wants matters cleared up and methinks there are others who prefer the cloudy, ambiguous tones of the post Vatican II landscape. Egads, it boggles the mind.

Jordanes said...

If someone is entrenched in a schismatic and / or heretical sect, the Catholic sacraments that validly exist within the structures of that sect (e.g., Baptism in the protestant sects, Eucharist in Orthodoxy) will be of no avail. ***

Not exactly. There are circumstances in which their valid sacraments would be of avail, as when an infant is validly baptised and dies before the age of discretion: in that case, the infant is undoubtedly saved by that baptism, which remitted his original sin.

Those sacraments are means of salvation ONLY if their graces prompt the person to RETURN to the Catholic Church. ***

Speaking of adults, that would generally be the case. But even without the whole grace and virtue of a valid sacrament, it still is a genuine encounter with Our Lord, and thus can help to bring them to salvation, particularly by opening a door to returning to the Catholic Church. Whether or not an individual will go through that door is another question. As UR says, because “separated brethren” aren’t united to the Catholic Church, there are hindrances or obstacles that prevent them from receiving or appropriating the full grace and virtue that makes the sacraments and the liturgy and the Scriptures truly efficacious for salvation.

UR creates the impression that those sacraments are means of salvation WITHIN the heretical / schismatic sects within which they are validly yet illicitly situated. ***

Sometimes they are means of salvation within those sects.

Anonymous said...

Did anyone catch this statement?

"As far as the relationship with the Jews goes, the statements of the Council cannot be criticized in their essence."

He concedes that the new theology is correct!

Iakovos said...

Prodinoscopus said...
"The SSPX isn't going away, Lakovos, and they aren't changing their tune. Time for you to learn some new dance steps."

Actually, quiet unTraditionally, I like Break Dancing. I just don't have moves.

Melchior Cano said...

"I am so tired of hearing this. Prove it! Prove that within 40 years of Trent, Mass attendance was at an all time low, etc. "

Red Herring -- I never claimed any such result, but after many major Councils, there is a period of difficult implementation and sometimes long to understand implications. Also, what I have heard for so long is that because Vatican II did condemn, sling thunder bolts of anathemas, etc., that being Pastoral, somehow makes it a cafeteria for so called traditionalists.

Finally, you did not address my other observations -- but that's ok. By the way, I will withdraw the term "swipe". But look at this statement by Fr. Schimdtberger:

"They [Bishops, Rome?] reject any dialogue with us. Why do they demand that we obey canon law to the letter while at the same time they assert that we are outside the Church?"

Is Fr. Schmidtberger possibly unaware, or supportive, of the highest level possible negotiations for the sake of the SSPX driven by the Holy Father himself? What the heck?! Something terribly amiss with the translation?

NCTradCatholic said...

Jordanes said...

UR creates the impression that those sacraments are means of salvation WITHIN the heretical / schismatic sects within which they are validly yet illicitly situated. ***

Sometimes they are means of salvation within those sects.

Well, yes, if a baptized child in a sect dies before reaching the age of reason (in which case he was actually a member of the Catholic Church all along), or an adult dies without ever having committed a mortal sin, and somehow never adopted the heretical positions of his own sect. Not very likely...

Anonymous said...

Nicholas writes:

"Just one question. At some point in this thread you remark, "S.P. caused an enormous increase in Masses in its first eleven months (to be precise). Then it crashed and died." What are you talking about? When did SP die? How? Have all the Masses that began evaporated? Do you mean the increase of Masses has slowed to a trickle?"

Thank you for your accurate observation. I admit that a desire for abbreviation on a blog can be overwhelming: the fingers can get tired! Your speculation is correct. I meant that the *rate* of growth of S.P. fell dramatically after the first eleven months.

In the first eleven months in the U.S.A. (and most of the world followed suit: except Germany and England), thirty U.S. dioceses gained their first every-Sunday Traditional Latin Masses under episcopal authority. That is an amazming unprecedented rate of increase. Before then, for years, the rate had been one to five dioceses per annum.

In the third period of six months after S.P., the rate slowed to an increase of only four dioceses. In the last six months, which is about to end, only two new U.S. dioceses have added an every-Sunday T.L.M. I many places, local laics are having to petition and take action to get results.

Now, in theory, as we reach the total number of dioceses, we should be seeing more and more approvals for Masses per diocese, especially in the more populous places. What worries me is that this simply has not happened. It is as if the local bishop is saying, You blokes have your Tridentine Mass for this archdiocese and that's all you're getting: one per diocese fulfils the bishops' duty!

I am in direct contact with several celebrants who are 'not allowed' to celebrate the T.L.M. every Sunday but only on a less frequent basis. The story is usually the same: they are threatened with retaliation if they cross the bishop and celebrate every Sunday.

At first, many bishops tried using legalistic loopholes to prevent Traditional Latin Masses. These were then rejected by Rome. Since then, their approach has been simpler: say that Mass without my permission and you'll never pastor a good parish for the rest of your vocation.

But fear not, little ones, Article 1 of S.P., which almost nobody has considered seriously enough, is a time bomb favouring the old Mass, and it has yet to explode. Still, the Pope has to light the fuse or do something else to get the ball rolling again.

P.K.T.P.

Brian said...

Jordanes,
On 23 June, 2009 18:15 you wrote with regard to the New Mass:

There’s no question about the legitimacy of the reformed Mass, but that certainly does not mean there can be no criticism of the reform and no objection to or protest of any of the problems that are linked to or arise from the reformed Mass, nor that one may not hold that the traditional Mass is superior to the reformed Mass.

Analogously, with regard to Vatican II, one can similarly state:

There’s no question about the orthodoxy in Vatican II, but that certainly does not mean there can be no criticism of the reforms of Vatican II and no objection to or protest of any of the problems that are linked to or arise from Vatican II, nor that one may not hold that the traditional theology is superior to the reformed theology of Vatican II.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, commenting on my replies to Romanus, wrote:

"bad or had little effect on the FSSP. Could you further comment on the nuances and gravity of the protocol to the FSSP today and relate that to the FSSPX situation."

Thank you so much for this very accurate observation. It is good to know that we are all communicating with one another successfully. I used hyperbole in my recent comments against Romanus. The emotions really boil whenever I hear that dangerous suggestion of a personal prelature. Only a true enemy of tradition could suggest such a thing, unless he were ignorant of the implications.

What I have said on other blogs and in the past is that, while Protocol 1411-99 was bad, it was not nearly as bad as many traditionalists made it out to be at the time. (Hence it was not a good point of comparison here but not entirely wrong either.)

Contrary to what many commentators wrote in 1999 and 2000, the Protocol does not force any priest of the F.S.S.P. to celebrate the New Mass. The reason is that the F.S.S.P. can elect not to serve in any particular diocese if the bishop there requires such celebration as a condition of entry. Shortly thereafter, Fr. Devillers, who has been unjustly maligned in *some* places, made a promise in this regard, and, to give him credit, he kept that promise. He promised that he would not establish any apostolates in dioceses if the local bishop would require any Fraternity priest to say the New Mass as a conditon of entry.

So the F.S.S.P. found a way to avoid the New Mass; and it worked. The negative side is that local bishops can keep the F.S.S.P. at bay by insisting that they say the New Mass as a conditon of entry in their dioceses. But this has not turned out to be a problem. On the contrary, the Fraternity has far too few priests to meet the demand for them, and the bishops have forgotten about their power of exclusion. So the entire issue has become a dead letter over time, althuogh the Protocol is bad for the Fraternity in principle.

P.K.T.P.

Prodinoscopus said...

Jordanes,

Unfortunately, UR doesn't draw those fine distinctions. The average layman, as well as the average pastor who instructs the average layman, gets the impression all too easily from UR that any protestant can avail himself of the means of salvation within his own schismatic and heretical sect. The proof is in the pews: UR is a disastrous document. Burn it in the middle of St. Peter's Square, I say. It is the only way to undo the damage, if you are really serious about saving souls.

Anonymous said...

On NCTrad Catholic's last comments:

My understanding is that non-Catholic sects are never per se means of salvation, although they can be helps to salvation. Those outside the Church who are saved are saved owing to the prayers of Catholics, especially religious. Reception of a valid Sacrament is reception of a Catholic Sacrament in some imperfect way.

The way I look at it, perhaps some non-Catholics are saved but they are saved in spite of their sects, not because of them. The teachings of these sects can be helpful to salvation insofar as they are Catholic teachings, but they are not sufficient for salvation.

P.K.T.P.

Melchior Cano said...

Iavakos,

I wasn't saying that you said directly that after Trent all of the specifics I listed happened. Those things happened after Vatican II. You did, however state,

"The Pope of Rome, like John Paul II, has said the manipulations (spirit?) of the Council are have terrible results in some cases. The Pope distinguishes between a real Spirit of the Council, i.e., in the Light of the Traditions of the Church, and the false modernist "spirit" so called, that corrupts the Council. Similar confusions existed after Trent, for example."

Ok, so, then specify for us what similar confusions exactly existed after Trent?

Anonymous said...

Here is one of several admissions of Bishop Fellay that the proffered structure has been an apostolic administration and not a personal prelature. There are others. This one is from 2002. There is an extensive explanatory one from 2003 which I shall try to find:

MV: What do you think of the status of the proposed Apostolic Administration?

Mgr Fellay: It is a wonderful Rolls Royce since we would have ordinary jurisdiction. . . .

P.K.T.P.

NCTradCatholic said...

lakovos said...

"They [Bishops, Rome?] reject any dialogue with us. Why do they demand that we obey canon law to the letter while at the same time they assert that we are outside the Church?"

Is Fr. Schmidtberger possibly unaware, or supportive, of the highest level possible negotiations for the sake of the SSPX driven by the Holy Father himself? What the heck?! Something terribly amiss with the translation?"

Lakovos, have you been asleep for the past 9 years? Do you really think Fr. S. is accusing Rome of rejecting dialogue with the SSPX?? Fr.S. himself took part in the first meetings between Bishop Fellay, the Holy Father, and Cardinal Hoyos (4 years ago). Is it really that hard for you to comprehend that Fr. S. is speaking about the GERMAN BISHOPS?

Really, I suggest you bone up on the facts before you embarass yourself further.

Anonymous said...

Here's another one from 28 June, 2002. Refuting Romanus is as easy as doing a search at Google. But I do have the paper copies from the past as well somewhere in my filing cabinet:

From the New Republic:

Msgr. Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Saint Pius X Society, declared in an interview that there is a two way rapproachment of the Holy See in regard to theSociety. He indeed received a letter of March 18 from Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, where the Cardinal proposes a working group where theologists of the Vatican and Society will study the problem of the Mass. Another letter, April 5 and signed by Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, proposes to make contact with Mgr Fellay. This last he is said to be ready " to answer positively ". On the New Mass, Bishop Fellay reiterated that he regards it as valid, if there are the matter, form and intention required by the Church, but that it is " dangerous for the faith ". On the statutes of the APOSTOLIC ADMINISTRATION [emphasis added] that Rome proposes, Mgr Fellay declared: " It is a splendid Rolls-Royce, since we would have ordinary jurisdiction, but we hesitate because of the many bumps in the road... ". With the question of knowing if Jean-Paul II would ignore the opposition of the majority of the European bishops, who do not want an agreement to take place, Bishop Fellay answered: " the true solution is in the supernatural means, in fidelity to doctrine, the Truth which does not change ".

(Translated from Monde et Vie, April 18, 2002).

wsxyz said...

"They [Bishops, Rome?] reject any dialogue with us. Why do they demand that we obey canon law to the letter while at the same time they assert that we are outside the Church?"

Is Fr. Schmidtberger possibly unaware...


He is referring to the German bishops, who seem to be implacably hostile to the SSPX.

Anonymous said...

Neo-con Romanus refuted over and over again.

Here's a qutoation which nails it on the head. It is from Communicantes, August, 2001. Before rendering the quotation, I should mention that I was involved in the formulation of this solution, working to get it since 1997, although not specifically for the S.S.P.X at first but for all regularised traditionalists.

I was contacted by canonists about it at a dicastery. I apologise but cannot say more. The idea was proposed to the S.S.P.X in 2000 and rejected by it in 2001, pending resolution of doctrinal talks. Then it was offered to the Campos in 2001 and granted to it in 2002. I called it a 'personal apostolic administration' at the time, although this is not a correct use of 'personal' here in the canonical sense. I now call it a 'ritual a.a.' under Canon 372.2.

Here's the 2001 quotation of Fellay:

"You are telling us, Your Excellency, that these negotiations were a lot of fuss about nothing…

On the contrary, they were not useless. Unquestionably, something has taken place that has modified on a long-term basis the atmosphere of our relations for the future. ... We would never have imagined that Rome could offer us such a proposition. You have no doubt heard talk of this idea of an apostolic administration. The Society of St. Pius X would have become incorporated into an apostolic administration. What does this signify? The apostolic administration ordinarily is a diocesan structure, or quasi diocesan, in a time of crisis, over a given territory. Well! For us this territory would be the entire world. In other words, they offered us a structure that covered the entire world, a kind of personal diocese…

Excuse me for interrupting, Your Excellency, you mean a personal prelacy…

Not at all. The apostolic administration is better than a personal prelacy [= prelatue, a translation option]. In the first place, a personal prelacy is not necessarily governed by a bishop. An apostolic administration, which is quasi diocesan, normally would be. Furthermore, and above all, the action of an apostolic administration is not limited to its members. The Opus Dei, which is the personal prelacy that exists today, is not subject to the local bishop in all that concerns its members, but it could not consider any external action without the consent of the bishop. With the apostolic administration, we avoid this restriction. We would be able to take an autonomous apostolic action without having to ask authorisation from the diocesan bishop, since we would have a veritable diocese, whose distinctive characteristic is that it extends to the entire world. It is very important that such a proposition has been made, because after all, this juridical solution has never happened before, it is “sui generis”. Now that it has been established, it can represent for us, from a juridical point of view, a reference, a position of comparison. Especially since it is to the Society of St. Pius X that this possibility has been proposed, which shows just how seriously Rome sees our resistance. It’s not by vainglory that I say that, believe me: symbolically (first of all, it’s not a question of numbers) we represent something very important for Rome, and this also is new."

End of Quotation. Ever since 2000, I add, neo-con haters of tradition have been trying to saddle the S.S.P.X with a personal prelature. But Rome has ignored them. From current Society quotations, I think that what is being toyed with is some new structure which combines features of the a.a., the p.p., and the ordinariate. But the a.a. remains the point of reference.

P.K.T.P.

wsxyz said...

Peter. I am the translator so I will address some of your suggestions.

As a prelude, when I translate something like this, I do it just because I find the piece to be of general interest and think it should be more widely read. I don't have time to spend all day translating, so I do it on the fly. I read a sentence, come up with an English equivalent, and don't look back. This interview was done in about an hour.

"no longer any point in engaging in missionary activity among people belonging to those religions/religion systems (?)." ("Angehörige dieser Religionssysteme").

The literal translation is "Members of these religious systems." But no one says such a thing in English. It is clear enough from the context that the missionary activity he is talking about is that directed at the members of the "andere Konfessionen", so a quick way to resolve the problem is to omit the problematic phrase.

"The Church has a mandate to work for their conversion" - "Auftrag", I think it's rather obligation than mandate.

An "Auftrag" is not an obligation in the general sense. It is a task with which you have been charged -- an assignment. But "assignment" is a terrible word to use because it is used mainly in school and work contexts that don't apply here. A mandate is an authorization to perform an action, so it's pretty close but other words could also be chosen such "mission."

"Afterwards, we developed our own life." - "entfaltet" - shouldn't it be rather "expanded".

"Entfalten" is literally something like "unfold" and is commonly used to describe the organic and natural development of something. "Expand" would be wrong here, in my opinion.

"and urged you to refrain from provocations" -"demanded a friendly attitude" (einen friedlichen Umgang miteinander angemahnt).

A "friedlicher Umgang" is a "peaceful going-about". To urge "einen friedlichen Umgang" is to request that someone make an effort to "keep the peace", or negatively, to refrain from provocations, which upset the peace.

"But the opposite has happened." - "But the reality is opposite" (Das Gegenteil ist Realität).

People just don't use the phrase "The reality is opposite" in English, so the idea has to be paraphrased (umgeschrieben).

"Similar to Opus Dei? Schmidberger: Somewhat." - "A bit", "a little" (Ein bisschen).

I fail to see any significant difference between "somewhat similar" and "a little bit similar", except that "somewhat similar" sounds better in English. But it is true that the direct, literal translation of "Ein Bisschen" is "A little bite."

You may consider my humble tips relevant or not, right or wrong. I'm no expert in English nor German, but if my considerations are right it may be considered important for some people.

The hardest part of translating is the fact that the result text should be able to stand alone in the destination language, not being overly influenced by the grammar and phrasing of the source language, while still preserving its meaning. Word-for-word translation is generally not desirable. Figures of speech, for example, must generally be completely replaced with equivalent phrasing the the destination language, without preserving any of the words in the original.

In any case, I am not a professional translator and I am sure that I do make mistakes, and have no problem with those being pointed out and corrected.

Jordanes said...

Unfortunately, UR doesn't draw those fine distinctions. ***

I think it takes them as given, though. It’s not a detailed discourse on soteriology or sacramental theology, after all, but has to be read in the context of all related doctrines, and especially in the light of the Church’s Tradition.

The average layman, as well as the average pastor who instructs the average layman, gets the impression all too easily from UR that any protestant can avail himself of the means of salvation within his own schismatic and heretical sect. ***

I think it’s in some ways worse than that – the average layman and the average pastor probably don’t get any impression from UR, because they haven’t read it or hardly any other church document (though the pastor may possibly have read it once in seminary).

Burn it in the middle of St. Peter's Square, I say. ***

If God ever grants me the blessing of visiting St. Peter’s Square, I am sure there are many, many other and better things that will have my attention than setting fire to a Vatican II text. ;-)

Jordanes said...

My understanding is that non-Catholic sects are never per se means of salvation, although they can be helps to salvation. ***

That’s probably a clearer way of expressing it.

The way I look at it, perhaps some non-Catholics are saved but they are saved in spite of their sects, not because of them. ***

In one sense that is certainly true, in that all that is distinctive about the sect, all that makes it a sect rather than a part of the Catholic Church, is erroneous, defective, and not at all in accordance with God’s will. The Church is necessary, sects are not. All that said, still there is a sense in which is because of the sect that a non-Catholic might be saved, in that the sect was an instrument whereby the non-Catholic came in contact with a “means of salvation.”

Anonymous said...

Here's Fellay on how it will be an apostolic administration. It is from an interview in C.W.N. of 2006:

"The February 2 Il Giornale report says that Cardinal Julian Herranz has predicted the eventual creation of a new apostolic administration for traditionalists. (Cardinal Herranz, as the president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, is the top Vatican official on issues involving the interpretation of canon law.) In an agreement announced in January 2002, the Vatican created an apostolic administration in Campos, Brazil for another traditionalist group, recognizing the leader of that group as a bishop.

Questioned about that possibility in January, Bishop Fellay replied: "I am almost sure that it [an apostolic administration] will be granted to us." But Bishop Fellay added that the creation of an apostolic administration would not resolve all of the desires of the SSPX."

Oh, the quotes just keep coming in. And I haven't yet found the one from this year (2009) or the extensive one from 2003. I have paper copies of them somewhere.

The problem is that neo-con haters of the S.S.P.X want to saddle it with a personal prelature instead of the 'ritual apostolic administration'. They want to do this because they want to put the S.S.P.X under the local bishops.

I admit that Fellay is not always consistent in his answers. Recently, he said that the structure would be something between a [ritual] apostolic administration, a personal prelature, and a military ordinariate. He has mentioned general ordinariates in the past as well. But he nearly always asserts that the a.a. is the model, from which some departure might be made.

I can't see how a p.p. is good in any respect for the S.S.P.X. It is limited to secular clergy, which cuts out the some twelve affiliates of the Society that are religious orders; it is limited to priests and deacons, which does not foresee auxiliary bishops (what would you do with Tissier and de Galarreta? Duh!) and excludes lay supporters as subjects; and the personal prelate needs the permission of heresiarch Cardinal Baloney in order to establish a new chapel in L.A. The Society might as well submit entirely to the local bishops if they can't have freedom to establish apostolates in accordance with need.

Duh! Ever heard of suicide? Another name for it is 'personal prelature.

Thank God Schmidberger says that what is offered is only "somewhat" like a p.p.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

There’s no question about the orthodoxy in Vatican II, but that certainly does not mean there can be no criticism of the reforms of Vatican II and no objection to or protest of any of the problems that are linked to or arise from Vatican II, nor that one may not hold that the traditional theology is superior to the reformed theology of Vatican II. ***

Well put, Brian.

Anonymous said...

APPROVED TRADITIONAL LATIN MASSES IN MINNESOTA

I have noticed that Minnesota has been a black hole when it comes to diocesan offerings of the old Mass.

For example, there are no approved every-Sunday Masses in the Dioceses of Winona, Crookston, New Ulm, or Duluth.

I have recently come across mention of Masses in the Diocese of Winona. These are at Guckeen, Mankato, and Rochester. I do not believe that they have episcopal permission. They seem to be offered by 'independent' priests. Could anyone here tell me more? I need the information for my listings. Are any of these offered by legitimate authority?

Also, does anyone know of any every-Sunday Traditional Latin Masses offered by legitimate authority in the Diocese of Winona? I'd much appreciate the information and would love to post it all on this blog.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

Mr. Perkins,

"Neo-con" Romanus?

NCTradCatholic,

"Iakovos," not "Lakovos." Jacob or James or Giacomo, not Lacob or Lames or Glacomo.

NCTradCatholic said...

Jordanes said...
"there is a sense in which is because of the sect that a non-Catholic might be saved, in that the sect was an instrument whereby the non-Catholic came in contact with a “means of salvation.”

Yes, and that is a heretical sense, except for the two cases I mentioned above. Precisely the problem with these documents.

Jordanes said...

Nonsense. Either the event happened or it didn't. It's not heretical to admit when an event like that occurs.

Anonymous said...

PKTP,

You're no doubt aware that, while much of Minnesota is indeed a black hole for approved TLMs, it is also home to seven very healthy SSPX chapels (including the St. Thomas Seminary and the Sacred Heart Novitiate) and three of the most extraordinary approved TLMs you will find anywhere, St. Agnes being the most remarkable of all (where Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert still provide the Ordinary music). This abundance of approved and nonapproved TLMs in certain areas is probably not unrelated to the dearth in others.

Kevin said...

"Well, yes, if a baptized child in a sect dies before reaching the age of reason (in which case he was actually a member of the Catholic Church all along), or an adult dies without ever having committed a mortal sin, and somehow never adopted the heretical positions of his own sect. Not very likely..."

NCTradCatholic, perhaps I misunderstand the latter half of your statement here, but are you saying that the adoption of a heretical position is in itself enough to bar a person from salvation? What about the distinction between formal and material heresy?

Anonymous said...

"There’s no question about the orthodoxy in Vatican II", said one blogger.

Of course there is. It is not impossible, for example, that D.H. directly contradicts previous Church teaching on whether the principle by which to allow non-Catholic sects is "the public good" (D.H.) or only "public order" (Quanta Cura, Syllabus of Errors).

While I don't hold that any Vatican II document is in any way heretical in its true meaning, such a possibility cannot be excluded because much in there is non-infallible.

P.K.T.P.

Peter said...

wsxyz: "As a prelude, when I translate something like this, I do it just because I find the piece to be of general interest and think it should be more widely read. I don't have time to spend all day translating, so I do it on the fly."

Sure, and I appreciate your work. I know that translating with the purpose of obtaining a standalone text is a real pain, and I'm very happy that I don't have to do it (probably only pains of forcing yourself to write a poem are worse).


When you compare this interview with the TV interview with bishop Fellay in Canada posted on Whispers in the Loggia a few days ago, the hostility of the interviewer towards the SSPX is even more striking.

Iakovos said...

NCTradCatholics asked me:
"Is it really that hard for you to comprehend that Fr. S. is speaking about the GERMAN BISHOPS?"

Not at all -- that's why I bracketed [Bishops, Rome?] at the beginning of the quote.

I suspected the context was the German Bishops, but wasn't sure. Thank you wsxyz for your civil clarification.
But, 1) SSPX reps are widely known to take "dialogue" and turn it into occasions of demands and moralizing to the hierarchy. In this way, Fr. S. is old school, for evidently Bishp. Fellay has found a way diplomacy can be utilized to everyone's benefit, and, 2) it only matters for the SSPX that at least some main points of their cause are being heard and advanced by the Holy Father. Furthermore, I for one am not prepared to demonize ALL the German Bishops. There's a couple of Cardinal Ratzinger students in the group that were proteges.

Last point, I apologize for energizing this thread where there could be an occasion for some of us to discover the "malicious joy" in proving the other wrong or attempting to do so. If so, in the great wisdom of the street, "my bad."

Jordanes said...

It is not impossible, for example, that D.H. directly contradicts previous Church teaching on whether the principle by which to allow non-Catholic sects is "the public good" (D.H.) or only "public order" (Quanta Cura, Syllabus of Errors). ***

But would that contradiction amount to heterodoxy?

Anyway this is one of those areas that needs clarification if not correction.

okie said...

The one thing I would like to point out is that there have been councils that have indeed been failures before Vatican II, and there have been councils that were indeed unclear before Vatican II. Note, I think that Vatican II is particularly unclear, and the aftermath has been particularly hi-jacked by bad people, and the documents that seemed to have the best things in mind (the good Archbishop of the SSPX thought there indeed were some good documents in the council) were explicitly ignored, while the most ambigious things were used in a terrifyingly horrible manner. Yet, that doesn't mean Vatican II is somehow obviously bad in light of all other councils bearing obviously good fruit and having no problems. (additionally, its not like Roman Catholicism was all that healthy in the 20th century, especially in America. Numbers only tell part of the story. Vatican II was just a happy occasion for the decay to completely hollow out).

At anyrate, on to my original point:

The Council of Florence, for instance, was a rather huge failure. First of all, the original proceedings in Basel melted down into the heretical decrees at Constance claiming superiority for general councils...for all people want to blame Vatican II for counter acting Vatican I, the decrees of Constance really did intend to do so, although they were, Thanks be to God, supressed. The whole shebang started out with a Pope dying. However, the was that the council indeed did true marks of union with the East, but on the ground, it never took. Thus the high ambitions of the council bore little to no fruit. I am not claiming this was the councils fault, but indeed, not all the terrible things to come after Vatican II were its fault as well.

As far as Councils with "ambigious" or unclear teachings, lets be honest and point out that the Council of Nicea belongs at the top of this one. Nothing the council said was false, of course...but the immediate aftermath of this council was not uniformity, but even more confusion than went on before. Even the orthodox who backed the decree began to seperate into different camps, as the implications of "Homoousia" were eventually bore out. Two other councils followed that were still followed with much confusion, until Chalcedon really defined in precise terms what Nicea began in parsing out the doctrine of the Trinity.

Although these are the prime examples I had in mind, not everything went swimmingly with other councils:

Latern IV: The fourth crusade didn't go that well, to say the least.

Lyons II: another failed attempt at unity with the East.

Latern V: No crusade against the Turks materialized.

-Now do not quote me out of context. I do think Vatican II uniquely combined unclear statements (there were no cannons of the councils, for pete's sake) with incredibly bad circumstances before and afterward that made even its best intentions fall flat, and opened up the huge mess we are in now. But I don't know if I would be willing to say that the 100 years after every council before Vatican II somehow was obviously better than the mess we are in now. The time after Nicea was incredibly contentious. Many people were led astray because Nicea was not clear enough. The entire Eastern schism still persists because not enough was done, by people on both sides (although the East is certainly much more to blame), to reunify. I do not want to let Vatican II off the hook where it needs to be clarified, but I will not allow Catholics to have a Protestant-like amnesia when it comes to history. We have had dark times before. The gates of hell will not prevail. Stop staying stupid and baseless clumnies against the Holy Father like "he is a hegelian," whatever the armchair philosophers mean by that. Christ has over come the world.

Kevin said...

"...or an adult dies without ever having committed a mortal sin, and somehow never adopted the heretical positions of his own sect. Not very likely..."

Also, don't you mean without having ever been forgiven of the mortal sin? There's always the possibility of perfect contrition in the absence of a priest.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes questions why I call Romanus a neo-con. Perhaps he is not. Perhaps he is just ignorant of the full implications of the personal prelature structrue. But I find that hard to believe given his comments on this blog about such matters. I'd say that he's a neo-con or else what I call a 'semi-trad'.

One thing I've noticed over the years is the 'siege mentality' of traditionalists in general and the polite pusillanimity of regularised traditionalists, those working under the local bishops. I am one of these people. After forty years of persecution, some traditionalists are timid about demanding their rights. They are afraid that, if they do, the sky will fall on them. 'Oh, we must not cut out the bishops entirely. We must find a way to get our Mass while being slaves to our enemies at the same time. Dont' mind us!' But the lay liberals do mind us and plot our extinction. It's not smart to share a parish with them. We do it only because we often must.

You see, many of the local bishops *are* our enemies, unfortunate as that may be. Any long-term arrangement which puts us under the local bishops is a disaster unless and until the New Mass be entirely abolished. Whether the N.O. is destined for the dustbin I leave to God alone. It would be arrogant to suggest that. So what I do suggest is that we have a longt-term international diocese which is directly under the Holy Father and 100% exempt from the local bishops. Survival demands this.

No structure for the S.S.P.X is acceptable if it says that Fellay needs Baloney's permission to establish a chapel in Los Angeles. Anyone who would even suggest such a thing is either a neo-con, a liberal, or an ignoramus. Take your pick.

Furthermore, from a pastoral point of view, lay traditionalists need a loving shepherd who knows his sheep and shares their charism of spirtuality. We don't just ask for the Mass. We need the pre-conciliar Divine Office, all the old religious orders in their habits, the old exorcism formula of 1611, and so forth. What is needed is an international diocese which is entirely distinctive, where there is no hint of Bozo the Clown priest, no hint of girls in leotards dancing through the sanctuary during Mass, no hind of Modern architecture for church design, no hint of pop music at Mass or anywhere near it, and no hint of bishops who say that Christ died not to atone for our sins but as an act of solidarity with us. And so forth.

Our own bishop could also add propers to our Mass which are meaningful to us. Let us add to our calendar the Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War and St. Pio of Pietrelcina; and let us leave off John XXIII, thank you very much.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Anon. wrote:

"You're no doubt aware that, while much of Minnesota is indeed a black hole for approved TLMs, it is also home to seven very healthy SSPX chapels (including the St. Thomas Seminary and the Sacred Heart Novitiate) and three of the most extraordinary approved TLMs you will find anywhere, St. Agnes being the most remarkable of all (where Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert still provide the Ordinary music). This abundance of approved and nonapproved TLMs in certain areas is probably not unrelated to the dearth in others."

Yes, I was aware of that. In fact, the success of the S.S.P.X in Minnesota is arguably the result of the refusal of most local bishops there to approve the old Mass. The Metropolitan Archdiocese has had the old Mass for many years now and so has St. Cloud. Winona, New Ulm, Crookston, and Duluth have resisted for 25 years.

There is now a new bishop for New Ulm and therefore some hope there. Also, the Bishop of Winona seems to be warming to the T.L.M. and is approving Masses, but not yet on the every-Sunday basis.

The S.S.P.X has an every-Sunday Mass in the D. of Crookston but not the Diocese. Zilch for Duluth.

P.K.T.P.

Prodinoscopus said...

I think it’s in some ways worse than that – the average layman and the average pastor probably don’t get any impression from UR, because they haven’t read it or hardly any other church document (though the pastor may possibly have read it once in seminary).

Well, somebody read it, and that somebody came away with the impression that heretics and schismatics can avail themselves of the means of salvation within their heretical and schismatic sects -- and that impression has been spread far and wide. Show me the good fruits of UR. There are none. Again, the proof is in the pews.

NCTradCatholic said...

Jordanes said...
Nonsense. Either the event happened or it didn't. It's not heretical to admit when an event like that occurs.

Pope Eugene IV: "The sacrosanct Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence.

Pope Boniface VIII: "we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins. (Unam Sanctam)

I think the record is pretty clear on this subject.

Jordanes said...

Pope Eugene IV: “All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected. . . . The sixth is the sacrament of orders. Its matter is the object by whose handing over the order is conferred. So the priesthood is bestowed by the handing over of a chalice with wine and a paten with bread; the diaconate by the giving of the book of the gospels; the subdiaconate by the handing over of an empty chalice with an empty paten on it; and similarly for the other orders by allotting things connected with their ministry.”

Pope Pius XII: “All agree that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible signs which produce invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they produce and produce the grace which they signify. Now the effects which must be produced and hence also signified by Sacred Ordination to the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy, namely power and grace, in all the rites of various times and places in the universal Church, are found to be sufficiently signified by the imposition of hands and the words which determine it. Besides, every one knows that the Roman Church has always held as valid Ordinations conferred according to the Greek rite without the traditio instrumentorum; so that in the very Council of Florence, in which was effected the union of the Greeks with the Roman Church, the Greeks were not required to change their rite of Ordination or to add to it the traditio instrumentorum: and it was the will of the Church that in Rome itself the Greeks should be ordained according to their own rite. It follows that, even according to the mind of the Council of Florence itself, the traditio instrumentorum is not required for the substance and validity of this Sacrament by the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. If it was at one time necessary even for validity by the will and command of the Church, every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established.

“Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects - namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit - and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense. It follows as a consequence that We should declare, and in order to remove all controversy and to preclude doubts of conscience, We do by Our Apostolic Authority declare, and if there was ever a lawful disposition to the contrary We now decree that at least in the future the traditio instrumentorum is not necessary for the validity of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy.”

Yes, the record is very clear on this subject as well.

NCTradCatholic said...

Jordanes said...
Yes, the record is very clear on this subject as well.

What on Earth is your point?

Anonymous said...

PKTP, says this, "So what I do suggest is that we have a longt-term international diocese which is directly under the Holy Father and 100% exempt from the local bishops. Survival demands this."

Do we Trads organize and lobby for this? Is Una Voce the advocate? Who then? Do we establish the Perkin's Coalition for the Establishment of an International Diocese for the TLM and Liturgy pre 1962? Leave it up to Rome and the FSSPX? What can we do beside pray and express individual opinions?

Anon Anon

Ponte said...

Not bad. He's an intelligent man and the responses are for the most part sensible, although you can of course see the problems at the same time. I think that his appeal to the "suprema lex" of the salvation of souls as the reason for the ordinations was a bit much.

But overall again, a decent interview. What I found the most intriguing was that, from what he says, both the SSPX and Rome have already chosen the "experts" who will engage in the theological dialogue.

Parmenides said...

PKTP has done a very good job of showing why Romanus is right in saying that an apostolic administration is temporary by definition. Every canon and source that he quoted showed this. This is why it is a dangerous proposition to give the SSPX an AA: it can be dissolved at any time, while a PP cannot so easily...

Anonymous said...

Parmenides must be joking when he writes this:

"PKTP has done a very good job of showing why Romanus is right in saying that an apostolic administration is temporary by definition. Every canon and source that he quoted showed this. This is why it is a dangerous proposition to give the SSPX an AA: it can be dissolved at any time, while a PP cannot so easily..."


Nothing in Canon 371.1 suggests that the a.a. can be dissolved any more easily than a p.p. can. This is just plain poppycock, with an extra helping of nuts. What 371.1 does say is that an a.a. is destined to be a diocese, which a p.p. can never be. Time to get real and grow up, Parmenides.

What I have demonstrated is how a p.p. is completely unsuitable for the S.S.P.X. Some suits just don't fit. Some ludicrously don't fit, like trying to pack a weight-lifter into baby clothes. That's the p.p., with its restriction to clergy--and secular clergy at that.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Anon. says:

"Do we Trads organize and lobby for this? Is Una Voce the advocate? Who then? Do we establish the Perkin's Coalition for the Establishment of an International Diocese for the TLM and Liturgy pre 1962? Leave it up to Rome and the FSSPX? What can we do beside pray and express individual opinions?"

Well, I have very good reason to suppose that my own lobbying efforts had an effect in securing the ritual a.a. for the Campos in 2002. So I would say that we should try to warn the S.S.P.X of dangers, lobby, pray, and express our views, and then leave it up to Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His Holy and Immaculate Mother.

I am confident, in fact, that Fellay and company won't get saddled with a personal prelature. They're not that stupid; and, fortunately, the canonists at Rome completely ignore what journalists hear, repeat, and expect.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Back on Minnesota:

Does anyone here know of any 'private' Sunday Traditional Latin Masses said in the Diocese of Winona or New Ulm under legitimate authority? I have heard that there may be some. Please let me know so that I can send the information on to all the listing sites. Remember, under Article 4 of S.P., faithful can attend 'private' Masses. They are only private in the sense of not being listed by the celebrant in accordance with a regular schedule.

I ask this because Minnesota is one of the worst black holes in America when it comes to T.L.M.s approved by the bishops.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Parmenides has done a good job at showing why Romanus was wrong about personal prelatures. He gave me the opportunity to clarify that, in fact, apostolic administrations are only temporary in the sense that they are eventually promoted into dioceses. A 'personal diocese' or 'ritual diocese' is just the normalisation in the process. Thank you so much for proving my case, Parmenides.

P.K.T.P.

Iakovos said...

Dear "okie:
One of the sure-fire ways of determining if one speaks truthfully, sensibly and bravely, is that most here will ignore his printed comments. You duh man! I wish you had posted earlier, at least for my sake.
Plus, just a state away from you, I really like Okies.

John McFarland said...

PKTP,

I'm no canon lawyer, or even a knowledgeable amateur; but I am a lawyer, and my instinct is that in this canonical status stuff, you're traversing territory that you only think you understand. One element of this is that most of the concepts and statuses under discussion are without much if any precedent even before you try to apply them to the SSPX's situation.

I'd be particularly interested in knowing from a genuine traditional canonist who also knows the 1983 Code (if there be such a beast) if it really is possible with the confines of Church law to have layman scattered across the countryside (the SSPX faithful) be entirely outside the jurisdiction of the local ordinary in Post Falls or St. Mary's or Ellicott City. When I say "not possible," I don't mean in the sense that the Pope couldn't be it, because I think that he could; but in the sense that it would go so much against the grain of what the Church is, and has been at least since the second century or thereabouts, that he never would do it -- that he wouldn't give complete independence from the rst of the hierarchy.

Last but not least, as you well know, what the Pope can give, he can take away. The notion that the regularization of the SSPX would generate enough momentum that it would become "politically" inexpedient for Rome to take away what had been given could be right, but I don't think that you have said, or would say, that you think that the regularization would bring a breathtaking change in things. Against this background, I at least continue to worry that anything along these lines is dangerous in the absence of Rome's conversion.

John McFarland said...

Since Opus Dei has been mentioned, I'd like to use that rather feeble pretext to say something about Mr. Palad's separate post on its founder.

Most if not all of Mr. Palad's quotes come from before Vatican II -- indeed, well before Vatican II.

When the new Mass came in, his statement to the members of the Work was that they would love the new Mass as much as the old; and he set out (his right-hand man and successor Alvaro del Portillo reported in memoir of the founder) to diligently practice in preparation for saying the new Mass.

But then Bishop Bugnini buttonholed Father del Portillo (the latter mentions that they used the familiar form of "you" between them) and insisted that Msgr. Escriva accept the indult to say the old Mass; and (for reasons Bishop Portillo did not explain) so he did. It does not seem that he ever said the new Mass.

Father del Portillo didn't explain whatever happened to the love of the new Mass in Msgr. Escriva's case. It did, however, remain the watchword for the rest of the organization.

Then there was one time when then Bishop del Portillo told a few more traditionally-minded priests of the Work that in their lifetime, they would say the old Mass again.

For a while after the 2007 MP, I checked out opusdei.org to see what the current Prelate would say about it. For as long as I checked, the answer was: nothing. I would imagine that that's still the case.

It seems quite evident that "the spirit of the Work" (to use an important phrase in the Work's vocabulary) is to say the new Mass, and only the new Mass. There is no such thing as a priest of member of Opus Dei that has anything to do with the old Mass, as far as I know; and given the nature of the Work, that can't be an accident. The freedom of its members on the issue is clearly the freedom to willing say and attend the new Mass, and nothing else.

I've been tempted to write to the priest who told me the story about Bishop del Portillo's prophecy, and ask him what is to made of this; but it would serve no purpose.

In the last few years of his life, Monsignor Escriva would tell people to get a St. Pius X catechism. When the new catechism came in, the Work began to love the new catechism as it had loved the old.

NCTradCatholic said...

John McFarland, thanks very much for that inside perspective on Opus Dei. It says a lot about that association.

dolorosa said...

I don't think talking will solve this problem. This diabolical disorientation on the part of the Vatican II Popes will only stop when the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary is done by the Pope with all the Bishops as requested by Our Lady of Fatima. It has never been done correctly and that's why communism is continuing to spread throughout the world, especially now with Obama in the U.S. See video for more information:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8spsk_y_hKc

Iakovos said...

John McFarland said:

"Last but not least, as you well know, what the Pope can give, he can take away. The notion that the regularization of the SSPX would generate enough momentum that it would become "politically" inexpedient for Rome to take away what had been given could be right, but I don't think that you have said, or would say, that you think that the regularization would bring a breathtaking change in things. Against this background, I at least continue to worry that anything along these lines is dangerous in the absence of Rome's conversion."
Noting well the last sentence and Rome's conversion.

Well. Them's strong words. But, if indeed Rome needs to convert, and why shouldn't they, conversion is life-long journey not all complete, but I dasn't recommend them converting according to SSPX rules and regs though they have claimed to be the sole keeper of the Flame in these dark days.

Rather, let us pray for Rome's conversion to its elder half in the East where disputation, Aristotelean logic, and sophistical rhetoric are not in use, or the itch and urge to "win" arguments, and other Western impediments to peace, but rather still, to convert to the experience of the deep heart alone and in silence with Him, the unity of love of the Holy Trinity that burned for love of God and neighbor in the souls of St. Augustine, St Basil, and the Fathers and Saints both East and West before the lure of power (not the same as authority) wounded nearly to death Western Catholicism long before the blame-game began over Vatican II.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. McFarland:

I am now fairly conversant with this area of the law, although not a trained canonist (and I'm from a whole family of lawyers, plus one justice, so I have some idea of law in general: it rubs off). In fact, some canonists from Rome consulted with me over this entire matter prior to the Campos structure being erected. We e-mailed back and forth about four times and then, about two months later, the structure was granted for the Campos. It has proved to work exceptionally well.

I am sure of my facts on this. Really, all we are talking about is making the Campos cover more territory than that of one diocese. Can it cover many? Yes, the Code is clear: it can cover any given territory (372.2). This was, in fact, the original plan, as the Campos was supposed to cover all of Brazil (the Brazilian bishops conference nixed that original plan).

By way of parallel, I note that the Armenian Exarchate for Latin America covers more than thirty countries and yet only has two parishes in it, one in Brazil and one, if I recall rightly, in Mexico. What do Catholic Armenians do if they live in Lima, Peru? They simply go to the N.O. or diocesan T.L.M. or another Eastern Catholic Church for Mass, confession, extreme unction, and so forth, because we can receive these from any priest who has jurisdiction in the territory where we have a domicile or quasi-domicile. The Armenians, in particualar have other similar structures covering huge areas, such as one for all of Russia, the Ukraine, Armenian, Georgia, and Azerbaidjan and yet having only a few parishes, mostly in Armenia and Georgia. They have learned how to juggle pension rules for priests, for example, in multiple countries. It can be done. It is being done.

The only issue which might arise is over rights to Baptism, Confirmation, and Marriage. In such cases, if I were inscribed in the a.a. and were not near any parish of the a.a., I could ask my bishop (who might be Bishop Fellay) for permission to be married, say, by a priest of the local ordinary, either in the N.O. or the Traditional Rite. This is not a problem. But I would have a right to travel to the nearest church or chapel of the a.a. to be married, even if it were a thousand miles away. So I could travel or not. In the latter case, there must be permission from my proper ordinary (Fellay) and the local bishop.

However, if this were considered to be a problem, restrictions on membership in the a.a. could be written into its statutues. For example, it could be decreed that lay subjects must live within the confines of a parish or mission of the a.a. and that such parishes and missions must not comprise more territory than two or three contiguous Latin dioceses. This sort of detail can be worked out by the real experts. Suffice it to say that it is achievable. I am sure of this and I have consulted with those who do know about how to manage such things.

The entire structure has been considered for the Society in detail over the last nine years, which is why it has never been taken off the table and why Bishop Fellay still refers to it as the model for the future.

This entire issue might be premature until doc talks are over, since a temporary structure could simply be a provisional society of apostolic life for the Society and provisional institutes of consecrated life for the affiliates of the Society. But it would be good for the Society to map out a canonical destination. That's all I'm trying to suggest here. If they don't like my views on this or find them to be ignorant, that's fine; if they think otherwise, that's finer! Not a problem, Mr. McFarland. I am on your side. I am definintely not on Romanus's sine on this. I am not sure if he is just innocently ignorant of the implications of his suggestion or if he is a malicious liberal or neo-con. But I wouldn't want to be saddled with a personal prelature.

P.K.T.P.

jkokenge said...

There is a recently built shrine to Our Lady of Guadalupe outside LaCrosse, Wisconsin. I just saw the shrine last week when returning from Winona for ordinations, and it is remarkable.

http://www.guadalupeshrine.org/Home/Home.asp

Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland expresses one further worry in regard to a universal apostolic administration. He says that it is unprecedented. Actually, the idea of a 'ritual' or 'personal' apostolic administration under Canon 372.2 now does have a precedent in the Campos structure. The only difference is that the sole existing one exists in the territory of only one diocese.

But I'd point out to Mr. McFarland that Rome has recently done the unprecedented to address new and unusual situations. First of all, the Campos structure is unique in the Church and didn't exist anywhere ever before 2002, although it was provided for in the 1983 Code (and that's one of the beauties of it. It is just like Romanus's p.p. in being specifically a 'post-conciliar' structure!)

In the case of military ordinariates, they were not even provided for in the 1983 Code (there was a comparable structure before then) and had to be invented by Rome in 1986--straight out of the blue. They too are unprecedented.

Opus Dei also has the only p.p. ever created. It too is unprecedented. I don't know why Mr. McFarland finds it unreasonable to suppose a ritual apostolic administration since only one exists, and yet he does not find it unreasonable to imagine a new p.p.--and yet only one of those exists too.

There is also the visitariate structure. This is not a particular church (just as a p.p. isn't one); it is not equivalent in law to a diocese but is a territory of visitation for some group defined by rite or liturgical use. Those attached to it have certain privileges but remain subjects of the local (usually Roman) ordinary. The Armenians have one for Central Europe. In the Latin Church, the Hungarians had one until recently for Northern America; the Lithuanians, for the U.S.A.

Then there is the ordinariate structure, so far used only for Eastern churches in Western countries, and in which the ordinary has authority which is cumulative with that of the local bishop. Austria has one for Eastern Catholic churches in general.

There are also abbacies nullius, which are usually surrounded by a diocese and yet 100% exempt from it; and there was even a priory nullius in Spain until the late 1960s.

In the early Celtic church, the entire organisation was different. Abbots ruled territories and bishops were like flying providers of ordinations and Confirmations.

The Cistercians and the mendicants and, before them, the Benedictines all worked out various forms of exemption to meet the special needs of their own day.

So this is not a problem, really. If you look closely at the bits on collegiality from Vatican II, they mention the direct apostolic (not merely vicarial) authority of bishops but this is not limited to *territorial* bishops. The wording allows the possibility of other sorts, ruling as proper rather than local ordinaries.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland expresses one further worry in regard to a universal apostolic administration. He says that it is unprecedented. Actually, the idea of a 'ritual' or 'personal' apostolic administration under Canon 372.2 now does have a precedent in the Campos structure. The only difference is that the sole existing one exists in the territory of only one diocese.

But I'd point out to Mr. McFarland that Rome has recently done the unprecedented to address new and unusual situations. First of all, the Campos structure is unique in the Church and didn't exist anywhere ever before 2002, although it was provided for in the 1983 Code (and that's one of the beauties of it. It is just like Romanus's p.p. in being specifically a 'post-conciliar' structure!)

In the case of military ordinariates, they were not even provided for in the 1983 Code (there was a comparable structure before then) and had to be invented by Rome in 1986--straight out of the blue. They too are unprecedented.

Opus Dei also has the only p.p. ever created. It too is unprecedented. I don't know why Mr. McFarland finds it unreasonable to suppose a ritual apostolic administration since only one exists, and yet he does not find it unreasonable to imagine a new p.p.--and yet only one of those exists too.

There is also the visitariate structure. This is not a particular church (just as a p.p. isn't one); it is not equivalent in law to a diocese but is a territory of visitation for some group defined by rite or liturgical use. Those attached to it have certain privileges but remain subjects of the local (usually Roman) ordinary. The Armenians have one for Central Europe. In the Latin Church, the Hungarians had one until recently for Northern America; the Lithuanians, for the U.S.A.

Then there is the ordinariate structure, so far used only for Eastern churches in Western countries, and in which the ordinary has authority which is cumulative with that of the local bishop. Austria has one for Eastern Catholic churches in general.

There are also abbacies nullius, which are usually surrounded by a diocese and yet 100% exempt from it; and there was even a priory nullius in Spain until the late 1960s.

In the early Celtic church, the entire organisation was different. Abbots ruled territories and bishops were like flying providers of ordinations and Confirmations.

The Cistercians and the mendicants and, before them, the Benedictines all worked out various forms of exemption to meet the special needs of their own day.

So this is not a problem, really. If you look closely at the bits on collegiality from Vatican II, they mention the direct apostolic (not merely vicarial) authority of bishops but this is not limited to *territorial* bishops. The wording allows the possibility of other sorts, ruling as proper rather than local ordinaries.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I thank those here who showed me how to remove that wretched Shoppers' Report bar. It's gone!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Outside the Church there is no Salvation

“Outside the Church there is no salvation” is a doctrine of the Catholic Faith that was taught By Jesus Christ to His Apostles, preached by the Fathers, defined by popes and councils and piously believed by the faithful in every age of the Church. Here is how the Popes defined it:

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
“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 have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, 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 by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the 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 he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
But man, following the example of his natural father, Adam, often disobeys the authority of God. The fact that the doctrine had to be thrice defined itself proves the Church’s paternal solicitude in correcting her erring children who fall into indifferentism. The first goal of Saint Benedict Center is to defend this doctrine. We present here a selection of various articles written for that end.

Jordanes said...

What on Earth is your point? ***

My point is that not all conciliar and papal doctrinal statements are of equal weight, nor necessarily irreformable. Simply quoting a council's or pope's declaration is the beginning, not the end, of ascertaining and understanding a doctrine of the Church.

okie said...

Iakovos, I appreciate the compliment, but there's no reason to heap scorn on the goodly Aristotle!

ben said...

Uderstanding of Church Doctrine ENDS with a Dogmatic pronouncement (EX CATHEDRA). I quoted three of them above.

My understanding is that Dogmas are rarely pronounced by the Church and they are proclaimed to END an argument not to start an arguement or begin a dialogue. To understand a dogma in a different way than when is was proclaimed is a heresey.

My "CCD" teachers in the early 70's(note that neither C stands for Catholic) would never state this stuff. But they'll say, "Give me a hug! That's what it's all about"

Anyone who disagrees with a Dogma of the Church is a heretic, and as the dogma from 1441 states, if they die that way (God's judgment) they will burn in Hell forever.

Anonymous said...

Okie has said, "top staying stupid and baseless clumnies against the Holy Father like "he is a hegelian," whatever the armchair philosophers mean by that. Christ has over come the world."

I appreciate your backgrounder comment and your points are well taken. Thank you.

Re: stupid Pope comments, esp. "Hegelian" the backgrounder on that comes from philospohers/theolgians proper who demonstrate the thesis-antithesis (Hegel) in the language of V2 and Pope BXV1. Sources?? I don't remember the exact ones but somewhere in SSPX archives, perhaps Iota Unum or Rhine Flows to Tiber as well.

For certain I am neither a philosopher or theologian. As a concerned layman I want access to good information and to have resolve about issues such as the meaning of true organic growth versus the term 'living tradition' that caresses so many novelties.

I can't pretend to know more than the Pope but I will lean toward the safe haven of pre V2 when in doubt. I was delighted when Pope BXV1 clarified the 'for many' versus the 'for all'. As a layman I would read Jimmy Akin and almost believe his neo con defense of 'for all'.

For me, I have lost trust in V2 largely...not entirely. I hope and pray they fix the mess pdq...the fruit is definitely rotten. I might say that good people tend to get ill from eating rotten fruit but that could be taken the wrong way so instead I would defer to the wheat and cockle analogy. Better yet, diabolical disorientation?

Lastly, on 'the fruit' - a picture is worth a thousand words. Have a visit to a FSSPX chapel/church (not sure of the correct word), and get a glimpse of what the Church has done away with. It is so very striking, beautiful and uplifting.

So striking in fact,that with certainty I now understand why the reformers call it the concilliar church and not the Catholic Church. I also get it why people call it 'nuchurch' and other disrespectful names. I feel like our heritage has been robbed from us.

I can't help but think that God is punishing us for our parents sins because they did not respect and love the traditional Latin Rite. A pearl of great price indeed.

I pray people get holy, pray, fast and do penance. May God grant the FSSPX faculties (formerly by the Pope) throughout the world for the betterment of the Catholic Church.

Bower Culti

Jordanes said...

Uderstanding of Church Doctrine ENDS with a Dogmatic pronouncement (EX CATHEDRA). ***

I'm guessing you don't mean that after the Church makes a dogmatic pronouncement, no one afterwards will ever be able to understand or believe in that Church doctrine -- but because you made your comment in reply to my statement that "simply quoting a council's or pope's declaration is the beginning, not the end, of ascertaining and understanding a doctrine of the Church," that is what your words would mean, even though you meant to say something else.

Anyway, later magisterial declarations can further define and clarify a doctrinal statement or even a dogmatic definition, and have in fact done so more than once. That's why it's insufficent merely to copy/paste prooftexts of past conciliar and papal teaching and then stop there.

Pablo said...

One question that Father Schmidberger needs to be asked is "Why are any Priests of the SSPX that stand up in favor of Bishop Williamson punished immediately?"

It is a truthful question, and the good Padre should have no trouble answering.

All the Priests consecrated recently have one thing in common: they will not stand up to Bishop Fellay and defend Bishop Williamson.

We depend on the SSPX hierarchy to continue the work of the Archbishop. It should not morph into the image of Bishop Fellay.

Millions of souls have gone to Hell because of the shenanigans in the new church. We don’t need any in the SSPX.

For those of you that say I should not calumny Bishop Fellay, then stop your attacks on the Novus Ordo and the Holy Father.I have told him to his face the remarks I make here.

Santa María de Guadalupe Esperanza nuestra, salva nuestra patria y conserva nuestra Fe.

Anonymous said...

I've kept out of this debate between Jordanes and others mostly. Jordanes writes:

"Anyway, later magisterial declarations can further define and clarify a doctrinal statement or even a dogmatic definition, and have in fact done so more than once. That's why it's insufficent merely to copy/paste prooftexts of past conciliar and papal teaching and then stop there."

I agree with J. here. One must keep separate the teaching and its expression. The latter is always open to greater elaboration and explanation. Once again, though, even the teaching itself in Vatican II is mostly non-infallible and is therefore open to at least the possibility of correction. We should leave the rest to the trained theologians, although we can at least withhold assent, rather than dissent, from certain Council teachings. We are also free to look at the aftermath of Vatican II, wonder about its orthodoxy, and choose not to examine its texts. We are not bound to examine or consider them.

Every Catholic is free to read Quanta Cura and the Syllabus as the Church's teaching on religous liberty and not even bother comparing it to D.H. That's what I do.

P.K.T.P.

Brian said...

“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 have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, 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 by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the 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 he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

That is a powerful teaching. Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate may not explicitly contradict this dogma, but they certainly do not emphasize this important Truth and seem to obscure it. Do they, perhaps, sweep it under the carpet in the interest of ecumenism?

Jordanes said...

One question that Father Schmidberger needs to be asked is "Why are any Priests of the SSPX that stand up in favor of Bishop Williamson punished immediately?" ***

Probably because Bishop Williamson's comments are indefensible and do great harm to the Fraternity and the prospects of enabling the SSPX to bring its blessings and gifts to the aid of the whole Church.

Anonymous said...

COMING: NEW PONTIFICAL COUNCIL (NOT COMMISSION) "SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM":

Upon dissolution of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" and the transfer of its initial function to the Congregation for the Doctine of the Faith, which was to reconcile the S.S.P.X and other independent traditionalist groups, His Holiness will form a new Pontifical Council "Summorun Pontificum". Its function will be to oversee implementation of the apostolic letter of July, 2007, and to deal with matters having to do with the various traditionalist communities formed after the apostolic letter entitled "Ecclesia Dei Adflicta".

The President of the Council will be Fr. Nicola Bux. I have not yet heard who the secretary will be but I'm guessing that it might be Fr. Vitielli or Fr. Lang.

All matters relating to the S.S.P.X will be dealt with by the C.D.F.

Golias claims that there will be a new m.p. this summer on the S.S.P.X. I have no information to convey about that. I'm not sure if it's true or not.

When will this new Council be erected? When the P.C.E.D. is transferred to the C.D.F. by a motu proprio. This is supposed to be "imminent" but I have not been informed about any particular date. I imagine that this is all coming very soon.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Correction to my last post:

Sorry, I meant that Fr. Bux will be the Secretary; it is the name of the president I don't know. Probably some cardinal.

P.K.T.P.

John McFarland said...

Jordanes,

When you characterize as "indefensible" Bishop Williamson's remarks (his belief that there were no homicidal gas chambers, at that Jewish deaths amounted to several hundred thousand), are they indefensible because they cannot possibly be true? Or because the roof falls in on those who express such opinions, irrespective of their truth, not the least because it is criminal to express such opinions in a number of countries?

Put otherwise: is it highly imprudent to express such opinions, or is it so obviously wrong as a factual matter that one who expresses them is a nut or a moral leper or both?

I don't particularly care if you answer that question; but you do need to think about it.

Pablo,

Father Abrahamowicz semi-defended Bishop Williamson and was expelled. It is not clear that that was the reason, or even a significant part of the reason. I am not aware of anyone else who has even semi-defended him publicly. There are those who are not happy, to say the least; but they have not defended him publicly, because they no doubt would be expelled Do you know of anyone in the SSPX who has defended him publicly?

Maybe this will help give a little perspective. Bishop Williamson is also an unofficial 9-11 Truther. That is, he believes that the U.S. government, or those acting under its aegis, destroyed the three World Trade Center towers. Think about the implications of that notion. Now consider the media reaction to that: barely mentioned, and virtually no comment. Not a big deal to consider George Bush, and hundreds of others, as traitors. Very big deal to deny gas chambers and the Six Million number. Would that the Pope would defend Catholic doctrine half as energetically as he defended the Holocaust. The H is the mother of all hot buttons.

In this context, do you really think that Bishop Fellay should imperil the mission of the SSPX for the sake of a contention about history?

John McFarland said...

Iakovos,

At times, the Latin Church's respect for reason has produced bad fruits. The Eastern Church's thickness of head and hardness of heart has been producing bad fruits with considerable consistency for more than a millennium. As regards the contention that those in communion with Rome but largely unaffected by Roman ideas are significantly better, I offer you their married clergy for evidence that duritiam cordis is not a monopoly of the schismatics.

Jordanes said...

Yes to both your questions, Mr. McFarland.

John McFarland said...

PKTP,

You are for present purposes an advocate. As advocates by the nature of the case do, you are constructing arguments. The absence of both explicit statutory guidance and precedent in the matters sub judice is particular matter means that in perfect good faith, Rome could do any number of things somewhere between 100% and 0% in agreement with you.

Give it your best shot, but don't be surprised if the decision goes against you; it always goes against somebody.

Pablo said...

Dear Mr. McFarland,

Salutations.

Yes, there was a Priest of the SSPX that spoke out publicly and was immediately expelled.

Also, for coming to the defense of my Priest and Confessor who is an SSPX Priest, I was made persona non gratia and even expelled at a Good Friday Mass.

Here is the public statement:

http://www.ask.com/bar?q=Father+Meramo%2C+SSPX&page=1&qsrc=0&ab=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.traditioninaction.org%2FHotTopics%2Ff030ht_OpenLetterSSPX.htm

If you would, perhaps you should contact the Prior at Ridgefield Connecticut and ask him of his statements regarding Bishop Williamson during the Priest Retreat in Phoenix, Arizona last February.

He is being transferred to Texas, and a Priest who has never given a retreat before is replacing him. There are other Priests who could replace him, but perhaps they might be too pro Bishop Williamson. At the beginning of the retreat, Bishop Fellay and Father Pluger were able to bring the troops in line; except for this Mexican Priest. God bless them Cristeros.

Let’s not gossip, or speculate. Let us get at the Truth. I have ten children and twenty grandchildren that are going to hell because people are playing politics instead of attending the supreme law: SALUS ANIMARUM IN ECCLESIA SUPREMA LEX.

How about this thought: get as tough with the Freemasons who have infiltrated the Vatican as we do with Priests who stand on the Truth.

Let us pray for those who maintain this blog.

I have nothing further to say on this subject.

'Ave Maria Purissima'