Rorate Caeli

Fellay speaks: The talks begin in the autumn of 2009


The Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), Bishop Bernard Fellay, has granted an extensive interview to Italian news agency APCom (full interview):

[Apcom:] The Pope is in Valle d'Aosta for a period of vacation. [Note: The Pope left Valle d'Aosta for Castel Gandolfo on July 29, which means that the interview was granted before his departure.] You are located very near him. Have you had any contact, or has there been any kind of contact between his entourage and you?
[Fellay:] No, absolutely not. There has been no contact. During his vacation, we must leave the Pope alone [lasciare in pace]. The matters go on with the Vatican, with the people in charge of the conversations. But we have not disturbed the Pope. This is his vacation.

[Apcom:] Bishop Fellay, is a trip of yours to Rome foreseen for the near future? Has the initial date of the dialogue been set? And, about your commission, have you already considered who will take part in it? How many people will form it?

[Fellay:] There is not date set for the beginning of the dialogue, but we may assume that it will be in the autumn. I will be in Rome for that period, but there is nothing yet detailed. The Commission is already formed, by 3-4 people, but we cannot yet mention the names, even if to avoid any kind of pressure.

[Apcom:] Do you consider that in the Vatican there is an excessive sensibility regarding the expectations of the Jewish world, in the "Williamson affair" as well as concerning the Good Friday prayer?

[Fellay:] Yes, I do think so. I am myself embarrassed - after that which took place in the case of Bishop Williamson - when I see Jews who concern themselves with matters of the Catholic Church. It is not their religion. Leave us alone [lasciare in pace].They are matters which concern the Catholic Church. If we wish to pray for the Jews, we will pray for the Jews, in the manner we see fit. I do not know if they pray for us, but I would say that this is their problem.

[Apcom:] Therefore, the Pope and the Vatican receive pressures from the Jewish world?

[Fellay:] Right. This is an extremely delicate and burning matter, and I think that we should remove ourselves from this climate which is not good. There was an unfortunate coincidence of events which must never happen again. In this context, the anger of the Jews can be understood, I understand it, and I deplore what happened.

[Apcom:] In the motu proprio 'Unitatem ecclesiam' [sic: ECCLESIAE UNITATEM], the Pope maintains that "the doctrinal questions obviously remain, the Fraternity does not a canonical status in the Church, and its ministers cannot exercise any ministry in a legitimate manner". What do you think of this?

[Fellay:] I think that nothing much has changed. What has changed is that this new disposition will focus our relations on doctrinal matters. But it is not a change, it is a process that moves forward, and that we had already asked for in 2000; the path goes forward. That which the Pope writes is in line with the usual speech of Rome, since 1976, therefore it is not new. We maintain a clear position, which we have carried on for a while, and that we maintain, even if we are in contrast with this law, that there are serious reasons that justify the fact that we exercise this ministry legitimately. The circumstances in which the Church finds herself, which we call a "state of necessity". For example, when a great catastrophe happens in a country, its ordinary structure is put out of use, the system goes into crisis mode, and then all those who are able to help do help. And therefore it is not our personal will, but the need of the faithful that demands the help of all those who are able to help. And this state of necessity is very widespread in the Church - there are certainly some exceptions - in order to secure, in conscience, the legitimate exercise of the apostolate.

[Apcom:] What juridical status do you desire for the Fraternity of Saint Pius X? A prelature, a society of apostolic life, or what?

[Fellay:] It will depend on Rome, obviously, that is the authority that will decide this structure. Their perspective is the wish to respect at the utmost the concrete reality that we represent. My hope is that we be sufficiently protected to exercise the apostolate to be able to do good, without being always stopped from action by juridical reasons. The hope is for a prelature, even if I do not have a preference. On the timetable, I cannot express myself, it all depends on Rome.

[Apcom:] For Williamson, the Second Vatican Council is a "poisoned cake", to be thrown in the "dustbin"; for Tissier de Mallerais, the Council should be "cancelled"; and for Alfonso de Gallareta [sic] there is not "much to salvage" from the Council: is there a division inside the Fraternity of Saint Pius X? How do you intend to solve it? The Vatican maintains that there are divisions inside the Fraternity.

[Fellay:] I might say that I do not see union even in the Vatican. The problem in the Church of our age is not us. We have become a problem only because we say that there is a problem. Besides, even if we may give the impression of opposing or even contradictory declarations, there are no internal fractures. For example, on the Council, we may say that almost all of it is to be rejected. But it may also be said that what is possible should be salvaged. But we all can never say the same thing. The Council is a mixture: there are good things, and bad. Even the Pope, when he maintains that a hermeneutic of continuity is to be desired, that he does not want a rupture, rejects the Council interpreted as rupture.

[Apcom:] Is Bishop Williamson a problem?

[Fellay:] He is a completely marginal problem. What he said has no relation whatsoever with the crisis of the Church, with the core issue with which we have dealt for 30 years following the Council, it is a historical matter. The question of knowing how many and in what way the Jews were killed is not a matter of faith, it is not even a religious matter, is is a historical matter. We are obviously convinced that he did not consider this matter as he should have, and we have distanced ourselves. But on the religious positions of the Fraternity regarding the Council, I do not see any problem with Williamson.

[Apcom:] Williamson says that the Council is a "poisoned cake" to be thrown away in the "dustbin". Does this phrase not seem to you a bit strong? Are you in agreement with it?

[Fellay:] It is a controversial phrase, but I do not condemn him. So many declarations today are made in a controversial tome, it is a provocation made in order to make people think. I would state the concept in another way, but I do not know if I am not in agreement. I would say it in another way, I would say that we must transcend the Council to return to that which the Church has always taught, and from which the Church cannot separate herself, and in a certain moment we must transcend the Council which intended to be pastoral, and not doctrinal. Which wished to concern itself with the mutable situation of the Church. But things change, and so many things of the Council are now worn-out.

[Apcom:] Bishop Williamson had promised to remain in silence, but he continues to speak: will he be punished? If he continues to maintain that a compromise with Rome on the Council is not possible, will he be expelled?

[Fellay:] It is not true that Williamson speaks often. It is very rare... he once said something... and then we did not ask him to keep silent about everything. The field about which we asked for his silence was very limited. His removal has been temporary. I downplay it as much as possible... it is not to be exaggerated... at the moment, I see no grounds for expulsion. It depends on him, on the situation in which he placed himself. For the time being, it is an ongoing process, he has seriously damaged his reputation, I cannot imagine anything beyond the situation in which he already is. It will depend on what he says. He has already been sufficiently punished, pushed to the margin, with no position.

[Apcom:] And, regarding the Council, will you accept a compromise with Rome?

[Fellay:] We will not make any compromise on the Council. I have no intention of making a compromise. The truth does not tolerate compromise. We do not want a compromise, we want clarity regarding the Council.

[Apcom:] The recent ordinations of priests have been seen as a provocation: would it have not been better to avoid them, in this delicate moment?

[Fellay:] It was not a provocation. Some bishops profited of occasion to claim provocation. But it was not a provocation, neither for Rome nor for us. It is like preventing a person from breathing. We are a priestly society whose goal is to form priests. And therefore to prevent the ultimate act of formation, which is the ordination, is like preventing someone from breathing. On the other hand, it had always been foreseen and we had always known that with the removal of the excommunication a new situation has taken place which is better than the preceding one, but not perfect. For us, it is normal to move forward with our activities, and, therefore, with the ordinations.

[Apcom:] L'Osservatore Romano has mentioned Calvin, Michael Jackson, Harry Potter, Oscar Wilde. What do you think of this?

[Fellay:] I ask myself: is the role of "L'Osservatore Romano" truly to busy itself with such matters? This is a first question. And the second question is: what is said about these people is truly the right thing? I have a mostly critical appraisal of such matters.

[Apcom:] Do you believe that this tired matter of the Lefebvrians may finally reach an end with this Pope?

[Fellay:] I do believe that there is certainly good hope. I believe that we must pray intensely, they are very delicate matters. We have been in this situation for 40 years, and not for personal considerations, but truly for serious things which pertain to the faith and to the future of the Church. We certainly see in the Pope an authentic will to reach the core of the matter, and we cherish this with all satisfaction. We pray, and we hope, that with grace of the good God we will reach something that is good for the Church and for ourselves.

[Apcom:] What do you think of Benedict XVI?

[Fellay:] He is an upright man, who regards the situation and the life of the Church most seriously.

________________
Tip: Papa Ratzinger Blog

141 comments:

Anonymous said...

"We certainly see in the Pope an authentic will to reach the core of the matter, and we cherish this with all satisfaction."

Bingo.

AM

Philip-Michael said...

I am glad to see an increased sense of hope, dare I say "openness" and charity on the part of the SSPX in the person of Bp. Fellay to not just want to talk with the Vatican but bring about true reconciliation. As many others have said before me, I think that this dialogue will bear great fruit and clarity in regards the Church's interpretation and full expression of the Second Vatican Council and the Papal Magisterium thereafter. Let us place all these things, A hopeful reconciliation of the SSPX and the Dogmatic clarity in the hands of Mary, as Pope Benedict already has. Also let us pray to Sts John Vianney and Pio of Pietrelcina during this "Year for Priests", that all priest may grow in orthodoxy and orthopraxy, which cannot be had without deepening Eucharistic and Ecclesial communion.

Rick DeLano said...

Fellay:] Yes, I do think so. I am myself embarrassed - after that which took place in the case of Bishop Williamson - when I see Jews who concern themselves with matters of the Catholic Church. It is not their religion. Leave us alone [lasciare in pace].They are matters which concern the Catholic Church. If we wish to pray for the Jews, we will pray for the Jews, in the manner we see fit. I do not know if they pray for us, but I would say that this is their problem.

>>When we begin to hear statements expressing this obvious truth emanating from the Vatican, then we will know that the necessary foundations for a recovery from the catastrophe have been put in place. We will finally be prepared to examine the Catholic Faith and its proclamation to this dying world, rather than the proclamation of a humanist Shoah Dogma which cannot save.

Anonymous said...

What Philip-Michael said: much to be desired. IMO, it would be a great blessing to the Holy Roman Church for SSPX to be designated a personal apostolic administration. Meddling local ordinaries (at least in the West) would no longer be a factor.

All that being said, is it so very difficult for Bp Fellay to refer to BXVI as the "Holy Father" occasionally? A term of great affection, even love. Makes me wonder if true love for a superior can come without ... obedience.

Paul Haley said...

The Swiss are famous for having a diplomatic talent and it's obvious Bishop Fellay has that same quality. He is the velvet glove to Williamson's hammer and I think the Pope realizes the difference in personalities and, as well, the necessity for the FSSPX to claim the state of necessity, even if in the more radical sounding voices of the other Society bishops. One cannot strangle the lifeblood of the Society and claim there is no state of necessity.

You see, if there was no state of necessity, the Society's position would be groundless. However, that is obviously not the case. As it was in 1988 and even since 1974, if the Society still cannot have its priests incardinated or able to function juridically in local dioceses, that, my friends, is a state of necessity which no one can reasonably deny. Why cannot they function juridically? That's a question which Rome must answer and not with vague claims and rhetoric. The situation goes way back to 1974 and before and the problems that led to the Society being shackelled must be solved before any reconciliation is achieved. And, that means no possibility that local bishops will be able to shackle them again.

Anonymous said...

"I do not know if they pray for us, but I would say that this is their problem."

Dear Monsignore, they do not pray for us, they curse us.

Anonymous said...

Look at the picture they put on APCom site.

http://www.apcom.net/bin/content_3/TopNews/imgs/C_3_TopNews_67450_foto.jpg

While bishop Fellay is smiling nearly all the time they must have had a hard time finding a picture on which he looks like a madman.

This kind of "journalists" had always illustrated their texts with pictures of John Paul II with unpleasant marks of old age, just to arouse disgust.

There's a thin border between journalism and propaganda.

dcs said...

Mr. Haley, I'm afraid your reasoning is circular. One cannot say that the reason for the SSPX's existence is a "state of necessity" and then use the fact that the SSPX is irregular as proof of that state of necessity.

dcs said...

Oh, and the stance of Rome with respect to the SSPX is anything but "vague." One might say that it is imprudent or bad but vague? What exactly is vague about it?

K Gurries said...

Fellay: "I would state the concept in another way, but I do not know if I am not in agreement. I would say it in another way, I would say that we must transcend the Council to return to that which the Church has always taught, and from which the Church cannot separate herself, and in a certain moment we must transcend the Council which intended to be pastoral, and not doctrinal. Which wished to concern itself with the mutable situation of the Church. But things change, and so many things of the Council are now worn-out."

***************************

This is my take away: Fellay is basically saying that [his] disagreement/rejection of the council is ultimately NOT about dogmatic matters. Rather it has to do with those (mutable)pastoral and prudential aspects. Decisions that can change according to circumstances, etc.

Is this how the other 3 Bishops really view the situation? Or do some consider that Rome has lost the faith the Tradition (a New Church) and needs a "conversion".

Jordanes said...

When we begin to hear statements expressing this obvious truth emanating from the Vatican, then we will know that the necessary foundations for a recovery from the catastrophe have been put in place.

Cardinal Kasper, of all people, said this in L'Osservatore Romano back in April 2008:

"We do not expect that the Jews are in accord with the Christological content of the Good Friday prayer, but rather that they respect what we pray as Christians, according to our faith, as we also respect their way of praying. In this perspective, both sides should learn."

Paul Haley said...

dcs said...

Mr. Haley, I'm afraid your reasoning is circular. One cannot say that the reason for the SSPX's existence is a "state of necessity" and then use the fact that the SSPX is irregular as proof of that state of necessity.
Oh, and the stance of Rome with respect to the SSPX is anything but "vague." One might say that it is imprudent or bad but vague? What exactly is vague about it?

Au contraire, my friend, the fact that the SSPX are prevented from exercising a legitimate ministry in the Church (according to Rome) is a state of necessity dating all the way back to 1974 and before. Name me, one priest of the SSPX, just one, who was incardinated into a local diocese and allowed to remain a member of the Society...THEN OR NOW!

And, as for their vagueness what could be more vague than their demand that the Society accept Vatican II and the magisterium of the post-comciliar popes? This is a non-starter because it is so vague and because Vatican II was never intended as a doctrinal council. In other words the state of necessity exists and the Society has a right, indeed a duty, to proclaim it and it is obvious that it exists because the Society is without jurisdiction and faculties to this day...unjustly, I might add.

Anonymous said...

Long live cardinal Casper, the true giant of orthodoxy and invincible hammer for heretics!

Anonymous said...

Modern Judaism is the corpse of a dead religion. If not, then the Catholic Church is mistaken and its Founder a liar (both notions of which are blasphemy). The pandering to non-Catholics must stop. Those separated from the Mystical Body of Christ must be evangelized and brought into the True Fold.

Anonymous said...

Here is my favorite part:

"this tired matter of the Lefebvrians"


Exactly.

Greg Hessel in Arlington Diocese

Anonymous said...

dcs's criticism of Mr. Haley's remarks as circular is correct but also juvenile. Mr. Haley was not attempting to present a justification for the Society's position but merely to characterise it.

The Society's argument is not circular in the least, of course. It is completely plausible. Whether or not it is correct is a matter of dispute. The Society, Mr. Haley, does not find the origin of the state of necessity in the unwillingness of bishops to incardinate its priests; it finds the origin in the state of the Church following the implementation and/or misimplementation of Vatican II. One aspect of this was the ILLEGAL suppression of the Traditional Latin Mass by Pope Paul VI. "De Missali Romano" of 1971, which was never signed by the Pope but which was used by him and others to forbid what the faithful had a right to celebrate, is directly contradicted by "Summoum Pontificum" of 2007. Since the benefit forbidden was a priceless gift of God the Holy Ghost, its suppression alone created an emergency which created a state of necessity. And there were other causes as well.

Again, I've argued that the conditions for the state of necessity ended in 2000 when Rome offered the apostolic administration structure. But even in that case, Canon 144 might justify the Society's position. Fortunately for the Society, the very new Code of Canons which it abhors ironically protects it.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On the question of the structure, I note that the brain-dead journalist presented two bad options for Bishop Fellay to choose from and he preferred the best of those mentioned. This does not mean that he seeks any sort of prelature, whether personal or territorial. He merely means that he'd prefer that over a society of apostolic life. None of this changes what he has said in the past on this, including the distant past. Still, I really wish he'd choose his words more carefully. He has made blunders of this kind before. From what I can tell, he doesn't seem to care much about the juridical question at all. He is only interested in the doctrinal questions.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Ahem. Rorate Cœli, your link to the Italian text cuts it off. Where can I find the Italian text from the question on structure forward, s.v.p.?

I'm not much for reading Italian but I'd still like to see it please.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

Long live cardinal Casper, the true giant of orthodoxy and invincible hammer for heretics! ***

Ha ha! Good one, Anonymous!

Anonymous said...

I wish that N.C. or Mr. Palad would put up the short quotation I've requested on the TAC. The problem with this new article on Fellay is that it tells us absolutely nothing which we did not know before.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of Kasper the Friendly Œcumenist, he's now well past retirement. I suggest that the Pope transfer Hummes to this position in the near future. It is a harmless position with a great deal of honour: harmless because there is now not the slightlest chance of œcumenical progress with Protestants gone pagan. Let them talk.

P.K.T.P.

Romanus said...

FELLAY:
"The hope is for a prelature, even if I do not have a preference."

PKTP:
"This does not mean that he seeks any sort of prelature, whether personal or territorial. He merely means that he'd prefer that over a society of apostolic life."


SCHMIDBERGER: In the direction of a personal prelature.

PKTP:
"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!"

Jordanes said...

I strongly advise bloggers here to take a peek under "Primate's Announcments" over at "The Messenger" site. A new announcment was posted today and it includes a 'smoke signal' that a deal is near. I have sent a message to N.C. to request a separate posting for this. I am hoping that Jordanes might consider this as well. ***

Thanks for the heads-up about this, Mr. Perkins, and thanks for your diligence in keeping us informed and in sharing insights and background into the Traditional Anglican Communion’s request for “full Eucharistic communion” with the Catholic Church. I haven’t had time lately to do anything more than moderate or post comments here, but I still would be open to composing a post on the TAC and the latest announcement to which you refer, except I do not feel confident enough in my grasp of the situation to be able to say anything helpful or even intelligent about it.

Paul Haley said...

P.K.T.P. said in part:

The Society, Mr. Haley, does not find the origin of the state of necessity in the unwillingness of bishops to incardinate its priests; it finds the origin in the state of the Church following the implementation and/or misimplementation of Vatican II.>

Exactly, they are unwilling to incardinate the Society's priests because of the misimplementation of Vatican II. The lack of faculties and jurisdiction is a symptom not the cause of the deadly disease of modernism which infected the council. The suspension in 1974 was for what? For continuing to ordain priests for Tradition and the Modernists just couldn't stand that. What a terrible joke!

dcs said...

dcs's criticism of Mr. Haley's remarks as circular is correct but also juvenile.

I don't see how pointing out the flaws in someone's argument is "juvenile". It might be juvenile if I drew an erroneous conclusion from it.

Mr. Haley was not attempting to present a justification for the Society's position but merely to characterise it.

Then I misunderstood.

Anonymous said...

Romanus:

Again, on several occasions, including recent occasions, Fellay has said that it will not be a p.p. but an apostolic administration. He has said this most emphatically. On the other side, this is not the first time he has contradicted himself on this. In January of this year, he wrote that it would be something between the two.

I am confident that the Society will not be foolish enough to accept a structure which cannot include its affiliated monks and nuns (Canon 294) and requries the permission of the local bishops to operate (Canon 297).

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Haley wrote:

"Exactly, they are unwilling to incardinate the Society's priests because of the misimplementation of Vatican II."

No, what I meant is that the ILLEGAL suppression of the old Mass and the misimplementation of Vatican II liturgical norms (not to mention a freedom after the Council for priests to proclaim heresy with impunity) is what created the state of necessity.

It's not the refusal to incardinate Society priests. Three or four bishops did incardinate them before the Society was suppressed in 1975. Back then, there were very few priests in the Society.

P.K.T.P.

Paul Haley said...

Let me, as they say, be absolutely clear on this. I am not affiliated with the Society of St. Pius X but I do sympathize with their predicament. What is that? That they cannot receive canonical status or jurisdiction for their validly ordained priests numbering close to 500 and are classified, even today, as not in full communion.

This is a symptom of the disease of modernism that has infected the Church - most especially after Vatican II but the seeds of which were sown long before Vatican II itself. It came to a stunning pinnacle when the Society had its clerics suspended a divinis in 1974, a suspension which is cited even today by the Society's critics.

Now P.K.T.P. has stated that Bishop Fellay has been offered a "solution" in 2000 which was rejected by the Society and that this makes the state of necessity go away. While this may be true and I have no way of knowing it, I respectfully disagree with the conclusion that this makes the necessity go away. The state of necessity, in my view, deals with the doctrinal irregularities that have occurred in the last 40-50 years and is much bigger than the lack of incardination for SSPX priests.

The Pope doesn't need Bishop Fellay's agreement, or that of Bishop Williamson, or Bishop De Gallerta or Bishop De Mallerais. He could simply vacate the suspension and state the clerics have the faculties they need from him to confect the sacraments independent of any other authorization - such faculties to last until such time as a juridical structure can be agreed to. Can you imagine any local bishop trying to invalidate such an authorization? I can't.

Rob said...

-Fellay has said that it will not be a p.p. but an apostolic administration. He has said this most emphatically. On the other side, this is not the first time he has contradicted himself on this. In January of this year, he wrote that it would be something between the two.-

Possibly he cannot speak in more detail because to do so would give away that they are going to become some novel structure within the church, neither prelature nor Apostolic Administration, but something new (just as a previous pope introduced the prelature).

Anonymous said...

On Rob's comments:

This is a possibility, since John Paul II did add the military ordinary structure to the law by an apostolic constitution in 1986. What is important is that it not be a p.p. because a p.p. is way too inflexible: it can't include monks, friars, and nuns and it requires the permission of the local bishop to operate; it also cannot include lay subjects.

A remote possibility is that, by "prelature", Fellay meant a territorial prelature rather than a personal one. This is what Opus Dei asked for in the first place but was turned down. A territorial prelature is equivalent in powers to an apostolic administration (Canon 368, if my memory serves). However, I believe that terr. prelatures are typically erected as missionary structures.

Given what Fellay has said clearly in the past in favour of the a.a. over the p.p., I suspect that he is simply not clear on his use of terminology. Notice how Schmidberger did not say prelature but 'somewhat like' one. I don't think that they are thinking clearly on this. I also don't think it interests them much right now. They don't want anything until all doctrinal matters are solved.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

All that being said, is it so very difficult for Bp Fellay to refer to BXVI as the "Holy Father" occasionally? A term of great affection, even love. Makes me wonder if true love for a superior can come without ... obedience.

- Please be more orthopractic.

Anthony said...

I have been thinking about this all day. These meetings are really important and not just for SSPX but for the whole Church. The Vatican has a lot to lose by having them, and SSPX has some to lose to as well. Because the crux of the matter is whether Vatican II can be interpreted in the light of tradition. Also involved is the nature of the Council whether pastoral, dogmatic, superdogmatic as some may champion. Truth is, I don't know how the Vatican can defend the last 40 years of being with tradition. That is, if the letter of Vatican II is written in light of tradition (the actual documents), but it was a misinterpretation carried out by cardinals, bishops, priests, and religious. Ultimately, someone is to blame. In the long run, the papacy of both Paul VI and John Paul II are going to be sullied. Paul VI who probably was bullied into accepting a lot of changes, and John Paul II whose lack disipline and occasional lack of judgement (the Spirit of Assisi anyone) contributed. That said, it won't interfere with both of them as people, just as popes, because well you can be a very holy man and a horrible pope and vice versa. Now, if the letter of Vatican is not written in the light of tradition, and if the Vatican officials say yes it was not written in light of tradition (which you never know). This is an atomic bomb dropped on the Church. Because one thing SSPX is likely vindicated for the last 30 years. Also, because it says two things, one the Church is not infallible (of course they can reasoned that it was pastoral in nature and not dogmatic) and the second thing is where do we go next. It was simply a rupture caused by misinterpretation, that is easy to fix relatively. But if it was a rupture created by the very documents, then well every priest formed in the last 40 years have some deficiency now from being forced fed Vatican II. Indeed, this could very well go a long way to schism and I am not talking about between SSPX and the Vatican, but the liberals who will cling on to it like rabid animals.

Romanus said...

Mr Perkins, when the personal prelature will be established, which of course would include provisions for those two essential questions, you will still say that it is not a personal prelature. You simply ignore -and mistakenly deny- that a personal prelature is the most flexible of all options.

I wish you would leave the matter to the experts, instead of confusing the readers with your amateur knowledge of canon law. Should I remind you that only a few weeks go you maintained that jurisdiction is required for the validity of a confirmation?

Your comments are usually helpful, but in canonical matters you should be more circumspect.

Anonymous said...

"The pandering to non-Catholics must stop. Those separated from the Mystical Body of Christ must be evangelized and brought into the True Fold."

This is 100% true. It is a disgrace for the Pope and Vatican to engage in ecumenism with dead Protestant "churches" such as Lutheranism, Episcopalians, Anglicans, Methodists, Calvinists, etc. not to mention Jews, MUslims, Buddhists and Hindus with which we share nothing in common.

THis garbage of inter-religious dialog began right after Vatican II. Among those most interested in pursuing dialog with Buddhists and Hindus was Thomas Merton. He was one of the first, and most famous champions of inter-religious dialog and went from a "somewhat liberal" Catholic theologian and philosopher before Vatican II, into one of the first truely heretical proponents of inter-religious dialog with Buddhists and other non-Christian faiths, and well as a proponent of early "liberation theology". Such a downward spiral from a man who wrote such a beautiful book as "Seven Storey Mountain".

But one must remember that all these early proponents of the garbage that came after Vatican II (liturgically, ecumenically, culturally, inter-religious dialog) etc. are either very aged, or dead. The man who probably did the most to damage the Church with an over-emphasis on ecumenism, Cardinal Willebrands, is dead. So are Suenens and de Lubac, Congar (all heretics John Paul II either praised or promoted to Cardinal).
The disiples of these people are likewise aged (Piero Marini will be 68, Cardinal Tauran (the radical in charge of inter-religious dialog is unwell at 67). The likewise radical Cardinal Kasper is 76. Re is 75. Hummes is 75.
These people have no young disiples to take up the flag of the "SPirit of Vatican II".
It is, as Bishop Fellay stated, a "worn out" movement, and consists of "worn out 1960's reforms" which need to be repudiated.

Oliver said...

Whatever Fellay comes up with in Rome, the other SSPX bishops will have their say and greatly influence the Society if not the leadership. They will have in mind the future restoration of the Church and not some cosy Opus Dei structure within the conciliar market. We have gone past the point of pretending this whole business is one of clever fixes for the sake of appearance.

Paul Haley said...

Just a word on why I used the term vacate in my post above concerning the suspension levied against the SSPX in 1974. The word comes from the legal dictionary and says: "vacate v. 1) for a judge to set aside or annul an order or judgment which he/she finds was improper". Now, the Judge in this case is Pope Benedict XVI and he obviously has the authority to do this. But, the real question is: Does he have the will?

The other comment I have is to apologize for misspelling a name in that same post. It is Bishop de Galarreta not de Gallerta . Mea culpa.

Anonymous said...

PKTP said Again, I've argued that the conditions for the state of necessity ended in 2000 when Rome offered the apostolic administration structure.

When the FSSP was body slammed by Protocol 1411 it gave an indication how far Rome would go to bridle tradition into conformity with Vatican II. That seemed to reinforce the "state of necessity" arguments.

Paul Haley said...

Anyone who thinks the state of necessity no longer exists, or who does not believe that duplicity exists among those charged with overseeing traditional groups, or that they can be trusted routinely to place our spiritual welfare as their highest priority, needs to visit this link to an article in Latin Mass magazine by Thomas E. Woods. http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_1999_FA_Woods.html
After reading this article, if you still believe that a state of necessity no longer exists, then the dialogue between us is broken irreparably, at least from my point of view.

Athanasius said...

Would it be fair to assume that apart from all the endless discussions about the crisis in the Church and the situation with the SSPX, all here will be offering a daily rosary in union with the SSPX crusade.

Bishop Fellay has asked Catholics to join this crusade with the aim of offering 12 million rosaries to heaven so that the Holy Father and the bishops of the world may receive the grace to make a public and solemn consecration of Russia to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart.

Believe me, if this target is met then we may expect at least the beginning of the end of this crisis in the Church very shortly after March next year. This present crisis is linked with the message and Secret of Fatima, no question about that.

Anonymous said...

Romanus trashed Mr Perkins :
"Mr Perkins, when the personal prelature will be established, which of course would include provisions for those two essential questions, you will still say that it is not a personal prelature. You simply ignore -and mistakenly deny- that a personal prelature is the most flexible of all options." (Romanus)

But Mr Perkins, whatever his Canon law knowledge may be, is RIGHT 100%.
The personal prelature, so far, is a status with specific provisions, and this status is, so far, inadequate for the SSPX.
By the way, the 2000 proposal was for a Personal apostolic administration, and Campos is a P.A.A. and not a Personal prelature.

If your point is to say that any pope can change the Canon Law and create a new type of Personal prelature that would address the questions : okay.
But Mr Perkins is right within the present Canon Law and there is no need to throw mud at him as you shamely do.

Alsaticus

Anonymous said...

Oliver:

There is nothing cozy about the Opus Dei structure. That's the point. O.D. originally asked for a *territorial* prelature, which would have been very cozy indeed because it would have been equivalent in law to a diocese, as an apostolic administration is. What they got, a personal prelature, was not cozy at all: they need the permission of the local bishop to establish an apostolate in each see. To get around this in part, they devised a parallel organisation for their laity, so that Opus Dei per se is not the same organisation as the (personal) Prelature of the Holy Cross. Their priests belong to the Prelature and to Opus Dei; their lay members, to Opus Dei alone. This allows Opus Dei to operate where the local bishop is hostile but, in scuh places, their priests can't offer Mass or hear confessions or serve at chapels, but their members can organise and recruit.

A personal prelature consists of priests and deacons alone (Canon 295) and cannot include any laics, including monks and friars and nuns. Therefore, it would have to exclude all the religious affiliate to the S.S.P.X. That's why this is NOT what Fellay means.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Anon. replied to me as follows:

"When the FSSP was body slammed by Protocol 1411 it gave an indication how far Rome would go to bridle tradition into conformity with Vatican II. That seemed to reinforce the "state of necessity" arguments."

Not that good a counter, really. I argued at the time that the reaction against Protocol 1411-99 was grossly overblown, and I've been proved right on that. It's not nearly as bad as some made it out to be at the time. But the clear fact is that the F.S.S.P. did not get the "exclsive" use of the T.L.M. back in 1988, and F.S.S.P. superiors then concealed this fact from its supporters and new members. What Rome offered the S.S.P.X in 2000 would have overcome that problem anyway, so it doesn't hold much water.

Anon. does have a point, though, because the very fact that Rome was so restrictive to the F.S.S.P. in the first place is a bad sign of its animus. Society supporters will argue that this has undermined trust in Rome and therefore justified a continuation of disobedience. That's a plausible argument and, therefore, at this point, we must each use our judgement to assess it. I find it wanting; others may not. But I note that we can find lots of enemies in NewChurch because many are still there. However, as another blogger here remarked, the worst of them are in serious decline.

In the end, we must also consider that what Rome has offered since 2000 enables the Society to control its own property in separate civil corporations, so any future hanky-panky from Rome and the Society would have simply returned into disobedience.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dear Romanus:

A personal prelature is NOT flexible precisely owing to the provisions of Canons 295 and 297. Use exceptions to overcome those Canons (two of four on the entire structure) and you have a different animal under the same name just to satisfy Romanus. Moreover, what is needed is a jurisdiction which can include lay subjects for the Society: the shepherd and the sheep should share the same charism and the Society should never submit to a structure in which the sheep are put under the local episcopal hirelings, who have been their enemies for forty years.

What is most flexible is the 'ritual' apostolic administration structure of Canon 372.2, a Campos writ large. I have proved this on this blog. It can be exempt, international (cf. the extent of the Armenian jurisdiction for Latin America), 'personal' or 'ritual' and a particular church. As I have demonstrated in spacdes, this is what has been offered to the Society consistently from 2000 to 2009, and this is what it should consider, not some Opus Dei gilded cage restricted to priests and deacons and requiring the permission of the local ordinary to operate--and excluding lay subjects, who remain under Cardinal Baloney in Los Angeles. Who are you? Are you Piero Marini?

A real expert in canon law would not expect to be taken seriously by merely coming onto a blog under a pseudonym and calling himself a canonist. Therefore, the saftest assumption is that you aren't one. If you had any prudence, you would not claim to be what you cannot demonstrate. The other possibility is that you are trying to use your influence to saddle the S.S.P.X with the wrong structure so as to limit its reach as much as possile. So you're likely both a liberal and a fraud, the two being not mutually exclusive but, on the contrary, companion categories.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Romamus:

Canon 295 also says that a p.p. has only ONE international seminary. The S.S.P.X has five. Oh well, let's create a diocese and then just call it a personal prelature to satisfy Romanus. That will work.

Again, what is needed is a 'persona' or 'ritual' apostolic administration or even a diocese under Canon 372.2.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

In refeence to any structure coming, I feel it necessary to clarify something. What I have argued for all along has been a PARTICULAR CHURCH which would be exempt, international, and 'personal' or 'ritual' under Canon 372, Section 2; that is, its subjects would be those attached to a particular liturgy "or some other similar quality" (hence I call it 'ritual' as opposed to 'territorial'). We have a precedent for it: it would be a Campos structure writ large. And our brothers in Christ, the Armenian Catholics, have proved that there can be dioceses or 'junior dioceses' (exarchates) covering enormous territories. They have one covering thirty countries but with only two parishes in it. If they can have one, so can we.

A particular church is a diocese or its equivalent (Canon 368). Obviously, the ideal structure here would be a 'ritual' or archdiocese covering most of the world. But I have not proposed that because it seems to be too pompous in the circumstances. After all, the conditions under which the S.S.P.X is seeking affiliation are "special and particularly serious" (Canon 371.2) and, therefore, the most humble form of the particular church, the apostolic adminsitration, seems to be the one a humble Catholic would advocate.

Canon 368 lists the particular churches. They include archdioceses, dioceses, apostolic administrations, abbacies nullius, vicariates apostolic, prefectures apostolic, and *territorial* (not personal) prelatures. Vicariates and prefectures apostolic are off the table because they are missionary structures. Abbacies are obviously off the table too. From my very limited knowledge of the usage of these structues, territorial prelatures are usually missionary structures as well and are therefore not appropriate.

Personal prelatures are NOT particular churches. They are not equivalent in law to dioceses but are more limited in various ways. They do not include non-ecclesiastics (i.e. most of us) or monks or nuns or friars; they do not even include bishops specifically, and certainly not auxiliary bishops. They have only one seminary each (not five) and need the permission of the lcoal bishop to establish an apostolate in his see.

Romanus calls this flexible. By what standard is it flexible in these circumstances? He says that all these restrictions can be dispensed with. If they are, virtually the entire definition of the p.p. structure is lost. So he'd be making a bird that cannot fly or lay eggs but still has feathers. If indeed he is a canonist, he is not one who is very good at logic. Either that or he's on the other side.

So let us work and pray humbly for an apostolic administration not only for the S.S.P.X but for all of us, and, who knows, we might get even more. We might get a more senior and more settled PARTICULAR CHURCH. But it must be a particular church. We are asking for bread and Romanus wants to give us a stone, and he wants to fire it at us from his liberal slingshot. The Pope, I think, has other plans.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Next, I note that the Priestly Union of St. John-Mary Vianney got its own particular church, an apostolic administration (a 'junior diocese') for only 30,000 faithful and 30 priests. Romanus wants to give the S.S.P.X less than a particular church for about 500,000 faithful and 500 priests. Fortunately, I don't think that the S.S.P.X is mad.

I note yet again that, under Section 2 of Canon 372, the 'ritual' apostolic administration does not need to be territorially limited. It can exist in any "given territory" and that given territory could be the entire world. In fact, if you look at Canon 372 as a whole, Sections 1 and 2 point to this distinction very directly, Section 1 says that, "as a rule", each particular church is to have "a defined territory so that it comprises all the faithful who live in that territory". But then Section 2 makes an EXPLICIT exception to this ("If, however") for the erection of particular churches for a special "rite of the faithful or some other similar quality". In their case, each particular church does not have a defined territory but can exist in any "given territory", howsoever large that might be.

Note how flexible 372.2 is for the S.S.P.X. In contrast, the personal prelature structure is so inflexible that you'd have to make exceptions for three of its definiting characteristics (viz. membership, independence from local bishops, and no. of seminaries). That would give you a p.p. in name only. But what Romanus really wants to do is to put lay Society supporters under the local Cardinal Baloneys. His real goal is to continue to allow the Cardinal Baloneys and Bishop De Rogues of this world to grind the faces of the laity into the dirt. Under a personal prelature, we could be co-operators in but not subjects of our own prelate, giving the local bishop power over us. That's why he's an enemy of the traditionalist movement.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

ON THE INFLEXIBILITY OF PERSONAL PRELATURES

Let's see how 'flexible' Romanus's personal prelatures are. They are defined in four canons: 294 through 297.

CANON 294

"Personal prelatures may be established by the Apostolic See after consultation with the episcopal conferences concerned...."


Comment: this is no problem because the p.p. in question is to be international, like that for Opus Dei. The restriction was waived for Opus Dei owing to the impossibility of contacting all of them. I note that a parallel provision applies for 'ritual' particular churches, which is the correct and flexible structure for the S.S.P.X.

"... They are composed of deacons and priests of the secular clergy...."

First, note that they do not specifically include bishops, of whom the Society has four. The prelate can be a titular bishop, obviously, but what about the other three? There is no provision here for auxiliary bishops because only particular churches can have auxiliary bishops (vide Canon 404, cfr. Canon 381.2) and a personal prelature is not a particular church (vide Canon 368). Of course, it is true that every bishop is also a priest and is therefore not excluded by the Canon, but every priest is also a deacon and yet priests and deacons are each given special mention here. Therefore, this Canon does not foresee a structure which includes bishops. Morevoer, if the other three bishops cannnot be auxiliaries or coadjutors, they cannot properly "share in the cares of the diocesan bishop" (Canon 407.3) or have the other functions and duties mentioned under Article 3 of Chapter II, Section II of the Code. They would be just titular bishops. The Code does not foresee this. It is a poor fit and therefore inflexible.

Secondly, there are at least twelve religious orders affiliated with the S.S.P.X, composed of nuns and monks and friars and teaching brothers and sisters. They are not included in the provisions for a personal prelature. It does not foresee them. Totally inflexilble.

Perhaps worst of all, a personal prelature cannot have ANY lay subjects and therefore none of us non-ecclesiastics can belong. We would remain subjects of the local ordinary. What would this mean? It means that we'd need the permission in Los Angeles (e.g.) of Cardinal Baloney in order to have a Society priest marry us or confirm us or Baptize our children. What if Baloney says no? And we know that he would.

"... Their purpose is promote an appropriate distribution of priests, or to carry out special pastoral or missionary enterprises in different regions or for different social groups."

Comment: That totally excludes all the contemplative monks and nuns who are affiliated with the S.S.P.X. Let's just throw them out to satisfy Romanus. They aren't priests and they don't engage in pastoral or missionary enterprises but pray for our souls. Expel them!

It also reduces the rest of us to members of social groups or else ot people who are defined by the region they live in. We are neither. It doesn't fit. We are, instead, a people defined by adherence to the Latin liturgical tradition, which exactly fits Canon 372.2 and NOT a personal prelature.

On to the next Canon! To be continued. . . .

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Now before proceeding with our easy refutation of Romanus, let us consider the people for whom each of the two structures is intended.

Personal Prelature:

"to carry out special pastoral or missionary enterprises in different regions or for different social groups."

Ritual Diocese or Apostolic Administration:

"particular churches distinguised by the rite of the faithful or by some other similar quality".

We are not a social group; nor are we defined by region; nor are outsiders who need to be converted by missionaries (it is the Novus Ordo which is unCatholic and needs that. Perhaps all the N.O. bishops should be replaced and the N.O. confined to a personal prelature zoo). We do qualify as a pastorate but that is very vague. It could just as well apply to sailors in need of marine chapels.

The latter category could have been designed in advance for our very situation. It is exactly perfect. As John Paul II wrote in "Ecclesia Dei Adflicta", we are attached to the "Latin liturgical tradition". He also referred to our liturgy and our disciplines. Traditional Catholicism is an entire way of life; it is not just some special aspect of being Catholic.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

ON THE INFLEXIBILITY OF PERSONAL PRELATURES

Continuation: Canon 295

The Prelate of the Personal Prelature "has the right to establish a national or international seminary...."

The Latin text has the singular number and the exclusive (not inclusive) or (= vel, not aut). Hence a p.p. may have ONE national seminary OR else ONE international seminary. The S.S.P.X has five interantional seminaries. Whoops!

Of course, Romanus is a logical man. He would no doubt say that the solution is simple: close the other four seminaries.

Again, it doesn't fit. The structure is completely inflexible yet again. Duh!

On to the next Canon! This is fun!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

ON THE INFLEXIBILITY OF THE PERSONAL PRELATURE STRUCTURE

Canon 296:

This Canon merely mentions how laics can "dedicate themselves to the apostolic work of the prelature". The wording and tone suggests to me some sort of missionary activity, and the reference to "apostolic work" brings to mind "The Work" as envisioned by Escriva de Balguer. Remember that these Canons were devised to fit Opus Dei into the Church.

We really don't need a structure set up for us to do missionary apostolic work; we need one which serves the lay faithful liturgically.

I wouldn't say that this Canon is a poor fit but its focus is not really relevant for us.

On to the last Canon, 297

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

ON THE INFLEXIBILITY OF THE PERSONAL PRELATURE STRUCTURE: LAST PART

Canon 297

Just when you thuoght that nothing could get worse, the last Canon delivers the knock-out punch against tradition. Here it be:

"The statutues are likewise to define the relationship of the prelature with the local ordinaries in whose particular churches [e.g. dioceses] the prelature, WITH THE PRIOR CONSENT OF THE DIOCESAN BISHOP [emphasis added], excercises or wishes to exercise its pastoral or missionary activity.

Translation? The Personal Prelate cannot open or operate a church or chapel or oratory or shrine or chapelette or lunchroom, for that matter, without the consent of the local Bozo Cardinal Baloney. It's like turning the entire operation over to Piero Marini. Romanus calls that 'flexible'. It depends on one's point of view. From Cardinal Mahony's point of view, it's very flexible indeed: he can exclude the prelature entirely, give it a tiny chapel in a dangerous neighbourhood, force it to offer Masses at four o'clock in the morning or in funeral chapels, or force it to use a church which resembles an inverted teacup and was designed by some dirtbag modernist. Oh, it's flexible for the local bishop. The problem is that it's totally inflexible for the personal prelate.

A fortiori, under this Canon, the lcoal bishop can exclude ALL activity on the part of the prelate: Mass, the Office, the Sacraments, and giving chocolate bars to toddlers in sailor suits. It's a veritable hammerblow against the S.S.P.X. We can assume, therefore, that Romanus is definitely not 'one of us'.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Romanus claims that the personal prelature structure is 'flexible'. But what does he mean by this, and for whom is it flexible? For our enemies?

To say that a legal structure is flexible is to say that it is so composed so as to allow for a convenient number of circumstances. The reed is flexible before the wind, for it can bend back and stand upright again to receive the sun and the rain. An old oak tree is rigid: the wind can break it, even kill it.

As I have shown, the personal prelature structure is completely inflexible in our circumstances. Its canons have to be violated almost as often as they are observed in order to make it work. Romanus would take the leaves and the branches and even the bark off the tree and leave us a still-living stick so that he could call it a tree. It does not foresee bishops as members and does not allow monks or friars or nuns to be members; it does not permit non-ecclesiastics (most of us)as subjects but we stay at the merch of Cardinal Baloney if we live in L.A.; it allows for only one seminary; and it can be completely excluded (or, even worse in some cases, seriously hampered), in a diocese by the local ordinary.

This is a case in which the wind has blown and the tree has broken in three places. Romanus is a man who confuses rules and exceptions. He thinks that the two are synonyms. He reduces every rule to an exception to save a tree when the blade we need is there in Canon 372.2. Why is it that he never demonstrates WHY the 'ritual' particular church--the Campos writ large--won't work? It's because he has no argument. He's merely a gadfly working for the liberals. A verely bad gadfly.

Romanus's personal prelature, with a need for breaking more of the rules than one must observe, reminds me of that film with Jack Nicholson. He comes into the diner and asks for a piece of unbuttered toast and a cup of black coffee. The waitress tells him that that's not on the menu.

Nicholson: " Do you mean that you can't put a piece of toast in the toaster and bring it to me on a plate? All right, then. Bring me a chicken salad sandwich. Hold the butter, hold the mayonaise, hold the lettuce, hold the tomato, hold the chicken and bring me the unbuttered piece of toast and the cup of coffee."

"Hold the chicken?", exclaims the waitress.

"Hold it between your knees!" replies an irate Nicholson. That's what I say to Romanus. He's like the characters in the past who said that the Traditional Mass had been abrogated or else obrogated or whatever. Just a loser.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Romanus claims that the personal prelature structure is 'flexible'. But what does he mean by this, and for whom is it flexible? For our enemies?

To say that a legal structure is flexible is to say that it is so composed so as to allow for a convenient number of circumstances. The reed is flexible before the wind, for it can bend back and stand upright again to receive the sun and the rain. An old oak tree is rigid: the wind can break it, even kill it.

As I have shown, the personal prelature structure is completely inflexible in our circumstances. Its canons have to be violated almost as often as they are observed in order to make it work. Romanus would take the leaves and the branches and even the bark off the tree and leave us a still-living stick so that he could call it a tree. It does not foresee bishops as members and does not allow monks or friars or nuns to be members; it does not permit non-ecclesiastics (most of us)as subjects but we stay at the merch of Cardinal Baloney if we live in L.A.; it allows for only one seminary; and it can be completely excluded (or, even worse in some cases, seriously hampered), in a diocese by the local ordinary.

This is a case in which the wind has blown and the tree has broken in three places. Romanus is a man who confuses rules and exceptions. He thinks that the two are synonyms. He reduces every rule to an exception to save a tree when the blade we need is there in Canon 372.2. Why is it that he never demonstrates WHY the 'ritual' particular church--the Campos writ large--won't work? It's because he has no argument. He's merely a gadfly working for the liberals. A verely bad gadfly.

Romanus's personal prelature, with a need for breaking more of the rules than one must observe, reminds me of that film with Jack Nicholson. He comes into the diner and asks for a piece of unbuttered toast and a cup of black coffee. The waitress tells him that that's not on the menu.

Nicholson: " Do you mean that you can't put a piece of toast in the toaster and bring it to me on a plate? All right, then. Bring me a chicken salad sandwich. Hold the butter, hold the mayonaise, hold the lettuce, hold the tomato, hold the chicken and bring me the unbuttered piece of toast and the cup of coffee."

"Hold the chicken?", exclaims the waitress.

"Hold it between your knees!" replies an irate Nicholson. That's what I say to Romanus. He's like the characters in the past who said that the Traditional Mass had been abrogated or else obrogated or whatever. Just a loser.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

With all the exceptions Romanus would have to make to make a personal prelature work, once he's finished, he'd have a ritual apostolic administration! The smarter route is simply to go to that structure in the first place.

P.K.T.P.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"These people have no young disiples to take up the flag of the "SPirit of Vatican II".

You are completely ignorant of the situation outside Western Europe and North America. Oh, wait, for some commentators here, nothing exists outside those places....

Anonymous said...

I agree with Mr. Palad's perspective. While I live in Northern America, I think (as I've said before) that the so-called underdeveloped world (whatever that may be) is primary, not secondary. This is esp. true of Latin America. 46% of faithful happen to live there.

As for the Philippines, were it not for people from there, our Sunday attendance at the cathedral here in Victoria would be only half of what it currently is. They are literally keeping the Church alive even in such an English place as Vancouver Island. Even among the very small group which goes to the Traditional Laitn Mass here, we have a lady from the Philippines in the person of Mrs. Dignos.

I wonder, though, why Mr. Palad and the other moderators have not put up what I asked in regard to the TAC. Some people might think of the TAC as another Western concern. Nothing could be further from the truth. Fourt-fifths of its members are in India and it also has sees in Japan, Pakistan, much of Africa, and even Melanesia. If there is one place it is weak, that would be the British Isles (not even a bishop for England and not even one single parish or church for Scotland). Moreover, its future potential for growth under Rome (with the POSSIBLE exception of England), will mostly come from Africa and Asia. So this is not a Western concern but an international one, with a special focus on Asia and Africa.

P.K.T.P.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"I wonder, though, why Mr. Palad and the other moderators have not put up what I asked in regard to the TAC."

A little patience, please. NC has some serious things to deal with and I'm busy with the duties of my new job.

picard said...

Dear P.K.T.P.

of course you are right re the a.a./p.p. -- well, at least in essence. For detail, my guess is that the Vatican will perhaps create a entirely new thing (like the military-diocese) - if there will be a canonical solution at all presently, what I start start to doubt...

Re the state of necessity I would still argue that the fact of not having something like Summ. Pont. before 2007 *in combination with* other facts as e.g. the loss of confidence/trust in Rome after protocol 1411-99 (etc.) is a serious, at least worth considering argument.

I notice that you admit this re prot.1411-99 (although you are not convinced by the argument) and ask you to re-consider the whole matter carefully.

I think it is much to easy to state that after 2000 the argument of the "state of necessity/emergency" is invalid.

We are dealing here with a very complex matter and I think neither you nor me are able to judge with moral certitude if the SSPX were morally bound to join in a canonical solution right after 2000.

On the contrary, it seems to me, all the circumstances considered in the year 2000, that the leaders of the SSPX were jusitified to mistrust Rome and that it was very prudent - at least in retrospect - to go on slowly and coutious.

Romanus said...

I simply want to state that I am offering facts and opinions, not personal insults or offensive asumptions. For the rest, time will tell.

Anonymous said...

Its not widely known nor is it spoken of much within the SSPX but its priests worked in England in the 70s under the Agatha Christie Indult of Pope Paul VI-fact.

Anonymous said...

Romanus writes:

"I simply want to state that I am offering facts and opinions"

The problem is that, like so many of my students, you don't substantiate your claims with any arguments. Instead, you simply proclaim them as if they were revealed truths. For example, you claim that the p.p. structure is "flexible" but then fail to demonstrate how this is so. When I demonstrate the very opposite, you simply don't reply. You might as well proclaim that the moon is made out of green cheese.
P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Picard writes:

"On the contrary, it seems to me, all the circumstances considered in the year 2000, that the leaders of the SSPX were jusitified to mistrust Rome and that it was very prudent - at least in retrospect - to go on slowly and coutious."

Well, I agree that Protocol 1411-99 gave the S.S.P.X cause to be cautious. However, the offer given by Rome of the apostolic administration (according to Bishop Fellay) would have enabled the Society to keep its real estate safe in private corporations. Therefore, I can't see how the risk here was excessive. The risk, presumably, was that, by accepting a jurisdiction of any kind, many Society clerics might become too enamounred with the credibility and prestige which that might convey. Hence, should it later be necessary to return to disobedience in order to protect the Faith, these clerics might prefer to stay with Rome, thereby causing long-term division in the Society.

I agree that this risk is there. Who can deny it? But being a disciple of our Lord does entail some risk at every point in life. The trick is to make a fair assessment of these risks and act sensibily. I don't think that John Paul II wanted to draw the Society in just so that he could divide it half to make a conquest of tradition. Some will disagree. Some will say that he was out to smash the S.S.P.X. Ultimately, Picard, this comes down to a matter of judgement, that's all. In my view, this Pope and his predecessor want to preserve the Society and include it as one of several remedies for the decline of NewChurch.

It is interesting, though, that, under Canon 144.1, one's fears need not be correct or even reasonable but only legitimate. Hence it is at least arguable that the S.S.P.X has its faculties by supplied jurisdiction. But this is really not all that crucial. Unless these faculties are recognised by Rome, the reach of the Society will continue to be very limited. Like it or not, 99% of faithful--for whatever reasons--simply will not support irregular societies of priests.

The Society needs to stop preaching to the converted and try to extend its reach to many others who are not supporters but are quite open to its message. To do this, it needs recognition from Rome or else regularisation. Keep in mind that the highest law is not to guard the liturgy and Faith jealously but to save souls.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure what 'facts' Romanus refers to. I have, on this blog, supplied clear quotations from Bishop Fellay and others to show that what has been offered to them and is preferred by them is a ritual apostolic administration not a personal prelature. According to Fellay himself, the 'Rolls Royce' offer was that the Society and its affiliates would be incorporated into this structure.

The idiots in the press don't know an apostolic administration from a plum pudding and can't remember the polysyllabic name. The reason is that few of them could get through grammar school. So they asked Fellay whether he'd prefer a personal prelature (the double p is easy for them to remember) or a society fo apostolic life. That was the context of his answer, a context which Romanus ignores. Of the two, he'd obviously prefer the former. There is a fact. It does not mean that this is the structure he seeks.

Schmidberger, for his part, DENIED the p.p. structure. To say that you seek something which is 'somewhat like' a banana means that you are not seeking a banana itself; otherwise, you'd say "a banana".

Romanus is not here to convey facts; rather, he hopes to create expectations for a harmful structure. He is hoping that this will be conveyed, much to the detriment of the S.S.P.X. Fortunately, the Society will not put its neck into his guillotine, not after nine years of refusing even the structure which will work. Not a chance.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Here is a direct quote from Bishop Fellay, as recorded in DICI, dated 7th February. He refers back to a communication from Rome of 13 January, 2009.

"Because in the discussions we have been having with Rome for some time already, we are always told: very well, your special charisma will be respected... [ellipses not mine]. We are talking about an Apostolic administration"


Lookee at that, Romanus, it's a fact! Look! A fact! You have to love those facts! It's hard to recognise them, though.

More seriously, I must say that Bishop Fellay has given mixed answers on this question, even recently. Earlier this year, he said that what was offered was a new structure which partook of the qualities of apostolic administration, personal prelature, and even military ordinariate (!). On at least two other occasions THIS YEAR (one from the Angelus, one from Dici), he's said that it would be an apostolic administration. And then recently, he's said "prelature", although not qualified by 'personal' and in the context of a choice between two options neither of which was an a.a. I have supplied quotations from 2003 and 2006 in which he says a.a. clearly and explains why, calling it a 'Rolls Royce' structure.

Frankly, I think that Bishop Fellay could choose his words more carefully. I also think that he ought to make it crystal clear that the 'ritual' apostolic administration or diocese--an international version of the Campos structure--is the way to go, especially since Rome has suggested this on several occasions since 2000.

Incidentally, I've recently come across a mention of Rome's offer of 2000 and this is a quoation *from* 2000. But I've furnished enough quotations. Notice how Romanus has never commented on them?

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

S.S.P.X and the Cardinal Heenan Indult of 1971:

I'm not sure why this is significant. In the early 1970s, the S.S.P.X was not irregular. Also, at that time, its positions were in a formative stage.

P.K.T.P.

John L said...

Carlos; could you expand on your depressing comment that outside Europe and North America there are lots of young people willing to carry on with the 'spirit of Vatican II' stuff? How many young people, and what is it that motivates them?

Eamon Hatley-Smith said...

The Church saves us; we do not save the Church.

One cannot work for the Church, by working outside it.

The SSPX is outside the Church.

Basic catechism teaches us that the Church is baptised people, united in faith under, our Holy Father the Pope.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was excommunicated in 1988, along with Fellay and the other 3 ‘Bishops’.

These valid excommunications were NOT due to the second Vatican Council, as that was some 25 years earlier, and, Lefebvre signed all documents pertaining to the Council.

A ‘utopian’ strategy to maintain the SSPX’s relevance is increasingly emerging. Arguably because the Extraordinary form of Mass is becoming available most places, since 7-7-07, within the Church. This is the real threat to the SSPX position; therefore, expect him/them to focus on the Council, as an attempt to maintain SSPX relevance.

However, now, their world-view sees everything as 'compromise’ other than their own 'agenda’.

It is the 'bishops' and priests of the SSPX who perpetuate error and division, in their congregations toward the Church. Many poor people they ‘lead’ suffer needlessly under their direction (mainly the young).



A book worth reading on the SSPX is:
More Catholic than the Pope ‘An inside look at Extreme Traditionalism’, by Patrick Madrid and Pete Vere.
At Website www.osm.com

John McFarland said...

Mr. Hatley-Smith,

Pleased to meet you, so to speak.

Unfortunately, you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.

The Pope doesn't think the SSPX is outside the Church, so it seems fair to ask who you are to say otherwise.

The SSPX consecrations are valid. The bishops are bishops, although illicitly ordained. The Vatican has never disputed that, and so it seems fair to ask who you are to say otherwise.

The SSPX's critique of the Council goes back into the mid-70s at least, and at this point can be fairly characterized as voluminous.
As Bishop Lefebvre's own writings and conferences demonstrate, his signing of the decrees -- an act of faithfulness to the Pope -- never stopped him from criticizing V2's principles, or conciliar practice.

The last place in the world to look for enlightenment is to Messrs. Madrid and De Vere. Mr. Madrid is, I think, sincere, but entirely clueless on the real situation of the Church. Mr. De Vere, unless he has greatly improved from the last time I looked at his stuff, is a great deal less than that.

If you want to understand what's going on, you must read what the SSPX has to say. It's as simple as that. That's true even if your intent is to refute its convictions, as opposed to refuting a caricature of your or someone else's devising.

Sedes sapientiae, ora pro nobis.
Mater boni consilii, ora pro nobis.

dcs said...

Either the excommunications were valid, in which case they were lifted and the SSPX is not outside the Church; or they were never valid in the first place, in which case the SSPX is not outside the Church. Q.E.D.

Jordanes said...

The excommunications only applied to the four bishops and the late Archbishop Lefebvre. The bishops and priests remain suspended, however.

The SSPX is outside the Church. ***

The position taken by the Vatican is not that the SSPX is formally, definitively “outside the Church” or in schism, but that it (i.e. its members) is in very grave danger of that.

Paul Haley said...

I’m sorry but I just cannot accept the thesis proposed by some on this blog that there is no more state of necessity or, at least since 2000 for the SSPX, and I submit the following in rebuttal. Please view the youtube link first for it’ll put the rest of my post in proper perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ovRwra4kzQ

State of Necessity….what state of necessity?

Post 1965 priests and nuns are leaving their orders in droves and getting married, oftentimes to each other. Other members of religious orders discard their habits for secular dress and live in “apartments” rather than religious communities.

Masses are being celebrated by priests wearing clown costumes and all manner of makeup and theatrical dress. They aim to be “relevant” at all costs. Ad-libbing during the liturgy is almost a cardinal rule.

Lay people, including women in inappropriate attire, are all over the sanctuary performing functions previously reserved for the ordained clergy. Meanwhile the tabernacle is shunted off to some obscure place in the church building.

Profane music is being used in liturgical celebrations and liturgical dancing is quite the fad in some churches. Gregorian chant and polyphony takes a back seat, if any seat at all.

The sacrament of Penance is renamed and the penance aspect is placed in the background. Actions previously considered sinful are now not seen as such by some clergymen. Attendance at the confessional, if you can find one, dwindles down to a trickle on most parishes.

Extreme Unction is renamed to Anointing of the Sick and what was previously considered the “Last Rites” is now for anyone who is sick. Priests are nowhere to be found in administering this sacrament as lay ministers have taken over the function in many places.

The Mass of the Dead in which prayers for the soul of the deceased were said is now the Mass of the Resurrection and most of the old prayers are no longer said. The beautiful and sorrowing Dies Irae is relegated to the dust bin.

Paul Haley said...

Previous post continued...

The altar is now a table and turned around so it faces the people and the meal aspect of the Mass is emphasized over the sacrificial aspect. People are all over the pews hugging and kissing each other at the “sign of Peace”.

Manner of dress has changed from reverent and respectful to mundane and worldly; people receive the body of Christ standing rather than kneeling at the altar rail. It is said that up to 70% of Catholics no longer believe in the Real Presence.

High ranking prelates seem to be teaching that anyone can be saved without belonging to the One, Holy, Catholic And Apostolic Church. Ecumenism has taken precedence over evangelization; missionary orders are almost extinct.

Latin is hardly ever heard in church anymore despite the fact that it was to be given “pride of place” in Sacrosanctum Concilium.

The Bishop of Rome, the Vicar of Christ on earth visits a mosque and kisses the Koran giving scandal to millions of true believers. This same pope invites non believers to pray at the Holy Shrine of Assisi raising questions about indifferentism and core beliefs of Catholicism. Meanwhile a group of SSPX followers is denied permission to celebrate Mass at the Mother Cabrini Shrine outside Denver.

Millions of dollars are spent by dioceses to pay claims for clerical sexual abuse while Catholic schools and churches are being closed. The most horrendous crimes by clerics are seemingly covered up by bishops who simply transfer the offending clerics to another assignment in the diocese. Homosexuals are allowed to parade their “lifestyle” in Catholic churches and parades in honor of saints like St. Patrick are forced to allow such demonstrations.

Catholics brought up in the Faith prior to 1965 are marginalized for their views are no longer considered “relevant” and they have a right to ask the question: “Are the foxes guarding the hen-house?”

State of Necessity…what state of necessity? You must have a schismatic mentality.

Would that the Holy See would recognize our legitimate complaints and act to restore the Faith in practice and belief throughout the Christian world! Oh, I see, that's not PC anymore. Cardinals Kasper , Sodano and Bertone would not approve. No state of necessity? Give me a break!

Anonymous said...

I am in awe that Eamon would point to Patrick Madrid and Pete Vere as a type of traditional authority. He has no idea of how ignorant of facts he really is.

Eamon, I think you should wean yourself from EWTN and Catholic Answers.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"Carlos; could you expand on your depressing comment that outside Europe and North America there are lots of young people willing to carry on with the 'spirit of Vatican II' stuff? How many young people, and what is it that motivates them?"

It is not so much that they are "willing to carry on with the spirit of Vatican II stuff", as that they don't know anything else. As a general rule, the Churches in Asia (and, to a lesser extent, in Africa and much of Latin America) -- especially the younger generation, the clergy and the seminarians -- have been exposed almost one-sidedly to the liberal / progressivist line when it comes to liturgy and theology, with the result that much of the "conservative" and traditionalist critique of post-Conciliar errors, heresies and abuses is simply not known here. Furthermore, the Catholic laity is not as strong in the "Third World" as it is in the First, with the result that resistance to post-Conciliar errors is not nearly as strong as it is in Western countries.

Asia still has strong levels of vocations, but unlike in the West these vocations are not necessarily drawn from "tradition-minded" youths. It does help that Catholic devotional life (Marian and Eucharistic devotions, etc.) has not been as damaged in Asia as in the West. I myself wonder how long it will all last, and I suspect -- based on my own observations -- that poverty and what I would call (for lack of a better term) "cultural religiosity" have more to do with the high levels of vocations than actual committment to the doctrines and traditions of the Catholic Church.


For that matter, I think it is a serious error to suppose that modernism is dying in the West. It is a serious oversimplification, as I have maintained time and again, to say that the younger bishops are orthodox while the older ones are not. There are many younger bishops who are far from being part of the vanguard of orthodoxy, even as many of the old and retiring Paul VI and John Paul II bishops and cardinals are among the best friends that tradition-minded Catholics have at this point in time.

Anonymous said...

dcs:

You set us a false dichotomy. Admitedly, it has taken the Vatican decades to clarify the matter.

The four bishops alone were declared to be excommunicated. This declaration has been rescinded, so they are not longer 'outside the Church'. They were not found to be excommunicated for schism at all but only for violating a canon which imposed that penalty automatically.

The 1988 consecrations are considerd by Rome to be a schismatic act but not one capable of resulting in schism. Think of an axeblow against a tree which does not fell the tree: it is a destructive act but not one capable of destroying the tree.

John Paul II warned Society priests and supporters that their separation risked drawing them into schism gradually by imbibing a schismatic mentality. It's a point of view but not one which we must accept. It can be argued that attending many N.O. Masses is a far greater threat, one which can lead the innocent Catholic not only into schism but into something worse: formal heresy.

The Society is in a state of disobedience to legitimate authority. Such disobedience can be rightful or wrongful. It is normally the latter. To be rightul, objectively-speaking, it must be strictly necessary to preserve the Faith. It can NEVER be invoked as a matter of mere convenience. NEVER! If Rome offers the Society a way out--a way to protect the Faith--it becomes strictly required in Moral Law to accept that. Rome has made that offer since 2000.

The fact that many in NewChurch continue to partake in clown Masses with Bozo the Mahony is a distraction from the essentials of the question. The question is whether or not it has been possible, since 2000, to live the true Catholic Faith under legitimate authority. I say it has been. I don't much urge this these days because the S.S.P.X has taken a firm position and Rome has agreed to work with it under such conditions.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On Mr. Peter (not 'Pete') Vere:

In my view, this is a man who allows his personal antipathy against the S.S.P.X to lead him more and more into a neo-conservative anti-traditionalism. He argued against me on ctngreg for several years in the matter of the findings of the 1986 Commission of Cardinals. This is on the q. of whether or not the old Mass was abrogated or obrogated. The answer delivered by Pope Benedict XVI in S.P. CLEARLY proved that I was entirely right on that matter. I had argued that the reason the right to celebrate the old Mass was derived NOT from Quo Primum Tempore but from immemorial custom. Vere agreed with me about the force of Q.P.T. but refused to accept the argument from custom. If you look at the preamble of S.P., Benedict XVI practically says it directly: it was custom, stupid. He does this in the way he establishes the historical context over several paragraphs.

Vere has also argued in the past that the excommunications of 1988 were all correct, but I have reason to believe that he changed his mind later on, at least in part.

I think that what animates him is a desire to deep-six the S.S.P.X. He was once a supporter and had a dispute with the Society. Yet again, he reversed himself. First he was a supporter, then an enemy. In contrast, I have always been a sympathiser but NOT a supporter of the Society's position. This demonstrates soundness of judgement on my part. Mr. Peter Vere gets some marks for knowledge and intelligence but the man has poor judgement and is not a true traditionalist. He makes the mistake, I think, of implying that we are all baaad because we all sympathise with the S.S.P.X. For him, even to sympathise with the Society is an evil.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Palad writes:

"For that matter, I think it is a serious error to suppose that modernism is dying in the West. It is a serious oversimplification, as I have maintained time and again, to say that the younger bishops are orthodox while the older ones are not. There are many younger bishops who are far from being part of the vanguard of orthodoxy, even as many of the old and retiring Paul VI and John Paul II bishops and cardinals are among the best friends that tradition-minded Catholics have at this point in time."


We've been through this before. What Mr. Palad writes is truer in Asia and Africa than in Europe or the Americas. While I think that Mr. Palad's conclusion is correct, I don't think it to be all that relevant. What it fails to take into account is HUMAN PRIDE. The problem has never been what this bishop or that actually believes but, rather, with what bishops are associated with in the public mind. We have entered an age of Sir Humphrey Appleby in which appearances count for everything; the truth, for little or nothing.

Look, who actually implememted the insane postconciliar reforms? Answer: traditional bishops who were appointed in the 1950s and found themselves in office in the 1960s and had to obey the Pope, and most of whom are now dead. The next wave of bishops, those of the 1970s and 1980s, might be fairly conservative in their mindsets (since they were trained in the old days) but they feel a need to DEFEND what they were forced to implement. To attack today what they did yesterday makes them look stupid or incompetent or unsound. And they would rather die than look bad. Losing face is worse than losing one's head!

The younger bishops do indeed have more liberal private views, since they have imbibed the nonsense which they were fed in looney seminaries. But they can claim innocence in causing the débâcle in which we find ourselves: it wasn't us who did this! Don't blame us!

This makes them more TOLERANT of tradition regardless of their private views. In fact, the day has now come in which they can conveniently imply that all the problems in their dioceses were caused by the outgoing old guys. The faithful will want blood and they will say: Don't blame us. Blame Cardinals Rosales and Vidal! It doesn't matter that Cardinals Rosales and Vidal are more conservative in their private beliefs.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

The day is coming when Rome will openly thank the SSPX for its major role in helping the Church to get back to its historical and effective ways in leading us confused ones to eternal salvation.

Anonymous said...

I am an orthodox Calvinist, but I must confess that I love the SSPX. I too hate all of the ecumenical nonsense of these modern times. I would rather have a Catholic Traditionalist tell me that I'm going to hell than a Catholic (or Protestant) modernist tell me that we all must find our own (subjective) path to peace with God. Bishop Williamson is really fun to listen to, and Bishop Fellay also seems to have his act together. For what it's worth, I hope that nobody in the SSPX "gives away the farm" as the cost of being fully incoporated back in to Rome. The SSPX is actually bargaining from a position of strength; the Catholic Church needs them too much.

Paul Haley said...

Whether it is possible for traditional communities like the SSPX and many independents to sanctify their souls in co-existence with the very bishops who allow the clown masses and other abuses so clearly documented above is the question. Indeed, whether it is possible for those same communities to place themselves under the authority of those same bishops is an even more important question.

I maintain it is at the very least doubtful that those communities can sanctify their souls without adequate safeguards and, so far at least, I do not see those safeguards present. Can you imagine Bishop Fellay, or say, Fr. Gommar DePauw (RIP), Fr. Perez or Fr. Zigrang co-existing with Cardinal Mahony? I cannot. Yet, Cardinal Mahony has canonical status and faculties and they do not? You've got to be kidding.

The SSPX have taken the position that doctrine must be clarified before reconciliation can be achieved. They say that they must learn to trust the very authorities that were responsible for their suspension and excommunication - a suspension which to this day remains in effect. Is that so difficult to understand? Methinks not.

No, my friends, the state of necessity has not ended and the SSPX have every right to proceed cautiously and request safeguards before they leap into the stormy sea that is the institutional church today.

Brian said...

Paul Haley, if I might add to your impressive postings, another scandalous illustration of state of emergency in the Church is that at a time when Roe v Wade might have been reversed, instead, the Catholic vote, reportedly including the votes of many Bishops, elected the most pro-abortion President in history.

Anonymous said...

After reading these posts, there are very good indications (I could be wrong, but I'm erring on the side of not) that the poster called "Romanus" is attempting to sow seeds of rebellion against Bishop Fellay among the SSPX priests, seminarians, and lay adherents who obviously READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY.

Do not take him seriously. The spirit of his posts strike me as dishonest and very cold.

To all of you affiliated with the SSPX in some way, I urge you, IGNORE EVERYTHING ROMANUS SAYS. Do not let him destroy your trust in Bishop Fellay. Pray for Bishop Fellay.

Anonymous said...

P.K.T.P. said about Pete Vere

"I think that what animates him is a desire to deep-six the S.S.P.X. He was once a supporter and had a dispute with the Society. Yet again, he reversed himself. First he was a supporter, then an enemy."

I think it may be fair to say that this attitude is often displayed by those who go back to attending the Novus Ordo or the Diocesian provided Old rite mass.

As a supporter of SSPX I do find it interesting how each time Rome conceeds a point ie:

1) The Society are not in Schism.

2) The Faithful are Catholics in good standing.

3) The Mass was never abrogated.

4) Removal of the decree of Excomunication.

It's seems that the conservatives have a problem letting go of their positions, which I suppose in many cases must have been the justification of their actions to begin with.

"I makes you wonder who's more Catholic than the Pope now?"

I think they may be a little early in thinking that the Society has passed it's use by date.

For the cause of Tradition in the Church to florish, I am very hopeful that the Doctrinal talks will yield fruit.

God Bless, Jeff.

Anonymous said...

The II Vatican Council has not really ended. In fact the council has been continuing for the past 40 years, in the conciliar church. In this sense, not very much can be saved from this dark period in the history of the Catholic Church. I would advise Fellay and Co. to focus not only on the Council itself, but on what has been happening since that time.

Anonymous said...

Earlier, in the line of our Popes, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul 2 and Benedict XVI, there was also our Pope Saint Pius X. And he stated on May 10, 1909:

DO NOT ALLOW YOURSELVES to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her...But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments..., then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that [one] “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone” (Ephesians 2: 20).

John L said...

'I think it is a serious error to suppose that modernism is dying in the West.'

It doesn't have much of a following among the majority of the young laity. the trouble is that as long as seminaries are run by modernists, they can weed out believing Catholics, and pass on for ordination those candidates who are committed to modernism or are too dumb to grasp what it is. and there will always be people who like the idea of earning a living as modernists; that is, of having a comfortable living as a priest or lay apparatchik promoting modernism - a living that is still on offer. So until the real situation of the Church is acknowledged by authority and steps are taken to remedy it, there will always be people to carry on the anti-apostolic succession in the clergy. I teach in a seminary and have observed this process at first hand.

Picard said...

Paul Haley (and P.K.T.P.):

Well, Paul Haley, as PKTP also himselfe responded, you did not get his point.
He never did - and won´t ever do, I bet - deny that there is a big crisis, lot´s of heresies and scandals - and insofare a state of necessity.

But he argued - and that´s a serious point, worth considering - that the SSPX could fight against this scandals and heresies within an offical canocical structure and insofare there is no state of neccesity that justifies to go on working outside such a structure.

As I said, this argument is a serious one.

But as I also argued (and replied), it does not seem to be clear that in and after 2000 enough precautions were there so that the SSPX were moraly bound to join (in) such a solution.

I did not only argue with prot. 1411-99 but also that before Summ. Pont. (so 2007) there was not enough precaution that they wouldm´t be pressed to use the NOM.

PKTP responded to it, that in the statutes of the a.a. for the SSPX there could have been enough provision to avoid such pressure.

But I responded and respond that I do not think that is convincing.

Why?

Because even if in the statutes it would have been fixed that the SSPX is allowed to use the TLM exclusively, it would only have been an indult, a privilege -- and that is retractable very easily.

After 2007 there is a totaly changed situation. As PKTP just repeated (re Vere): now we are told that the TLM never was aborgated [well, including ob- or de-rogated -- even if that seems some queer and unsound, but it´s there ....].
So it is not only an easily retractable privilege but a normative/normal/generall rule/law in Church.

That changes the situation essentially -- and schows the goodwill of Rome.

But there is still an other argument:

At least in retrospect you see that the not-joining (in) a "deal" and setting up the preconditions was very fruitfull and effective:

The Mass was freed, the excomms rescinded, the doctrinal discussions begin.

It was always the primary goal of the SSPX to help the whole Church out of this immens crisis and not to get a canonical status for themselves.
So if they would have joined (in) a "deal", a canonical solution, earlier we would now perhaps neither have the freedom of the Mass nor the beginning of the doc.-talks.

The preconditions were some pressure on the Vatican - and it worked (as we see in retrospect).

So I think that could be also a justification for not making a "deal": the prospect of the greater benefit of the whole Church.

And there are also some other reasons and arguments, but let us stop here --- at least the whole question is not that easily arbitrable.

dcs said...

You set us a false dichotomy.

How so? Either the excommunications were valid or they were not. If they were valid then the SSPX bishops were outside the Church (per the Catechism of St. Pius X, the excommunicated are outside the Church). If they were not valid then the SSPX bishops were never outside the Church. However, even if they were valid they have been lifted, so even in this case the SSPX bishops are not outside the Church. And if we cannot say that the SSPX bishops are outside the Church, still less can we say that the priests of the SSPX are outside the Church, or that the laymen attached to their chapels are outside the Church.

Picard said...

PKTP:

re P. Vere - I agree, with one exception: He has a valid point if he states that the TLM was ob-/derogated (at least it was the clear intention of Paul VI to do so!)

And no, the immemorial-custom-argument does not work, BECAUSE:

As far as I know a written law does not rank among/as custom. [Written] "law" and "custom" are mutually exclusive.

So I think Summ. Pont. is and will not be the last word about this crucial question.

If thers is some unsound/unclear argument within Summ. Pont. we Traditionalists should not declare it as sound only because it is for our benefit. If something is wrong or unclear it must be declared so -independent of beeing helpul or pleasing us.

It´s truth that counts.

The only possible - sound - argument that the TLM was not ob-/derogated is to declare the introduction of the NOM as an UNJUST and therefore invalid/not binding law.
That´s the only way it works.

Zakhur said...

Mr. Perkins,

After reading this:

http://www.sspx.org/discussions/rome_sspx_campos.htm

I cannot agree with you that it is possible to adhere FULLY to Sacred Tradition and be within the normal juridical structure of the Church after the year 2000. There actually exists one good, and very recent, example of this OUTSIDE the SSPX. A small number of U.S. bishops were VERY clear about the nature of the act of voting for Barack Obama. One went so far as to say that a Catholic would endanger his eternal salvation in doing so.

The "support" Rome has given to such bishops is non-existent. In fact, Churchmen working in Rome have UNDERMINED the authority of such bishops by praising Barack Obama's clearly indifferent opinion concerning the act of abortion.

This is proof enough for me that Bishop Fellay is absolutely correct in refusing any agreement with Rome until Rome itself is manifestly Catholic once again. I trust you and others here are sufficiently aware of the situation in Rome to understand that my saying this is in no way a denial of papal authority. I love the pope and pray for him.

dcs said...

re P. Vere - I agree, with one exception: He has a valid point if he states that the TLM was ob-/derogated (at least it was the clear intention of Paul VI to do so!)

Yes, but the Pope explicitly states that this was not the case in his letter of explanation to the bishops:

"As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted."

If the traditional Mass was obrogated or derogated then it would not be permitted. Of course the letter is a legal opinion, not the law itself, but I can't see why a canon lawyer or informed layman would believe that his opinion is better than the Pope's in this matter.

dcs said...

The only possible - sound - argument that the TLM was not ob-/derogated is to declare the introduction of the NOM as an UNJUST and therefore invalid/not binding law.
That´s the only way it works.


It is not the introduction of the Novus ordo that was unjust, but the practical suppression of the old Mass. The introduction of the Novus ordo was imprudent, but not unjust. The injustice lay in the erection of barriers to priests wanting to celebrate the traditional Mass and the faithful wanting to assist at it.

Paul Haley said...

Brian said...

Paul Haley, if I might add to your impressive postings, another scandalous illustration of state of emergency in the Church is that at a time when Roe v Wade might have been reversed, instead, the Catholic vote, reportedly including the votes of many Bishops, elected the most pro-abortion President in history.

An impressive addition, indeed, Brian, particularly when one considers the multitude of innocent lives that could have been saved. This is no small part of the diabolical disorientation spoken of by Sr. Lucy and, I might say fueled, whether intentionally or not, by those with canonical status and faculties.

I spoke earlier of safeguards but perhaps that is a never-ending rabbit hole with the Modernists in charge. Perhaps what we really need is another St. Pius X to clean house. In any event it is obvious to me that the SSPX and many independents must go very cautiously when considering uniting with the likes of Mahony, Sodano, Bertone et al.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Haley writes:]

"Whether it is possible for traditional communities like the SSPX and many independents to sanctify their souls in co-existence with the very bishops who allow the clown masses and other abuses so clearly documented above is the question."


Are you saying that those in the F.S.S.P. and I.C.R. can't sanctify their souls and that their followers cannot do so. Think before you answer that.


Mr. Haley continues,

"Indeed, whether it is possible for those same communities to place themselves under the authority of those same bishops is an even more important question."

But that's my point. Under the apostolic administration which they have been offered since 2000, they would be 100% independent of the local bishops and subject directly to the Pope.

Think, think, think.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Picard writes:

"Because even if in the statutes it would have been fixed that the SSPX is allowed to use the TLM exclusively, it would only have been an indult, a privilege -- and that is retractable very easily."

No, look, the Campos priests got their apostolic administration in 2002 and they got the T.L.M. as their *exclusive* and normative liturgy, which is NOT just an Indult.

In 2006, the I.B.P. got the T.L.M. as their normative rite even without an apostolic administration.

Non sequitur: it can be done and HAS been done.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Is the bone of contention is Vatican 2? According to Pope Paul VI Vatican 2 was a Patoral council not a dogmatic one. It's role was not to define what we believe, but just to figure out a way of presenting that belief to the faithful in a modern world. Well guess what? That modern world is not 'modern' any more. It is history and Vatican II, whether good or bad is out of date. Whether VatII spoke to the people of it's time or helped stop up their ears is no longer the issue. What is the issue is the Faith- alway immutable, and people of today need to have it taught to them again. Forget VaticanII - 'consign it to the dustbin' if you want. We need to focus on dogma again. Hopefully the SSPX discussions will precipitate this.
PM

Anonymous said...

Picard wrote:

"As far as I know a written law does not rank among/as custom. [Written] "law" and "custom" are mutually exclusive."

Trust me, Picard, you don't know what you are talking about. Custom can have the force of law. See Canons 23 ff. This is a very complex issue and I don't have endless hours right now to explain. I'll try to be quick about it. Before Quo Primum Tempore of 1570, priests had a right to celebrate the T.L.M. in virtue of a right from immemorial custom. Q.P.T. did NOT replace this with a written law because the Legislator explained in crystal clear terms that this was not his intent OR EVEN HIS RIGHT. Rather, he only proposed to impose a certain Missal which corrected errors and removed accretions. A Missal, in law, is not the Mass itself but only an expression of it. The Mass itself is an item in law which includes all its elaborations and uses. The right to the Mass itself from IMMEMORIAL CUSTOM perdured from the sixth century through 1570 and was not affected by Q.P.T.

Cardinal Stickler admitted this as one of the members of the Commmission of Cardinals of 1986. Another member of that Commission was Cardinal Ratzinger. S.P. implies this argument in its preamble. I note that even the terminology used by Card. Stickler in 1986 is found in S.P.

Really, even Vere would not have the ego to dismiss this CORRECT argument in a short message on a blog. This is a serious canonical argument. Missale Romanum, 1970, would have obrogated (not abrogated) the right had it been encoded in another written law, such as Quo Primum Tempore. But M.R. did not have this effect because the right was NOT encoded in a written law but was borne in a law of custom. To remove it would have required specific mention of this in M.R., 1970. But there is no such mention. Therefore, the law of custom for the old Mass continued past 1970 to the present. De Missali Romano of 1971 was not a papal act and could not, therefore, suppress or limit this written law. The clauses where Cardinal Tabera and Msgr. Bugnini clainm to do so are null and void; they are ultra vires, even though this was published in the Acta.

Some tried to argue that a right from custom attached to the old Mass was merely transferred to the New Mass in 1970. This is false because the two are separate items in law owing to their fundamental differences in terms of addition, substittion, deletion, re-ordering and importations. S.P. ADMITS that they are different items in law, although it calls them forms of one Rite rather than separate rites.

Trust me, I was right on this and have been proved right by the Pope himself. It is my greatest victory in the Latin Mass Movement. Essentially, Vere and a certain Fr. Brown argued that the findings of the 1986 Commission were irrelevant, since they were never signed by the Pope. I countered that the fact that they do not constitute an authority does not mean that they are wrong. We now know that they were right!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Once again, let us revisit what dcs says:

"Either the excommunications were valid, in which case they were lifted and the SSPX is not outside the Church; or they were never valid in the first place, in which case the SSPX is not outside the Church. Q.E.D."

I called this a false dichtomy. First of all, valid excommunications would not bring the S.S.P.X back into the Church because they were not applied against the S.S.P.X in the first place but only against four of its 500 members. Four does not equal 500. Do not confuse the four bishops with the entire S.S.P.X. The S.S.P.X consists of its clerics and its clerics alone (lay supporters are not members).

There is NO dichotomy except, arbuably, in regard to the four bishops:

Whether the excommunications were valid or not, the S.S.P.X priests and deacons, as well as its lay supporters, have never been outside the Church.

Rome has only said that separation from legitimate authority incurs the risk of falling gradually into schism. However, we are required as a matter of justice to assume the best of others unless we have reason for thinking the contrary in a particular case. Therefore, we must assume that the Society priests in general are not now and never have been outside the Church, as they were never excommunicated.

Lastly, excommunication does not place one outside the Church; it merely means that one is cut off from the Sacraments and any right of goverance. One can only leave the Church under the current Code by a formal act of oneself. Under the 1917 Code, even that would not suffice.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Paul Haley writes:

"They say that they must learn to trust the very authorities that were responsible for their suspension and excommunication - a suspension which to this day remains in effect. Is that so difficult to understand? Methinks not."

Dear Mr. Haley:

We are Catholics, not Protestants. We do not get to pick and choose when to trust the Vicar of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, at least not under most circumstances. The question is the same: did John Paul II offer adequate safeguards against the bishops? Yes or no? The answer is yes, and the Campos examples PROVES the case. The fact that Bishop Rifan has acted foolishly and has celebrated NewMasses he was never required to attend is beside the point.

Did John Paul II offer adequate safeguards against papal authority? Well, there can be no such thing. Catholics must trust the Pope as far as they can, keeping Moral Law in mind. The structure J.P. II proposed would have enabled the S.S.P.X to keep its churches and chapels--its real estate--separate and protected. Canon Law allows parishes to worship at rented sites and these could be let for a nominal amount of, say, $1 per year. In other words, the deal offered since 2000 cannot 'capture' the Society property, so the Society can always return to a state of rightful disobedience should this again become necessary.

There are some people on this blog who want to nail our Pope no matter what. Jordanes is definitely not among those (he tends to the opposite extreme, perhaps). There are others on this blog who think that we have to obey the Pope even when he asks us to help him destroy the Faith. Let's have a little more CLEAR thinking here, please. Pastor Æternus sets it out clearly: the Pope's authority is plenary, not absolute. This means that it is fully adequate to carry out his divine mission to convert the world and save souls. He hath NO AUTHORITY to harm Holy Church so as to lose souls. Hence the antics of NewChurch are entirely ultra vires--beyond his pwoers.

There are things no Pope can do. He can't violate Moral Law and he can't remove a gift of the Holy Ghost. In 1986, Cardinal Stickler said that eight of the nine cardinals in the Commission had concluded that the Popes not only had not but COULD NOT remove the ancient Mass because it was a gift to man from the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity. That consideration alone justifies the S.S.P.X from 1975 to 2000--but not SINCE 2000. We can't have our cake and eat it too. We must be both faithful and also logical.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Zakhur:

What on earth are you talking about? Look, the fact that others, even those sitting in the Chair of Moses, are bad men does not mean that I cannot be a good man unless I refuse their authority. Their authority comes from God. When they misuse it, it becomes my sacred duty to resist them; when they do not misuse it, I obey. But I do not renounce their authority unless I have no choice and my soul is on the line. If they command me to support paganism and refusal of their authority is the only way to counter them, then I refuse it. But if I can refuse it without denying their authority, then I do that.

Simple rebellion against bad rulers is the recourse of Protestants and rebels! We only refuse legitimate authority when this is strictly necessary to uphold a higher law. Stop looking for excuses to rebel like some damned Protestant. Don't you think I feel your pain when I consider a clown Mass? The New Mass makes me want to retch. But I can avoid it under legitimate authority, so I do.

P.K.T.P.

Romanus said...

Dishonest, cold, loser, shameless, liberal, fraud, bad winner, enemy of the SSPX. Not to mention the offensive assumptions of Mr Perkins.

All of the above in response to three short posts. Let the curious reader scroll upwards and judge by himself if this litany of insults is justified.

Anonymous said...

Back this last summer in a sermon in France I think, Bishop Fellay said that he nor the society would say that Rome has lost the Faith. But he said that "Our Blessed Mother said at the vision of La Sallette that Rome would lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist." These aree pretty strong words from Our Blessed Mother.

Jordanes said...

Let the curious reader scroll upwards and judge by himself if this litany of insults is justified. ***

Just another reminder, folks: direct the argument to the words and the ideas, not to the man. Personal attacks are out of bounds.

dcs said...

Lastly, excommunication does not place one outside the Church; it merely means that one is cut off from the Sacraments and any right of goverance.

Catechism of St. Pius X:

11 Q. Who are they who are outside the true Church?

A. Outside the true Church are: Infidels, Jews, heretics, apostates, schismatics, and the excommunicated.

Paul Haley said...

Dear P.K.T.P.,

I'm not saying it's impossible but the SSPX evidently believes it is under current circumstances.

Look, your own words reveal the predicament. When you use the term "Bozo Mahoney" you reveal how horrible it would be to be under the canonical discipline and authority of that individual and the concept that some A.A. would limit his authority is not realistic in my opinion. The FSSP and the ICK function with the approval of the local Ordinary. That is why they are limited in their ability to function.

The SSPX, as I understand it, don't want to engage in the salvation of souls in "cloistered" communities independent of the local Bishops. They want true union in practice and belief. Now, no matter what you or I think about their position, their position remains one of wanting inclusiveness rather than exclusiveness. At least that is what they seem to be saying.

As to the claim that the SSPX cannot sanctify their souls in an A.A. or that they need to be able to trust the very authorities responsible for them being without canonical status and faculties, I am merely stating what their position seems to be. As I've said before. His Holiness could grant status and faculties in a heartbeat if he so desired and he wouldn't need any of the SSPX bishops' approval to do so.

For the record I never said the SSPX could not sanctify their souls and the souls of their adherents in union with Benedict XVI. They have always maintained they never separated from Peter but a majority of the NO bishops have.

Whether they can sanctify their souls is a question they must answer and, apparently thus far, they do not think it can be done.

What happens when one of the NO enthusiasts comes to their Mass and expresses dismay about not being able to function as lay minister or deacon? Or, when such a person asks if he/she can brings up the gifts or read the Lesson or, God forbid, present a liturgical dance in leotards at the Offertory? Yikes, I imagine the SSPX priest would bust a blood vessel trying to keep his composure.

I simply cannot understand why some continue to berate the SSPX for being the "bad guys" in their disputes with Rome when the video shows how messed up "Rome" really is.

You have worked tirelessly for the Apostolic Administration for the SSPX and I appreciate that. In truth, I wish the SSPX could see their way clear to accept such an offer but apparently the time has not yet come for them to do so. Perhaps the Rosary Crusade will give us the answer - I certainly hope so.

By the way, what I have said re: the SPPX applies also to the many independent traditional Catholic communities who, while professing loyalty to the Holy Father, will partake of none of the shenanigans present in the local dioceses. For that, they are also relegated to the 2nd class status of "no canonical status of faculties".

Anonymous said...

Romanus writes:

"All of the above in response to three short posts. Let the curious reader scroll upwards and judge by himself if this litany of insults is justified."

Oh, there are far more than three. The others are on several other threads. Perhaps the term 'mendacious' could be added to Romanus's list.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I must say that this thread should be shut down soon. Why? Because Fellay has added nothing new except for a reference which has now been discussed to death. Moreoer, I note that, in the latest issue of "The Angelus", Bishop de Galarreta adds that the Society will not even accept a 'recognition' from Rome (let alone some structure) for several years, as he put it. At the very minimum, I wouldn't expect anything at all before the Rosary Crusade ends in March. Bishop Fellay's interview is 'nice' but he doesn't tell us anything new.

In contrast, there's at least something going on over the TAC right now and yet this blog won't touch the subject. Not sure why.

P.K.T.P.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"In contrast, there's at least something going on over the TAC right now and yet this blog won't touch the subject. Not sure why."

Mr. Perkins, please be reminded that while your opinions have been given generous place in the comboxes of this blog, this is still not your blog. We in Rorate listen to what you have to say, but we are not under any obligation to accept your suggestions. May I request you to stop asking us to feature the TAC -- we will do so when we think that the time is ripe for it.

There was a discussion between some of the contributors to this blog regarding the TAC "smoke signals" that you have mentioned, and, quite frankly, we see no indication of anything big about to happen. On the contrary, the TAC's acceptance of a renegade Brazilian Catholic monastery only this year, and the insistence of John Hepworth on the validity of Anglican Orders, do not bode well.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Palad:

First of all, I don't insist that you publish anything. I merely suggest. Do what you will. It's fine by me. I did receive assurances that information sent by me would be published and then it was not. That was a bit surprising.

Secondly, please name the monastery. Is it the one at Novo Friburgo?

Thirdly, I can't repeat some confidential information I have received but I can say that Hepworth's position on orders is not at all presently hindering the negotiations.

From what I've heard, everything bodes very well indeed, and I expect that we shall see an answer from Rome before Christmas. I am hoping that it will come much sooner than that but I don't know if it will. I have seen seveal smoke signals suggesting an announement soon. After that, I was contacted by a number of TAC insiders who have given me reason to hope very much. I can't say more than that but I can comment on the smoke signals.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Haley writes this:

"Look, your own words reveal the predicament. When you use the term "Bozo Mahoney" you reveal how horrible it would be to be under the canonical discipline and authority of that individual and the concept that some A.A. would limit his authority is not realistic in my opinion."

And what, may I ask, is the reason for your opinion? What is it based on? Mere suspicion? I have explained here in spades that, in the structure already offered to the S.S.P.X since 2000 (and granted to the Campos priests in 2002), the Society would be entirely, 100%, independent of Bozo the Mahony in his own Archdiocese of L.A. This means that the Society apostolic administrator would, in law, be able to erect parishes in L.A. and offer Mass and the Office and administer the Sacraments without so much as informing the jackass in scarlet. He's also be able to use properties rented or purchased for this purpose.

This is EXACTLY the sitaution of the Campos priests, the only difference being that they are confined to the territory of one tiny diocese out of 262 in Brazil. But we are talking about the same structure but existing internationally. I have provided DIRECT QUOTATIONS here showing that Bishop Fellay has acknowledged this power and he even called the personal (i.e. ritual) apostolic administration, and I quote directly, "the Rolls Royce" solution.

Never, never, never has Bishop Fellay suggeested for one instant that the structure would not afford the TOTAL INDEPENDENCE that he would want. What Fellay seems to fear, in fact, is not the local bozo Baloneys but the Pope himself. He does not trust the Pope and he has said so directly.

Is this your position, Mr. Haley? Do you distrust the Pope too? Bishop Fellay has at least been honest and has said so. I credit him and other Society supporters (e.g. Mr. McFarland) for being honest about their concerns. Your turn!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Haley writes:

"The FSSP and the ICK function with the approval of the local Ordinary."

Not to be picky but let's get it right. Religious orders abbreviate from their LATIN, not their English, names. That way, they have international recognition. Hence the Order of Discalced Carmelties is the O.C.D., not the O.D.C.

There is no such think as the 'ICK.' It is the I.C.R.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On d.c.s.'s comments about excommunication, I suggest that the situation has changed and that he consult Protocol 10279/2006, dated 13 March, 2006.

At any rate, it does not alter my point one iota: d.c.s. set up a false dichotomy by confusing the four bishops with the entire S.S.P.X.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Haley writes:

"The SSPX, as I understand it, don't want to engage in the salvation of souls in "cloistered" communities independent of the local Bishops."

Well you understand it wrong. An apostolic administration would not make them cloistered but free-ranging, the very opposite. And they definitely do want independence from the local Mahonys and have said so numerous times. Moreoever, such a structure would not bar them simpliciter from local parishes; it might not bar them at all, depending on the dispostions of the Holy See. Worst case scenario, they might be barred from diocesan property but able to give missions and offer all Masses and services from their own parishes. An aposotlic administration has its own parishes, missions, retreats, and so forth.

Don't look for objections, Mr. Haley. We have enough as it is.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Haley writes:

"As I've said before. His Holiness could grant status and faculties in a heartbeat if he so desired and he wouldn't need any of the SSPX bishops' approval to do so."

This is known as the logical fallacy of arguing to the wrong conclusion. Nobody disputes the point. In fact, I've made it more often than you have here. But it does not change the position of the Society. The Society cannot procure papal recognition by force of law; but it can accept an offer of a jurisdiction which will make it independent of the bishops.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Haley writes:

"Whether they can sanctify their souls is a question they must answer and, apparently thus far, they do not think it can be done"

Well, it works for the Campos, or are you telling me that it does not? The fact that Bishop Rifan has celebrated NewMass is irrelevant. Nobody has ever forced anyone in his structure to do that. He did it because he wanted to gain some favour from or show some kindness to the Brazilian bishops. Frankly, I think he's made a fool out of himself, even though he's a very good man. He has let himself forget that the Brazilian bishops are a den of vipers.

No priest in his structure has ever been forced to compromise one iota. They sanctify their souls in their apostolic administration every day.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Haley asks, in reference to the apostolic administration offer of the Holy See:

"What happens when one of the NO enthusiasts comes to their Mass and expresses dismay about not being able to function as lay minister or deacon? Or, when such a person asks if he/she can brings up the gifts or read the Lesson or, God forbid, present a liturgical dance in leotards at the Offertory? Yikes, I imagine the SSPX priest would bust a blood vessel trying to keep his composure."

Mr. Haley, an a.a. is equivalent in law to a diocese. Its subjects are those who are registered in it. Others, who are not subjects, can fulfil their Sunday obligations in it and get their sins absolved there. If someone in leotards presented him/her/itself to do a dance in the sanctuary, the S.S.P.X priest would either have to boot it/her/him out the back door or, more likely, protect the troublemaker from the other faithful.

As an apostolic administrator, Bishop Fellay would even have his own proper calendar and code of discipline. For example, he could re-impose the Friday meatless rule and the Lenten fast on his subjects. You are not thinking.

Again, Fellay has never rejected the a.a. for fear of the bishops. He rejects it out of distrust of the Pope. All jurisdictions are subject to the Pope and must be so.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

d.c.s. might also want to refer to the Catholic Encyclopedia on excommunication:

"The excommunicant is still considered Christian and a Catholic as the character imparted by baptism is indelible. Their communion with the Church, however, is considered gravely impaired."

d.c.s. might be interested to know that I actually sympathise with his position, since I don't accept this nonsense about 'impaired communion' (Jordanes can comment on that!). However, the current Code does say that an excommunicated Catholic is still a Catholic.

P.K.T.P.

Paul Haley said...

P.K.T.P. writes in part:

The fact that Bishop Rifan has celebrated NewMass is irrelevant.

What Fellay seems to fear, in fact, is not the local bozo Baloneys but the Pope himself. He does not trust the Pope and he has said so directly. Is this your position, Mr. Haley? Do you distrust the Pope too? Bishop Fellay has at least been honest and has said so.

Without getting into a knock-down, drag out on this I merely point out to you that Bishop Rifan is the Apostolic Administrator of the Society of St. John Marie Vianney, is he not? As such, he could order his priests to concelebrate in the OF with the local bishop on Holy Thursday, could he not? Does the Apostolic Administrator have authority over the priests in the AA or not?

On the second point, Peter, I am ashamed of you for inferring dishonesty on my part. My comments related to what I believed were the impediments the SSPX foresaw in accepting Rome’s offer in 2000 and the possibility that they see those same impediments today.

For the record I am not mistrustful of His Holiness and I profess my loyalty to him as the Vicar of Christ. Does this mean I accept everything he says and does, or refuses to do, in the same way that I would accept an ex cathedra pronouncement on Faith and Morals which he says definitively must be accepted by all the faithful under pain of sin? No, I do not. However, I must admit that what I would or would not accept means nothing, absolutely nothing. It’s what the SSPX would accept that is relevant here. Once again, they must answer up not me.

HH can grant jurisdiction and faculties to the prelates and priests of the Society today, if he so desired, on a temporary basis pending resolution of the juridical structure question while the doctrinal discussions are underway. If I’m not mistaken, you have endorsed this yourself as a temporary measure. He could do this, in fact, for all validly-ordained traditional priests professing loyalty to him as the Vicar of Christ and in one fell-swoop remove the ammunition of the modernist crowd that continues to yell: “No canonical status, no faculties and therefore, no legitimate ministry in the church.”

It is my hope that this war of words between us ends here for I see no further gain to be accomplished in arguing amongst ourselves.

dcs said...

At any rate, it does not alter my point one iota: d.c.s. set up a false dichotomy by confusing the four bishops with the entire S.S.P.X.

On the contrary, Mr. Perkins, I haven't confused anything. I was answering a comment and nothing more. I know full well that the bishops of the SSPX are not the entire SSPX.

Dan Hunter said...

"Again, Fellay has never rejected the a.a. for fear of the bishops. He rejects it out of distrust of the Pope. All jurisdictions are subject to the Pope and must be so."

Mr Perkins:

What reason has the Holy Father given Bishop Fellay to not trust him?

Anonymous said...

Mr. Hunter:

Is that a rhetorical question? He has given him (arguably) no serious reason not to trust him. That's my point. That's why Fellay should have taken the structure.

It is arguable, I suppose, that Benedict XVI has proved untrustworthy because he prayed at the Blue Mosque and so forth. There are a few reasons but I don't deem them to be serious enough in this case. Look, if Benedict XVI were to betray the Society after a deal, the Society could just return to disobedience and take its real estate with it.

The Society has only one risk in taking the deal now (or before now). That would be the threat of division. Once ordinary jurisdiction is granted, some people could get to love it too much and never be willing to do without it again. I agree with the Society supporters that this is a risk. I try to be honest. But being Catholic always entails some risk. In the end, we have to rely on our Blessed Mother to watch over us. If we wait until conditions are perfect, we might have to wait forever.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

d.c.s.:

How many times must we go over this. A man proved wrong should be gracious about it. You write this:

"I know full well that the bishops of the SSPX are not the entire SSPX."

Now, here is your original post on this subject:

"Either the excommunications were valid, in which case they were lifted and the SSPX is not outside the Church...."


Stop! The S.S.P.X is not outside the Church whether the excommunications were valid or not because they never applied to the entire Society. AGAIN, yet AGAIN, I repeat: you have confused the entire Society of 500 men with its four bishops.


Then you continue:

; "or they were never valid in the first place, in which case the SSPX is not outside the Church. Q.E.D."


Q.E.D. my foot!

Again, whether they were valid or not has no bearing on the status of the S.S.P.X, only on the status of the four bishops.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Haley asks:

"As such, he could order his priests to concelebrate in the OF with the local bishop on Holy Thursday, could he not?"

He could order them to fly to China in a hot air balloon but they would be under NO obligation to obey. No, you are wrong on this, Mr. Haley. The Campos a.a. has the T.L.M. as its NORMATIVE LITURGY. That means that its priest can NEVER be required to concelebrate any Mass or to celebrate NewMass, not even by Bishop Rifan.

My understanding is that the Institute of the Good Shepherd has the same arrangement, although it is not a particular church. What you are saying might apply (at least in theory) to the F.S.S.P. and I.C.R. (although there are practical ways its priests could avoid such orders). It does NOT, I repeat, NOT, apply to the Campos apostolic administration. That's why Bishop Fellay admitted that the a.a. is the "Rolls Royce" solution.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Haley:

I never inferred dishonesty on your part. I merely asked you a rhetorical question. I suspect that your answer is that you do NOT distrust the Pope.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Haley writes:

"HH can grant jurisdiction and faculties to the prelates and priests of the Society today, if he so desired, on a temporary basis pending resolution of the juridical structure question while the doctrinal discussions are underway."

Yes, I agree with you entirely on this.

So, to reiterate:

1. The state of necessity ended in 2000 when John Paul II offered the Society a 'Rolls Royce' juridical solution. Yes, conditions from then to now continue to be very serious but it IS possible under this offer to ensure REASONABLE protection.

Society supporters will disagree with my assessment, which is fine. At least we agree on the matters of principle and only disagree on a matter of judgement.

2. Yes, in addition to this, the Holy Father should grant recognition of Society faculties. Bishop Fellay said in the Zenit interview that he would welcome such a unilateral action. However, he and his fellow bishops have also made it crystal clear that they won't ask for this--at least not at this stage.

We need not debate my first point endlessly, really, because it makes no practical difference. I agree that the truth of the matter will have no effect on the outcome. It does have some effect, though, on how each of us may wish to act. While there is no S.S.P.X chapel or Mass in my area anyway, if there were one, I would continue to prefer Fr. MacLellan's approved Traditional Latin Masses, since there is, in my view, no state of necessity since 2000.

The doctrinal talks begin in September and the Rosary Crusade ends in March. The Pope might decide to extend a recognition after the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart. It would be fitting timing. I wouldn't expect anything at all until then. But, then, look at the bright side: if there's to be nothing at all, there won't be Romanus's personal prelature, which would be considerably worse than nothing. Think of the p.p. structure as the poison it is. While honey is better than nothing, no food at all is better than poison.

P.K.T.P.

dcs said...

Stop! The S.S.P.X is not outside the Church whether the excommunications were valid or not because they never applied to the entire Society. AGAIN, yet AGAIN, I repeat: you have confused the entire Society of 500 men with its four bishops.

Mr. Perkins,

I have tried to be gracious but I really don't know why you are harping on this issue. I have not confused anything. I am sorry if you do not understand my logic, but your misunderstanding is not indicative any confusion on my part. I was answering a commentator who claimed that the SSPX is outside the Church. Since the excommunications have been lifted, the SSPX is not outside the Church. This in no way confuses the SSPX with its bishops; the lifting of the excommunications demonstrates that the SSPX is not outside the Church, since that which cannot be applied to the SSPX bishops cannot be applied to those who follow them.

Again, whether they were valid or not has no bearing on the status of the S.S.P.X, only on the status of the four bishops.

It has bearing insofar as what cannot be applied to the SSPX bishops cannot be applied to the SSPX as a whole, and still less to the laypeople attached to their chapels.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"Bishop Fellay said that he nor the society would say that Rome has lost the Faith. But he said that "Our Blessed Mother said at the vision of La Sallette that Rome would lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist."

I have a hard time believing that Bishop Fellay would quote from a questionable version of the La Sallete messages, one that was repeatedly condemned by Rome decades prior to the Council, and even put on the Index.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"From what I've heard, everything bodes very well indeed, and I expect that we shall see an answer from Rome before Christmas. I am hoping that it will come much sooner than that but I don't know if it will. I have seen seveal smoke signals suggesting an announement soon. After that, I was contacted by a number of TAC insiders who have given me reason to hope very much. I can't say more than that but I can comment on the smoke signals.

P.K.T.P."

Mr. Perkins:

Since you have better contacts with the TAC than we do and since you say that you have some idea of what is going on, may I suggest that you write about this on YOUR blog? I think that would be the best solution, and perhaps (no promises) we can link to it.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Perkins said, "What you are saying might apply (at least in theory) to the F.S.S.P. and I.C.R. (although there are practical ways its priests could avoid such orders)."

Please tell us what these 'practical ways' might be? The FSSP priests and laity need to know.

sesi

Anonymous said...

d.c.s. says that he was only trying to demonstrate that the S.S.P.X is not outside the Church. While I agree with him on that, I just don't see how the excommunications make a difference. Here he goes again:

Since the excommunications have been lifted, the SSPX is not outside the Church. This in no way confuses the SSPX with its bishops; the lifting of the excommunications demonstrates that the SSPX is not outside the Church, since that which cannot be applied to the SSPX bishops cannot be applied to those who follow them."

Look, d.c.s., the lifting of the excommunications demonstrates nothing of the kind. They were not excommunicated for schism, as is commonly thought, but only for taking part in consecrations without a papal mandate. So declaring and/or lifting of these excommunicationas has never had ANY bearing on whether or not the S.S.P.X was inside or outside the Church.

Rome has declared that, while the consecrations were a schismatic act, they were NEVER an act which resulted in schism.

You also include twisted logic here. You say that what cannot be applied to the S.S.P.X bishops cannot be applied to those who follow them. Well, this is true but no truer than the fact that it cannot be applied to *anyone*. I don't see how imposing or lifting a penalty on four individuals can in any way prove anything about the status of those who never had that same penalty imposed on them.

In the case of S.S.P.X clerics and lay followers, it is possible that some have fallen into schism but no more so than it is possible that some non-S.S.P.X clerics and laics have fallen into schism.

P.K.T.P.

Paul Haley said...

P.K.T.P said:
Mr. Haley:

I never inferred dishonesty on your part. I merely asked you a rhetorical question. I suspect that your answer is that you do NOT distrust the Pope.

I trust that you have read my latest post by now which states that I am not mistrustful of His Holiness. Like many others he confuses me at times but I have no reason to mistrust him personally.

All I have tried to do is present in this thread what I believe the position of the SSPX to be with regards to the state of necessity. It would be a fine thing, I think, if we could get a representative of the SSPX to confirm/deny our suppositions on this blog. But, then, they probably have far more important things to do.

One of the first questions I would ask is why the offer in 2000 was refused and, even though there is a letter from Bishop Fellay to Cardinal Hoyos that speaks to that issue, the question would be - does that position remain the same today? http://www.sspx.org/discussions/most_recent_contacts.htm

Anonymous said...

d.c.s. insists again:

"It [sc. the lifting of the excommunications] has bearing insofar as what cannot be applied to the SSPX bishops cannot be applied to the SSPX as a whole, and still less to the laypeople attached to their chapels."

But this is no more true of the S.S.P.X clerics and followers than it is of non-S.S.P.X clerics and followers.

The best way to approach this is to separate the issues of excommunication and schism. This was indeed confused over the years and not clarified by Rome until recently, which is why d.c.s. may be confused. For nearly 20 years, Rome let us think that the four were excommunicated for schism, but this is not so.

In the last two years, P.C.E.D. has clarified that, while the consecrations of 1988 were a schismatic act, they were not an act sufficient to cause a schism. So, if they did not effect a schism, why were the six excommunicated? Rome's answer is that they were excommunicated simply because they took an action which automatically calls for this penalty in the Code. In other words, they were excommunicated for disobedience, not schism.

But to confuse the matter, their act was still schismatic in nature; and since it involved their members and supporters by association, it risks bringing all of them into schism.

My purpose here was not to disprove d.c.s.'s position, one which I support, but the way he put it was not correct because he did confuse (a) the acts of disobedience and schism and (b) the four bishops and the entire S.S.P.X.

BREAK---

Of course, there is a related matter, which is whether or not this *automatic* excommunication was valid, given the dispositions of those who took it. But we shall leave that to another day except to say that the S.S.P.X finds that the excommunications were never binding in the first place, since the six acted from an honest belief that there was an emergency. But assessing this matter is for professional canonists and it is beyond my competency.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

To answer Mr. Haley's question about the position of the S.S.P.X, yes, they have asserted consistently and honestly since 2000 that they cannot accept the Rolls Royce structure because they do not trust the Pope(s).

They do not say that the Pope is untrustworthy in a moral sense. They are not saying that the Pope is a rat. They are saying that the Pope's judgement cannot be trusted because his perspective is warped; it is not properly a Catholic perspective. As Bishop Williamson says, Benedict XVI has the heart of a Catholic but he thinks like a Modernist.

But they are not suggesting that the Pope holds his views dishonestly, only that they are dangerously wrong views. Frankly, their position is plausible. My problem with it is that I do not think it to be reasonable. Conditions will never be perfect and the Society agrees with that. The question is whether conditions are adequate for the Society to take the structure. I'd say we and the Society can have an *honest* disagreement about whether or not they are, for it is a matter of judgement.

Keep in mind, though, that, under Canon 144, the Society's positions only have to be honest, not objectively correct. Nevertheless, that does not change the fact that we too must make honest judgements when deciding whether or not to support the Society.

One danger is in thinking that the Pope can become 'acceptable' if he proves himself to others by doing some set list of tasks. For example, it would be wrong to say that he can prove his authority by lifting the excommunications, recognising the right of all priests to celebrate the old Mass, and denouncing all the errors presented to him by someone else, as if someone else is the guardian of all things Catholic.

So the Society's demands must be seen as indications of orthodoxy and not as guarantees of it such that we can only obey if we acquire the guarantees. No one is above the Pope save God alone and the court of Heaven.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

To answer Sesi's q., in Canon Law, no priest may ever be *required* to celebrate Mass more than once per day. So a priest who has already celebrated his daily T.L.M. could refuse to offer an N.O.M. on the grounds that it would be a second Mass. Priests can be allowed but never required to binate or trinate. There is one danger: a priest who refuses to celebrate NewMass when asked could find himself and his society expelled from the diocese. But he could not be forced to say that Mass.

If the request comes early in the morning to celebrate an early N.O.M., the priest could always say that he has scheduled a later T.L.M. and chooses not to binate. A scheduled Mass implies a promise.

The problem with Protocol 1411-99 was that, owing to it, a local bishop could admit the F.S.S.P. to his diocese only on condition that the F.S.S.P. would celebrate NewMass as well as the TrueMass. This was seen as a huge blow against the F.S.S.P. in 1998 and 1999. But it turned out to be less important than at first thought. The reason was that the demand for the F.S.S.P. was FAR greater than the demand that it celebrate the New Mass. It could simply refuse to establish apostolates in sees where the Bishop demanded its priests celebrate NewMass. What happened was that Fr. Devillers made a solemn public promise that he would never establish an apostolate under such conditions. He then kept that promise.

Many people have said nasty things about Fr. Devillers over the years. I'm not saying that he's my personal hero but I like to give credit where credit is due. He made a public promise and he kept it. HE DESERVES CREDIT for that, even from his detractors. Let us be fair and honourable with everyone.

P.K.T.P.

dcs said...

the way he put it was not correct because he did confuse (a) the acts of disobedience and schism and (b) the four bishops and the entire S.S.P.X.

Mr. Perkins, again, I don't know why you are harping on this issue. I did not even discuss the issue of disobedience vs. schism - so I am clearly not confused there - nor did I identify the SSPX bishops with the SSPX as a whole - so again, no confusion. Perhaps some graciousness is called for on your part rather than mine.

dcs said...

Look, d.c.s., the lifting of the excommunications demonstrates nothing of the kind.

Even if you do not accept the notion that the excommunicated are not outside the Church, the fact that the excommunications were lifted (or, if you prefer, "lifted") shows that they (that is, the SSPX bishops) are not outside the Church. And if the SSPX bishops are not outside the Church, still less are those who follow them outside the Church.

They were not excommunicated for schism, as is commonly thought, but only for taking part in consecrations without a papal mandate.

I never claimed that the SSPX bishops were excommunicated for schism.

You also include twisted logic here. You say that what cannot be applied to the S.S.P.X bishops cannot be applied to those who follow them. Well, this is true

Since it is true why argue against it?

- but no truer than the fact that it cannot be applied to *anyone*. I don't see how imposing or lifting a penalty on four individuals can in any way prove anything about the status of those who never had that same penalty imposed on them.

Really? You don't see how receiving the Sacraments from one who is excommunicated (or "excommunicated") might be an issue?

Anonymous said...

d.c.s. just can't stop:

"Even if you do not accept the notion that the excommunicated are not outside the Church [now he throws in this red herring again], the fact that the excommunications were lifted (or, if you prefer, "lifted") shows that they (that is, the SSPX bishops) are not outside the Church.


The fact that the excommunications were lifted shows NOTHING OF THE KIND. Look, the others could have been outside of the Church for other reasons, such as having fallen into schism gradually. Obviously, I don' think so, but that might be the case. So lifting excommunications on four individuals proves NOTHING one way or the other about the state of 500 other people: it does not change their state or comment on their state. Logic, please.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

d.c.s. writes:

"Mr. Perkins, again, I don't know why you are harping on this issue. I did not even discuss the issue of disobedience vs. schism - so I am clearly not confused there"

The problem, as I have demonstrated, is that you SHOULD have disussed the issue of disobedience versus schism. That's why you are confused. Why? Because the four were excommunicated for disobedience, NOT schism. And yet you comment as if it is all about schism. Nobody was declared to be in schism, neither the four bishops nor anyone else.

What Rome said is that this schismatic act was incomplete & therefore did not result in schism.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

d.c.s. said:

"I never claimed that the SSPX bishops were excommunicated for schism."

Now, here's what he said in his first post:

"Either the excommunications were valid, in which case they were lifted and the SSPX is not outside the Church...."

Schism is the only possible way they could be 'outside the Church' here, since you have not alleged heresy or apostasy, and since disobedience obviously does not put one "outside the Church". So we can draw a logical deduction that that is what you meant.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

d.c.s. tries to wiggle out:

"Really? You don't see how receiving the Sacraments from one who is excommunicated (or "excommunicated") might be an issue?"

I didn't say that it wouldn't be an issue. I wrote that it wouldn't change their status, meaning their status AS SCHISMATICS.

Again, the four were excommunicated (supposedly) for disobedience, not schism. Thereofore, the four were never schismatics. A lifting of their excommunications has absolutely no effect on the Catholic status of the other 500 or their supporters. It has no more effect on them than it has on Fr. Bozo celebrating NewMass in Timbucktoo.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

Schism is the only possible way they could be 'outside the Church' here, since you have not alleged heresy or apostasy, and since disobedience obviously does not put one "outside the Church". ***

You forget that dcs quoted St. Pius X, who said that excommunication puts one “outside the Church.”

It appears that you and dcs have both explained yourselves more than adequately. There seems to be nothing worth making a fuss over, and little edification in this dragging on for another 20 to 50 comments, so the referee is blowing his whistle and calling the game.