Rorate Caeli

Motu Proprio "Ecclesiae Unitatem" - in English

__________________

APOSTOLIC LETTER
ECCLESIAE UNITATEM
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF

BENEDICT XVI
GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO

__________________

1. The role of guarding THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH, with the solicitude of offering to all aid for responding in an opportune manner to this vocation and divine grace, belongs in a particular way to the Successor of the Apostle Peter, who is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of the unity both of Bishops and of the faithful1. The supreme and fundamental priority of the Church, in every age, of leading men towards an encounter with God must be favored through the effort of promoting the common witness of faith of all Christians.

2. In faithfulness to this mandate, following the act with which Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, on June 30, 1988, illicitly conferred the episcopal ordination on four priests, Pope John Paul II, of venerable memory, instituted, on July 2, 1988, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei "whose task of collaborating with the bishops, with the Departments of the Roman Curia and with the circles concerned, for the purpose of facilitating full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, religious communities or individuals until now linked in various ways to the Fraternity founded by Mons. Lefebvre, who may wish to remain united to the Successor Peter in the Catholic Church, while preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions, in the light of the Protocol signed on 5 May last by Cardinal Ratzinger and Mons. Lefebvre"2.

3. In this way faithfully adhering to the same purpose of serving the universal communion of the Church also in her visible manifestation and making every effort so that to all those who truly desire unity it is made possible to remain in it or to find it anew, We have desired to widen and renew, with the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, the general indications already contained in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei regarding the possibility of using the Missale Romanum of 1962, through more precise and detailed rules3.

4. In the same spirit, and with the same commitment of favoring the overcoming of each fracture and division in the Church and to heal a wound felt in an always more painful way in the ecclesial tissue, We desired to remit the excommunication of the four Bishops illicitly ordained by Mons. Lefebvre. With such a decision, We intended to remove an obstacle which could prevent the opening of a door to dialogue, and thus invite the Bishops and the "Fraternity of Saint Pius X" to find anew the path towards full communion with the Church. As We explained in the Letter to the Catholic Bishops of past March 10, the remission of the excommunication was a decision in the area of ecclesiastical discipline which could liberate the weight of conscience represented by the gravest ecclesiastical censure. The doctrinal questions, however, obviously remain, and, until they are not clarified, the Fraternity does not have a canonical status within the Church, and its ministers cannot exercise any ministry legitimately.

5. Since the questions which must be dealt with the Fraternity are of an essentially doctrinal nature, We have decided - twenty-one years after the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei, and as We had planned to do4 - to restructure the Commission Ecclesia Dei, linking it more directly with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

6. Therefore, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei will be constituted thus:

a) The President of the Commission is the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

b) The Commission has its own structure, including a Secretary and Officials.

c) It belongs to the President, aided by the Secretary, to present the main events and questions of a doctrinal nature to the study and deliberation of the ordinary instances of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as well as to submit the conclusions to the superior judgment of the Supreme Pontiff.

7. With this decision, We have desired, in particular, to display our fatherly solicitude to the "Fraternity of Saint Pius X" so that in the end it may come to full communion with the Church.

We earnestly invite all to pray to the Lord incessantly, through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, "ut unum sint".


Given in Rome, at Saint Peter’s, on July 2 of the year 2009, the fifth of Our Pontificate.

BENEDICTUS PP. XVI
__________________________
1. Cfr Conc. Oecum. Vat. II, Const. dogm. de Ecclesia, Lumen gentium, 23; Conc. Oecum. Vat. I, Const. dogm. de Ecclesia Christi Pastor aeternus, c. 3: DS 3060.

2. Ioannes Paulus II, Litt. ap. motu proprio datae Ecclesia Dei (2 Iulii 1988), n. 6: AAS 80 (1988), 1498.

3. Cfr Benedictus XVI, Litt. ap. motu proprio datae Summorum Pontificum (7 Iulii 2007): AAS 99 (2007), 777-781.

4. Cfr ibid. art. 11, 781.


215 comments:

1 – 200 of 215   Newer›   Newest»
PreVat2 said...

Interesting, but not much new. However, I was hoping for some sort of canonical structure prior to the start of the doctrinal talks.

I'll keep praying to Our Lady to make this happen soon! God bless our Holy Father & God bless the SSPX.

Thomasso said...

Thank you for this English translation.

Roma locuta est, causa finita est - at least as far as the restructuring of the PCED is concerned.

In one sense, the PCED retains some independence, albeit that its President is the Prefect of the CDF. This will, presumably, allow the skilled resources of the PCED people to be at the disposal of the new President in liturgical matters pertaining to the EF (with suitable liaison with the CDW perhaps?), while allowing the CDF scope for dealing with doctrinal matters.

BrevRom said...

Quia Dóminus amat judícium, et non derelínquet sanctos suos: * in ætérnum conservabúntur.
Injústi puniéntur: * et semen impiórum períbit.
Justi autem hereditábunt terram: * et inhabitábunt in sæculum sæculi super eam.
-- Psalmus 36
Breviarium-Romanum.blogspot.com

Ponte said...

Long live Pope Benedict XVI!

Anonymous said...

It had been rumored that, with the incorporation of the PCED under the umbrella of the CDF (an appropriate institutional place for doctrinal talks with our brethren of the SSPX not yet fully regularized), the Liturgical competences of the PCED would be transferred to another body (perhaps the CDWDS or a special commission for the extraordinary form under the CDWDS).

This motu proprio does NO SUCH THING.

Therefore, the competences granted to the PCED by Summorum Pontificum and other pontifical acts seem to remain with the PCED, even after this "restructuring" (including competences of LITURGICAL NATURE, and competences related to the pastoral care of the faithful, communities and instututes attached to the usus antiquor that have already returned to - or who have never left - full communion with the Apostolic See.

So:

(1) I regard the wording of this Motu Proprio as unfortunate, given that it seems to describe the mandate of the PCED simply as a mandate to deal with people (especially the SSPX) who need to be "regularized", or who have "doctrinal differences" with Rome that need to be squared off.

(3) What about the liturgical governance of the extraordinary form (e.g. liturgical calendar questions)? Is the CDF the appropriate dicastery to deal with such questions?

(4) What about question related to the enforcement of the rights granted by Summorum Pontificum (e.g. appeals, provided for by Summorum Pontificum itself, agaist episcopal decisions not to provide a priest to the pastoral care of faithful who request the usus antiquor)? Is the CDF the appropriate dicastery to deal with such matters?

(3) This is a huge OMISSION of this Motu Proprio. By silencing about the LITURGICAL aspects of the PCED's mandate, it seems to provide for the faithful, the communities, and the institutes who are in NO NEED of doctrinal talks with Rome.

(4) The true mandate and scope of action of the PCED was much larger than the SSPX question (think of the diocesan communities who now celebrate, or who will celebrate the TLM under Summorum Pontificum; think of the IBP, the ICKSHP, the FSSP, the Apostolic Administration of Campos, etc., etc., etc.).

Or will the CDF now effectively assume LITURGICAL competences vis a vis the TLM? This Motu Proprio fails to make that clear. I think the Pope just created a need for a new motu proprio.

Prof. Basto.

Anonymous said...

Looking at the bright side,

Cardinal C.H., in his recent interview with El Tiempo, said that he would continue living in Rome, returning to Colombia only occasionally.

Well, that will give him ample opportunity to try to work out some juridical solution with Bishop Fellay on the side, even if only a recognition. Given the Cardinal's character, I wouldn't put it past him to try.

But before Romanus can appear an gasp at this, I do agree that there's nothing likely coming this summer. Golias is predicting a juridical solution soon too but I'd say we can't hold our breath on it for a while.

Think of it, though, in some ways, a retirement will afford the good Cardinal (by whom I obviously don't mean Levada) an opportunity to work on this 'behind the scenes'.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

The door for the SSPX seems to be closing.

Let us hope the SSPX are moved to submit to Rome before the door closes for good.

Peter said...

Some random thuoghts:

It took Rome 21 years to fulfill partly what they have agreed to in 1988... and Holy Father has admitted it. I admire Holy Father's sincerity. Which essentially means that Archbishop Lefebvre was right. They wanted to cheat him. Maybe in another 20 years FSSP will have their own bishop (joke).

Notice that the current Ecclesia Dei institutes (FSSP, IBP, etc.) are totally ignored in the matter of resolving doctrinal problems.


Today is another very bad day for bishop Müller...

Holy Father says once again - no canonical recognition before solving doctrinal questions. It was the demand of the SSPX. But currently they attitude seems to have changed. Maybe the Holy Father is putting pressure towards reconciliation? Let's wait for the SSPX's answer.

Finally, the talks are taken to the highest possible level - Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith and Supreme Pontiff himself. It is a proper level for so important questions, I'm happy that Holy Father recognised it.

Not a single mention of "schism" nor "attachment to the Traditional Latin Mass". Sounds promising.

And in the end Holy Father asks to pray incessantly for the unity! That's just what the current SSPX Rosary Crusade is for! So let's take part in it and keep praying!

Guy Fawkes said...

The faithful that are denied the traditional mass shall henceforth address their letters to the attention of Card. Levada.

Good luck about that.

Anonymous said...

CORRIGENDUM

I wrote:

"(3) This is a huge OMISSION of this Motu Proprio. By silencing about the LITURGICAL aspects of the PCED's mandate, it seems to provide for the faithful, the communities, and the institutes who are in NO NEED of doctrinal talks with Rome."

I should have written "... it seems to fail to provide..."

Prof. Basto

Anonymous said...

Holy Father has just told all the faithful that the whole mess with Tradition is not about liturgy but doctrine. Which is rather obvious for everybody who knows even little bit of what the traditional teaching had been.

Ecclesia Dei has been created only because Archbishop Lefebvre demanded it, so no wonder that its primary scope has been the SSPX, and all the institutes which regularized prematurely by preferring the liturgy instead of the doctrine are now ignored. They wanted to be regular, so they have it, and the Pontiffs in their generosity even allowed them to follow their liturgical eccentricities! Their job is over, they can just enjoy themselves. If the local ordinaries allow them.

That's the attitude presented by Cardinal Hoyos to Fr Bisig when the latter wanted to abandon the Novus Ordo. You're canonically recognized, so be quiet.

After all, when they have no problem with the doctrine what do they need the traditional liturgy for? To enjoy the show?

The forces of liberalism in the Church are still too strong. It's not a good time to play with the traditional liturgy.

Romanus said...

Nothing to worry about. We have someone among us who will soon demonstrate by means of various verbose argumentations how this document means exactly the opposite of what it says.

Anonymous said...

On the surface, it appears that nothing has changed with this letter. But then why would a letter be issued in the first place?

No, there has to be something afoot here. It would have to be in the subtlety of having both Commission and Congregation under Levada.

Maybe I'm looking for windmills here, but it appears to me that Levada was pulled out of the fire by HH sometime ago, and is likely a useful stooge who will faithfully do whatever HH wants him to. Simultaneously, freeing up Cardinal Hoyos from the official position may, as PKTP hopes, give him more leisure time to pursue the behind the scenes work. CH works closely with HH, and based on that feedback, HH tells his stooge to make it happen without delay.

Perhaps New Catholic or someone who understands the behind-the-scenes political situation can comment on what other benefit there could be to move Hoyos out of the official "sites". Perhaps the anti-SSPX bishops (to be as polite as I can be) in France, Germany and Austria will be forced to leave Hoyos alone now? And knowing Levada to be a helpless stooge would have to focus their ire on the Holy Father himself now?

Maybe I'm a dreamer, but my suspicion here is that HH has placed himself, by way of C. Levada, squarely at the fore of the charge against the anti-SSPX forces, while freeing up CH to do what needs to be done free from overt harassment behind the scenes.

In any case, that the Holy Father has explicitly ended with a call for prayer to Our Lady, which is exactly what B Fellay has done with the 12 million Rosary Crusade!

"Pray, pray much for the Holy Father" -- Our Lady of Fatima, 1917

In JMJ,

Toronto Melitensis

Anonymous said...

Guy Fawkes:
"Good Luck" is exactly correct. In San Francisco, through private correspondence, it was discovered that Abp. Leveda consulted his "Council of Priests" to determine that there was "no need for the Tridentine Latin Mass in San Francisco" Whenever anyone wrote to the chancery, this was the answer given. The number of signatures did not matter, and if priests and pastors desired it, they would be reprimanded. I know of a pastor who desired a TLM around 2006. He was removed from his position, and is now in a very unfortunate position.
When Abp. Leveda left to head the CDF, this same line was held by his successor. This was our position in San Francisco until 14 September, 2007. Even now, two years later, there is still opposition. Now the man who said there was "no need" for Mass of All Times is now in charge of P.C.E.D.

Phillip C. in S.F.

Dan Hunter said...

"7. With this decision I wish in particular to show paternal solicitude towards the Society of Saint Pius X, with the aim of rediscovering the full communion of the Church."

To show this "paternal solicitude towards the Society of St Pius X", I would expect that the Holy Father understands that the average man in the pews at an FSSPX Mass does not know that the Society does not have faculties to hear confessions, and therefore the Holy Father, it would make sense, would either provide faculties to the Society, or state that considering the crisis situation that jurisdiction is supplied.

Most average people at Society Masses, observe a priest go into a confessional and a line form in front of it.
Most Catholics would assume that confessions are being heard.
Most of these good people do not read blogs or this website or that one, and have no idea that that confession line is forming for confessions to a priest that cannot absolve.

In the Holy Fathers great concern for these souls should he not allow them to have their sins be absolved by the priest?

I know from personal experience that many people just do not have access to a priest with faculties, and when they do go to one, as is the case in my experience, the priest either tells them that their objective and subjective mortal sin is no sin at all, or he uses an invalid form of absolution.

Would not the Holy Father show "paternal solicitude" to these men by granting some form of supplied jurisdiction to their confessors.

Salvation of souls is the penultimate order at hand after all.

Gideon Ertner said...

"...all the institutes which regularized prematurely by preferring the liturgy instead of the doctrine..."

Funny, I thought they regularized because they preferred union with the Supreme Pontiff to an irregular canonical state which carried with it a danger of a persistent schismatic attitude.

Your accusations against the regularized institutes are less than worthless. If they had stayed with the FSSPX they would still have the traditional liturgy, and only that. By submitting to Rome, at least the FSSP had to accept the possibility of celebrating the NO. As far as the liturgy goes they only made things considerably worse for themselves by accepting regularization.

In return, they were allowed to keep both doctrinal and liturgical/devotional tradition alive within the 'mainstream' of the Church. And they have not compromised doctrine, but rather ensured that it is legitimate to ask tough questions about oecumenism and the like within the 'mainstream' - even if they do not go so far as to issue scathing critiques of the Supreme Pontiff every few weeks, which is not becoming of a Catholic (ask Girolamo Savonarola).

Chris said...

Just a heads up... the liberal National Catholic Reporter is interpreting this MP as Card. Hoyos and Mons. Perl being sacked due to the Bishop Williamson holocost flap.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but another "blah, blah, blah..." document has been released by Rome.

Today's document is similiar to yesterday's Encyclical in that 99.9 percent of people within and without the Church couldn't care less about it.

Just being honest.

H.B. Palmaer said...

Anonymous said: "The door for the SSPX seems to be closing.

Let us hope the SSPX are moved to submit to Rome before the door closes for good."

I certainly hope not. Communion is not servile submission, which would be unworthy of men. Besides, although I am no follower of the FSSPX, I certainly hope for Roman "clarifications" as to the theological issues the Society usually mentions.

A few samples:


Can Church Authority do as it pleases? Forbid ancient traditions at a whim, for instance? Or is the authority in the Church bound by tradition? And by this I mean: not only in theory?

What is the authority of Vatican II? What new teaching does it contain if any? What do I need to believe that Pius XII did not know of?

What does Dignitatis Humanae actually teach? It is laughable but also deeply irresponsible to submit to something the meaning of which no one seems able to give for sure.

And there are other subjects.

The Church needs these clarifications. And proper authority (not authoritarianism) to be restored.

Anonymous said...

With an apparatchik of AmChurch from the Sodomite City by the Bay in charge of PCED, I am...underwhelmed, doubtful and sad. Levada is no friend of Tradition...ask any priest from SF with even a nominally charitable thought towards the TLM. It seems the wolves are now in charge of henhouse security.

Why does the FSSPX still not trust the Vatican??? Here's your answer.

Dan Hunter said...

Really,

Honestly,please help me understand why in the blue Pacific would the Holy Father appoint a man who has a track record of persecuting the traditional Roman liturgy,
to be in charge of all matters pertaining to the traditional Roman liturgy?

I mean absolutely no disrespect to the Holy Father, but I, for one, am completely confused by this move.

Biggus Headdus said...

Chris wrote:

Just a heads up... the liberal National Catholic Reporter is interpreting this MP as Card. Hoyos and Mons. Perl being sacked due to the Bishop Williamson holocost flap.


Cardinal Hoyos just retired so I'm not sure how anyone can attribute something else to that fact. But, what happened to Msgr Perle?

Anonymous said...

All this shows is the Pope by putting this commission under the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is going beyond just the mass question and now will discuss the documents of Vatican 2 with the SSPX in the light of TRADITION. If he wanted just to address the old Latin Mass the commission would have been put under the Congregation for Divine Worship.

Ma Tucker said...

Dan, The MP 2007 deals with the TLM. It's out and will take a little time to seed but that work is done. I could not imagine a better choice than Levada. The last thing you need is someone sympathetic to SSPX in doctrinal discusions. It is better to have Levada. He is a liberal modernist. Do you fear that SSPX will not be able to win the arguments? I don't. These discussions are not talking shops but will require a firm grasp of Catholic Tradition in order to defend positions. I'm not sure Cardinal Levada would be too hot on non-Spirit of VII topics. I just hope Bishop Fellay can keep a straight face. I also pray that Cardinal Levada will learn much.

Dan Hunter said...

"The last thing you need is someone sympathetic to SSPX in doctrinal discusions. It is better to have Levada."

Mrs Tucker:

Your statement here does not make sense.
Someone who is not sympathetic to bringing the FSSPX back into a regular state with the Church will do his utmost to prevent that from happening.

Bishop Levada will use his strong, and regularised, modernist connections to stonewall the doctrinal discussions from establishing the truth.

Its like having Pete Rose umpire a baseball game that his team is playing in.

What would help the Society greatly is having a Bishop in charge of the discussions like Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos who is orthodox thinking and therefore on the side of the FSSPX.

I understand your point on having Bishop Levada being involved in the discussions, so he can learn the truth and become holier, but do not put him in charge for he will be a wasp in the ointment.

Anonymous said...

Melitensis and another blogger mention the Holy Father's call for prayer and the rosary and connect this to the Society's third Rosary Crusade. However, the Society's Third Crusade is not for unity but for the Consecration of Russia. So I don't see a connexion there.

Romanus now makes unfair sarcastic remarks about me likely inverting the meaning this m.p. I never inverted any meaning before. I merely mapped out a preferred route and showed that it was indicated by some of the statements of the parties involved. Obviously, however, there were other agents at work who wanted to frustrate any canonical arrangement, and they have have won out for now. I never denied their existence; they are the enemy and they are very real.

I'm not a dishonest man, Romanus, so I concede that this m.p. means what it says: there is no canonical recognition or regularisation.

I'm not a poor loser, even if you are a very poor winner. I admit it openly when my hopes are dashed. They are dashed--for now. Also, I don't expect that any change for the better is imminent, while this is, of course, possible. I expect that we shall have to wait for some months before there is any hope of a temporary canonical solution.

P.K.T.P.

Guy Fawkes said...

From insider's comments in Italy, it seems that Msgr Pozzo is vry friendly to Tradition and Extraordinary Form.
Please let him a chance at least.

Anonymous said...

On comments against Cardinal Levada:

I expect that discussions with the Society will take some time--much time--but Levada can be seen as transitional here. He will turn 75 in two years, by which time he will have devoted an extra year to the 'unofficial minimum' of five years. So he might be replaced in two years' time, especially since he has not worked all that well with his curial inferiors.

I agree with those here who think that C.H. lost influence over the Williamson Affair. Bsp. W. himself, in a recent interview, mentions that even the Pope distanced himself from Cardinal C.H. this year (W. conveniently does not mention why!).

The liberals and neo-cons have won for the time being. I think that the majority of the curial cardinals have convinced the Pope that he needs to distance himself a bit from an organisation that is being cast more and more in the European media as outright fascist.

But this derailing is not permanent, although it will delay things unduly. I think that Br. Alexis is correct about a need to determine the status of various documents. Once that has been achieved, there will be an opening for moving forward on a recognition or temporary regularisation. But I wouldn't hold my breath on this. It could take a couple of years just for that. There will also be pressure for Fellay to affirm something in regard to the Councl and post-conciliar popes' authority. He will likely not get more without at least appearing to concede something.

P.K.T.P.

Eugene said...

Let's face it - who appointed a raging modernist like Levada to be the guardian of Catholic orthodoxy? It's like appointing a hen to watch over the chicken coop. The buck stops with the Pope. Let's not delude ourselves about this papacy.

Guy Fawkes said...

A little note to mr. Perkins from a long time lurker: please don't let yourself being trolled; I've always appreciated your contributions even if not always agreed with it. I've read from a previous post that you're planning to take a rest from the debate; if it's the case, let it be short and come back soon. Thank you.

Crouchback said...

Ma Tucker ....

Is dead right. Answer Yea, Yea. or No, No, Cardinal Levada.

Lets have done with wishy washy 60's drivel. Come your Eminence lets see the colour of your money.

Anonymous said...

In resopnse to Mr. Hunter:

I had some very bad experiences with confessors some years ago. I was taught that one must never argue with the priest in the confessional and I would never even consider something like that. If the priest gives you very shocking advice or utters heresies in the confessional, you should say nothing, accept the penance he assigns, leave the confessional, and never go back to that priest again. Word gets out among traditionalists which priests are especially bad. In my diocese, some of the worst among them have subsequently left the priesthood and one of them actually defected from the Catholic Church altogether.

Even in the most liberal dioceses (and mine is the worst in all of Canada), you can find good confessors among the Novus Ordo priests. Simply find one and then stick with him. I don't even go to other priests whom I expect are perfectly fine, unless it is an urgent matter. Simply go regularly to a good priest.

I'm sorry but I refuse to believe that there are no good confessors among N.O. priests. Sure, you might be forced to go to a priest whose advice is not all that helpful but that doesn't make the confession bad. Getting the most helpful advice is important but it is not the primary concern.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On Levada again:

Someone here mentioned that Fr. Pozzo was favourable to tradition and is involved in the P.C.E.D.

That's a good point. Let's not attach too much importance to the rôle of Cardinal Levada. Most of the leg work will be done by those working under him, and the Holy Father himself, I suspect, has a special interest in his own former dicastery. This situation is not as bad as some might imagine. It is largely a symbolic distancing from a Society which has received very bad press. I wish that the Pope would ignore the press but there's no point in moaning about it.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On Guy Fawkes's remarks:

I agree with your assessment of Cardinal Levada. I know a priest who knew him when he was Archbishop of Portland. Apparently, it is not that he is so much opposed to tradition. The problem is that he was too pusillanimous to stand up to his Trotskyite chancery and priests.

I guess you also know about the dispute with Fr. Eugene Heidt, R.I.P. Fr. Heidt was not treated well and ended up going independent.

One thing I do know much about (dear Romanus) is the statistics of the old Mass. Guy Fawkes is right here in regard to S.P. It was unusual in resisting the old Mass. In fact, of the twelve sees in California, it got an every-Sunday Mass last, despite its obvious importance. The legacy of the former Abp. Quinn has something to do with this and, don't forget, S.F. is not known for its conservative character.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I note that, only yesterday, Golias predicted that the Pope was planning on regularising the S.S.P.X in some way, sooner rather than later. The fact that he has not done so in this document does not mean that he cannot do so soon in some other document. I must now agree with Romanus in thinking that this will not happen (at least not soon) but it is not impossible either.

Let us work for what is humanly possible and pray for what is humanly impossible.

P.K.T.P.

Guy Fawkes said...

If someone is able to read Italian, here you can find an interview released by Mgr. Pozzo in 2007 expressing some interesting remarks about Gaudium et Spes and CVII:
http://www.vitanuovatrieste.it/content/view/740/35/
His views on hermeneutic of continuty seem very consistent with those of BXVI.
I'm not happy at all with Levada in charge of the EF flock, but maybe in the next days the liturgical issues will be clearly assigned to CDW.
Also, it's not clear at all where Mgrs. Perl and Bux will be placed henceforth.

Jordanes said...

Someone who is not sympathetic to bringing the FSSPX back into a regular state with the Church will do his utmost to prevent that from happening. Bishop Levada will use his strong, and regularised, modernist connections to stonewall the doctrinal discussions from establishing the truth. ***

Cardinal Levada, while he has opposed the celebration of the pre-Vatican II Mass, and didn't acquit himself well in San Francisco, is nevertheless reasonably dependable as an orthodox theologian, and not at all, as someone said, a raging modernist. Even more, he will do as his boss tells him. Pope Benedict earnestly desires to bring the SSPX back into a regular state, so that means Cardinal Levada will demonstrate himself sympathetic to the same goal, regardless of whatever his personal feelings may be. The cardinal and the pope worked together on the new Catechism project, and that is what led to the cardinal's selection as CDF prefect, so the pope evidently is confident that Cardinal Levada is up to the job of representing the Church's positions and clarifying what the SSPX needs clarifying. These doctrinal talks have the potential of resolving many ambiguities and questions, and quashing gravely erroneous interpretations of Vatican II that have been popular for far too long (the modernist NCR/Tablet/Golias types know that well, and are scared spitless about it). Thus, while I am still wondering how the pope intends to assist the many non-SSPX Catholics who are attached to the old liturgy (where's the SP clarifying document?), I have good hopes for the talks about to begin. They will do everyone a lot of good.

Joe B said...

My worst fears are that the Vatican side of these discussions will be staffed by incompetent careerists, which is exactly what I see happening. Yes, Ma, we can already see that the SSPX team being assembled will come to the table prepared, and they will surely run circles around these Vatican staffers, but in the end the Vatican incompetents will just moan "obedience" and it will all be for naught.

Perhaps that's because the issue will be won by Our Lady when the consecration is done, and SSPX's mission is to preserve tradition, not to defeat modernism. I don't know. At any rate, I don't see a serious effort to address the doctrinal issues from the Vatican, and I'm beginning to doubt that competence in that area even exists there anymore. Modernists are so long on skillful treachery and so quick to drive off courageous truthseekers, you know.

Dan, you're fearfulness is irritating. It's not just that there is a canonical argument for charity of souls that you're ignoring, although that should be pretty clear to readers here by now, agree with it or not, but Heaven has twice weighed in on SSPX's side - would you please look at the picture from Our Lady's side and stop biting your fingernails over formally written jurisdiction?

You know SSPX is fighting the good fight here and they have valid priests. You should also know by now that Our Lady is backing them. Have some faith, man.

Jordanes said...

Romanus, I humbly request, as your brother in Christ Jesus, with His cruel passion and death for our sins in view, that you apologise to Mr. Perkins. Your comment is uncharitable and insulting.

Dan Hunter said...

"I have good hopes for the talks about to begin. They will do everyone a lot of good."

In the meantime Jordanes, how do you propose to those who do not have access to a priest with faculties, and there are many of us,
go to confession?

For instance, in my particular situation, the nearest facultied priest I can go to confession to is over 50 miles away, in a different diocese.

The man in the pew who assists at the FSSPX Mass needs help right blimey NOW!!!

SOULS DIE EVERY DAY!

PS: I apologize for saying "Bishop Levada" instead of Cardinal Levada.

Jordanes said...

Mr. Hunter, please send New Catholic an email and ask him to forward it to me.

Romanus said...

I see that the assuming and conjecturing is spreading. As for me, I am (really) going on holidays. Everything has ben said.

Stephen M said...

Our Holy Father is so clever; by this action he ensures that the doctrinal questions are clarified for the Church as a whole and not within some and more private and limited structure.

What is clarified in terms of doctrine by the Prefect of the CDF (and one could really say by the Holy Father) will be binding as it comes from the very centre of the Church herself, the part of our Church charged with upholding the purity of the faith. No longer a side issue but a central issue. Let the dialogue begin.

Dan Hunter said...

"Dan, you're fearfulness is irritating"

Joe B:

I see my brothers in Christ, men women and children going to FSSPX confessions every Sunday to priests that are unable to grant them absolution.
Most are not ignorant of the priests lack of faculties.
I have told many of them this fact.

whether they rationalise away from this truth or not does not take away from the fact that "What Peter binds on earth is bound in Heaven".

Gods Mercy and Justice on this earth is bound up in the Church and the laws Peter promulgates.

One of these divinely backed laws is that priests need a faculty from the diocese where they operate from either the Ordinary there or the Holy Father, to validly absolve sins.

So yes, I am very concerned for the souls of the FSSPX faithful, who are my brothers and sisters in Christ.

That you find my concern "irritating" is unfortunate.
God bless you.

Jordanes:
e-mail sent.

Anonymous said...

Dan Hunter,
I think it is safe to say that should the FSSP or an other 'regular' traditional order is not within a reasonable distance, you and your family can legitimately attend an FSSPX mass and sacraments in good conscience.

Also, if possible find a good NO priest to go to confession. They do exist - find an old one ordained before V2 that is sympathetic to your situation.

Peace be with you and your family.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes:

Thank you for your support regarding Romanus, who is what we call a bad winner--something even worse than a bad loser.

Let us allow Romanus to have his day in the sun, however. After all, his negative predictions did turn out to be true. He is proved right. I'm man enough to admit it. Perhaps, one day, we shall see how he behaves when the tables are turned, or perhaps not. Let God decide that. As I remarked in a previous post, my aim all along has been to overcome the obstruction of the bishops regarding "Summorum Pontificum". This day has failed to see that happen. So we shall have to wait for a better day.

Yesterday, by the way, I learned that Ecuador now has its first every-Sunday Traditional Latin Masses. They are offered by a diocesan priest. He says two every Sunday, at two diffeent locations. Just imagine how people there must feel. Some of them have waited for this for over forty years. So all is not black.

However, I will be taking my holidays from this blog soon. It's time to focus more on prayer.

P.K.T.P.

Dan Hunter said...

"Also, if possible find a good NO priest to go to confession. They do exist - find an old one ordained before V2 that is sympathetic to your situation."

Anon:

Thank you for the kind advice.

Yes, there are many good NO priests.
We just do not live close to any of them.

On your last point:
Interestingly enough, because of the abusive confessions I had been to, I called the chancery and asked if there was a good retired priest confessor living in the area.

Thay gave me the number of an 82 year old priest living 25 miles away.
I thought this sounded great.
I called him and made an appointment with him for confession.

When I got to the house, he was living in, there was a big rainbow flag in front next to a statue of St Francis.
Whatever.

I went in introduced myself to the good elderly priest and he put on his rainbow stole.
Whatever.
I made my confession and he informed me that a sin I had just confessed was "no longer considered a sin by the Church, modern psychology has set us straight on this one".

Anyhow I begged him to absolve me, which, thank the Lord he did, and I went home and looked up the "sin" I had committed, that is no longer a sin, in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Sure enough, this sin is still grave matter, and I knew it when I committed it.

So the moral is.
Liberalism and unorthodoxy knows no age.

Dan Hunter said...

Jordanes,

I accidently deleted some e-mail.

If you have mailed already please retry.

God bless.

okie said...

Dan Hunter,

Can I ask you where you live in North Carolina? Like I told you on a different blog, I came into the Church there, and I know how terrible it can be...I was in Raleigh Diocese, and I know some faithful Catholics back that way. Perhaps they would have some people in mind...

Anonymous said...

His Holiness forgot to punish the evil Lefebrites for the evil ordinations in the evil Germany! He forgot to excommunicate the Lefebrites, their bishops, priests, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, friends and pets! It must be an omission! Yes, it surely is an omission!

Michael said...

Inside the Vatican/Moynihans Newsflash chat with Msgr. Perl:

When I reached the Holy Office, I rang the bell, and the doorman let me in.

"May I speak with Monsignor Perl?" I asked.

"Monsignor Perl is in a meeting and can't see you now," he said."You'll have to wait."

He indicated a room next to the foyer. "You can wait in there..."

I sat down in the empty office.

"Whose office is this?" I asked the doorman.

"It is Monsignor Mario Marini's old office," he said. "He died just a month ago, on May 24.

"Here is the card from his funeral Mass. (photo)

"He died rather suddenly. No one knew he was ill. But he had a cancerous tumor in his lung, and it metasticized. He learned of it about seven months ago, but he didn't tell any of us. In fact, up until three weeks before his death, he was in here every morning at 8:30, laughing and joking and wishing all of us good morning. He was a saint..."

"Did you know him well?" I asked.

"I was with him at the end," the man said. "I would go to the Policlinico Gemelli those last three weeks when he was bed-ridden, and bring him whatever he needed. And I was with him, along with his brother, the night he died."

I looked around the office. There were only two things on the wall: an image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, and a wooden crucifix.

"He loved Mexico," the doorman said.

"Who is Monsignor Perl meeting with?" I asked.

"It's a big meeting," the doorman said. "Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, Cardinal Levada, Monsignor Pozzo, and the staff of Ecclesia Dei..."

I waited for 20 minutes, then the meeting ended.

I could see Monsignor Perl coming down the corridor. He looked tired.

"Monsignor," I said.

"Oh," he said. "Hello."

"I wondered if I could talk to you..."

"No," he said. "Some other time."

He turned, his shoulders bent as if under a heavy load, his face grey with suppressed emotion, and went out the door of the office where he has worked for 21 years for the last time...

Michael F Brennan
St Petersburg FL

Peter said...

I see my brothers in Christ, men women and children going to FSSPX confessions every Sunday to priests that are unable to grant them absolution.
Most are not ignorant of the priests lack of faculties.


In that case they're validly absolved without any doubts.

Anonymous said...

Third Crusade is not for unity but for the Consecration of Russia

But also for the triumph of the Immaculate Heart which they understand as coming back to Catholic Tradition.

Alexander said...

The royal “We?” Interesting.






“Pope John Paul II, of venerable memory”

.......




“while preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions,”


“Their?” You mean the Church’s? Why is it “theirs” as if the TLM and traditional forms of the liturgy are suddenly the FSSPX’s?

Anonymous said...

Dear Dan,
Emphasis on "good NO priest". Good for you to walk away from unorthodox priests...old or young.

Obviously you have been scandalized, have exhausted so called 'regular' resources and are inconvenienced.

Can you take comfort that even the CSSR will admit to this...that after exhausting resources one can legitimately go to the FSSPX for confession. I think some FSSP would say the same. Check it out.

Also, have you talked to your Bishop and asked that he would give you special dispensation to go to the FSSPX for confession? If he does let us know!!!

If he won't then you can write Rome and demand justice because you can not fulfill your Catholic duties faithfully.

Even more matter of fact - better minds than mine and perhaps yours are unsettled on these matters. These people are theologian and canonists proper as well as good and holy priests.

Today in 2009 on the Feast of St. Elizabeth of Portugal we have these excellent people saying the FSSPX are ok, and other excellent people saying the FSSPX have no faculties.

Given this 'doubt', the scandal, the inconvenience to you, could you not have a clear conscience regarding the FSSPX having faculties through supplied jurisdiction?

If I was in your situation this is what I would do. Thankfully I am not faced with this choice and can attend the FSSP chapel where I live.

I am a simple layman and pray for true 'obedience'. May God grant you His peace.

Jordanes said...

"Most are not ignorant of the priests lack of faculties." In that case they're validly absolved without any doubts. ***

No, ecclesia supplet would apply only if there are ignorant of the lack of faculties. If they aren't ignorant, and it's not a genuine emergency, there would be no valid absolution.

Dan Hunter said...

"Can I ask you where you live in North Carolina?"

Okie:

About 20 miles north of Chapel Hill.

35 miles south of the Virginia border.

Its about 100 miles from the nearest every Sunday diocesan TLM.

Dan Hunter said...

"Also, have you talked to your Bishop and asked that he would give you special dispensation to go to the FSSPX for confession? If he does let us know!!!"

Anonymous:

That is a wonderful idea!

I think I will write. or visit His Excellency and ask him for a special dispensation to have our confessions heard by the FSSPX priest.
Thank you and God bless.

I shall get back to you on this.

okie said...

Dan Hunter:

I am sorry that I only have generalities to throw out at you, but I know that a year after I left Duke, my Catholic convert friends back there attempted to get a Priest from Winston-Salem to say the EF on Campus, but the Priest there refused...I don't have a name, but perhaps that might be a start...whoever it is, I think he has a PhD in history from Wake Forest.

Also, as far as an NO Priest who can suffice as a confessor, I know that the Orthodox Catholics in Durham who are fed up with the foolishness of the Durham-Chapel Hill parishes (and they are BAD...Immaculate Conception and their Eco-Stations-of-the-Cross...makes me shudder to think) go to St. Joseph's in Raleigh. I'm not saying its the be all and end all of all your problems, but he will give you absolutions, and I am rather for certain he will not tell you that the Church has "revised" its lists of sins.

Finally, I think there is a Mnsgr. Williams maybe, or something to that effect, who is supposed to be a decent confessor. Again, I apologize for the general nature of this post...its been 3 years since I was there, most of my Catholic friends have moved away, and I have no love loss for leaving. It is really quite terrible, and I do not envy your position. However, I do think there are at least competent Priests you could schedule confessions with within the Triangle.

What about the Byzantine Rite Church in Carey? Have you tried to go there? I believe it is Sts. Cyril and Methodius, but that might just be an assumption. Blessings...you'll need them!

Peter said...

"Most are not ignorant of the priests lack of faculties." In that case they're validly absolved without any doubts. ***

No, ecclesia supplet would apply only if there are ignorant of the lack of faculties. If they aren't ignorant, and it's not a genuine emergency, there would be no valid absolution.


I didn't notice the "not". Anyway, if had access to liberal confessors only, who try to tell me that some mortal sins are no longer sins (like somebody told us in this thread) I would go to the SSPX priest for confession. I am no moral theologian and I don't want to be deceived when asking for spiritual instruction. And what if the confessor has no intention to absolve from the sins he considers "outdated"?

Jordanes said...

Anyway, if had access to liberal confessors only, who try to tell me that some mortal sins are no longer sins (like somebody told us in this thread) I would go to the SSPX priest for confession. ***

My understanding is that if there really isn't any other option, or if a penitent honestly doesn't know of any other option after having given due diligence to find a decent confessor with faculties, he may request absolution from a suspended priest, and it will be valid.

And what if the confessor has no intention to absolve from the sins he considers "outdated"? ***

I think as long as he does give absolution in proper form, even if he doesn't think it's really a sin, it will be valid. If he has no intention of shriving a sinner but still says and does all that the Church requires, how could the penitent know that it was an "imitation absolution"? No, for there to be confidence in the efficacity of the sacrament of penance, it can't depend on the completely secret dispositions of the priest. If, however, he is so wicked that he won't give absolution at all because he thinks a sin isn't really a sin, then there would be no absolution.

Anonymous said...

So how does one rectify all those confession over a period of 20 years that one has made to a SSPX?

The implications to this are staggering. I wouldn't know how to begin my examintion of conscience.

This is quite serious. And it is equally serious to disturb the consciens of the faithful who have been going to SSPX priests.

Anonymous said...

Regarding Msgr. Perl: it is probable he will be appointed as the next Archbishop of Luxembourg, since the current one has - very conveniently - just turned 75 two months ago.

Dan Hunter said...

Okie,

Thank you for the advice.

I believe the priest from Winston Salem who the Duke students tried to get might have been Father Samuel Weber OSB who for over a year offered the TLM at a small Baptist chapel on the campus of Wake Forest University.

I do know that the Catholic chaplain at Duke is dead set against the TLM and he is very unorthodox.
I know this because I wrote him on several occasions requesting the TLM at Duke, which would be a very central location for many many people.
Father made up several excuses and then blatantly said that it will never happen at Duke Chapel, "because a Catholic Mass is not allowed to be offered in a Methodist building."
Thats a lie because Duke chapel offers several Catholic Masses weekly , albeit very abusive ones.

Yes Monsignor Williams at St Josephs church is a good confessor, but that is 110 miles round trip for me.

The FSSPX do a holy job though.

okie said...

"So how does one rectify all those confession over a period of 20 years that one has made to a SSPX?

The implications to this are staggering. I wouldn't know how to begin my examintion of conscience.

This is quite serious. And it is equally serious to disturb the consciens of the faithful who have been going to SSPX priests."

- I mean this without being mean spirited at all, but it is exactly the weight of all those souls that in some way falls on the leadership of the SSPX, who has convinced all these people to walk with them into such dangerous territory. It is additionally a heavy burden on many of them as well (I don't think all of them however...I would have to guess that many a simple and pious person does not willingly abrogate the law), but Abp. Lefebvre had to know he will be held accountable in some way for these souls.

I do find it strange though that a group who, with so much fire and passion, insists that any speck of leniency whatsoever towards Protestants is heresy, would on the other hand just assume "emergency jurisdiction" covers their souls in such a dangerous situation. Somehow, "invincible ignorance" is lunacy, but "emergency jurisdiction" makes perfect sense. I could see a case for both in limited and strict terms, but presuming too much on either is bound to lead many astray. Acting like one makes absolute sense and the other is laughable, though, is quite the strain of logic to my mind.

okie said...

Dan Hunter,

I am very sorry that I couldn't have been of more help. When I joined RCIA there as a Seminarian (I converted to Catholicism while at Duke's Protestant seminary), the cruel joke was "if you can survive Mass for one year in the Diocese of Raleigh, then you must really want to be a Catholic."

It is horribly and unfortunately true.

I have tried to contact a few friends on this one who are still out there, and all of them have rather dour opinions on the subject. The only thing I have left to offer you is shared stories of misery to let you know you are not alone.

First of all, the Priest at Duke tried to get the Easter Vigil service, where my wife and I were to be accepted into the True Faith, to be an "ecumenical" service. Let alone the fact that most of the people in the RCIA class were opposed to this, noting that we weren't willingly going to throw jobs away and alienate family members only to act like nothing is different between us and protestants, he kept on with his plan. He was going to (I still cringe thinking about this) TWO ALTARS at the "service," one for the rebels, and one for us. INSANITY. Thanks be to God, Cardinal Ariza intervened (yes, the situation was so bad that he was our champion), and put a stop to the whole mess, although we somehow still "started out" our seperate "services" around the same blessing of the Holy Fire, only to walk to different Chapels. Terrible.

So do know you are not alone in this. I am sorry that this is small consolation.

okie said...

I have a friend who just suggested Thomas More in Chapel Hill as a place to try. I don't know if I can agree with him on that one!

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Hunter,
there are many reasons to conclude that SSPX priests do have faculties. For example, even in cases of doubt, the Church supplies jusrisdiction (Canon 209; New Code Canon 144).
Please weigh the good arguments presented by Fr. Angles on the SSPX website, as well as those by John Salza (lawyer and apologist not connected to the SSPX).
JMJ
A fellow Catholic in Germany

Anonymous said...

Mr. Hunter:
Maybe you could explain your situation to someone to the Curia, maybe even the Holy Father himself. If enough of us write to the Pope, maybe he would grant faculties through private correspondence. You can never now, and it's worth a try. Where could I contact you?

Phillip C. in S.F.

Jordanes said...

there are many reasons to conclude that SSPX priests do have faculties. ***

No, there aren't. Suspended priests by definition lack faculties. There are cases, however, when sacraments celebrated by priests without faculties are nevertheless valid, due to "ecclesia supplet." In such cases it is as if the priest had faculties even though he doesn't.

Anonymous said...

Dear Jordanes,
allow me correct myself:
"There are many reasons to conclude that SSPX priests enjoy supplied jurisdiction."

Chris said...

"No, ecclesia supplet would apply only if there are ignorant of the lack of faculties. If they aren't ignorant, and it's not a genuine emergency, there would be no valid absolution."

This is incorrect. Jurisdiction is supplied to each confession to a Society priest on the basis of common error. It has nothing to do with ignorance.

Read here. An EWTN Catholic apologist does a good job of explaining..

http://scripturecatholic.xanga.com/703979099/10-do-sspx-priests-have-jurisdiction-to-hear-confessions/

Also if you have time, this is an excellent Canonical study on the issue:

http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/validity_of_confessions_1.htm

Anonymous said...

Anon. said:

"Regarding Msgr. Perl: it is probable he will be appointed as the next Archbishop of Luxembourg, since the current one has - very conveniently - just turned 75 two months ago."

I've been predicting that as a possibility for some time.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On supplied jurisdiction and confessions:

People are confusing supplied jurisdictin with receiving the effects of confession.

The Society Sacramemts, all of them, might be licit and therefore all valid as well if the Society priests honestly believe there to be a state of emergency.

Quite apart from that, faithful receive 'the grace and virtue' of a Sacrament but not the Sacrament itself when, in good faith, they think they are receiving a Sacrament. This 'covers' one on the essentials but is not as good as receiving the Sacrament.

Does the S.S.P.X have supplied jurisdiction? I won't get into that. It claims it but Rome does not recognise the validity of this claim.

P.K.T.P.

Joe B said...

Thank you, Jordanes. I believe you have nailed the Dan Hunter case on the head. Listen to Jordanes, Dan. He's no SSPX apologist. You shouldn't be agonizing over this. He and I might argue over the strength of effort required to invoke jurisdiction for an SSPX confession, but we agree that yours is a no-brainer.

I have been to the SSPX mass in Mount Holly several times and although it is tooooo looong for the large families there, I know that the faithful who go to confession believe SSPX has the necessary jurisdiction (which they do, as everybody there is abhorrent of the alternatives, just like you are) for the same reasons you are upset about. Again, we can argue about degrees, but let's don't because we already have!

I'm sure you're a good man and this has gone on more than long enough. Just go to confession and get your soul cleaned. God be with you.

Also, SSPX hasn't recruited anyone, nor have they fooled anyone. They operate out of the canonical status of charity and are up front about it. Check out their web site. You come to them.

Badger said...

Egg on your face, Mr Perkins!! :-)

InfansMariae said...

By the fruits you can tell. I don't see much problem going to confession at a FSSPX chapel.

On another note: Mr. P.K.T.P. : Your comments will be greatly missed, but enjoy your holidays form the net! And please remind us in your prayers! GB!

Anonymous said...

Dear Badger:

Egg on my face? Not at all. I stood up for what was right. There is some egg on the Pope's face, and it was put there by the imprudent remarks of Bishop Williamson. Ultimately, it is the Williamson Affair that has led to this setback.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

Jurisdiction is supplied to each confession to a Society priest on the basis of common error. It has nothing to do with ignorance. ***

Thanks. That is the "ignorance" which has been mentioned above: common error resulting in an ignorance of the truth of whether or not the priest has faculties.

Jordanes said...

To be clear, Joe, I'm not confident affirming that Mr. Hunter may request absolution from an SSPX priest, but I do think he may well be in a situation where he is justified in doing so, at least on a case by case basis. But I trust the Lord to help us find a satisfactory solution for Mr. Hunter's predicament soon, and I pray that He quickly changes the hearts of the unworthy priests of his diocese who have been troubling his soul and the souls of the faithful under their care.

Anonymous said...

It's way past time to reverse the curial reorganisation of Paul VI. HH should take over the CDF again, and State should be just one among peers again. Louis

Anonymous said...

Is there more coming?

I think that we've lost on the matter of getting faculties for the S.S.P.X, at least for some months.

However, I urge everyone to note the tone, emphasis and content of the new motu proprio. It emphasises the new doctrinal rôle of the P.C.E.D. in the C.D.F.

It remains possible that a new Pontifical Council is coming to implement S.P. After all, the old Mass is now restored as a recognised liturgical form (and it is a Rite). Since the T.L.M. is not the normative Rite of Mass, access to it is limited by a superior right of faithful to benefit from the New Mass. This would justify--more than justify--having an agency to specify rights regarding the Traditional Laitn Mass and preconciliar Sacraments. I have good reason to suppose that a Pontifical Council is acoming for us.

Such a council would assuage us a bit. But it would not likely end the power of bishops to obstruct S.P. At most, it might reduce their power to do so by giving the new pontifical agency power to send in trad priests where bishops are unable to satisfy our 'legitimate aspirations'. But resources for that are very limited, so it's not a juridical cure, only a help.

No, Romanus, I shan't be dreaming of this, mainly because it would fail to satisfy me even if given. But it might improve the situation a bit, that's all. Msgr. Bux has not been mentioned so far in all of this. He needs a rôle!

The new m.p., it seemeth to me, really puts emphasis on the new doctrinal focus of the P.C.E.D. This leaves open some possibilties regarding liturgy.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

The Holy Father's Motu Proprio is explicit. Ecclesiae Unitatem #4: "However it is clear that the doctrinal questions remain, and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."

Period.

End of Paragraph.

There is no recourse to Canon Law or Moral Theology on this point.

None.

Why? Because the Power to bind and loose rests with Benedict XVI -- not John Salza, or any of the Society's Bishops (and any canonist worth his salt knows this).

For Catholics who supposedly know their faith so well and insist ad nauseum that Rome is wrong, wrong, wrong on so many points it's surprising that the SSPX clergy and laity selectively ignore this issue as if their emotional and psychological state can create jurisdiction. How nice that each mantilla covered woman in an SSPX chapel can become their own Pope -- this is more Modernist than ordaining women priests! Of course, if I were to apply the same cyncism to the SSPX that the SSPX applies to Rome, one could say that Tissier DeMallerais' "theologizing" (cough) on this point provides the fuel for the cash engine of the SSPX.

The Church is a hierarchy, not a democracy. Validity and jurisdiction cannot be seperated so easily, nor can jurisdiction be created by a "group mind" or popular vote. The entire SSPX argument for supplied jurisdiction is as modernist and neo-protestant and "cafeteria Catholic" as deciding to practice artificial birth control. The specifics are different but the abstraction is the same.

A state of emergency doesn't exist if you don't like the local liturgy.

Funny how Novus Ordo priests are accused -- frequently and unjustly -- of not knowing what is and isn't a sin, when SSPX presbyters are far guiltier considering their error on this immense, yet crystal clear, point. What's worse is that they pridefully believe their own press releases.

Anonymous said...

Dear InfansMariæ:

Thank you. I expect to be on holidays from this ONE blog and the ONE weblist I contribute to by the end of this week (not several, as someone here claimed). I would return after that only if there is some additional news of importance.

We have to keep in mind that the road to freedom for our Mass has been slow and arduous. The landmarks are Q.A.A. of 1984, E.D.A. of 1988 and subsequent founding of traditionalist societies, the 2002 Campos precedent (which is the juridial model for the future), S.P. of 2007, and the Decree of this January.

The journey began in 1984 and we are still going uphill. We have not passed the crest of the hill yet. We shall do so when the power of episcopal obstruction is no longer certain for any bishop. Then begins the descent to the universal ritual apostolic administration (or even diocese) for everyone. It can include the S.S.P.X or the S.S.P.X can have one of its own, but there must be at least one for all those traditionalists who have remained obedient to the Pope all these years. They also seek the seventh throne.

The final goal is still beyond our ken, but we are, at least, reaching near the crest of the hill.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

i do not understand how an orthodox theologian would reject the traditional latin mass or the traditional liturgy. Doesn't orthodox belief go hand in hand with a liturgy that expresses orthodox beliefs? lex orandi lex credendi?

G

Anonymous said...

Not to change the subject, ahem, but I am still wondering where the clarification of S.P. is. According to Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, the final text was put onto the Pope's bureau about a year ago. Interesting how Cardinal C.H. was retired (a) without this document being signed and (b) without any new structure for the Sons of the Holy Redeemer. It looks to me as if the Cardinal was denied his swan song and that, now, Perl is being sent to the knacker's yard.

The leftists over at N.C.R. are right, I think, in arguing that the Williamson Affair has resulted in all of this. Those responsible for the January Decree are being quietly dropped. Someone might want to ask the retired Cardinal, though, if that clarification document will ever see the light of day.

P.K.T.P.

Paul Haley said...

The game is not over, folks. We have the Rosary Crusade and our holy Masses on our side. What the Holy Father has done is stiffen our backs, so to speak, and make us even more resistant to the NO abuses and the "spirit of Vatican II".

It has been said and must be said again that we will never, ever, give up to the siren songs of the modernists. If this was designed to break our will and makes us more compliant to their new religion, it has done just the opposite.

LeonG said...

If Levada is as true a liberal as it is always suggested he is then this should not be a stumbling block to SSPX.

Gideon Ertner said...

Dan Hunter:

Quick Google search reveals there is a Ukrainian Catholic mission in Raleigh. As far as I can make out that would be about 35 miles from where you live? Not exactly close, but better than nothing (or rather less than nothing, which is what you are facing right now).

Here is their website: http://saintnicholasraleigh.org/home

Dan Hunter said...

Thanks for the help everyone.

You are all true Catholic gentlemen.

I shall remember you in Compline this evening.

God bless kind sirs.

Gideon Ertner said...

But of course, Dan.

One last thing: you should know there is also a Maronite mission in Raleigh, on 1401 Edwards Mill Road. The phone number is (919) 234-9509.

I hope some of our suggestions can prove useful.

Joe B said...

Dear Mr Anonymous,

Charity for souls trumps obedience. Not even the Holy Father would disagree with that.

A true state of emergency exists, and exists explicitly in the area SSPX offers charity in. Again, we can argue about the sufficiency of each person's cause for choosing SSPX over an insulting form of religion which passes for the normal Novus Ordo parish, but there is no dispute as to whether that line exists. It does. Perhaps you simply haven't puked yet at some insulting irreverence at a Novus Ordo mass, such as the dilemma one faces when you have to decide whether to genuflect before three consecutive Sister Moons, each holding the Sacred Species, as you try to return to your seat from the supper table. But if your Novus Ordo priest tolerates such alter girls and lay Eucharistic women and you haven't decided that there is a genuine worldwide state of emergency, then stay right where you are, for you are the reality of the formerly theoretical invincible ignoramus.

But if you have children, I suggest you go to an SSPX chapel, prostrate yourself, and beg their forgiveness and the Catholic education of your children, unless you are one of the fortunate few who have access to a holy and well trained Novus Ordo priest, which I have found to be a rare breed, and usually isolated and ostracized so far into the shadows that they are nearly insane, and that's not a make believe story. For if you were to continue to give your children to the said normative Novus Ordo parish for the care of their souls, then you, a parent non-ignorant enough to be following this blog, are in grave danger of the same damnation they are in danger of. And if that isn't a state of emergency, then Fatima was a fraud and we can all look forward to Pope Paula.

Anonymous said...

anon 00:00

I am glad things are so easy for you.

Your one point saying that the Pope has spoken on the matter is the only one worth thinking about...and I remain undecided.

I still want to hear what these others have to say...you know the ones you so quickly dismiss as modernist, protestants, rebels.

Frankly, shame on you for being so uncharitable. A 'mature' Catholic such as you surely has the 'maturity' to know wrong from right?

You say, "Funny how Novus Ordo priests are accused -- frequently and unjustly -- of not knowing what is and isn't a sin,"

It is not funny, its sad and true...many NO priests simply ignore certain sins and say not to worry about them in direct contradiction to the Catechism.

Their reasoning is that the Church has to catch up to the times. They say that a 'mature' Catholic knows what is best and will correct his way (sounds protestant to me).

I have experienced this kind of thing first hand so don't tell me that NO priests are being treated unjustly.

I suppose if you swallow the conciliar church kool aide then the NO priests are doing what they are being taught....and the conciliar Popes want this, and it is the normal way now and it is sort of adheres to Catholic teaching of the past and everyone is doing it so its got to be what God wants, right?

I am sure the truth will all become clearer with yet another version of the Catehecism; How many times has the new Catechism been updated?

I know Jordanes will quickly point out how legally bla bla bla the Cathecism hasn't been changed...just minor modifications and please don't worry.

These new era Popes also said the TLM was illegal...no wait he/they changed their minds later after the study results were leaked. For Ten years JP2 hid the results...must have been on his desk, in the 'to do' pile like Pope BX16 SP clarification. Forgive me for being sarcastic.

But not to worry. Just carry on and attend the NO mass and sacraments. It will work out in the end.

Sorry, when I was a NO catholic my faith was weak and like Pope BXV1 said, many people have looked to false spirituality because the NO didn't provide adequately for it.

But he/they also say to watch out for traditional zealots. The solution is the EF for the traddys reformation to the Church (their words not mine).

Thank God in Jesus Christ for the TLM and liturgy. I pray it stays and grows. I found a true spiritual home amid the crisis in the Church.

Just another Traddy Catholic

Anonymous said...

To Jordanes and D.Hunter:

The notion that somehow you are not being absolved from your sins should you choose to confess them to an SSPX priest is utterly ridiculous.

You can point to all the canon law about proper jurisdiction and canonical structures but it really does not make a difference. Laws are necessary for structure and guidance for the faithful, but every law has a proper context as to when and how it should be applied. Hence the terms 'spirit' vs. 'letter' of the law. Thou shalt not kill does not mean always you can not kill.

The bottom line is that an SSPX priest provides valid sacraments.

The structures which were instituted by The Church are meant to protect the faithful from wolves in sheep's clothing trying to draw people away from the true faith (like during the reformation). Today the wolves, are in many (if not most) cases, the ones under the umbrella that The Church took almost 2000 years to build. That's one of the most ingenius things the modernists have done. They have masterfully use the rules, laws and institutions which The Church put in place to keep themselves and their modernist theology in power.

So telling the faithful to stay away from the SSPX's valid sacraments because of proper canonical structure is like a town denying a permit to a person wanting to build a house using master tradesmen because they are not licensed with the town but with one moe caveat. The licensed tradesmen in your down are mostly a bunch of hacks and their families are on the town board.

One more question for Jordanes. What do you tell the young traditional catholic who was raised as a catholic in an SSPX community by no choice of his/her own? To what church does this person belong? When that child becomes of age are you going to tell him he cannot receive absolution from an SSPX priest because the priest doesn't have proper faculties?


This is the generation I like to call the "forgotten catholics". Born after vatican II but raised traditional. So far, none of JPII's or BXVI's documents have addressed any concern for this generation. We are an enigma. If our parents had just raised us like good norvus ordo catholics we wouldn't exist.

There is no "attachment" to the old liturgy when it comes to us. We only know one basic way to following our faith and it's through the use of the traditional sacraments. Period.

If there is any reason for expediency in setting up a proper structure for traditional catholics it is to protect this newest generation of traditional catholics. Sorry folks, SP is not enough. Something with teeth is required, because if you try and bait and switch this new generation with norvus ordo garbage (and it happens all the time in indult communities) they will be lost.

PJL

Anonymous said...

Thank you Chris for the informative links. Helps save my soul.

Fr. Steve said...

I don't understand why people are worried about "the Traditional Liturgy" now that the Ecclesia Dei commission has been subsumed under the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. It seems to me that the Holy Father has already reintegrated, at least from a legal and logistical stand point,the extraordinary form of the one Roman Rite back into the mainstream of the Church. Now it's up to the priests and faithful to take it up again. The CDF must now deal with the doctrinal confusion that has prevailed in the Church for the last 40 years or so. With the Society's help the Holy Father now has the opportunity to reaffirm the same goal that Blessed John XXIII had when he called the council; to proclaim the same timeless truths of every former council anew to the people of today. Long live Pope Benedict XVI!

Anonymous said...

PJL said, "Something with teeth is required, because if you try and bait and switch this new generation with norvus ordo garbage (and it happens all the time in indult communities) they will be lost."

You make some very interesting comments, thank you. Regarding the above quote please give some examples. I attend the FSSP chapel, having come over from the NO and would like to know what to watch for.

Just another traddy

Jordanes said...

I am sure the truth will all become clearer with yet another version of the Catehecism; How many times has the new Catechism been updated? ***

Once, at which time 17 pages of modifications of the Editio Typica were made. The modifications are most additional references and citations, or corrections of typographical errors. A few modifications are substantial alterations in catechetical content.

Of course you could have found that out for yourself if you'd gotten out your Catechism.

I know Jordanes will quickly point out how legally bla bla bla the Cathecism hasn't been changed...just minor modifications and please don't worry. ***

No, you don't know that at all.

Anonymous said...

Joe B says that a true state of emergency exists. Given the broad provisions for this in the Code, I tend to agree; in fact, I do agree.

However, what I think is not important. The fact of the matter is that Rome has declined to recognise any such state for the S.S.P.X. Faithful must then ask themselves if they want to entrust their souls to priests under such conditions.

I note that this has no effect on whether Society Masses fulfil the Sunday obligation. They fulfil that obligation whether they are licit or not. But it makes a major difference in the case of confession and marriage, where even the validity of the Sacrament is brought into question.

Whatever may be the case, we shall not 'grow' the faith in places such as Latin America if Rome declines to recognise Society faculties. And this case is worse: Rome calls the Society illegitimate and avers that its clerics do not exercise any ministry.

I refuse to be a poor loser to Romanus. He can call me a dreamer but not an unfair man. He's won on this; his prediction has turned out to be correct and we must wait for a better day. Time to pray.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Anon. writes:

"There is no recourse to Canon Law or Moral Theology on this point.

None."

That's balderdash, of course. However, it is true that we have no authoritative interpretation of law in favour of the Society. Faithful must ask themselves, therefore, if they want to entrust their souls to the Society in such circumstances. I, for one, prefer to err on the side of caution.

Look, whatever this anon. says, it would not take a rocket scientist to conclude that many things liberal priests say in the confessional are pure heresy, as well as sin. It is really bad when the confessor commits sin in the advice he renders to the penitent! However, there are pleny of good and decent priests operating under their bishops. We are bound to make an effort and find one in the case of the Sacrament of Penance. It can be done.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

So telling the faithful to stay away from the SSPX's valid sacraments because of proper canonical structure is like a town denying a permit to a person wanting to build a house using master tradesmen because they are not licensed with the town but with one moe caveat. . . . ***

But the church's unity, and maintaining communion with one's bishop and with the Holy Father, have got to be deeply treasured and protected by a faithful Catholic.

What do you tell the young traditional catholic who was raised as a catholic in an SSPX community by no choice of his/her own? To what church does this person belong? ***

The Catholic Church, and in particular to the diocesan church in which he resides, being subject to the lawfully established bishop of that diocese.

When that child becomes of age are you going to tell him he cannot receive absolution from an SSPX priest because the priest doesn't have proper faculties? ***

If I had to, yes. I doubt that situation will ever arise for me, because the SSPX adherents hold aloof from the dioceses in which they live. And in such a child's case, it may well prove that there is common error, such that the Church will supply jurisdiction.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes, let us not take the matter of the Sacraments too far. There is a VERY good case for accepting the Society's argument of supplied jurisdiction. Ironically, the 1983 Code, which the Society hates so much, allows just about anything. You could drive a Mack truck through its statutes.

In a case of positive and probable doubt, the Church supplies, not the reverse. And if the faithful hold such doubt honestly (and not otherwise), they can still receive the 'grace and virtue' of the Sacrament, even without receiving the Sacrament itself.

All we can say is that Rome refuses to acknowledge the application of supplied jurisdiction in this particular case (contrast with the case of ordinations behind the Iron Curtain in the 1950s, where Rome did accept the argument from supplied jurisdiction). Nevertheless, as you rightly suggest, that is important because maintaining unity with the Pope and bishops is an important good: it is an ordinary duty of each of us. I think of it as a treasure, even when the bishop turns out to be a rotter.

The real problem here is more practical. There is just no way that the S.S.P.X will gain a large number of adherents if Rome does not recognise or regularise it. This also means that local bishops need not implement "Summorum Pontificum" in order to keep the Society at bay. They need only--and will continue to--tell their subjects that the Society is "illegitimate and exercises no ministries, and that all its Sacraments are illicit". That will be more than enough to keep faithful from repairing to the Society. Having achieved this, they can then continue to threaten their own priests in order to prevent them from celebrating the old Mass. I have you in mind, Bishop Ramirez of Las Cruces; I'm thinking of you, Archbishop Jordan of Rheims. That's why this is a disaster.

The disaster can be reduced somewhat if H.H. approves a new pontifical council to implement S.P. But there are canonical problems with this. Even if such a council were to impose the old Mass on the ground of Article 1 of S.P. (the best case scenario), local bishops can use other laws to frustrate the effect. For example, they can use Canon 905 to prevent their priests from celebrating more than twice or even more than once so as to prevent them from offering our Mass.

Romanus wins for now. That's just the way it is. But tomorrow (meaning next year or later) is another day. More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Given the total lack of provision for the liturgical functions of the P.C.E.D., there is, of course, another dream which is possible--other than the formation of a pontifical council. This would be what I have been working and praying for since 1997 or 1998. I mean that the exempt ritual & international apostolic administration or diocese (under Canon 372.2) could be erected not for the S.S.P.X but for regularised traditionalists. It would include the thirty-some approved traditionalist societies and orders. Just another dream? Perhaps it is. I see no evidence for it at present. But it is a plausible possibility. Again, the new m.p. makes no provision for implementing "Summorum Pontificum" or for superintending the approved orders and societies.

Is more coming? Again, perhaps and, again, I agree that we should not hold our breath. But there is nothing wrong with praying and asking our Lady to intercede for us, so that the old Mass can be truly freed from the control of the local bishops. They don't own our Mass. It belongs to the whole world.

P.K.T.P.

Mar said...

okie said: "I mean this without being mean spirited at all, but it is exactly the weight of all those souls that in some way falls on the leadership of the SSPX, who has convinced all these people to walk with them into such dangerous territory."

Could it be that Abp. Lefebvre and the leadership of the SSPX led those souls into "dangerous" territory because other alternatives were seen to be more dangerous by far? Consider the very sobering case of Christopher West's enormous influence in the very heart of the Church at the present time (with the blessing of some of the "best" bishops, one might add).

The debacle that he has caused, and which has manifested itself quite dramatically in recent weeks, is mind-boggling in its ramifications. It is frightening to see how many seemingly sincere and devout Catholics are defending CW on the internet lists without any regard to the ethos of the Church, an ethos that developed over hundreds of years and is exemplified in the lives of countless saints. A 'sensus fidei'? - what's that? For these people it is irrelevant.

Take the case of a traditional latin Mass community I know. It was set up the 'right' way under the local ordinary - some would call it an 'indult' situation. It is a thriving community. There are many families with many children. There are many young adults who take their catholicism seriously. There are many converts who were specifically attracted to the reverence of the old Mass and were repelled by the NO.

Now some parties are bringing in courses on TOB and singing the praises of CW, all with the best of intentions, of course. The chaplain seemingly is happy to sanction these moves. He is an orthodox priest who loves the old Mass and has played a tremendously important role in the development of the community. But both liturgically and doctrinally he is no hardliner traditionalist... One suspects that an SSPX priest, on the other hand, would have come down on these moves like a ton of bricks.

Meanwhile a handful of hardliner traditionalists in the community who in earlier years laboured with blood, sweat and tears to get the community going and to set it up on a firm foundation are silently weeping inside to see the 'new' developments and wondering yet again whether it would have been better to throw in their lot with the SSPX.

Sorry to go off-topic like this, but what okie said touched some recent wounds and reactivated some old fears.

Romanus said...

Stop the fantasy. Perl will never be bishop. He is going into a cozy retirement as canon of the Vatican basilica. Happy holidays to all.

Jordanes said...

Enjoy your holiday, Romanus. Please consider my above request.

M.A. said...

"It is really bad when the confessor commits sin in the advice he renders to the penitent! However, there are pleny of good and decent priests operating under their bishops. We are bound to make an effort and find one in the case of the Sacrament of Penance. It can be done."

I've tried for years. The best I can find among the N.O. clergy, is a confessor who absolves, but offers, no counsel, no advice, not even an assurance of prayers. And for a penance asks that I say once, my favorite prayer. But that's much better than another who told me to bake a cake for a penance.

My own pastor rarely hears. confessions. Instead he has another priest fill in - the one who refused me Communion twice for kneeling. I refuse to go to him for the sacrament!

Another one gave me no penance. When I asked him if he had forgotten, he snapped at me that he 'no', he hadn't forgotten.

I now confess before Mass at the FSSP Mass to which our family travels, but I am greatly disappointed in the confessor. He is one who has not offered advise or counsel or even encouragement to attain sanctity. You get absolved, given a penance, and out the door!

I hold a holy envy for those of you who have good confessors and spiritual guides! Bless you, and pray for us who are deprived. It is a suffering.

And as to Romanus. He is enjoying his moment. Let him have his laugh.

Anonymous said...

To Just another traddy:

It's a bit tougher for a NO 'convert' to recognize because you were raised to accept most of what goes on in NO circles.

I'll give the latest situation in my community. Our bishop did not allow confirmations before SP. Once SP came through a specially assigned priest (not bishop) was provided to administer this sacrament. Now the NO raised Catholics in the community were just happy to have the traditional sacrament. Since most all NO children in this diocese are confirmed by a priest they were okay with it. No so for the people such as myself who feel that confirmation should be administered by a bishop. The post VII mindset is to manipulate the special needs clauses that The Church has so they can do what they feel like. That's how you got eucharistic ministers, general absolution and now priests administering confirmation.

Dyed in the wool traditionalists do not go for this garbage. My father has a saying, "you don't mix rites".

You see bishops like Fellay flying all over the world to administer the sacrament of confirmation while local ordinaries delegate that responsibility because there are too many other items on the calendar in June. Worse yet these sames Bishops will deny communities from flying in a traditional bishop in good standing (like Rifan).

PJL

Paul Haley said...

Prayer is the only solution. In addition to the Rosary, may I suggest all say a private prayer to St. Athanasius that he will intercede for us. After all, he stood almost alone in his defense against the Arian heresy and was, for a time, at odds with the the reigning pontiff. If you ask me, supplied jurisdiction applied to him then as it applies to some now. In any case he will certainly be one to intercede for us.

Dan Hunter said...

"And for a penance asks that I say once, my favorite prayer. But that's much better than another who told me to bake a cake for a penance."

M.A.

I once had a priest tell me for my penance I should "go to the Traditional Latin Mass"!

He actually told me this in a church that offered the TLM, directly following my confession.

Gideon Ertner said...

M.A.,

Sorry about the insufficiencies you describe in your diocesan priests, and even in your FSSP priest (I'd say that is very uncharacteristic as in my experience they tend to be extremely sound). Just a suggestion: you could go to a diocesan priest for confession but to an FSSPX priest for spiritual guidance. The two don't necessarily have to be connected.

Anonymous said...

The only answer for the long run is to abandon the Novus Ordo completely. There are those who say "the Church could not have made a mistake in instituting the Novus Ordo". But if the Novus Ordo was the answer, then did the Church make a mistake by holding onto the TLM too long? If the NO is so great, why wasn't the Church inspired to institute it long ago? And if the Church could err in keeping the TLM too long, as some would argue, then it is equally valid to believe that the Church has erred in introducing the NO in the first place. And the latter argument has history and Tradition on its side. The NO is a mistake and has led to the loss of many souls to Hell, and the Church should admit this mistake, apologize, and move on to recapture its Tradition. There is no other answer. I pray for this return to sanity every day. I hope you will join me.

Gideon Ertner said...

"I once had a priest tell me for my penance I should "go to the Traditional Latin Mass"!"

That's horrible! Giving a penance which is so sweet is surely an incitement to sin.

Dan Hunter said...

For anyone interested in what Monsignor Perl will do:
Father Zuhlsdorf asked him in person:

"A quick note about Msgr. Perl


After the restructuring of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", there was a question about whether or not the position of Vice-President had been retained and whether Msgr. Perl might remain part of the Commission.

I have clarified the situation in the simplest way: I asked Msgr. Perl.

The long-suffering, long serving, Msgr. Perl has retired!

I sincerely wish him well. He worked in an unenviable position for over two decades years. He is also one of the kindest people I know in Rome. Certainly one of the kindest clerics!

Msgr. Perl remains a Canon of St. Peter’s Basilica and so he will remain for the time being in Rome.

I sincerely wish Msgr. Perl a happy retirement!"

God bless you Monsignor.

okie said...

"The bottom line is that an SSPX priest provides valid sacraments."

-I'm sorry, but this is not "obvious." The arguments you give are not in anyway conclusive as to constitute a "bottom line." I think P.T.K.P. has a point that the '83 code allows a lot of leeway (and I'm actually with him that it shouldn't, that it should be tightened up), but this is by no means obvious.

"What do you tell the young traditional catholic who was raised as a catholic in an SSPX community by no choice of his/her own?"

-What do you tell someone like me who was raised as a Protestant, who knew no better until he started to read up on history only when he got to Protestant seminary and they made him read the Church fathers? Why should the SSPX illicit tears and worries that we do not dare expend for all those children who know no better in Protestant circles? Or, to give the age old protest from atheists, what about all those Caananite children? Did they choose to worship Dagon?

Look, the fact of the matter is the Ark of Salvation is the Church, and it is a concrete, real body that exists throughout time in a real way through Apostolic Succession and its Catholic faith. And while we have fantastic records as to Apostolic Succession and have solved the problem as to whether worthless Bishops consecrations are still valid early on, The Catholic faith has waxed and waned in more periods of history than our own. What about all those poor children who grew up Arian? Ablegensian? Janesenist? All with the best intentions in the world (sorry to bring up an old point, PKTP, but I think this would be an example of a good intention gone bad...they could honestly think and intend they are saving souls, but are clearly not, and would be held accountable for such).

Now look, I don't think the SSPX are arians or albagensians (I do think they have a subtle Janesenist streak in them, and an even bigger Gallican streak in them, which colors their "Christ's social Kingship" arguments and actually defeat their own good points they bring up), but the fact of the matter is the same: if you choose to go off and ordain your own Bishops in defiance of the Pope and all that the good, orthodox, and Ultramontanist Bl. Pius IX fought for in Vatican I, you incur this danger. And I'm sorry, losing the visible unity of the Church is ultimately more dangerous than any of the utter crap that the NO people can come up with. We solved this one with the donatists. No matter how ridiculous this or that stupid Priest is, no matter how worthless his advice, if he says the absolution, he cannot help himself: he has absolved you from sins he believes in or not. So yes, that one worhless, stupid Priest has more certainly absolved you from your sins than the SSPX priests at this point because of what they have decided to do, in running off on their own course like the Anglicans did (who, by the way, just decided to be more french than the Gallicans, and pulled the whole thing off).

Again, I think PKTP has an argument, a good case, but do you want to rest your soul on a good case? Did the good Archbishop want to rest thousands of souls on a decent argument? Again, although many of you scoff at the over-extended mercy many NO Bishops will extend to Protestants, non-believers, etc., you somehow assume that "Mercy" will automatically give you a pass for treading the thin line between disgruntled unity and discontinuous rebellion?

So again, I say what I have always said, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND the sorrow and pain of the lay faithful. I understand their confusion and heartache...everyone wants more than the sacraments...they want direction, they want leaders, they want a culture, they want a home. BUT THE SACRAMENTS ARE MORE IMPORTANT.

The leaders, however, of the SSPX will be held to full responsibility, just as the NO Bishops who were failures and led their sheep into horrible dangers and snares will be held accountable as well.

Sorry for the rant...

Anonymous said...

One NO priest advised me not to confess my sins since we ask for forgiveness for sins during the NO mass 3 times and no need for a confession.(The Catechism tells different).

PJL,
Our NO Bishop also administers the sacrament of Confirmation in the NO rite...he treats trads like lepers and refuses to allow the traditional rites.

The FSSP have their hands tied so to speak.

I am watching like a hawk (a zealot in the NO eyes) for NO novelties creeping in. Thankfully we have good FSSP priests.

Jordanes,
I am just a layman (sometimes sarcastic) but I think there is more to the numerous NO catechisms than minor changes...and I will look into the matter.

Our FSSP priest says not to use the first edition that the green covered one (second edition) is better but better yet to use Fr. John Hardin's Q and A Catechism because it holds to the truth better? Is there not another edition coming out soon?

Currently I am reading the Catechism of Trent.

Just another traddy catholic

Anonymous said...

Great rant Okie.
Food for thought indeed...

Brian said...

"Now look, I don't think the SSPX are arians or albagensians (I do think they have a subtle Janesenist streak in them, and an even bigger Gallican streak in them, which colors their "Christ's social Kingship" arguments and actually defeat their own good points they bring up)

Okie, you seem to be setting people straight and diagnosing heretical streaks, would you also please speak to the rampant Modernist streak in the post-Vatican II Church and how it has colored the liturgy, teaching, and practices in the Church; and what if any responsibility the hierarchy has for this problem; and how Catholics are to protect themselves and their children from the most pernicious heresy?

Anonymous said...

Deawr Mr. Hunter:

Don't listen to what Fr. Z. has to say about Msgr. Perl. Perl worked for some years 'by baby steps' to bring the T.L.M. closer to the N.O.M. (e.g. changes allowed in liturgy for the Society of St. John). Perl admitted, at one point, that he favoured a 'Classical Rite' which would fuse the T.L.M. and N.O.M. When asked further about this, he suddenly clammed up. And then there is Perl's rôle in Protocol 1411-99. True, it seems as if Perl mellowed to the T.L.M. in recent years, especially after the election of Benedict XVI.

Perl may indeed be a very kind man but, objectively-speaking, he was not a friend to tradition. His departure is definitely a good thing.

I'd be more than wary of certain people in the movement whom I would call 'semi-traditionalists'; others are outright neo-cons. They are the sort of people who think that H.H.'s change in the Good Friday Office was a good or acceptable thing; they are the sort of people who call our lady 'you' instead of 'thou' in formal prayer and then repeat the false liberal saw that the T. forms of the pronoun are actually 'affective' (a very popuular idea spread by sciolists who don't understand the *separate* development of the liturgical use of T. pronouns). These are the sort of people who think that the greater riches of the N.O. Lectionary would improve the T.L.M., and so forth. You'll find them somewhere between Tradition and Adoremus. What real traditionalist realise is that we need fifty years of Zero change in order to recover from a revolution. The aftermath of a revolution is the very worst time to tinker, even in the direction of the legitimate liturgical movement of the early 20th century.

P.K.T.P.

Joe B said...

"I, for one, prefer to err on the side of caution."

There is a critical problem here. As much as I tend to agree with Mr Perkins, the above statement is fine for politics, but not for souls. In these matters, if we are in doubt but feel the need to advise, we should err on the side of charity for souls, even if just remaining silent in our doubt. The Catholic faith is a radical one, not a conservative one. Remember the admonition about lukewarmness. Do not fear being radical about charity.

Jordan, who seems to me to abhor projecting partial evidence towards uncertain conclusions, surprised me when, although he had misgivings, he advised Dan to confess to SSPX. That's true charity, but since SSPX can validly absolve in at least some cases (true emergency), and since there is at least some doubt as to other cases, Jordanes, sensing Dan's need for resolution, made a very charitable act. And if he's wrong by the letter of the law, I say God will cover him on it and make it efficient in that case, for He is at least as charitable as us, and Dan seems genuinely sincere in wanting to please Holy Mother Church.

And that is the purpose of SSPX - it is based on radical charity for souls in a time of great uncertainty. So, those of you who are uncertain about their "faculties", please have radical charity for their faithful unless you are absolutely certain they have none. These are not normal times. Charity must prevail between all those who fight for tradition. Yes, even if that means siding against the Holy Father in matters of discipline.

Anonymous said...

"The long-suffering, long serving, Msgr. Perl has retired!"

Thank the good Lord for small mercies! He was rather young to retire at 71. The truth is that, along with Cardinal C.H., he was blamed for the Williamson débâcle. I am not saying that his treatment is fair. I don't think that it is. But I do welcome his departure for other reasons: he sought to modernise our Mass by baby steps. He and others in curia have an ideal in mind of merging the two Missals over time. It is the S.S.P.X which is keeping Rome from moving in this direction. As usual, pressure from the S.S.P.X is preserving the True Mass despite all other influences, including that of Frs. Fessio & Harrison of that wretched Adoremus gang.

P.K.T.P.

P.S. Is Msgr. Arthur Calkins, an official at the P.C.E.D., also retiring or changing jobs? Let's hope so.

Anonymous said...

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Again, I think tha the S.S.P.X has a good case in logic for a state of necessity. Even if Society members and supporters only hold the honest belief (common error, positive & probable doubt) that there is an emergency, it covers them.

As for the rest of us, however, the question is whether or not we think there to be an emergency. This is where McFarland and I part company. Pope John Paul II ended the state of emergency in 2000 when, through Cardinal C.H., he offered the S.S.P.X the apostolic administration (NOT personal prelature) structure, as Bishop Fellay has openly admitted on several occasions since then. This offer was renewed in 2003 and early this year (2009), and has never been taken off the table. It would free the S.S.P.X 100% from the local bishops.

As I've argued before, emergencies arise from cases of necessity, not cases of convenience. Rightful disobedience results only when there is no way out. There has been no state of necessity since 2000. Therefore, objectively-speaking, there is no supplied jurisdiction for confessions and marriages (even if they are still covered for subjective reasons). So, even if they are covered, those of us who do not believe that there is a genuine state of necessity may NOT repair to them for confessions or marriages. Period.

No, I'm not trying to raise yet again an argument that the S.S.P.X should take an offer which is MUCH MORE than what Abp. Lefebvre was willing to take in 1988. Nor do I reiterte that the Archbishop himself admitted in his letter of 5 May, 1988, that the failure of Rome to provide a bishop was the reason he ripped up the agreement--a problem which has since been solved.

It is clear by now that raising this argument won't convince Society supporters; and the doc talks have begun in earnest. However, the rest of us can't just believe what we'd rather believe. I'd rather that there were ten million dollars in my bank account too but that won't put it there. We must continue to watch and pray for a better time, so find a good confessor. There are some really bad N.O. confessors out there and also some good oonfessors.

To Okie, I'd say that the advice you receive in the penalty box is essential, despite the power of the words of absolution. We also seek the good advice and the helpful penances because these strengthen us in our faith: I believe, O Lord, help my unbelief!

P.K.T.P.

Brian said...

Archbishop Ranjith is no longer at the Vatican; Cardinal Hoyos will no longer be with PCED; Summorum Pontificum has been ignored in vast majority of places; no explanatory letter for SP has been released; the Holy Father has not publically offered the Traditional Latin Mass; the Holy Father is on Youtube publically praying with Jews and Muslims.

The Pope is clearly putting a dedicated effort into reconciling with the SSPX. He has released Summorum Pontificum, lifted the ex-communications, and now has restructured the CDF in order to enable this reconciliation.

But does our Holy Father's dedicated efforts reflect a love of Tradition or a pastoral concern for unity, dialogue, and reconciliation?

I had thought and hoped that both were true. I am beginning to wonder.

Anonymous said...

To Okie:

There is no question about the validity of the SSPX sacraments and there never has been. You may argue the illicit nature of their sacraments but not validity.

Regarding your protestant counter example, there is huge difference between a trad raised catholic and a protestant raised convert. All Protestant churches broke the line at some point. There is something in their their beliefs which must be reconciled if they are to become catholic.

A trad raised catholic (assuming an SSPX community) was always catholic to begin with. There's nothing for them to reconcile. In fact, it's more likely the opposite situation because the diocesan bishop has to recognize the rights of the traditional catholic to worship in the traditional way. It was the abuses of the post Vatican II era which led to the oppresion of traditional catholics. So, if anything, it is the diocesan bishop who needs to reconcile his misinterpretation of Vatican II.

There was no schism with the SSPX. Those words have been echoed by many in the vatican. It was never Levebre's first choice to consecrate bishops on his own. All the actions of the SSPX are motivated out of survival not disrespect. If the SSPX had subjected itself to the authority of liberal bishops 20 years ago The Church would be much worse off.

Many fail to realize that the gains made by traditionalists in the last 5 years would not have been possible without the SSPX. The growth of the FSSP and other traditional orders would not have been possible without the SSPX. The SSPX has been playing the bad cop all these years in defense of the faith.

How many bishops have been consecrated out of the FSSP in 20 years? Zero and counting.

Our modern day reformation was Vatican II and the errors which followed. But today's counter reformation is centered in Rome. It is the modernist catholic church which needs reforming. I believe BXVI is desperately trying to begin this process but he will need the SSPX on his side if he is to suceed.

PJL

Anonymous said...

On Joe B's response to my comment:

Yes, Joe B. is right that one need not err on the side of caustion in spiritual matters, and the provisions of the Code are broad on supplied jurisdiction.

However, for those amnong us who do not have 'positive and probable doubt' on the matter but believe that there is no emergency (and I am one of them), there is no question in the matter: don't go to the S.S.P.X for confessions.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On Significant Dates:

I have argued for some time that this Pope likes symbolic or significant dates. I note that the latest m.p. was given on 2nd July, which is, to the day, the 21st annivesary of "Ecclesia Dei" of 1988. It was given on the 2nd and only published on the 8th.

This Tuesday was the second anniversary of "Summorum Pontificum". There might, therefore, be something coming very soon on a new pontifical council "Summorum Pontificum", although I confess that I doubt this. More likely, it will come on its third anniversary, one yaer from now.

Again, there is still no clarification of S.P., on the Pope's bureau for over a year now; and there is no structure for the Sons of the Holy Redeemer yet. One must wonder what on earth is taking so long, especially since these matters don't conern the S.S.P.X and are therefore not 'tainted' with the Williamson Affair.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

There is no question about the validity of the SSPX sacraments and there never has been. You may argue the illicit nature of their sacraments but not validity. ***

On the contrary, the validity of certain of the sacraments depend upon a priest having faculties or jurisdiction. That is why there is question about the validity of SSPX confessions and marriages.

Don't listen to what Fr. Z. has to say about Msgr. Perl. ***

Well, in his abovequoted words there was nothing objectionable or inaccurate. As for Msgr. Perl's idea of the development of a Roman Rite that fuses the old with the new in some way, I've heard that Pope Benedict XVI might even favor something along those lines. That would have to be something way down the line, though. The immediate need liturgically is for more priests to learn and celebrate the traditional Mass, for the Pauline Mass celebrations to become more traditional, for liturgical abuses to be firmly quashed and punished, and for the new Missal to be seriously reformed to cut out the infinite number of options and beef up the rubrics, and changed to make it a better expression of the Church's perennial faith. It would be better, of course, if they'd just scrap the new Missal, but as that isn't pastorally advisable (just as the Pauline Missal wasn't pastorally advisable in the first place) all the Holy See can do now is patch and repair here and there, taking one step at a time.

Neal said...

Okie asks how much one should risk on a good a good argument. It's a fair question, and his answer is not unfounded. Here's my take. Note that I'm not a cleric or a canonist; I'm a husband, a father, and an engineer (presently on his lunch break). In my profession, it is my duty to analyze situations and come up with solutions. Likewise, I think it's every man's duty (and right) to determine the right thing to be done in a given situation.

Now, many situations are sufficiently complex that not every facet can be fully known or appreciated; just because this is so, however, a man is not absolved of his duty to choose the way for himself and those for whom he is responsible. In any case, every human decision involves some degree of risk, and most decisions must be made on partial information. The ability to make decisions, with neither vacillation nor stubborness, is a required quality in any leader, and that is what many of us, in our small ways, are called to be. Therefore, I do not think it this a sufficient reason to suspend decision.

I also think the argument for or against the SSPX should be informed from a number of sources. Canon Law is one, obviously. But what about human experience, what each of us learns from our contact with traditional and modern clergy and laity? If in my experience the Novus Ordo Mass has been a destroyer of the things we are meant to protect, why would I go to it? Why should I trust the people who forced it upon us, who have in no way shown a change of heart? Why should I trust them to supply the traditional doxis and praxis (their job, incidentally) when it is clear that even the approved TLM's were seen as a concession to a disappearing minority, to let them "go gently into that good night"? Common sense dictates otherwise in every case.

The idea that some laws may be ignored in a time of crisis is just common, human sense. And, to paraphrase Cormac McCarthy: if this isn't a crisis, it'll do until the crisis gets here. Did St. Athanasius look for precedents, or did he do his duty as he saw it, like any man of God should, and must? In any case, why must there be a precedent? Christians understand time to be linear.

As much as I believe that we must make our decisions, I also believe we must make them based on what we truly know. May God have mercy on us, in our (inevitable) ignorance.

Anonymous said...

On the contrary, the validity of certain of the sacraments depend upon a priest having faculties or jurisdiction. That is why there is question about the validity of SSPX confessions and marriages.

Yes Joranes I realize that The Church has laws and rules regarding jurisdiction and such. However, these structures were put into place to protect the faithful and to keep the church from anarchy. Enforcing these rules in the case of the SSPX does not protect the faithful. On the contrary, it prohibits the faithful from the graces they may receive from these sacraments.

You can argue that it keeps the church "united" and free from anarchy but I think that is a illogical path to take under today's circumstances. Who has been more faithful to the pope the last 5 years, the SSPX or the diocesan bishops? Who is more united?

If you want to be a letter of the law type in these cases go ahead but I would not impose such opinions on other faithful catholics.

Besides, the SSPX has already stated its emergency status case which is a valid arguement and follows the letter of the law. The SSPX is always careful to make sure its actions can be defended under canon law. Whether you agree with their case is a different story.

Either way my conscious is clear regarding SSPX sacraments as it should be for all.

PJL

okie said...

Neal,

You have my utmost respect for the applicable use of the Cormac McCarthy quote alone! And to show all my cards, I haven't had this problem in my life because a) when I first became a Catholic in North Carolina, I frankly was too new to know about all this stuff, and just assumed Mass was terrible for the time being, but knew that Catholicism was the real faith, and then b) moved back to Oklahoma, where there were better NO Priests (some wonderful ones, in fact,) and then discovered the EF (FSSP), and have gone there ever since. So I do not share, for instance, Dan Hunter's quandry (if I did, I would trek on over to the Byzantine Mass...I mean, I drive round trip 140 miles to get to the EF here in Oklahoma). Again, I wasn't alive for the 70's-90's when it was really really bad. I know what the SSPX has done for the "regularized" communities, and appreciate it. I still think its wrong to Ordain your own Bishops and proceed sacramentally without jurisdiction, especially when other people's souls are at risk. So I guess that leads me to the question I was asked:

"would you also please speak to the rampant Modernist streak in the post-Vatican II Church and how it has colored the liturgy, teaching, and practices in the Church"

I don't think I need to, because everyone on this site would agree its obvious. I'm sorry I don't come on and preach to the choir...I have only been prompted to comment first of all because I was tired of the word "Hegelian" being thrown around so ridiculously, and next, because I thought there were some good arguments to consider. But yes, Modernism has colored all those things, and it is sad, I lament it, and I don't attend those Masses. However, believing in tradition, I don't think you can throw away other (and I would argue more important) aspects of tradition, namely Visible Unity and the Sacraments (both of which are of course very important to me being a convert from Protestanism, which has none of these things). the Church has had, has weathered, and has won doctrinal disputes before, more insidious and important than our own, and over a longer period of suffering. the Iconoclastic controversy was basically at least half of the Church giving in to Muslim theology, a far more terrible spectacle than even some rope-a-dope NO Priest lecturing about Christopher West. France's love affair with Gallicanism and Modernism makes our current situation look rosy...none of us have had to decide whether Government sponsored Priests offer an actually valid Mass or not (you can despise the NO all you want, but you have no reason or warrant to not think Christ is present on the altar, not any true worries like the Frenchmen did right after the revolution). I can of course go on and on, and again, I will be dismissed because I am a recent convert. But we can't let modernism go against our traditions, and I am sorry if it seems some (not all or even a majority) of SSPXers are waltzing close to Donatism or a denial of the anti-Gallicanism that culminated in Vatican I. Again, you have no reason to believe me, but I am convinced that Vatican II will eventually be quite forgotten, but the importance of Vatican I is far too pressing to go against simply because we've had a spat of bad Popes. We weathered the Avignon papacy, we can make it through this.

In the mean time, I return to what Neal says...I can understand why people disagree with me and go to the SSPX Masses, and even hope and pray their marriages and confessions are supplied through the mercy of God. I just don't think it is worth presuming on a "good argument."

Jordanes said...

I am convinced that Vatican II will eventually be quite forgotten, but the importance of Vatican I is far too pressing to go against simply because we've had a spat of bad Popes. We weathered the Avignon papacy, we can make it through this. ***

Well said, and I quite agree.

RomanTheScribe said...

"...some laws may be ignored in a time of crisis is just common, human sense"

It's a very slippery slope once you go down that route.

There are traditionalists of the more extreme variety who use this line of reasoning to by-pass formal seminary training and go ahead with their illicit ordinations because they feel it's a time of crisis.

Epikiea, a benign interpretation of the law, is a presumption that the lawful authority will allow a certain exception to the law because of a particular unforeseen circumstance. In the case of the SSPX, epikiea does not apply, because the lawful authority (the Pope) has manifested his mind on the matter - i.e., that the sacraments of the SSPX are illicit and the so-called state of necessity does not justify the actions of the bishops and priests.

Neal said...

Okie: I likewise agree that Vatican II will end up in the history shelves of the seminary library. In the meantime, however, it's still going strong, and the meantime is what concerns me. As for visible unity, I take invisible unity to be greater, and if I can't have both, I'll hang on to the latter.

Nice to know that you're into McCarthy, however. If only there was a Rorate Caeli book club where these matters could be discussed without digging rabbit holes...

Dan Hunter said...

"S.S.P.X the apostolic administration (NOT personal prelature) structure, as Bishop Fellay has openly admitted on several occasions since then. This offer was renewed in 2003 and early this year (2009), and has never been taken off the table. It would free the S.S.P.X 100% from the local bishops."

Mr Perkins:
Why do you think the FSSPX has not accepted such an attractive and sound offer?

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes:

"I've heard that Pope Benedict XVI might even favo[u]r something along those lines."

This is a reference to the fusing of the two Missals. From the little I have been able to find on this subject over the years, Benedict XVI favours 'enriching' (i.e. impoverishing) the old Mass with the new calendar and propers, including the optional extra lection of NewMass and its three-year cycle. This option was made available in 1991, when the Pope was still Cardinal Ratzinger. Surprisingly, it was made available under the watch of Augustin Cardinal Mayer, now the oldest cardinal in the Church (at 98) and the only truly 'traditionalist' cardinal left.

The idea has been imposed at Warsaw (Poland), Oakland (U.S.A.) and in one diocese in Florida (I've forgotten which one). More recently, it has been imposed at Verdun (France). The two in the U.S.A. have now been discontinued and replaced with pure Traditional Latin Masses. I think that the one in Poland has as well but I'm not sure. The one at Verdun is only one Sunday per month. The idea was staunchly opposed everywhere; it did not fly.

The problem with the 'richer fare the Table of the Lord', to quote then-Cardinal Ratzinger (who was himself quoting S.C., I believe), is that it overloads the average Catholic with too much 'stuff' and puts too much emphasis on 'the Word', shifting the focus of Mass away from Sacrifice to Word. In other words, it has a Protestant effect.

Cardinal Ratzinger remarked after a CIEL Conference that, should the average traditionalist witness a New Mass in Latin done with all the smells and bells, he wouldn't know it from the T.L.M. But I'm told that someone replied to him that the converse was also true, making a Latin N.O. completely unacceptable to liberals. That may have had some impression on him: if traditionalists find the two to be similar but prefer the older form, and if liberals would be equally infuriated by both, then the older form will win out. So much for Adoremus.

Perl wanted to go much further than adding the N.O. Lectionary. Perl's problem has been that it is costly to make tiny changes in the direction of 1970 and then to publish and print them. Allowing the old Mass has this overwhelming effect: it entrenches not only the old rubrics but other related practices as well.

A closing note: I have tremendous respect for Msgr. Arthur Calkins as a Marian scholar. He is a very learned and intelligent man. But intellectuals do not always make the most practical administrators. They tend to become too proud of their best ideas, forgetting that, in liturgy, the best ideas come from the Holy Ghost, and our job is to safeguard and cherish them.

P.K.T.P.

Picard said...

@ Dan Hunter (and Jordanes):

I sent a post which seems to be lost (or I made a mistake, pushed a wrong botton or else...):

So try again - and make it very short:

Yes, Jordanes is right, in Your special case, Mr. Hunter, it seems to be clear that the Church would supply the faculties the SSPXer not have (irrespective of the question if in other cases the Churchs supplies re SSPX-Confessions - I do not want to discuss this right now).

Becaues it seems to be really moral impossible for You to get a good, Catholic priest and in this case c. 844 (§2) is applicable.

And even if there would be a rest of a doubt (if there is real moral impossibility or if the can. is applicable in principle to the SSPX, as some might argue), then accaording to c. 144 (positve and probable doubt) the supplication would be sure.

The applicability of. c. 844 is at least very, very probable in your case -- and so according to c.144 the supplication is sure.

- With the demand to pray for me (I am in some inner troubles for some weeks now....) - may GOD pay it back!

In CHRIST through Mary

Anonymous said...

The reason why the SSPX does not have faculties is because they went against the dictates of The post Vaticam authorities. That is the "Official" reason. The pragmatic reason is that the priests ordained by the SSPX were only trained the to say the Tridentine Mass. You can bet if they were trained in the Novus Ordo there would have been no suspensions. The success of the the Econe establishment was grossly miscalculated in Rome.

Econe was appropriately established according to cannonical regulations. What was improper was the suspension of the Traditional Mass.If Bishop Lefebvre had been given his day in court (which even Luther got) the sentence would be thrown out of court. But no such thing.

Foward time to 2007 and the issuance of S.P. When Pope Benedict XVI issued it at the request of the SSPX it was 19 years that he knew the Tridentine Mass was never abrogated. Our benevolent Pope John Paul II established the Ecclesia Dei Indult knowing that an idult was inappropriate. Now I am supposed to believe that my soul is in danger from the sacraments of pennace and matrimony from the same clergy that kept me Catholic all these years? Church law can never be used to the detriment of souls. Yet the perpetrators of the Vatican II agenda in Rome must be obeyed? The SSPX would say obey them in all things except their agenda. Is this not what the SSPX is preparing to discuss?

A.M. LaPietra

Jordanes said...

In theory I like the idea of “more Bible” in the liturgy, but in practice there’s no doubt that three-year cycles are simply unworkable: our lives are somehow structured naturally to the annual cycles of the seasons, and when we start a new year we are done with the old. The strengths of annual repetition are lost or greatly diluted when there’s a switching out of lections every year in a three year cycle. The Church’s ancient wisdom of developing a one-year cycle should have been respected.

There’s another problem with trying to jam the three-year lectionary into the old Missal: the propers and scripture lections of each Mass are thematically integrated in an organic manner, something no longer the case in most of the reformed Missal (not that most Pauline Masses use the propers anyway – something else about the new Missal that must be fixed). This is why trying to wed the new lectionary to the old Mass just won’t work: it introduces a massive swollen sore thumb of a discontinuity among the propers.

Of course the newly canonized saints can and should be recognized in the traditional calendar, but apart from that I don’t see too many ways the reformed liturgy can improve on the traditional liturgy. Well, maybe the post-Vatican II catechemunal rites can serve as a general outline for crafting a traditional Catholic catechumenate process, but only as a general outline --- in specific details it would have to be changed a great deal so it would have a strong Catholic ethos. The reformed liturgy can and should be improved through being enriched by the traditional liturgy, but not so much the other way around. Little by little, the new Roman liturgy can with the assistance of the old liturgy be improved and beautified.

okie said...

Neal,

I understand...as a father, I know how pressing "the meantime" is. That is why I ussually don't get too mouthy with SSPX people. I do think their leaders have made mistakes, and I will point that out, but the only time I speak up is, again, when people can only say bad things about the Holy Father, or say something that is crazy.

I must admit, however, that I wonder about this comment:

'As for visible unity, I take invisible unity to be greater, and if I can't have both, I'll hang on to the latter.'

-What do you mean by invisible unity? Because this is the phrase protestants use for the current state of "ecumenism," which they of course think is fine, since they don't believe in visible unity. Again, not being mean spirited, but just pressing the issue...how is "invisible unity" different than what Protestants imagine Christian unity to be?

Joe B said...

Decline from 1965 - 2000
Jesuits 89%
Franciscans 97%
Benedictines 93%
Redemptorists 98%
Dominicans 89%
Obl. Mary Imm. 99%
Passionists 99%
Augustinians 97%
Capuchins 91%
Carmelites 92%

Yep, we need a hybrid mass. That'll take care of things. Emergency over. Sign here, SSPX.

M.A. said...

Thanks, Gideon. I have considered the very possibility of an SSPX spiritual adviser via internet.

Neal said...

Okie: Yeah, shortly after I wrote that it occurred to me that one might generously call it obscure.

Was it Abp. Lefebvre that said that rather than obey the present pope, he would obey all the popes before him? Like it or hate it, there was a rupture in Church belief and practice about, say, 40 years ago. I prefer to be in union with what was true up until the mid-20th century, rather than what has been true since then, because truth is unchanging and, besides, the new truths don't seem to be working all that well.

Now, so we're clear, I'm not suggesting that Christ doesn't keep His word and the gates of hell have in fact prevailed. I am, however, suggesting that in many significant ways the words and acts of the recent popes vary significantly from those of their predecessors, and, to make matters worse, their predecessors made a lot more sense.

Perhaps I'm mistaken. There is an unfortunate obscurity in the Vatican II documents (which came in pretty handy for those who wanted to abuse them, but then, they helped write them). Hopefully the doctrinal discussions will clear that up. Also, before we start drawing too many comparisons between protestants and SSPX traditionalists, let's not forget the numerous doctrinal vagaries of protestantism. It's not exactly analogous.

RomanTheScribe wisely says that this is a slippery slope. I can only respond that I didn't choose it, I merely found myself on it. I don't like it either.

(Incidentally, I must say that I admire those who contribute consistently to these forums. All this writing is time-consuming. Okie, if you want to go on much longer, we might have to exchange emails and continue at a slower pace.)

Brian said...

I am convinced that Vatican II will eventually be quite forgotten, but the importance of Vatican I is far too pressing to go against simply because we've had a spat of bad Popes.

I agree with your point about Vatican II, but I am not sure what your point is with regard to Vatican I. Are you suggesting that the SSPX goes against Vatican I?

As far as Modernism goes, I wish it were as easy as:

But yes, Modernism has colored all those things, and it is sad, I lament it, and I don't attend those Masses.

"those Masses"?

Are you confident that the Modernism that has pervaded the Church for the past forty years can so readily be isolated and avoided by not attending "those Masses"?

Many in the SSPX see Modernism as so pervasive and insidious that they perceive a true state of emergency. In order to live the Catholic faith they keep themselves and their families away from the Novus Ordo. They have difficulty seeing the visible unity between the Novus Ordo and the ancient Mass; between the theology of Thomas Aquinas and Trent and that of post-Vatican II theology.

This has nothing to do with Protestantism. You point out that you are quite familiar with this site. Surely, then, you know how deeply insulting it is to fellow Catholics in the SSPX to refer to them as like Protestants.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes wrote:

"In theory I like the idea of “more Bible” in the liturgy. . ."

I don't! Better to know a little well than a lot poorly. Consider, in particular the complexity of the Pauline epistles. Now contrast that with the intellectual capacity of the average guy in the street.

Our Pope is a great intellectual; his is a first-rate mind. The problem with people like that is that they frequently forget that others are not on their level.

During the time our Latin Mass was suppressed, I escaped to the Ukrainian Byzantine Divine Liturgy every Sunday, all to avoid the shenanigans of NewMass. What I discovered over there is that they are much *more* repetitive in their lections than is the T.L.M. They achieve this by repeating some lections several times during a single year. In other words, it's the reverse of a three-year cycle. It's more like a one-third of a year cycle.

The Orthodox, of course, have roughly the same lections. Apparently, the Greek Orthodox bishops had a meeting a few years ago to discuss putting more Scripture into the Divine Liturgy. Some people were getting sick and tired of hearing some lections over and over again (that one about escapting the mouths of lions and being stoned and living in caves and holes in the earth comes to mind instantly. The Ukrainians definitely have it mroe than once a year). In the end, they voted to make no change. They argued that it was better if their average laics at least knew a small number of passages well enouth to quote them after ten years, and therefore use them as guides for good living.

It's one point of view which has merit.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dan Hunter asks me of the apostolic administration structure:

Why do you think the FSSPX has not accepted such an attractive and sound offer?

The S.S.P.X knows that an apostolic administration, unlike a personal prelature, would protect it 100% from the local bishops. However, it would not protect it from the Pope himself and 'Conciliar Rome'. The S.S.P.X does not trust the Pope. It's that simple. They want to resolve doctrinal problems first. But as they know and as we know, given the current set of players on both sides, that is a process which will take a century, if it can ever happen at all.

I don't find the Society position to be acceptable because there is nothing new in Vatican II which one must accept on divine and Catholic faith. I don't even bother reading Vatican II documents. I have to use something to line my birdcages with. As for disciplinary impositions, Catholics are always subject to the Pope on these. Anyway, Rome knows that any attempt to impose Modernism on the Society would merely result in yet another spate of disobedience.

Add water to fire and the water might douse the fire, true. On the other hand, the fire might evaporate the water. The Faith is stronger than the heresies of Rahner. Everyone worried that communist China would swallow tiny Hong Kong. Instead, Hong Kong is swallowing China and making it capitalist. Truth is stronger than error.

Right now, a lack of recognition or regularisation is keeping the Society small and ineffective, especially in Latin America, which is the only battleground which counts in the end. Forget the snooty French, the arrogant Germans, the silly English, the rude Irish, the excitable Filippinos, the self-centred Italians, the cultureless Yanks, and the brain-dead Canadians. They don't count for squat.

What counts is Latin America, from Mexico to Chile. 46% of the faithful live there. If they go back to tradition on an emotional wave, the rest of us will have to follow suit. But they have a culture which comes close to papolatry. What this means is that, until the man in white waves his magic wand over the S.S.P.X, they won't go near Society priests. That's why the Society has been so unsuccessful in Latin America deespite its excellent hard work there. No every-Sunday Society Mass all for Peru? Zero of Venezuela? Zero for Central America (save one in Guatemala), five in all of Mexico, only two in Brazil (by far the most populous Catholic country on earth), only three in Chile? Are they serious or is this just some sort of a sick joke? They've had forty years and that's all they can manage? And yet it's not their fault. It's all owing to the emotional mindset of those people. They'll go wildly Pentecostal or traditional Catholic. But they won't go for a Catholicism not blessed by the Pope.

So the S.S.P.X can tread water for as long as it likes. As for approved traditionalists, "Summorum Pontificum" does not afford adequate protection from the bishops, not even once Article 1 is clarified. This means that the Latin American bishops can kick us where the sun don't shine forever. Then they can kick us i the head. Then in the face. Then they can stomp on us, while the Pope looks on and says 'Oh dear!' Every diocese has its gulags, and this is especially true in poorer countries such as those in Latin Aermica. That's where 'Latin Mass' priests end up.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes, "The Church’s ancient wisdom of developing a one-year cycle should have been respected."

Don't forget their other wisdom too! Hands off the Latin Mass and liturgy, it is fine the way it is, just ask St.Pius V.

Jordanes also writes, "Of course the newly canonized saints can and should be recognized in the traditional calendar..."

Why?

Ducati

Anonymous said...

You know, ladies and laddies, I'm beginning to wonder if my source overseas might be right about a new pontifical council "Summorum Pontificum".

Consider Msgr. Perl. At 71, he's too old to be transferred to Luxembourg and yet too young to retire. Consider that no rôle has been assigned to Msgr. Bux or Frs. Vitielli and Lang. Consider the stated new purpose of the P.C.E.D.: "It belongs to the President, aided by the Secretary, to present the main events and questions of a doctrinal nature to the study and deliberation of the ordinary instances of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as well as to submit the conclusions to the superior judgment of the Supreme Pontiff".

Agreed, the liturgical functions of the P.C.E.D. have so far been retained as it is subsumed in the C.D.F. But is this permanent? I just can't imagine Msgr. Pozzi dealing with letters from irritating people like me, not to mention the problems besetting the F.S.S.P., I.C.R., I.B.P., Canons Regular of the Mother of God, and so forth. Is that really his department.

Perhaps there is a new document acoming, one signed the day before yesterday and to be published very soon. Hmm. Of course, it won't solve the main problem, but it would be helpful. If it is coming, lets hope that it's headed by Bux and not by Perl.

P.K.T.P.

Oliver said...

P.K.T.P.,

If Williamson has wittingly or unwittingly spoilt the Ratzinger/Fellay party, then the SSPX family can breath a sigh of relief and go on with their mission of resolute detachment. No doubt the next conciliar papacy in twenty years time will once again convince itself that independent trads are just dying to embrace the new order. Judging by what new worldly ideas are now coming out of Rome, the Church may finally decide to move house!

Anonymous said...

PKTP,
Did not the Campos folks have to admit that they were wrong in order to get their AA recognition? I don't think that kind of admission will come from the FSSPX?

A couple of days ago Bishop Rifan concelebrated a new mass in Brazil; the FSSP and other regularised traditional groups are silent and have no bishop; the monks of Papa Stronsay wait and wait.

It seems to me that Rome knows now how to divide the SSPX and that those who do come 'home' will live in a half way house for ever. This is an 'artificial commonality' to quote an SSPX adherent.

If the Pope has withdrawn the temporary canonical structure it will allow the focus can be purely on resolving doctrinal issues. Perhaps this is the best way - no temporary status issue to cloud the discussion.

In the end Rome will admit they treated the FSSPX wrongly and that the SSPX have been catholic all along.

Anonymous said...

I am compelled to bring up some points concerning the whole state of necessity and whether it has ended and if so, exactly when:

1.)Bishop Fellay has revealed that the Pope said in a conversation that the state of necessity does not exist because He (the Holy Father) was "trying to solve the problems". In making that statement the Holy Father demonstrates that the state of necessity indeed does exist because the problems aren't solved yet. As long as problems remain and the Holy Father is ATTEMPTING to resolve them (meaning the modern apostasy), then He doesn't yet have a firm grip on the situation at hand and thus a solution and so the state of necessity remains. Remember, the salvation of souls is of paramount importance. While the Holy Father is trying to solve the modern apostasy within the bosom of the Catholic Church, people are dieing and being born. Those souls need to be shepherded all the while the storm is raging around the Mystical Body of Christ. We can't put souls in a state of spiritual suspended animation and wait for the apostasy to be vanquished and then 'unfreeze' and tell them to go back to their diocese. Somebody has to save these souls here and now. And that somebody is the Catholic Church in the person of numerous priests and bishops united with the Holy Father. The priests are not all SSPX priests, of course. The priests in the 30 odd Indult groups are, by and large, good and holy and working to save souls. I have friends who have been ordained in these orders and they are wonderful Thomists' who truly love the Church, the Mass, and saving souls. The Bishops are, however, another story. In my estimation, and only in judging external actions, NOT souls, the 4 Society Bishops are the ones most capable of being the true Good Shepherds in the crisis. None of the other Bishops who are in possession of ordinary jurisdiction really want to take their job of sheparding souls seriously because they would rather attach themselves to the novelties of Vatican II. This is evident from how they react when the post conciliar reforms are criticized. Some of them will let you have Tradition. But the condition is that one cannot criticize the normative law of the Church which is Vatican II. If you want to be part of the liturgical “zoo”, then that's great. But if you are coming into the zoo to clean up the cages, then that's unacceptable. "We like our cages the way they are, and not only that, we will call it a 'Springtime' in the zoo." Hence, the state of necessity exists.

2.) Bishop Fellay has revealed that the Pope later, within the same conversation as above, admitted that it can be argued that a state of necessity exists in at least France and Germany. This is an important admission made by the Holy Father.

Naturally, this raises the question of what to do concerning the faith situation in other countries as well. Having family currently living on the continent, I can tell you that the situation in other European countries is just as bad, on the ground.

3.) His Excellency has denied that a canonical structure in the form of an Apostolic Administration, where the Society would be free of interference from the local Bishop, has ever been formally presented to him. It just hasn't happened. I imagine Bishop Fellay would welcome such a proposal.

What it seems has been, informally, discussed within the Curia are two options. An Apostolic Administration for all traditionalists, both SSPX and Ecclesia Dei, with the SSPX forming the "spine" if you will (since they have Bishops). Option 2 would be an Apostolic Administration just for the Ecclesia Dei groups, with nothing for the SSPX. This is in essence, could be described as the Holy See "punting" the problem with the SSPX by keeping them marginalized. In this scenario nothing would really change for the SSPX.

Obviously, Option 1 is the preferred solution at this point until such time as the Holy Father disowns the revolution within the Church's bosom.

Best Regards,

wpaforex

Jordanes said...

Don't forget their other wisdom too! Hands off the Latin Mass and liturgy, it is fine the way it is, just ask St. Pius V. ***

There never was any such "wisdom."

Jordanes also writes, "Of course the newly canonized saints can and should be recognized in the traditional calendar..."

Why?
***

Because the Church's calendar of saints has continued to add names throughout the centuries, and there is no good reason to freeze that perfectly natural development in 1962, as if God doesn't create saints worthy of our veneration any more. The Catholic faith isn't a museum piece, fixed permanently in the past and leaving the present untouched. Adding new saints to the calendar does nothing to disturb the rest of the missal. The only objection to saints canonised since 1962 that I ever hear is the scandalous and unsupportable claim that such canonisations are dubious at best or invalid, but once a cult is formally proclaimed or approved by the Holy See, no "de-canonisation" is possible nor indeed has ever occurred.

There is also a problem in reconciling traditional saints' days with the dates on the new calendar, but that has only to do with already established feasts, not new canonisations.

Anonymous said...

On Jordanes's comments about the calendar:

1. I agree with Jordanes that some new propers could be added for new saints. As he correctly says, this has been done consistently for centuries. It is not the same as changing the Ordinary. Not one word, not one rubric, not one gesture in the Ordinary should be changed for the foreseeable future. If we had no changes between 1637 and 1884, a period of well over 200 years, we can do with not changes for at least a century.

2. Moreover, it is arguable that there should be no additions t the propers for a period of fifty years. It is dangerous to make changes--even additions to the propers--in the aftermath of a revolution. The problem is that those making the changes have the spirit of Vatican II blowing in the wind around them.

3. While I think that Jordanes knows better, he at least writes as if all the saints canonised since 1965 should be added. He must know (but just to remind everyone here) that it has NEVER been the practice to add ALL the new saints. Only a select few have been added over the centuries to the universal calendar, and there are some saints who have never been given commemorations even on local calendars or the calendars of the various religious orders. At any rate, the vast majority of saints have never been commemorated on the universal calendar.

Hence, the next question would be who to add and who to leave off.

3. This is where our universal apostolic administration comes in. Once we have this structure in place for all of us, our new bishop could make changes to the calendar to commemorate those saints who are dear to the hearts of traditionalists. For example, we'd definitely want St. Pio of Pietrelcina and the Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War; and we definitely would not want any 'St./Bl.' John XXIII or Escriva de Balaguer.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Anon. writes:

"As long as problems remain and the Holy Father is ATTEMPTING to resolve them (meaning the modern apostasy), then He doesn't yet have a firm grip on the situation at hand and thus a solution and so the state of necessity remains."

No, it doesn't work this way. The question is whether or not a juridical solution for the Society is able to provide it with reasonable and adequate safeguards. if the Holy Father is attempting to solve the problems, then the problems are not coming from this Pope. They may be coming from the bishops. Therefore, the new structure must make the Society independent from the local ordinaries. And that is exactly what an apostolic administration or universal diocese does. And that is also the structure offered to the S.S.P.X since 2000. It follows that there is no state of necessity.

Now it is true that some of the danger is also coming from the curia but it is not reasonable to suppose that the Society is unable to protect itself from that with an a.a., especially since it could always, if need be, return to a necessary state of rightful disobedience.

We cannot rationalise disobedience to the Vicar of Christ. It has to be REAL, not just a convenience. Period. Look, I don't like Cardinal Baloney either, and I can't promise anyone here that I wouldn't push him in front of a bus if I had the chance. But taht is irrelevant. There is no state of necessity and there has not been one since 2000. But we might stop arguing over this because the Society is not going to change its mind. So why waste any more time on it?

The only importance here is that no one of us should repair to the Society for Sacraments if he feels that there is no state of necessity; and, in my view, it is better to err on the side of caution. Let's say that you have a perfectly good N.O. confessor available to you (and who can honestly say that he can't find one?). Why play games over this? Your soul is at stake.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

One anon. writes:


"A couple of days ago Bishop Rifan concelebrated a new mass in Brazil; the FSSP and other regularised traditional groups are silent and have no bishop; the monks of Papa Stronsay wait and wait."

I am sorry to hear that. This is at least the third time he's done this. It is a huge mistake. When this sort of thing happens, all the ignoramuses over at Traditio say, You see, the apostolic administration structure leads to the New Mass. This is absolute rubbish and it needs to be dismissed now, today. Get this and don't forget it: the a.a. structure IN NO WAY forces Bishop Rifan to celebrate NewMass. BISHOP RIFAN ONLY CELEBRRATES NEWMASS BECAUSE HE CHOOSES TO DO SO. Why is he doing this? I suspect that he's trying to get the bishops' support so that more of them in Brazil find him to be acceptable and then, as a consequence, they will invite his priests into their dioceses.

But an INTERNATIONAL a.a. would not have that problem. Moreover, Rifan's a.a. was originally supposed to cover all of Brazil. I have this gut feeling that the Brazilian Bishops' Conference quietly agreed to consider fulfilling this plan once they became satisfied that he was not an extremist.

Others say that, once you make a deal with Rome, you can't criticise Vatican II. Rubbish. The I.B.P. has a right to criticise V. II inscribed right into its statutes. Perhaps they are making private criticisms to 'avoid all polemics'. I can't say. What they do and what they have a right to do need not be one and the same thing.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Someone wrote:

"Bishop Fellay has revealed that the Pope later, within the same conversation as above, admitted that it can be argued that a state of necessity exists in at least France and Germany. This is an important admission made by the Holy Father."

Whoa! We don't know the full context of these remarks of the Holy Father's intentions. He may have merely meant that the situation is bad, and then his interlocutor jumps on this and attaches a legal meaning which the Pope never even imagined, let alone intended.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

wpaforex writes:

"His Excellency has denied that a canonical structure in the form of an Apostolic Administration, where the Society would be free of interference from the local Bishop, has ever been formally presented to him. It just hasn't happened. I imagine Bishop Fellay would welcome such a proposal. "

Nice twist there. It is true that Rome has never made a FORMAL proposal and that Fellay affirmed that. But that is only because Fellay would never agree to the proposal in principle. Fellay has AFFIRMED that this structure was proposed to the Society and he has done so about six times since 2000, notably in 2000, 2003, 2005, and 2009. I have copies of the texts to prove it.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Anon. asks:

"Did not the Campos folks have to admit that they were wrong in order to get their AA recognition?"

No, they did not. In fact, the old formula 'any suspensions which MAY have been in force are hereby lifted' was used.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

wpaforex writes:

"What it seems has been, informally, discussed within the Curia are two options. An Apostolic Administration for all traditionalists, both SSPX and Ecclesia Dei, with the SSPX forming the "spine" if you will (since they have Bishops). Option 2 would be an Apostolic Administration just for the Ecclesia Dei groups, with nothing for the SSPX. This is in essence, could be described as the Holy See "punting" the problem with the SSPX by keeping them marginalized. In this scenario nothing would really change for the SSPX."

It's hard to say what has been discussed inside the curia over the years. My contacts tell me the following, but there may be more they don't know about:

1. The a.a. and personal prelature structures and a third option, which would be based on both and on military ordinariates, has been discussed for the S.S.P.X. The p.p. is now out (thank God), mainly because the Society, not Rome, rejected it (have they been affected by my posts? I've no idea but I hope so). The third option is not likely, since it would have to be invented afresh (as the military ordinariates were in 1986). The a.a. model is the likely route. It is flexible enough to accommodate both clerics and lay subjects, including those in religious orders. It is the a.a. structure which has the needed flexibility, not the p.p. structure, as Romanus claims. I suspect that Romanus is on the other side.

2. The a.a. or 'equivalent' (e.g. international and ritual diocese under Canon 372.2) has been suggested for the S.S.P.X on several occasions.

3. I have urged the a.a. structure for obedient traditionalists or for everyone together. I've no idea if Rome is considering this seriously. I was told that Msgr. Perl objected, saying that it would violate the terms of several concordats. However, I believe that this problem has been fixed (Perl apparently told Ralf Siebenbürger that it was being solved) in the case of Austria and is being addressed in other cases (France, Poland).

4. I was contacted and told that Rome tried to propose an a.a. for obedient trads but not universally, only in France (prob. to get around the concordat with France). When the bishops found out, they went absolutely ballistic and it was dropped.

I'd like to see the structure for *all* obedient traditionalists. It will come at the end of our journey. Right now, it's only a pipe dream. It is more likely to get approved for the S.S.P.X, but this is also now a pipe dream. The reason is that, thanks to Bishop W. Bigmouth, the Society is now toxic waste.

The best options for now are (a) recognition from Rome of a valid claim of supplied jurisdiction or (b) *temporary* structures for the S.S.P.X and each of its affiliates. For either of these, Fellay will have to say something nice in print. He won't bother unless he's asked, even pushed. Who will ask him? A retired Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos might. Others might. But don't hold your breath.

If Bishop Fellay really gives a damn about the huge number of non-Society traditionalists and if he cares to expand in Latin America and elsewhere, he'll say something innocent and sweet in exchage for a simple recognition from Rome, no strings attached.

Rome has spoken: no nice letter from Fellay and there will be no recognition and no legitimate exercise of ministry in the Church. It's a dangerous situation. What if this pontificate should end tomorrow?

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Oliver, failing to grasp the enormity of the problem, writes,

"If Williamson has wittingly or unwittingly spoilt the Ratzinger/Fellay party, then the SSPX family can breath a sigh of relief and go on with their mission of resolute detachment."

What is the old expression? They can soldier on in 'splendid isolation'? How selfish that would be; how unCatholic; how contrary to the entire meaning of the theological virtue of charity.

The Church is facing a major crisis and this is the right time for the Society to make itself available to those who would benefit from it if only they thought that doing so would not be disloyal to the Pope. It is not for us to judge others' understanding of the situation; and their souls are worth saving too.

We do indeed have a crisis on our hands. The Society cannot feed the starving Ecclesia if she, in feeing, pulls back the spoon today. Look, a recognition from Rome would NOT entail any risk to the Society. True, it would bring the Society closer to the bear who feigns illness (even though, as it turns out, the bear really is ill). But not close enough to catch a paw.

Sacrifice and risk is what being Catholic is all about. As Bl. Teresa of Calcutta once said, all love requires sacrifice. Sacifice but not suicide. Nobody is counselling that.

There is one thing that we can all agree on, including Romanus: the ball is now in Bishop Fellay's court. If he wants to help Holy Church, he will have to DO SOMETHING; he will at least have to ask the Holy Father for recognition. It's time for him to make a gesture of good will.

P.K.T.P.

Picard said...

@ PKTP:

in the past I tended to assent to Your suggestion that after 2000 - the offering of a "deal", a canonical structure (Apost. Admin.) - there is no good argument for a state of emergency - or put it that way: the emergency sate could be helped out within a canonical structure so the SSPX is not anymore justified to claim for justified disobedience etc.

But after some reexaminations now I think this is not sound.

Because at least untill the MP Summorum Pont. there were not enough securities that one is not forced to give up the Old Liturgie and use the New.

It first had to be declaired officially by the Church that the old liturgie has never been abrogated and that every Priest can - and should - use it.

It was absolutly prudent and justified to set up such a precondition for a canocical solution by the SSPX.

So well, perhaps after 2007, you can argue that now the SSPX is really bound to make a "deal".
Yes, here I see that You have a point.

But not for the years before it.

And in retrospect I also tend to say that it was very good and therefor justified to put up the other "precondition" (well, not directly a "precondition", but the next step in the timetable) of really discussing and clearing up Vat. II.

So perhaps the SSPX is only (moraly) bound to make this "deal" after the discussions have begun.

So yes, for the year of 2009 and after it you will have a point: now we really reached all things, all securities and necesseties that we need -- now, yes, there seems to be no further justifaction, excusation for not working under a canonical structure...

But well, at least it seems clear for me that the MP was a absolut necessary precondition to have real securities to enter a canocical solution --- so at least up to 2007 I don´t think the argument of beeing out of the emergency-state (in the sense I described above, as it is the sense You also mean) is sound --

before 2007 we did not have the necessary securities to survive.

It must have been made sure before that the TLM is really the Chruchs liturgie, not abrogated, free to use.... --- and that happend not until 2007.

So 2007 is the "time-shed" [or as a argued above, 2009, after the "talks" have begun, but this is discussable, I am not that sure re that...].

Jordanes said...

This is where our universal apostolic administration comes in. Once we have this structure in place for all of us, our new bishop could make changes to the calendar to commemorate those saints who are dear to the hearts of traditionalists. ***

Additions to or deletions from the universal calendar, of course, are solely Rome's competency. An apostolic administration would only choose which saints on the universal calendar to commemorate. They wouldn't be able to decide the dates of the commemoration, though. On another, somewhat related subject, something is going to have to be done about the conflict between the new and old saints calendars -- in many cases some commemorations were given new dates, often, it seems to me, for no other reason than to change what the Church had done before (presumably to underscore a decisive inorganic alteration in the liturgy's development).

Paul Haley said...

Look, folks, here is the unadulterated truth - the Holy See wants to have doctrinal discussions with a Fraternity that has no canonical status and whose priests do not exercise any legitimate ministry. On top of that the Fraternity wants to have those same doctrinal discussion and, according to one of their bishops, these discussions may take another 30 years. Do you see anything illogical in that situation?

It's as if this is all a game, a never-ending rabbit hole, with the salvation of souls hanging in the balance. I had hoped that reasonable men would come to an agreement that would provide, at the very least, for the Fraternity to "exercise legitimate ministry in the Church". The only conclusion I can come to is that the principals involved are not reasonable men.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Perkins,

The Society will say that you only have to look at what juridical safeguards are in place for the FSSP to see how the SSPX would be treated. It's a reasonable comparison. Memories of the Protocol 1411 debacle are still fresh and were certainly so in 2000. The reason that all occurred was due to Fr. Bisig trying to go against the normative law of the Church.

What do we think the SSPX is doing? They are against the normative law of the Church, and for good reason. So how else would they expect the Holy See to react? I imagine this is why Bishop Tissier said that there has to be a visible sign from the Holy See that they are willing to confront the problem of the modern apostasy before a juridical structure would be agreed to.

What's to demonstrate to the SSPX that they will be in a stable juridical structure where they could voice their concerns before such an acknowledgement happens, if the Holy See is willing to invalidate the constitution of one of it's own orders who are in full communion with the Pope? Remember, Cardinal Razinger was there in the meeting with Fr. Bisig, Cardinal Mayer, and Cardinal Medina Estavez. He was able to override the protocol at any time but did not.

So again, what causes one to believe that something similar wouldn't happen with the SSPX?

Perhaps the failure with the apostolic administration is not that Fellay hasn't agreed to it but that it hasn't been presented in a form that truly grants the SSPX freedom from the local Bishop and the Curia.

I would agree that it would be best for the Holy Father to grant the Society ordinary faculties directly through him. It doesn't take a response from the SSPX after such action takes place, just the announcement itself.

It WOULD be a good token gesture for Bishop Fellay to ask for these faculties. It's shows his good faith. Perhaps the time will be at the end of the Rosary Crusade when Bishop Fellay goes to Rome and presents the Holy Father with the spiritual bouquet. It sounds as though the timing would be appropriate and the action would be reinforced with the unparalleled grace accompanying all the rosaries.

Mr. Perkins, would it be possible for you to produce the documents which demonstrate the SSPX was presented with an A.A. structure 6 times? Thanks.

Best Regards,

wpaforex

dcs said...

So again, what causes one to believe that something similar wouldn't happen with the SSPX?

Collegiality.

Anonymous said...

wpaforex writes:

"Mr. Perkins, would it be possible for you to produce the documents which demonstrate the SSPX was presented with an A.A. structure 6 times? Thanks."

You know what? I am really tired of this. I have proved this now more than once (well, not exactly six references but about six). I do have paper files somewhere with some of the references in it. No offence, but, the last time I was asked to do this, I simply googled it but it took some time. It took me about an hour to find them all. At least one of them was also in the archives of a weblist, so I had to look there, and I believe it was in ctngreg, so I had to enlist someone who is a member (since I left that list). Other references might be not on line but in back copies of the Angelus.

I invite others to search again. At least some of the references are easy to find. I am not prepared to do this over and over again. I am considering settting aside some time and creating a proper paper file where I have all the references in ONE PLACE. I never did this in the first place because I never expected that I'd have to prove it. There was one quotatiaon on this from Fellay this very year, back in January or February.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

wpaforex writes:

"The Society will say that you only have to look at what juridical safeguards are in place for the FSSP to see how the SSPX would be treated. It's a reasonable comparison. Memories of the Protocol 1411 debacle are still fresh and were certainly so in 2000. The reason that all occurred was due to Fr. Bisig trying to go against the normative law of the Church."

Actually, the Protocol 1411-99 issue was blown way out of proportion at the time, as I argued then. While the Protocol was a bad thing, the damage was quite limited. The Fraternity simply does not have the manpower to serve in dioceses where the bishops would insist that they offer the New Mass. So Fr. Devillers made a promise, which he kept, that he simply would not establish apostolates in those sees. Very few bishops would insist on that provision today and I would argue that they've lost the power to do so, thanks to "Summorum Pontificum". You see, under S.P., celebration of the old Mass can be a right, and no priest can be required in law to offer Mass more than once per day.

Of course, with an apostolic adminstration, the local bishop would have absolutely NO power over the S.S.P.X. With a personal prelature, the local bishop would indeed have the power to exclude the S.S.P.X (cf. Canon 297), which is one reason (of two) why Bishop Fellay has now completely rejected this as a model (thank God).

If you mean that Rome cheated the F.S.S.P., I'd only answer that the term 'exclusive' was NEVER in the Fraternity statutes for a normative liturgy. The old Mass IS the normative liturgy both for the Campos a.a. and for the I.B.P. That's why I can't figure out why Bishop Rifan has celebrated NewMass thrice now. NOBODY on earth can force him or his priests EVER to celelbrate NewMass. He must be doing so to curry favour with the Brazilian bishops.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Picard wrote:

"Because at least untill the MP Summorum Pont. there were not enough securities that one is not forced to give up the Old Liturgie and use the New."

I urge you to reconisder your position, Picard. The problem in 1999 was that there was no exclusive right inscribed in the F.S.S.P. statutes to use the preconciliar liturgy. Without this protection, every priest retains the right to use the revised liturgy because it is normative in every particular church (dioceses, mostly).

To understand what is meant by normative, you need to consider the constitution of the Church. The Church Universal proceeds out of what she calls the particular churches (dioceses and their equivalents). In these particular churches, the N.O. is the normative liturgy and therefore a right of everyone. To make exception to this, you need a particular church in which the normative liturgy (for Mass and Office) is the preconciliar one; or else you need a stated exception in law.

An apostolic administration is a particular church, equivalent in law to a diocese in this regard (cf. Canon 368). Therefore, it can have its own normative liturgy. In fact, under Section 2 of Canon 372, this can be the very ground for the establishment of a particular church. The Campos apostolic administration is currently the only one on earth which has the preconciliar liturgy as normative.

The other way is an exception inscribed into the statutes. This was done for the I.B.P., or so I'm told (I don't have a copy of its statutes).

So the means of protection WERE there before 2007, and they were granted in 2002 for the Campos a.a.

Time to change your mind again.

Incidentally, the reason the Campos got a 'personal' apostolic administration under Canon 372.2--the only one of its kind in the entire history of Holy Church--is because this exact same structure had been offered to the S.S.P.X. When the S.S.P.X refused it, it was immediately offered separately to the Priestly Union of St. John-Mary Vianney. The dates here are definitely NOT a coincidence: 2000 for the offer to the S.S.P.X; Christmas Eve of 2001, the Pope signs the decree for the Campos.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

wpaforex writes:

"What's to demonstrate to the SSPX that they will be in a stable juridical structure where they could voice their concerns before such an acknowledgement happens, if the Holy See is willing to invalidate the constitution of one of it's own orders who are in full communion with the Pope?"


The problem is that the Rome did NOT invalidate anything: the term 'exclusive' was never allowed into their statutes in the first place, back in 1988. That was the problem. While nobody wants to say it, Fr. Bisig and company should have said 'no' when Rome refused to put that term into its statutes.

Why would the same thing not happen to the S.S.P.X?

First, the structure would not be made *permanent* until after the doc talks were over: there is a difference between a temporary and a permanent structure.

Secondly, the S.S.P.X can protect its real property by giving it to separate (a) corporation(s) controlled by its founders. Hence, if Rome should ever try a rotten trick, the Society would simply return to a state of disobedience.

The only risk is that, after a time, some Society clerics may come to like their comfortable psitions recognised by Rome. But that is always s normal risk if you're Catholic!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

wpaforex writes:

"Perhaps the failure with the apostolic administration is not that Fellay hasn't agreed to it but that it hasn't been presented in a form that truly grants the SSPX freedom from the local Bishop and the Curia."

No, in one of his interviews about the a.a., Bishop Fellay spelled out that, as he put it, it was the "Rolls Royce" solution. Then he explained that the Society would not take the Rolls Royce until doc talks were completed. On one occasion, I believe that he said that a Rolls is a lovely car but the first consideration is where it is being driven.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

wpaforex writes:

"It WOULD be a good token gesture for Bishop Fellay to ask for these faculties. It's shows his good faith. Perhaps the time will be at the end of the Rosary Crusade when Bishop Fellay goes to Rome and presents the Holy Father with the spiritual bouquet. It sounds as though the timing would be appropriate and the action would be reinforced with the unparalleled grace accompanying all the rosaries."

In the latest issue of "The Angelus", p. 7, last column, Fr. Pfluger reveals that Cardinal C.H. asked Fellay, in the end, merely to request that the censures be withdrawn, with no conditions attached. Fellay said that the request came too hastily and so was denied. but on 15th June, he said that he would "consider ... definitely" a temporary structure and, also, that he was not against Rome recognising the Society.

Yes, the Rosary Crusade might be a good time to ask but he should ask NOW. He needs to show some good faith at this point. After all, Rome has fulfilled the Society's three conditions, and a huge number of non-Society traditionalists could be helped by Society faculties. Doesn't he care about the rest of us?

Do we have to wait until Rome also says yes to the Rosary Crusade? The S.S.P.X is becoming too much like the spoiled brat who makes dad given him a new red truck and a blue balloon and a big teddy bear and then a chocolate sundae.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes:

"Additions to or deletions from the universal calendar, of course, are solely Rome's competency. An apostolic administration would only choose which saints on the universal calendar to commemorate"

Jordanes is mixed up a bit here. Let me break this up into two parts: I.

Every diocese has a local calendar and eacy religious order has a proper calendar; neither of these are universal calendars.

Particular churches (usually dioceses) have local calendars because they are terriorially limited. They make use of the universal calendar but then also commemorate saints whom their ordinaries, over the years, wish to honour in a special way. There are also regional and national calendars which are so used together with local calendars, all adding commemoratinons to the universal calendar.

A particular church which is not territorially limited would have what is called a 'proper calendar'. This is parallel to the local calendar but applies for a particular religiuos orders or group, or for a personal prelatures (for example). The F.S.S.P. could have its own proper calendar, in which it adds some speical saints, such as but not limited to its saintly founders.

The Campos a.a. and the one we propose for the S.S.P.X are, under Section 2 of Canon 372, not territorially limited but exist in a given territory. Therefore, they can have proper calendars, just like religious orders.

II.

Now, in the case at hand, there are two universal calendars to distinguish: the noe for the N.O. (ordinary form) and the one for the T.L.M. (extraordinary form). These are distinct. Only Rome can alter EITHER of them. However, the new a.a. could add commemorations to the traditionalist universal calendar to make for a proper calendar. The F.S.S.P. or I.C.R. could also add commemorations to make for proper calendars for them. They would be making these additions to the universal calendar of the T.L.M., not to the one for the N.O.M., which has commemorations on it already which we do not have.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I agree 100% with Mr. Haley's comments. I'd like to add that, in my local trad community, there is a man who knows more than all of us here combined (and he tells me that it is uncivilised to participate in blogs and I should be ashamed of myself for doing so). He had the same reaction as Mr. Haley. He said that the current situation is "absurd" and that it makes no sense to lift the excommunications and then say that the Society exercises no legitimate ministry. He is a Society supporter, by the way, and counsels that we should just ignore what Rome says altogether. He pointed out to me recently that, guess what?, Rome got it wrong on the status of the old Mass for 35 years, doing untold damage to souls. They said that it was suppressed; now they say that it never was. He says that we should show them zero respect except to the Pope to the extent required of us as Catholics. He has no respect for Canon Law but lives by 'Moral Law alone'. The only question that matters is the state of our souls. He says he'll respect Canon Law again when those imposing it convert back to the Catholic Faith.

P.K.T.P.

Romanus said...

Bishop Fellay, 2002:
So I told all these things to the cardinal and then he said, "So, here’s what Rome proposes to you: We want a solution in which we solve the problem of bishops, bishops who would be ordinaries, that is, true bishops, maybe with dioceses, and priests and faithful." He spoke about an arrangement like that of Opus Dei, that is, a personal prelature. He foresaw our difficulty in having the pope himself choose the bishop to head this personal prelature, for this is the usual procedure. He said either the Society’s priests or the Society’s bishops should present three names to the pope every time another bishop is needed for Tradition. http://www.sspx.org/discussions/rome_sspx_campos.htm

Fr Schmidberger, 2009:
KNA: Welche ist das?
Schmidberger: In Richtung einer Personalprälatur.
KNA: Vergleichbar mit dem Opus Dei?
Schmidberger: Ein bisschen.
http://www.domradio.de/aktuell/artikel_54406.html

PKPT:
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!

Oliver said...

After all this time and regarding the new order establishment, its worldly ministry, its liturgical entertainment, its hierarchy of nonentities and the UN sub-office called the Vatican as a strange, alien world, it is so impossible to imagine that serious traditionalists would entertain any link with them. Time has moved on and the expanding divergence is permanent. People like P.K.T.P. keep hoping there is a deal to be struck through the reconciliation of the old religion with the new religion. This is a lost cause and any superficial compact will thanks to divine intervention suffer a messy miscarriage.

Joe B said...

I take it back. I don't agree with Mr Perkins very much.

Are you a convert, Mr. Perkins? Because you don't seem to reason from the point of view of the 'sensus Catholicus'. If it looks, smells, and feels Catholic, it is, and if not, it isn't. To hell with how you filter through canon law to get a different answer. That's your problem, not canon law's.

Let me summarize: Those of us who are at least in our late 50s knew what the church looked, felt, and smelled like before VII, and it isn't like today's church. This one is ugly, feels greasy, and stinks. It's failing. Not a single saint who died before last century would even recognize it, much less mistake it for Catholic. Any pope or council that said we pray to the same God as the Moslems would have been condemned, not defended with contortions. Secondary and tertiary meanings be damned, the obvious meaning is false and scandalous, and the author needed to be publicly humiliated (and will be someday).

That's all we need to know. Step back and look at things from the view of the church prior to VII, and if it would scandalize then, it should be rejected now.

So when you use canon law to tell SSPX they have to cut a deal with a VII pope to absolve, you show a total lack of understanding of THE CATHOLIC FAITH. They're in the church already. Always have been. How do we know? Simple - they defend the traditions of the faith, and you can't go wrong doing that, and you would see that in canon law if you had Catholic eyes. They're Catholic to the core, Heaven has spoken twice in their favor (and will at least once more), and you aren't there yet.

Paul Haley said...

The Holy See by its actions of remitting the excommunications, while insisting the FSSPX has no canonical status and its priests perform no legitimate ministry, has confirmed implicitly the state of necessity claimed by the Fraternity since 1988. It’s like saying welcome to the doctrinal discussions but put on your dunce caps and go sit in the corner. Where is Count Neri Capponi, D. CN. L. (Lateran), LL. D, when you need him?

This is a travesty of Justice and needs the intervention of His Holiness immediately. We should remind the Vatican that the only purpose for the existence of the FSSPX is the salvation of souls according to what the Church has always held, taught and professed to be true. That is all they seek and it is the noblest of goals. For them to be denied faculties while they pledge allegiance to His Holiness and the Church is a travesty beyond travesties and the real state of necessity. The same could be said for other traditional groups currently described as without faculties or canonical status. I am so flabbergasted by this that I will have no further comment until and unless Justice is rendered.

Jordanes said...

Mr. Perkins, thanks for providing the additional detail on universal and "local" calendars (though I don't see how my comment was "mixed up a little").

As for the man in your community, it sounds as if he is functionally his own pope. Someone with "no respect for Canon Law but lives by 'Moral Law alone'" forfeits any right he may have had to say whether or not those who impose canon law need to convert back to the Catholic faith. He ought to examine himself on that score rather than appointing himself Bishop of bishops.

Anonymous said...

On Jordanes's last post.

St. Thomas Aquinas taught that unjust ordinances are not bad laws; rather, they fail to qualify as laws in the first place. They do not make law but are an abuse of power.

"De Missali Romano", 1971, (not to be confused with the Apostolic Constitution "Missale Romanum", 1970) claimed to suppress the old Mass and Office. While D.M.R. was not signed by Pope Paul VI, it was published in the Acta Apostolicæ Sedis and therefore claimed, wrongly, to be law; and Paul VI did quote it in order to advance his claim that the old Mass and Office was suppressed.

It is at least arguable that this was an abuse of power and has not yet been rectified. Why? Because justice means giving every man his due. Those unjustly deprived by D.M.R. have not been given their due, esp. priests who were expelled from their parishes for celebrating the ancient Mass of the Saints.

The gent in question does not claim to be bishop of bishops. What he's saying is that justice has not been done at law. Until it is, let us fall back on the Moral Law, one tiny norm of which carries more weight than all the positive laws ever written. By they way, there are experts in Moral Law floating around. One doesn't hear much about them. I suppose that I mean Catholic ethicists. Their word is considerably loftier than that of canonists.

On the bit about you being mixed up on calendars, I meant that we need to clarify that there are now TWO universal calendars, plus local and proper calendars. Were there a universal apostolic administration for tradition, it could have a proper (not local) calendar, just like that of any religious order. But this calendar would not apply for priests celebrating the old Mass under their local bishops.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

PKTP Wrote:

You know what? I am really tired of this. I have proved this now more than once (well, not exactly six references but about six). I do have paper files somewhere with some of the references in it. No offence, but, the last time I was asked to do this, I simply googled it but it took some time.

Mr. Perkins, I sincerely apologizie if you thought I was being confrontational. I was not. I am just trying to have an honest discussion. We are all sitting at the table trying to put this jigsaw puzzle together. That was my only intent.

If you mean that Rome cheated the F.S.S.P., I'd only answer that the term 'exclusive' was NEVER in the Fraternity statutes for a normative liturgy

Let's not get lost in the realm of legalism here. It was generally understood what the conditions were for Fr. Bisig and his priests to restore visible unity. I agree, personally, that it would have been terrific to see Fr. Bisig stand up to Ecclesia Dei and walk away from the table when ED wouldn't approve the specific phrase in the constitution. However, Fr. Bisig would have been in a "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't situation." He could have been accused of not fostering "full communion" if they went back to the SSPX and now, the pundits are saying he should have just walked away from the table.

You can't have it both ways. If you say he should have walked away from the table and not agreed to the terms then you are basically at the point, in terms of logical deduction, of saying the state of necessity exists. How can it be ok that Fr. Bisig would walk away from the table but not ok that Bishop Fellay does?

I would disagree that the impact of Protocol 1411/99 was entirely limited. It may have been practically limited but it was a bombshell when looked at from the perspective of the tolerance of the Holy See to groups who wish to go against the normative law of the Church. And I believe that is why you don't see the SSPX in a worldwide A.A. right here and now. The curia would have a fit and the diocesan bishops would go into schism rather than allow a free-roaming SSPX go against the normative law. Else, why isn't the A.A. of Saint John Mary Vianney free-roaming throughout all of Brazil?

Everyone, including Bishop Fellay agrees that the A.A. is the Rolls Royce solution, but it's obvious from Bishop Fellay's words that they would not be in the drivers seat completely right now and it's questionable as to how much they would continue to effect change in the worldwide Church from inside the A.A. In a sense, an A.A could be a way to "pen up" the SSPX and prevent the doctrinal discussions from affecting change within the diocesan structure; something that needs to happen long term. Eventually, you want to get to the point where an AA isn't needed because the problems within the diocese has been snuffed out. The faith isn't some one or some group's pet project. It belongs to the whole Church and the SSPX endeavors to make sure that whatever gains they achieve in the doctrinal discussions are applied to and benefit the whole Church.

Best Regards,

wpaforex

Anonymous said...

Romanus, again, can't find the personal prelatures he loves, only a structure, and I quote him "like a personal prelature". I have mentioned several quotations which disprove him.

Meanwhile, since Joe B. doesn't like me either, he wrongly assumes that I am a convert. For those here who are converts, you have all been insulted. Apparently, if you are a convert, according to Joe B., you can't have a 'sensus catholicus'. Only cradle Catholics who agree with Joe B. are real Catholics. As it happens, I do know what the Church looked and felt like before 1965 and was trained in school by religious, although I was quite young then, and I never alleged that the S.S.P.X is not Catholic. Never. I merely say that it depends on a questionable claim under Canon 144.

Anyway, to get back to Romanus's error, here is what Bishop Fellay says in the August, 2001, Communicantes: not something which is "like" a personal prelature but something which "is" an apostolic administration. And I can dig up more quotes to follow if need be, but this is the best one"

Fellay: "The Society of St. Pius X would have become incorporated into an apostolic administration. What does this signify? The apostolic administration ordinarily is a diocesan structure, or quasi-diocesan, in a time of crisis [he's adding in this bit: it's not in the Code at all], over a given territory [which can be the whole world: see Canon 372.2]. For us this territory would be the entire world. In other words, they offered us a structure that covered the entire world, a kind of personal diocese.

Interviewer: Excuse me for interrupting, Your Excellency, you mean a personal prelacy...

Fellay: Not at all [Duh!, I'm Romanus. I never quit repeating fables]. The apostolic administration is better than the personal prelacy. In the first place, a personal prelacy is not necessariy governed by a bishop. An apostolic adminisration, which is [no: can be] quasi-diocesan, normally would be. Furthermore, and above all, the action of an apostolic administration is not limited to its members. The Opus Dei, ... could not consider any external action without the consent of the bishop." He says a lot more and it is good but my fingers and the restrictions on these blog entries are not good.

In another excerpt I have, one from 2003, to my recollection, he says that the a.a. and not the p.p. was offered and then goes on to call the a.a. the "Rolls Royce" structure. Every time Romanus tries to deny what was offered, I will pop up and disprove him.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Romanus,

All this shows is that there have been verbal bantering between Econe and the Holy See in an attempt to flesh out what is the best structure within the Church from which the Society can continue to opperate.

All of this is meaningless. It's not a proposal until it's in writing. No one can honestly expect Bishop Fellay to agree to something based on a verbal conversation given that he gets a different answer concerning such a basic question as to whether the Society priests are suspended or not, depending on which cardinal he talks to in the Curia! His Excellency is more prudent than that.

All I'm asking for are the docs. If someone believes that Cardinal Castrion has formally proposed an Apostolic Administration or even a personal prelature, lets see the fax that was sent to Econe. I don't think there are any. . . .

Best Regards,

wpaforex

Anonymous said...

Romanus seems to have had very short holidays this year. He only returns to advance the lie that what Bishop Fellay is considering is a personal prelature.

Here's a quote from Bishop Fellay from the July to September issue of "Daily Catholic". Oh, it's just so much fun disproving Romanus. He reminds me of someone from Minnesota who doesn't know his thous from his yous:

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

Mgr Fellay: It is a wonderful Rolls Royce since we would have ordinary jurisdiction, but we are holding back because of the many nails on the road. Assisi, ecumenical pluralism, the demolition of the fundamentals of the Faith."

Hey, that's funny. He doesn't even mention a p.p. this time. I guess he's not retarded. He knows, for example, that a personal prelature is limited to clerics and therefore could not include the many religious in the Society's affiliates (e.g. Dominicans of Avrillé); it could also not include the Society lay supporters, who would be put under the mercy of heretics such as Bishop Remi De Rogue. Great idea! I guess he can read Canon 294: "They are composed of deacons and priests (not Dominican friars) of the secular clergy." Whoops! So much for flexibility. And then there's Canon 297, my favourite: a p.p. needs the permission of Cardinal Baloney to establish an apostolate in L.A. That'a great idea, just like suicide.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

wpaforex writes:

"Let's not get lost in the realm of legalism here. It was generally understood what the conditions were for Fr. Bisig and his priests to restore visible unity."

Actally, therein lies the real scandal. I really really love Fr. Bisig (and remember him every night in my prayers), so I don't like to repeat this. But you are pointing to the problem and I see few ways out. What happened was that Fr. Bisig *asked* that the term 'exclusive' be used in reference to the ancient Mass. But that rotter, Msgr. Perl et al. refused him. So he quietly accepted statutes without it. The statutes were kept a secret (a normal procedure) and the F.S.S.P. simply didn't mention this little fact. As a result, a fair number of young men entered the F.S.S.P. thinking that they were getting protection from having to offer NewMass. Then the Fraternity Sixteen sprung their trap and Perl was only too happy to reveal all. I'm sure as hell he's been removed. Perl, I mean, not Bisig. But the fact remains that Fr. Bisig did not tell aspirants that that protection had never been approved.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

wpaforex writes:

"You can't have it both ways. If you say he should have walked away from the table and not agreed to the terms then you are basically at the point, in terms of logical deduction, of saying the state of necessity exists. How can it be ok that Fr. Bisig would walk away from the table but not ok that Bishop Fellay does? "

The difference is that Bishop Fellay was offered an apostolic administration, which would have afforded him all the protection he needed. The F.S.S.P. was not. There is a world of a differnce between the two.

Rome was not willing to offer an exemption to the F.S.S.P. in 1988. But, by 2000, after the Society pilgrimage to Rome, the Holy See was very impressed and was willing to offer more. (Damn all this typing: why can't we arrange a conference call?) The I.B.P. apparently got the exemption in 2006 which was denied to the F.S.S.P. in 1988. Or so I'm told: just try getting a copy of their statutes.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On the quote from Schmidberger:

I was not responding to the German text. I can't read German. I was responding to the English translation given on this blog in which he said that it was 'somewhat like a p.p.' Somewhat like is not the same as is, unless you are Bill Clinton: that depends on what is is.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

"Duh, I'm Romanus"
Ya, knock if off...PP is not it.
You can Google just as well as the rest of us and we found PKTP's other posts on an old blog site that have it all...plus the SSPX quotes on their own site.

Brandeen and Cletus
Canada

Anonymous said...

Oh, just for the hell of it, here's another quotation in which Bishop Fellay is explaining why he won't yet take the apostolic administration. He compares his situation to that of the Campos, and notice how he describes the a.a., while not even mentioning a p.p.:

"Campos accepted Rome’s proposal and has received its "apostolic administration." They got even their bishop, Bishop Rifan. If you look at the blueprint on paper, the apostolic administration is gorgeous –a Rolls Royce. It is wonderful; it is tremendous; on paper it is perfect!"

I guess I can dig up some more quotes, just for the fun of it.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dear Brandeen and Cletus:

The problem with Romanus's personal prelature is that it is not flexible enough to meet the needs of the S.S.P.X. It can't establish an apostolate in a diocese without the local bishop's permission (Canon 297) and it can't include the very many monks, nuns, and friars of orders which are presently affiliated with the Society: they could not be incorporated into a p.p. It also can't include Society non-ecclesiastical laics (i.e. most of us), who would have to get permission from the local bishop to have the Society administer their Baptisms and Marriages. It would be completely unsuitable. Just imagine the disappointment when you ask the local bishop (Cardinal Baloney, say), and he refuses to allow you to have your children Baptised by the S.S.P.X. It would make his day--and ruin your life. It'd be 'off to the Novus Ordo for you'!

In contrast, a 'personal' or 'ritual' apostolic administration under Canon 372.2 could cover all or most of the world, include lay subjects, include religious orders, and so forth. Subjects would be those laics who are registered in it.

But could it cover such a large territory, often with huge distances between parishes? The answer is blowing in the Armenian Exarchate for Latin America, which has only three parishes in a territory that covers thirty countries. The Armenians have other circumscriptions opearating under similar circumstances. I note that an exarchate is the Eastern Rite parallel to the apostolic administration. It is a particular church, equivalent in law to a diocese, which can be headed by a titular bishop. Exarchates and apostolic administratinos are temporary ONLY in the sense that the Legislator destines them to be dioceses.

But where do I go to church if I'm registered in the new a.a. but the a.a. has no chapel for a thousand miles from my home? Answer: you can fulfil the Sunday obligation and go to confession to any priest of any jurisdiction. That's what the Armenians do (but then they're smarter than Romanus is). an issue of jurisdiction only comes up over Baptisms, Marriages, and Confirmations. In such cases, you can travel to your nearest S.S.P.X church or its priest can travel to you, or else the S.S.P.X bishop and the lcoal bishop can agree to have these Sacraments done in the local church by a local priest, whether using the usus antiquior or the N.O. Sounds flexible to me. But that's just me.

The Code of 1983 added 'personal' or 'ritual' particular churches under Section 2 of Canon 372. In other words, the solution is right there in the Code, just waiting to be used. But has it been used? Is there a precedent? Answer 'drum roll': affirmative. The Campos has it. The only difference is that this one would cover the entire planet instead of just one plantation in Brazil. The Campos one was originally supposed to cover all of Brazil. Under Section of 2 of 372, the structure can exist "in a [=any] given territory".

It's the only flexible answer. Campos writ large. It's there in the Code and there is now a precedent in Brazil.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On wpaforex's latest remark:

You are absolutely right that there is no formal proposal, forax. What there have been are suggestions which Rome is willing to consider. So the next move belongs to Bishop Fellay. If Bishop Fellay refuses to respond to such a suggestions, he can't say that he has no option but to continue in disobedience. He can only say that once formal proposals are found to be wanting.

Why should he take Rome seriously? Because it suggested an a.a. in 2000 and then, TO PROVE THAT IT WAS SERIOUS, it actually granted one in January of 2002, to the Campos. That's what Mr. McFarland might call 'evidence'.

I was involved in this business at the time. I was contacted and told that my proposal had been accepted and could I, therefore, shut my big mouth, since my continued lobbying was jeopardising the negotiations. Three months later, H.H. signed the Campos decree.

P.K.T.P.

Mar said...

Anon. writes:
"Apparently, if you are a convert, according to Joe B., you can't have a 'sensus catholicus'.
Only cradle Catholics who agree with Joe B. are real Catholics."

Not the same thing. Of course it is possible for a convert to be without a 'sensus catholicus'.
It is not an insult to say so. And it is possible to be a 'real' Catholic, whether cradle or
convert, without having a 'sensus catholicus'. These days there are huge numbers of cradle Catholics who do not have a 'sensus catholicus' due to bad formation. There are also many converts who, however sincere, do not have a 'sensus catholicus' because they were poorly instructed if at all. There is extensive anecdotal evidence for all this.

Anonymous said...

Joe B. writes to me:

"Any pope or council that said we pray to the same God as the Moslems would have been condemned, not defended with contortions."

Well, hello, Joe B., I argued that very point with Jordanes for nearly an entire day this week. Where were you? He finally had to shut down the thread once I'd won the debate (heh, heh!: no offence, Jordanes, but I just couldn't resist).

You have misunderstood what I have written. I never wrote that Society confessions were invalid. What I wrote is that Rome says so. Give me break! And don't make false assumptions about people's backgrounds. Moreover, even if I were a convert, would that mean that I had no 'sensus catholicus'. I think that, for that suggestion, you owe the converts on this list a small apology. I'm guessing that there's quite a few of them here.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

Well, I didn't and don't concede defeat in that debate. I closed comments partly because it felt like both of us just needed the assistance of a closed commentbox so we could finally get up from our computer keyboards and do something else that day, and partly because there was a danger that the debate was starting to grow legs and trying to run away from us.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes:

Hah! You expect me to believe you? Actually, I do. But why did you close the thread over on the Masses in Brazil. People were asking me some qq. about statistics there and I was going to answer them. And there not many posts there anyway.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

My Dear PKTP,
"Duh, I'm Romanus"
My post was meant to be supportive of your AA proposition and for Romanus to quit his PP tact which is annoying when so clearly you have demonstrated the AA is best.

I meant to say that he can Google and validate everything you claim with the AA. I did so can he and to stop the PP tact.

Thank you for your summation aimed at my post, sorry to put you through the exercise, though it is much appreciated.

Sincerely,
Cletus

Anonymous said...

Dear Mar:

Well, I can see your point. The religious who trained me were losing it by the time I got there. The older Brothers were good; the younger were all in lay dress. By the time I got to high school, there was little sense of the faith there. The 1970s were devastating.

But I don't see why Joe B. thinks I don't have a sensus catholicus. He seems to misconstrue what I wrote. I wasn't saying that Society confessions are necessarily invalid, only that Rome does not recognise them. I think he's jumped to some conclusions.

As for my own reaction to the N.O.: I think that it is entirely unCatholic in spirit. But there is something I go to. It's called the T.L.M. under "Summorum Pontificum". Conditions aren't perfect, but they could be a lot worse.

In closing, I do think it to be insulting to suggest that converts have no sensus catholicus. There are many converts on this blog. Was not St. Paul a convert? How about Cardinal Newman?

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

PKTP,
I have internet copies of the IBP and FSSP statutes....somewhere. If you want them I can go searching.

I believe I found them on their respective websites a couple of years ago.

Jordanes said...

I didn't close that other commentbox, and don't know which of our moderators did. It will have to be up to the blog owner to reopen those comments if he thinks it is appropriate. I'm only an "assistant" moderator, so to speak, and I can't second guess the boss.

Picard said...

here is the web-adress for the quoted parts of the Kansas-talks in Communicantes (quoted by PKTP before):

http://www.sspx.ca/Communicantes/Aug2001/Our_Hope_After_the_Battle.htm

Expressely speaking about an A.A.

Also here an A.A. is mentioned:

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

But to be fair -- at the beginning Msgr. Fellay also speaks of the possibilitiy of an P.P. here.

But then, later, he speaks of an A.A.

Picard said...

But no, I warmly invite You, Mr. PKTP, to reconsider your suggestion that the FSSPX could and should have joined in a canocical solution before 2007.

Your argument is not cogent.

Well, Bf. Fellay gave several reasons for not making "a deal" in 2001 or 2002 and putting up "preconditions".

1) One of them was that the trust in Rome was lost and they needed a SIGN.

2) Then, and it hangs together, there was the treating of the FSSP, You know, the famous prot. 1411. That was a main reason for not trusting Rome (as said in 1) - and to be afraid that there ar not enouhg SECURITIES, not enough safeguards, garantees....
especially re the TLM.

You do not seem to graps the point I want to make, Mr. Perkins.

Even if the A.A. would have been granted the TLM as their normative Liturgie (btw., also the rest of the old books sould be granted and guaranteed, not only the TLM), it would still have been an indult - an exeption, in principle only temporary, provisional, exceptional - just privileges, retractable!!

As long as the TLM (and the rest...) was not the NORMATIVE liturgie OF THE CURCH there were not the garantees that perhaps the next Pope will not retract the privileges of the statutes of the A.A.

You seem to overlook in your calculation that a P.P. is independent from the bishops but NOT from ROME. - So the old pope was just dying, nobody knew who would be to follow.

So before the MP S.P. there were not enough guarantees, securities for the exclusive use of the TLM - or for the allowness to use it at all!!

It would have been possible that a new, perhaps very liberal Pope just retracted the "privileges".

Now, after the MP this is not possible --- well, I am not speaking about the pure and abstract legal (or "illegal" -- ahem...) possiblity but of the
psyschological or better: moral possibility.

After S.P. it is moral impossible to go behind it anymore - even if a hyper-modernist would follow as Supreme Pontiff.

But only after S.P.!


Don´t you agree on that -- I think that is sound reasoning, grounded in reality.

Picard said...

And to continue my previous post:

There was also a third reason 3) to wait with a "deal":

because the SSPX wanted to give the TLM back to the WHOLE Church, to ALL priests -- they wanted that ALL should benefit of the privilegs --- and even more, as I said, that it is not just a privileg but a right to EVERYBODY....


But to come back to my 2) point (hanging together with the 1)):
Re securities and safeguards.

Let´s quote Msgr. Fellay himself (see http://www.sspx.org/discussions/rome_sspx_campos.htm
- He makes clear that the only real safeguard would be that Rome declares the TLM as a GENERAL LAW of Church - as done with the MP S.P.!):

If Rome was to declare publicly —as we ask it to do —that the Latin Mass has never been abrogated, it would be a public admission that the New Mass itself has not been strong enough to eliminate the Latin Mass. It would be security for the future that Rome will not take this old Mass away. Until now the popular line out of Rome is that the Tridentine Mass is a kind of indulgence. It’s tolerated. "It is just for a part of the Church. Its permission is only provisional, only temporary." Those were the words of Giovanni Battista Cardinal Re in 1986. By default, the general law of the Church is considered to be the New Mass. To avoid all seclusion and separation, we are asking that the old Mass be made the general law as well.

For me that seems totaly sound and reasonable.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 215   Newer› Newest»