With the lifting of the decree of excommunication, the doctrinal discussions will be taking place between Rome and the Fraternity of St. Pius X. What is the goal of these discussions? How long will these discussions last? What are the main points that will be addressed and in what fashion?
Both rosary crusades have borne fruit. With regards to the Motu Proprio of July 2007, what should our attitude be towards the priests who celebrate the traditional Mass now, even if not exclusively, since they say the New Mass regularly?
What advice can you give to the faithful concerning these priests? What should be the approach of the laity be towards them?
To your knowledge, is there now a greater number of priests who celebrate the Mass of all time exclusively?
The crisis of the Church is a crisis of faith. It will take some time until all priests say only the "old" Mass. Is it correct to say that even if, through the doctrinal discussions Rome returned to the fullness of truth, there would always be much opposition about the Mass and Vatican II?
Collegiality has been a disaster for the Church. Can we not see in spite of everything, a slight "crack in the wall of collegiality" with the Motu Proprio of Pope Benedict XVI and more recently with the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication?
It actually depends on the point of view. The authority of the Pope was truly shaken by the tumult at the beginning of the year. It can only be regarded as a good thing due to the opposite effect that it would bring upon Rome, which will allow us to understand who loves the Church and works to build it and who does not.
For the first time in 40 years we see the supreme authority of the Church recognize that there are problems both theological and doctrinal. Does the Pope not realize that the "conciliar church" (to use the words of Cardinal Benelli), and its reforms are doomed and that a return to tradition is necessary?
I'm not sure everyone sees the doctrinal discussions in that way. I would say that for most of the hierarchy these discussions are necessary, not for the Church, but for us and our "return to full communion" to adopt the new ways. In fact, I feel that we are facing a very delicate situation. The reality of the crisis is acknowledged, but not the remedies. We say, and it is proven by the facts, that the solution to the crisis is a return to the past. Benedict XVI said the same thing: He emphasizes the importance of not breaking with the past (the hermeneutic of continuity), but he maintains the improvisations of the council as though they are not a break with this past. According to him the only ones which are wrong and break with the past are those which go beyond the council. It is a very sensitive issue.
The Pope's position on ecumenism does not seem to be as enthusiastic as that of his predecessor. Is it because he sees ecumenism as something more theological as opposed to "ut unum sint" with its dire consequences for the Church?
I do not think the Pope sees ecumenism as a bad thing. He cherishes the fact that the Church continues in this direction and he even said that it was irreversible ... but he seems to want to differentiate between the various faiths and favor those who are nearer such as the Orthodox rather than the Protestants.
This year we celebrate 25 years of the presence of the Society in Africa, specifically the Priory of Our Lady of Sorrows in Johannesburg. What advice or encouragement can you give our parishioners and to all the faithful of the district of Africa?
Thank God for this wonderful anniversary. Given the length of the crisis, 25 years is a great achievement for which we must give thanks. It also demonstrates great loyalty from the faithful. Loyalty is a true glory. It involves the preservation of faith, steadfastness, and perseverance in the battle. So, the best wish I could offer them – to all of us – is that they would be more faithful than ever.
82 comments:
"Benedict XVI said the same thing: He emphasizes the importance of not breaking with the past (the hermeneutic of continuity), but he maintains the improvisations of the council as though they are not a break with this past."
This is a very good article. It's grounded in facts and a level-headed presentation. Archbishop Fellay did say we have to be realistic. Things are what they are and that's it. We have to be able to sift carefully through all the graffiti on the wall in order to see the real art underneath it.
I've read other articles saying there are these preconditions about what can and can't be brought to the table. If that's the case then the Discussions are already doomed because they are already limiting what can be discussed. I hope this is wrong and that both sides are open.
Matt
The irony.
The SSPX reject ecumenism, yet it is this ecumenical dialogue between themselves and Rome where their hopes subsist.
"To come out of this situation will take more than a generation of constant effort in the right direction - perhaps a century."
Would that process accelerate if the Holy Father decided to offer the TLM regularly?
Tim
After the SSPX present their Mickey Mouse theories based on analogies about sick mothers and 1+1=2 and Rome's theologians take them apart like Stephen Hawkin taking apart creationist psuedo-science, it will be interesting to see what happens next.
Will they slink off too ashamed and proud to admit their errors? Will they humbly submit? Or will they once again prove themselves too dim to comprehend theological and philosophical ideas which go beyond 19th century manual theology and continue the same arguments despite Rome's swift dismantling of them?
My money is on the latter.
Thank you for translating this very positive interview. However, there is an error in the translation that changes the true meaning of Bp. Fellay's words.
---------
The answer to question no. 8 should therefore read:
"It could only be considered as a good thing because of the opposite impact, which it should bring upon Rome, that will allow us to understand who loves the Church and works for its benefit and who does not."
I see the interview is actually available on DICI also in English:
http://www.dici.org/en/?p=3740
Mons. Fellay is truly a very thoughtful and realistic man.
There is just one instance in which an air of unreality might be seen to shine through: the comment on "return to the past". I am not sure what he means by it. The Church can never be what she was in 1950, or in 1880, and it is a fair question whether that would be at all desirable.
But if he means "return to the roots", in the sense of renewing the present Church by rediscovering the theological, philosophical and liturgical patrimony of the Patristic Age and the High Middle Ages - absolutely.
"Our main objections to the Council, such as religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality ............the influence of modern philosophy, liturgical novelties, the worldly spirit and its influence on modern thought which has plagued the church."
"Plague" being the operative word, these misguided notions, implicit and explicit, have devastated Roman Catholic norms, values and mores to the point that most in the church no longer believe in The Catholic Faith, according to various attitudinal surveys.
"Time will show........"
Time is certainly not on the side of the Novus Ordo Seclorum which demonstrates all the signs of an anathematised liturgy.
Bishop Fellay alongside the other bishops of the SSPX Confraternity together with their committed and courageous priests and laity, are a great source of encouragement to all of us who have lived through the post-conciliar maelstrom of rupture. Thanks to these faithful few many Roman Catholics have continued to nourish the hope that accompanies faith. Many have continued to attend The Holy Mass that has been guaranteed to us "in perpetuum" by our late Holy Father Pope St Pius V. Many have received the Sacraments in the customary manner that shun the very novelties about which Archbishop Lefebvre was aptly critical and which are the bitter fruit of ephemeral and material trends.
Pope St Pius X pray and intercede for them & us.
Thanks for the translation! Now that we see the original transcript on DICI, it's important to note the translation of this line:
"Et nous espérons que les discussions vont permettre de dissiper les erreurs ou les graves ambiguïtés qui depuis lors ont été répandues à pleines mains dans l’Église catholique, comme l’a reconnu Jean-Paul II lui-même."
"A pleines mains" or "with full hands" is distinct from "by a handful of people", which seemed to suggest that the Bishop was minimizing the number of people who took liberties in interpreting the Council. I don't imagine that was his intent.
Kris
...also, we see that Bishop Fellay used the verb "sévir", which more closely translates to "run rampant" as opposed to "plagued".
"Mais d’autres objections pourraient être posées, comme l’influence de la philosophie moderne, les nouveautés liturgiques, l’esprit du monde et son influence sur la pensée moderne qui sévit dans l’Église."
It's a small distinction, but it's worth noting the diplomatic language that Bishop Fellay is using at this juncture.
Kris
"The irony.
The SSPX reject ecumenism, yet it is this ecumenical dialogue between themselves and Rome where their hopes subsist."
No, the SSPX only rejects ecumenism with the Protestants, which has been a tremendous disaster for the Roman Catholic Church, because such ecumenism has for all intents and purposes largely transformed contemporary Catholicism into something closer to Protestant...than to Catholic! This rapproachment to Protestantism after Vatican II (and expressly seen in the adoption of the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI in 1969), incoroprated several liturgical practices that have their roots and tradition in Protestantism-and have been a disaster for the Catholic Mass! Also,the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI saw the supression of many Catholic beliefs, prayers, rubrics, and devotional expressions exclusively Catholic in nature, which could be offensive (and are offensive) to these Protestants.
Thus we had a new Mass in 1969 introduced which is very similar to many Protestant "worship services", and in which Protestants could be made to feel at home. That was the whole purpose and agenda...as admitted to by the archetect of the Novus Ordo, the infamous late Archbishop Annibale Bugnini and his clique.
In the USA at least, the introduction of a musical repertoire to accompany Mass which is almost 100% contemporary Christian or outright Protestant in inspiration completed this metamorphosis. In some Catholic parishes, it is impossible to tell whether it is Roman Catholic...or perhaps Lutheran or Episcopal. THAT IS A DISGRACE! And the results have been likewise.
Since "ecumenical dialog" presupposes conversation between the Roman Catholic Church, and a religious group outside of it, the term does not apply to the SSPX, because the SSPX is 100% Roman Catholic....as even the Pope and many in the Curia have said.
Only the most radical liberal Catholics, and the ridgid so called "neo-con" Catholics who are 100% "Vatican II Catholics" would label the SSPX as a body outside of the Catholic Church with whom the Vatican is willing to engage in dialog.
To denegrate the SSPX as a foreign body outside the Catholic Church is insulting (and uncharitable), to a group of some 1.5 million which has upheld the vast spiritual patrimony of the Catholic Church while a large percentage of the "established" Catholic Church seemed until recently (and still in some places) quite happy to destroy it all.
The SSPX deserves our prayers and our support. Not sublte criticism, or contemptous remarks which label them as "outsiders"
"After the SSPX present their Mickey Mouse theories based on analogies about sick mothers and 1+1=2 and Rome's theologians take them apart like Stephen Hawkin taking apart creationist psuedo-science, it will be interesting to see what happens next."
How fitting it is that you would compare an atheist to roman theologians in your simili.
PJL
Tim,
Apropos of realism, I'm content to start with the Holy Father publicly offering the traditional Mass once.
So far one could fairly hypothesize that he thinks it's a great thing for other people. That's my hypothesis, at any rate; I think in his mind the reconciliation of the SSPX is a step on the road to a reform of the reform Mass. But I'll be pleased to be proven wrong.
Sesquipedalis,
So:
Can you tell us that you've made some material level of study of the writings of the SSPX and its allies, and also of those of the conciliar Church; and that based on your background in scripture, patrology, theology and philosophy, your conclusion is that the SSPX is a bunch of intellectual knuckledraggers?
And if you can, would you sketch a demonstration of their bozoness on a topic of your choice. Doesn't need to be long and fancy; just something that at least indicates that you have some idea of what you're talking about.
But let me give you fair warning. I'm 65 years old. I have a Ph.D. in philosophy and a J.D. I've been a serious amateur of scripture, theology and philosophy since my college days. I've practiced fairly high-powered corporate law on Park Avenue and other venues for north of thirty years. So I know what I'm looking for; and if you're four-flushing, there's gonna be heck to pay.
And please spare us explanations of why you don't have to give no steenking explanations. The term for that is evasive action.
Your move.
Basically, whenever a priest wants to return to the traditional Mass, it is our duty to approach that with a positive attitude; we should rejoice in it and hope that the Mass produces its fruit.
Perfectly said.
May such priests continue to multiply. And they are multiplying.
1. time is more than necessary.
Warning to the day dreamers : it won't be soon.
2. mentalities today are so far away from both sides.
Never forget that it is not "just a Roman question". Moreover the process designed by pope Benedict XVI with the new Commission Ecclesia Dei is precisely based on ... going slow and with wide consultation within CDF.
Most episcopates especially the Europeans are rather opposed to any idea of discussion... European clergy is highly hostile and do not prepare anyone to a possible positive issue, even in a distant future.
From the SSPX, we've heard, just last year during the Summer, apocalyptic warnings from several bishops, especially Bp Tissier de Mallerais.
I doubt that anybody is prepared for a sudden reconciliation.
Those who are displaying good will, on both sides, have still a huge job to do for most Catholics around the world to see a meaning for this laudable agreement.
So taking time is not an option.
3. The aptitude of the new structure (new Commission E.D., delegation of the SSPX) to survive after the initial frontal oppositions and keep on working in spite the time passing and all the Doomsday prophets that will inevitable rise up, this aptitude will be crucial for a final outcome.
Alsaticus
Mr. Ertner,
Let me offer you a somewhat different view of things on the matters at issue in your post.
It will necessarily be as short, categorical and confident as your own; but at least it will give some food for thought.
The notion that the opposition to the traditionalist views of the SSPX is a more learned and Catholic enterprise that the SSPX's view of things is not true. Its learning is basically the absorption of the method and doctrines of Protestant theology and scripture studies, and of modern philosophy (mostly German idealism and its more recent variants: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Husserl and the like). Its rejection of "neo-scholasticism" (which is a code word for scholasticism in general, and of course St. Thomas in particular) is the rejection of an intellectually rigorous methodology that makes it pretty quickly shows the new scholarship for what it is. Anyone who knows anything knows that St. Thomas is in large part a more rigorous version of St. Augustine. The "Augustianism" of such scholars as Josef Ratzinger was and is a means of retrogession to less rigorous argumentation in order to make it easier to sneak in novelties.
To be sure, not everything out of the general scholastic tradition is sound or well done. But the answer to those shortcomings is correction in the spirit and with the learning of St. Thomas. It is not fraternization with the enemy passing itself off as a Return to the Sources.
The great boxer Joe Louis said during WW II: ain't nothin' the matter with my country that Hitler's gonna fix. I would say: ain't nothin' the matter with traditional Catholic learning that the heroes of Vatican II or their allies, first draft writers or epigone are gonna fix.
P.S. I know that there are not a few earnest, sincere and talented young scholars who think otherwise. They are deluding themselves; and in order to do that, they have to take refuge in the moral theology ghetto, where there are relatively few scandalous magisterial statements to have to deal with.
Irony of Ironies
Suppose we define Tradition as that which has been held, taught and professed to be true by the Church since apostolic times. Suppose, further, that we identify this state as symbolized by the statement 2 + 2 = 4 or identical in form to that which has been always held, taught and professed to be true. Suppose we also state that Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX are suspended a divinis because they insisted on ordaining priests that agreed with the statement 2 + 2 = 4. Suppose that in 1976 when the suspensions were levied there was zero chance that these priests could be ordained and incardinated within diocesan structures. Suppose that Econe stood alone against other seminaries holding that not only does 2 + 2 = 4 but it also equals “5” when they say it does, such as in the case of ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, not to mention liturgical abuses, churches being sold, the “old” covenant still being in effect for the Jews, the efficacy of other religions in the “economy of salvation” and the most horrendous abuses of clergy towards the innocent ever being perpetrated by man. And, finally, suppose that these suspensions, continued to this very day, make a mockery of Justice in the church even though the excommunications levied against the bishops ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre were recently remitted. Suppose, finally, that we stop kidding ourselves into believing that Rome has only our best interests at heart.
We are at war and the victory we seek is none other than our eternal salvation under Christ Jesus Our Lord. If Rome is on our side, they have a heckuva way of showing it.
Tim and Kris,
Much obliged for the clarifications. I’ve tweaked the translation accordingly.
(Had I known that DICI was about to post their own translation I wouldn’t have spent any time on this.)
Mornac
Sēsquipedālis,
My exposure to post-Vatican theologians is limited, but I am far from impressed. Perhaps I am missing something. Please provide a list of some of Rome's brilliant theologians who will humiliate the SSPX such that they will either slink off or humbly submit and crawl back for instruction.
I would certainly enjoy reading an exchange between you and John McFarland. Short of that, however, a list of who these theologians are and where they have been hiding all these years would be sufficient.
It's extremely unlikely that either the Holy See or the SSPX are approaching the doctrinal dialogues as professional wrestlers in a cage match, so it would be edifying if people wouldn't speak of the talks as if one side of the other were going to "take apart" or humiliate the other.
Adeodatus: crank it down a notch or two please.
Interesting that Bishop Fellay speaks of differences beyond the council, such as modern thought and philosophy running through the Church. In particular
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin:
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0107-conlee
You can see this in, for instance, such gobbly-gook language as this in Gaudium et Spes:
"Thus, the human race has passed from a rather static concept of reality to a more dynamic, evolutionary one. In consequence, there has arisen a new series of problems, a series as important as can be, calling for new efforts of analysis and synthesis" (article 5)
Jordanes: What's the "it" I'm supposed to crank down a notch? Is "it" the defense of the Holy Father against those who spread seditious lies about him, or is "it" the defense of the Church from those who foment revolution against her authority?
It's hard to keep track of which extravagant treasons are protected here at Rorate. Maybe you should post a list.
I think we are in for some positive developements with regards to Catholic tradition during the talks with the SSPX, and I think the lunatic fringe such as Cardinal Schonborn etc. are in for some big disappointments!
Let's hope.
Speaking of Catholic tradition, even though it's off subject, if you look at the website www.fotografiafelici.com (the Vatican photography website), you'll see a listing for an Oct. 8th ordination of Pontifical North American College deacons.
The good news is that many of the seminarians are apparently wearing (and are now permitted to wear), the old "1950's" national "house cassock" of the Pontifical North American College which is a Roman soutane with red buttons across the left breast, blue piping, and a red sash.
In the Oct. 8th photos, many in the procession are wearing this cassock...whereas afew years ago, ANY North American sems who wore a cassock for a ceremony or Mass on the altar just threw on an ordinary black cassock.
In the days of the now Archbishop Dolan of NY term as rector of the North American College, the traditional cassock....or mention of any cassock...was largely forbidden. That dates back to about 1972.
Maybe things are finally changing at this college for the better. Now to see the German Roman College in their red cassocks would be a real miracle.
Adeodatus, I mean the tone, the stridency, of your criticisms and observations.
It is not about "protecting extravagant treasons," but promoting edifying, respectful, charitable discussion.
Although I do not attend their Masses celebrated by their Priests (on the grounds that the Holy Father has stated that they do not validly exercise any ministry - see the latest moto proprio) I sympathise whole heartedly with the SSPX, especially Mgr Fellay who seems to be sane, realistic and above all commmited to the regularization of the society of which he is the Superior General.
I'd like to echo the point about not talking as if the talks are a cage match (I believe they are actually writing to each other). Also (presuming that we are all trads here) can we please stop shouting at each other, this is exactly what the modernists want - Traditional Catholic denouncing each other about where they attend the TLM and who celebrates it so that we are unable to mount an effective defense!! I accept that for some people the SSPX is the only option they have but the FSSP priests I've talked/listened to are none too happy about the state of the Church either.
Now regards to Vatican Two, as reported on this site some months ago a revered Monsionor has released a book entitled "Vatican Two an Open Discussion" which the Holy Father has read and I will once an English Translation is avaliable, but can the the SSPX posters please stop treating it as the devil's council, could you please accept the possablity that it can be interpreted in light of Tradition? I admit that it is shot through with ambiguties that allow for modernist interpretations but I also believe that it can be interpreted in an Orthodox Manner
'..Stephen Hawkin taking apart creationist psuedo-science.."
he does nothing of the kind. His works are based on sheer anti-religious bigotry and upon a hypothesis for which their are superabundant assumptions made but no objective, empirical evidence as such. He also conveniently ignores that there are tens of thousands of scientists in various fields who prefer creationist or intelligent design models to evolutionist ones - not all of these are Christian either.
Hawkins also descends to name-calling and cheap mockery which is not very objective. This is the device of hatred which is significant in itself as to who such a character is in the first place.
If the pope did not believe himself that SSPX have a valid case to make which they do, then he would hardly waste his own time or those of his appointees in dialogue with the Confraternity. They know perfectly well that there are plenty of problems in a church which manifests all the signs since the 1960s of a multi-national company in extreme difficulty. Now that these anomalies are indisputable according to all the chief company indicators no one can deny that there are not only management and marketing problems but that there are company directors who have made some very poor decisions also.
Whatever tone is employed, the discussions are pregnant with significance and are not going to be taken light-heartedly. Quite the contrary.
It is time for the chief executive to render account.
Mad Catholic,
V2 cannot in interpreted in the light of traditions. Something that's 10% Catholic is not Catholic. Something that's 50%Catholic is not Catholic. Something that's 75% Catholic is not Catholic. Something that's 99%Catholic is not Catholic. Leaving aside issues of heresy, difference-splitting is not what it means to be a Catholic. Open your New Testamant, take a look at a couple of dozen passages chosen at random, and see what I mean.
The only sense in which V2 can be interpreted in the light of tradition is that tradition can be used to weigh the pronouncements of the Council in its balance. But the implication of this is that those V2 pronouncements that are found wanting will be rejected, and at the end we would have something that would be acceptable to Sts. Pius X and Pius V. This, I feel confident, is not what you have in mind.
Everything I've seen since I first became aware of tradition early in this decade leads me to the conclusion that those who sincerely believe in the soundness of the conciliar Church's doctrine don't really understand the doctrine of the Church; or don't want to understand it if it means admitting the true proportions of the mess we're in; or combine the two in some proportion.
Now I don't expect you to embrace this view. But you need to understand it in order to understand what's going on here. The SSPX and its faithful, of which I am proud to be one, don't buy talk of humility or the fabulous scholarship of the conciliar church. To accept less than the whole faith is not humility. The theology that backstops the conciliar novelties is, in St. Pius X's words, mendacious scholarship, or the scholarship of those who have been suckered by the liars.
This is not about politics, or humility, or charges of crypto- (or not so crypto-) Protestantism. It is about the Faith.
Mr McFarland
1 I don't like the documents of V2 anymore than you do, the way they are written leaves room for multiple interpreations most of which are hetrodox . To be honest the two of us are closer than you think as I think that the 'pastoral' statements that are not meant to alter Church teaching but are 'fuzzy nice documents' need to be either dropped or re-drafted in order to eliminate modernist interpritations, I also dislike most of the post-concillor theologans; my reference to Monsignor Gherardini's book was that finally the voices of Orthodoxy are being heard at the highest levels (a mere collage student can't be expected to know all of these things).
2)With regards to the SSPX and the SSPV, the SSPV are true scismatics as they fail to recognize the authority of the Holy Father, the SSPX on the other hand need to realise (as Mgr Fellay has) that you can't flick a switch and have everything as it was 50yrs ago, you need to change hearts and minds (which is why i hate trad infighting)i.e I was a bonafide liberal 2 years ago, the fact also remains that the Holy Father has stated that they do not licitly exercise minsitry within the Church.
As I see it there are 3 possable outcomes
1) the restoration continues without the SSPX albiet at a slower rate
2) the SSPX bring their issues to the table, the teachings of the council are clarified to the SSPX's satisfaction and they aid in the restoration
3) the SSPX does something stupid such as illicitly consecrating another bishop and all the progress made in the last 9 years is for naught
3) whilst many would hate to admit it, the SSPX's methodology is VERY protestant, we alone decide what is truth, anyone who disagrees is a modernist, "Rome has spoken the issue is settled" goes right out the window. ect ect c'mon the society has 5 splinter groups already, the lack of any final authority leads to such fragmentation as it has with the protestant heretics (just look at the differencein the mentality of the UK and USA district superiors)
Lastly I would ask you to be patient and at lest concieve of the idea that the situation is not as bad as it was only 10yrs ago, the cardinals who treated Mgr Lefebrve so badly in the 70's are long dead and their modernist successors are getting old and frightened, when the Holy Father is called home I'm sure that his successor will be a staunch traditionalist, especially if the rumors about which Archbishops will be receiving the next round of Red hats are true.
I think the lunatic fringe such as Cardinal Schonborn etc. are in for some big disappointments!
The "lunatic fringes" are on the verge of at least material schism. Remember the Wagner case in Austria and what has happened? Remember the statement of chairman of the French Bishops Conference (whatever his name is) that the Pope should have nothing to say about the French Church? It's just like the early Anglicans' justification of their schism. Not to mention scandalous statements by German bishops (Lehmann, Zollitsch).
Maybe these men are not in formal schism mostly because the Holy Father is not trying to impose discipline nor orthodoxy on them?
Or maybe they're true modernists, as described by St. Pius X, and they will do whatever they can to remain in the Church to undermine Her?
Whichever is the case, the situation is delicate, not because of the SSPX (at least currently), but because of the German, French, Austrian, Swiss, and so on, bishops. And the liberal world.
On the SSPX side, will they accept regularization before the principles of operation of the Church, mentioned in this interview, change? They will risk creating permanent tensions, like in 1970-1975, and they would risk being penalized again if they wouldn't be quiet. I bet they won't accept any agreement without firm support of the Holy Father and at least part of the Roman Curia.
We have witnessed fierce anger of the liberals caused just by revoking one decree in January. Can you imagine what would happen in case of the regularization of the SSPX?
I think the outcome of the clarification of the Council will be accepted by the SSPX, but whether they will be regularized will depend on the liberals reaction to the clarification.
That's why I don't think it will happen soon.
English Translation is avaliable, but can the the SSPX posters please stop treating it as the devil's council, could you please accept the possablity that it can be interpreted in light of Tradition? I admit that it is shot through with ambiguties that allow for modernist interpretations but I also believe that it can be interpreted in an Orthodox Manner
"Pastoral, fallible council", no matter how interpreted makes anyway a VERY bad precedent. If you don't know what I'm talking about try to read documents of ANY other council (not necessarily Council of Trent) and compare them with V2.
"I think the outcome of the clarification of the Council will be accepted by the SSPX, but whether they will be regularized will depend on the liberals reaction to the clarification."
Peter:
Do you think the liberals call the shots, over the Holy Father?
In other words, do the liberals govern the flock or does Pope Benedict XVI?
De Facto, not De Jure.
Just wondering.
V2 cannot in interpreted in the light of traditions.
Mad Catholic said "Tradition," not "traditions," but I suppose you merely mistyped, and your further comments indicate that -- as you've said before -- you believe Vatican II's teachings are contrary to the Catholic Faith.
Leaving aside issues of heresy, difference-splitting is not what it means to be a Catholic.
What would you call Pius XII's clarification/correction of the Council of Florence in Sacramentum Ordinis?
The only sense in which V2 can be interpreted in the light of tradition is that tradition can be used to weigh the pronouncements of the Council in its balance.
That would mean that there are statements in the Council's documents that are not only ambiguous, but unquestionably contradict perennial, definitive, irreformable doctrines of the Faith. I've found a good number of ambiguously-worded passages in the Council's documents, but I not sure there are any that directly and unmistakeably smack themselves against the Faith.
The SSPX and its faithful, of which I am proud to be one, don't buy talk of humility or the fabulous scholarship of the conciliar church. To accept less than the whole faith is not humility.
The intent is not to get either the Catholic Church or the SSPX to accept less than the whole faith. Humility is, however, necessary on both sides if the dialogue is going to be successful.
This is not about politics, or humility, or charges of crypto- (or not so crypto-) Protestantism. It is about the Faith.
If it is about the Faith, then it certainly is about humility and charges of crypto- (or not so crypto-) Protestantism.
Dan Hunter:Do you think the liberals call the shots, over the Holy Father?
In other words, do the liberals govern the flock or does Pope Benedict XVI?
De Facto, not De Jure.
Just wondering.
Rome's far away, you know... they call the shots in Linz and in large part of Europe.
They have proven many times that they are completely ignoring the Holy Father in France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and probably in many other counties (I don't follow the situation worldwide).
So when the V2 will be clarified they will make noise and ignore the clarification (who cares anyway) while putting pressure on Rome to do the same.
But bishop Fellay said many times that any solution that does not provide to the SSPX exemption from the authority of local ordinaries means death to the Society, so can't be accepted (now all the Ecclesia Dei institutes need permission of the local ordinary to operate).
Which means that the liberals would not be able to cope with the clarification by simply ignoring it, when the SSPX will be canonically regular, exempt from their authority and everybody would have no doubts about whether their ministry is licit.
I think it'll go that way: the liberals will wait to see the outcome of the talks, trusting in their power, putting mild pressure during that time, maybe trying to sabotage them when an opportunity will appear (oh the Swedish TV!).
If it will be obvious that the Rome is ready to get rid of the postconciliar mess they will do what they can to prevent the issue of clarification documents.
If they fail, they will at least try to prevent the regularization of the SSPX (on terms making SSPX any danger for them).
If they fail also with that - I have no idea what will happen. It's beyond my imagination.
Liberals are proud and trust in themselves and powers of this world. This may be their doom.
Just Another Mad Catholic: You're asking someone (Mr. McFarland), who is 65 and has lived through the revolution in our Church, to be patient?
****
Yes. Humility. How much of that virtue is needed and how little of it there is. I am at a loss, though, to comprehend how our beloved Churchmen can fail to see that Vatican II and its' aftermath have been a disaster for the Church; unless...this is what they wanted for Her.
"Liberals are proud and trust in themselves and powers of this world. This may be their doom."
As it was satan's and his minions.
One of the SPPX bishops made comments to the media which upset the holy father and what did Bishop Fellay do? He disciplined that bishop and asked him to retreat to a place of reflection and silence. The bishop concerned accepted the request of his superior and has been in the background ever since.
Bishops of the institutional church, on the other hand, have made the most egregious statements and condoned the most horrendous abuses in the liturgy in their dioceses that we have ever seen. One of these bishops even had the gall to say that Christ did not die in expiation of the sins of mankind but in solidarity with the poor (sic).
Yet the SSPX bishops, we are told, possess no canonical status and perform no valid ministry in the Church. Say what?? If I were Pope Benedict XVI I would announce immediately that the SSPX bishops and priests have from the Chair of Peter faculties and jurisdiction worldwide and that a formal juridical structure will be forthcoming at the completion of the talks now underway. Not only this but all traditional priests professing loyalty to him have those same faculties and jurisdiction.
That would take the wind out of the sails of the modernists and convince everyone involved that the Pope has things well under control. And, by the way, he doesn't need the approval of anyone else to do that. He is the Vicar of Christ, the Supreme Head and Legislator of the Universal Church, and this is altogether within his prerogatives.
May it please God that this be done and soon!
annonomous
I did not know that Mr Mcfarlend is 65 and had to live through the wilderness of the past 40 years, however I still ask for his paitiance. I would also say that Unless he is apriori commited to the position that the Vatican 2 documents are somehow heretical/demonic/totally un-catholic then the option remains for him to attend the Tridentine Rite celebrated by Diocesian/religious Priests under SP, the FSSP or the ICKSP. As much as I like and admire the priests of the SSPX they DO NOT exercise licit minstery, the 'state of necessity' is as protestant as can be as who decides when it has ended? the Fathers of Papa Stronsy no longer think it applies and were blasted by the SSPX UK district superior for that decision, if the SSPX is regularized i'm sure that Fr Cedaka and Bp Dolan will blast them for it. Like it or not submission to the Holy Father is required of Catholics, it was the Holy Father who librelized the useage of the Extrodinary Form (i'd rather it was the only form) not Bishop Williamson.
The "hermeneutic of continuity" [ words of the Holy Father Benedict to a gatheing of cardinals] surely means organic growth that is IN AND UNDER the substance of supernatural FAITH. That means the practice of virtue in the lives of the faithful that confirms the veracity of divine revelation as articulated by the lives of the saints.
At this moment in the Church, we need the UNITY of the growth of the faith that ocmes from and is under the substance of the true faith. I suggest that unity is to be liturgically found in the Nicene Creed where it says among other truths that Jesus Christ is: "Filium Dei unigenitum" who is "ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula" ..."DEUM DE DEO" and "consubstantialem Patre." Jesus Christ is the Son of God born of the Virgin Mary. May we boldly proclaim that He, the Alpha and the Omega, is the fruit of Mary, the New Eve and life-giving "tree" of eternal life, i.e., the "spiritual mother in the order of grace (cf. LG, 61)."
Gentlemen,
Cardinal Schoenborn is not the lunatic fringe. If memory serves, he was the main editor of the new catechism.
Now just let that sink in a while. Yeah, the same guy as the guy with the balloon, and the seminary full of guys taking pictures of each other making out with each other.
Now just ask yourself what the real lunatic fringe must be like.
***
Impatience with the current state of things is not my problem. I do't expect miracles, although I certainly pray for them, and would be happy to have one or more.
My problem is impatience with those who will not face up to the dreadful realities that we are facing.
Leaving aside the very small handful of snakes, liars and dingbats, my problem with the traditional priests in (if you'll pardon the unCatholic expression) full communion with Rome is that objectively speaking, they exist to undercut the SSPX; and subjectively speaking, if they sincerely resist the purposes to which Rome is putting them, they are living a lie. At the moment, you can't serve both the truth and the Ecclesia Dei Commission, if that's who they report to.
Knight of Malta,
Be a little more respectful in quoting that passage from Gaudiam et spes: that's a pretty good precis of the Holy Father's program, if expressed a shade less diplomatically then he generally expresses it nowadays.
Mad Catholic,
Bishop Fellay's goal is not the regularization of the SSPX; it is the regularization of the Church.
Needless to say, it's a somewhat bigger job than he, or his confreres jointly and severally, are up to.
But they have friends in high places.
So you're a collitch kid, and from someplace where they use s's when they should use z's. Probably from up there in the Maple Leaf State. Pleased to meet you.
Let me use the standard analogy. If your father tells you to do what's wrong, or what conduces to wrong, you not only can disobey him, YOU MUST.
The same is true of our Holy Father.
To be sure, this is just the beginning of the analysis. But it is the place from which the analysis starts.
Peter,
Yes, the liberals call the shots.
One of the not unimportant reasons for this is that the Pope is a liberal. As he said in his Salt of the Earth interview book back in the 90s, he could never cotton to scholasticism, because it presented things ready-made, but he needed to figure it all out for himself.
If that's not a liberal, what is?
Jordanes,
I am perfectly prepared to admit that there may well be enough ambiguity and weasel words in the acts of V2 that there isn't an unambiguously heterodox statement in it. To recall Atila Guimaraes' figure, they are indeed murky waters.
But if true, what do you think that accomplishes? The whole point was the revolutionize the Church; and if you have authority, and more than enough stuff in there that tells it the liberal way, what do you care if you have to stick in some stuff from Archbishop Lefebvre and his grotesquely outnumbered cohorts?
In the old days, if someone wrote stuff half as bad as a lot of the stuff in the acts of V2, he'd be called to Rome and made to sign something by which he unambiguously renounced anything wrong or dangerous in his writings.
There is no longer anyone doing that. Ambiguity can run riot. If you quote Section X, the liberals can quote Section A -- and usually B through U, for good measure.
They're laughing at you, Jordanes. Without soundness at the top, it's all a sucker game in which guys like you chase the ignus fatuus of conciliar orthdoxy.
For goodness' sake, let's not start throwing around the term "protestant" like it has no historical or theological context. Remember Luther? Sola scriptura? The priesthood of believers? Salvation by faith alone? If these things do not ring a bell, may I suggest doing a little reading before using the word again?
Incidentally, there's a form of the Mass that is directly influenced by (actual) protestantism, and it's not the one the SSPX is celebrating.
As an aside, it is interesting how Iodta Unum (once de facto censored) is making rebounds in Italy and are rebounds in and around Italy and the Vatican.
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1339326?eng=y
On the subject of interpreting V2 in the light of tradition, here is a rather important comment on the topic made by Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais of the SSPX in an interview on Feb. 11 with Catholic Family News:
"Rather than read Vatican II in light of Tradition, we really should read and interpret Vatican II in light of the new philosophy. We must read and understand the Council in its real meaning, that is to say, according to the new philosophy. Because all these theologians who produced the texts of Vatican II were imbued with the new philosophy. We must read it this way, not to accept it, but to understand it as the modern theologians who drafted the documents understand it. To read Vatican II in light of Tradition is not to read it correctly. It means to bend, to twist the texts. I do not want to twist the texts."
Neal,
Ten or fifteen years ago, my son (now an SSPX seminarian) reported that in one of the hip cartoons he was e fond of, someone made reference to "Canada, the Maple Leaf State." He thought this was really great because even at his then tender age, he saw that it epitomized the fact that even among those Americans who are aware that Canada exist (and I would not overestimate their number), not a few are at best a bit hazy on the fact that it's a different country.
As regards being called a protestant, I would note that every intellectual and moral judgment is a personal judgment. Even the acceptance of authority requires a decision to accept authority. God doesn't do your thinking for you; rather, he provides the opportunity, in both natural and supernatural matters, to be guided by the truth. Ordinarily, accepting the decisions of the hierarchy on no better grounds than that God put them in charge is the path to trod. But these times are not ordinary times. It's, well, a state of emergency.
Knight of Malta lifted Gaudium et spes no. 5's concluding sentence out of context: "Thus, the human race has passed from a rather static concept of reality to a more dynamic, evolutionary one. In consequence, there has arisen a new series of problems, a series as important as can be, calling for new efforts of analysis and synthesis"
Mr. McFarland responded: Knight of Malta, Be a little more respectful in quoting that passage from Gaudiam et spes: that's a pretty good precis of the Holy Father's program, if expressed a shade less diplomatically then he generally expresses it nowadays.
In what way does G&S 5's concluding sentence summarise Pope Benedict XVI's "program"? How is G&S 5's imprecise, careless, and provincial generalisation about the human race's purported concept of reality (as if humans now have only one -- though the remainder of G&S no. 5 is overall an accurate description of societal and cultural developments then and now) any kind of precis of what the Successor of St. Peter's "program" is for the Church and the world?
I am perfectly prepared to admit that there may well be enough ambiguity and weasel words in the acts of V2 that there isn't an unambiguously heterodox statement in it.
Even more, there doesn't appear to be any heterodox statement at all in what the Catholic Church said at Vatican II.
But if true, what do you think that accomplishes?
It accomplishes the authoritative preservation and explication of the deposit of faith, and makes possible the further clarification and, if need be, correction of the things the Church said at Vatican II.
In the old days, if someone wrote stuff half as bad as a lot of the stuff in the acts of V2, he'd be called to Rome and made to sign something by which he unambiguously renounced anything wrong or dangerous in his writings. There is no longer anyone doing that.
No one except the Holy Father and the CDF, that is.
Ambiguity can run riot. If you quote Section X, the liberals can quote Section A -- and usually B through U, for good measure.
Modernists/liberals can quote out of context and misinterpret those passages as they like, just as traditionalists can wrest the parts they don't like. But it is to the Church and her Tradition that we look for the authentic interpretation of Vatican II.
They're laughing at you, Jordanes. Without soundness at the top, it's all a sucker game in which guys like you chase the ignus fatuus of conciliar orthdoxy.
Let them laugh, if they are laughing (though it seems to me that's not the origin of the sneering and jeering going on here). God, as ever, will have the last laugh.
"Rather than read Vatican II in light of Tradition, we really should read and interpret Vatican II in light of the new philosophy. We must read and understand the Council in its real meaning, that is to say, according to the new philosophy. Because all these theologians who produced the texts of Vatican II were imbued with the new philosophy. We must read it this way, not to accept it, but to understand it as the modern theologians who drafted the documents understand it. To read Vatican II in light of Tradition is not to read it correctly. It means to bend, to twist the texts. I do not want to twist the texts."
Bishop Tissier is wrong. When you boil it down, he is saying that Vatican II is not a valid, authoritative exercise of the Church's Magisterium. Everything the Magisterium declares must be read in the light of and in continuity with Tradition, regardless of whatever philosophy a Council document's writer may or may not have held. Vatican II is no exception to the rule. If you read Vatican II's teachings trying to make out the voice of some individual's personal philosophy rather than the voice of Holy Mother Church, you will not be reading and understanding the real meaning.
Of course, the fact that liberals take what they want from the ambiguities in the post-conciliar papal documents is an indicator of the extent to which language use has changed since the clearer and more precise usage in pre-conciliar times. Liberal modernism is adept at this. The systemic compromise with secular liberalism and socialism after the councils is truly astounding. This, therefore, opens up most encyclicals, & the style in which they are written, to multifarious interpretations. This essentially is not a normal feature of the Roman Catholic papal encyclical. Something in the meantime must have changed, therefore.
This is why the modernists have succeeded because the newer genre of catholic has swallowed much if not most of their semantic paradigm. So much so that they actually believe that there is no rupture at all post-1960s; two almost diametrically opposed sets of liturgical principles - one organic and authoritatively orthodox, the other fabricated & fashionable - are one and the same Rite (unsustainable hypothesis objectively speaking); Pope St Pius V never really meant what he wrote, neither did the Trent Councils - it can all be changed if a pope so wishes; The Holy Mass in Latin does not have infallible guarantees based on his decree "Quo Primum" which is rooted in dogma; the vernacular version of The Mass was not anathematised already in the same period; when Pope St Pius X condemned modernism it was only relevant in his day (what mendacity); His appeal to restore all things in Christ and liturgical reform meant eventual physical participation of the laity when it meant nothing of this sort (phenomenological to say the least) but rather more active inner disposition; Christ did not really condemn homosexuality because this was not done explicitly; the NO service more closely resembles the liturgy in the early days of the church (sentimentalism without any historical evidence) and so the list has grown over the 19th and 20th centuries into this one. There is an endless list of these of which many circulate and are believed today by many neo-catholics.
The brain of modern man is awash with a ceaseless barrage of hyper-real simulacra exploited by the predominant liberal modernist and socialist media. The same techniques have been used to dull the knowledge and understanding of contemporary catholics. The fact that over half the neo-catholic adult voting population voted for an abortionist, sodmite supporting and marxist-type US president who hates catholicism, and the fact that The Vatican has almost fallen over itself to make him welcome & laud his as yet indefinable achievements signifies yet again the post-conciliar church is based on a new paradigm, impossible prior to the pastoral councils of the 1960s. The criteria have changed fundamentally. How much more evidence do those who imagine otherwise need to see before they finally understand?
Jordanes,
Vatican II was indeed a valid, authoritative exercise of the Church's magisterium -- to the extent that it sought to be such.
The first problem is to figure out whether a "pastoral" council (something entirely novel) can be characterized as such an exercise. The closest thing to an authoritative answer was the pronouncement that its teachings are only infallible if they purport to be infallible (which none do) or repeat infallible doctrine. Now other people say or imply other things; but I think it would be very rash to embrace anything but this principle, particularly given all the talk about a "pastoral" council.
As for non-infallible V2 pronouncements, I would think that they are valid and authoritative in a legal sense. Nevertheless, if they are not consistent with the constant doctrine of the Church, one is permitted -- indeed, one is obliged -- not to accept them.
By contrast, what you in effect are saying is that if a Pope or Council says it, it MUST be consistent with the constant doctrine of the Church.
But that's not so. Assuming it to be so is obviously the place to start; and in ordinary times, it's also the place to stop for members of the Learning Church, like you and me. But if on serious examination, the consistency can't be found, and all sorts of strange things seem to be going on, you can't erect trust in our shepherds into an absolute. Only the constant doctrine of the Church is infallible, with ex cathedra pronouncements ultimately just the fine-tuning of what was revealed once for all. In non-infallible teaching, the shepherds may show themsevles hirelings; and if so, we must reject their voice. Ultimately, there is only one shepherd who can be absolutely trusted. Ironically, the point is demonstrated by the grotesque misuse of "pastoral" since 1962 to make void for all practical purposes a substantial part of Catholic faith and morals.
By contrast, what you in effect are saying is that if a Pope or Council says it, it MUST be consistent with the constant doctrine of the Church.
No, I'm neither saying that in fact nor in effect. Since I in fact referred to the fact that a Pope or Council might say things that need later clarification or correction, I obviously could not in effect be saying that if a Pope or Council says it, it MUST be consistent with the constant doctrine of the Church.
Mr Mcfarland
Actually I'm from the United Kingdom.
Your comments about non-sspx traditional priests suprise me, according to your logic they exist only to undercut the sspx. If that is so why do they operate in areas where there is no sspx chapel for hundreds of miles? my Parish Priest is training me to serve in the TLM? are you saying that his sole purpose is to undercut the local sspx chapel? who are you to make that kind of judgement? is the Traditionals Mass only good when celebrated by SSPX priests? from your comments it seems that you are so entrenched in your position that it should Mgr Fellay do the right thing and seek regularization of his society (not the church as she is indefectable, or are you saying that God lied to Peter?) then you would go off to a SSPV chapel you may hold the Catholic faith but you like +Wlliamson act like a protestant, thus i see no point of further dialouge.
As for the 'father' analogy Mgr's Lefebvre and Fellay have both been offered excpetionally good arangements for the SSPX and both times they refused (in 1988 and 2000) if an agreement is offered this time then no doubt Williamson and De Mallrais will find some excuse to keep from regularising their own status i'd bet that the Holy Father won't be handing out Latae sententiae excommunications rather he'll condem them with bell, book and candle.
Do the Right Thing Submit to the Holy Father for "where peter is there is the Church and Life eternal" to quote just one of the Fathers.
They have eyes but they do not see, ears but they do not hear, tongues but they do not speak clearly, brains but they do not think. They are the sheep of our generation lulled into a false sense of security by the shepherds entrusted with their care. They "do their thing", get "in touch with themselves (and others)", "whistle by the graveyard", adore the false prophet of change and yearn for the next and greatest sensory pleasure.
We rail about them and are told it is we who are the problem and if we would only get out of their way, everything would be fine. It is we that are misunderstanding everything that has been written and spoken in seeming opposition to what the Church has held before and we who are being disobedient to valid authority. We're just a bunch of old cranks who cannot adjust to the modern world, who live in the past and cannot accept new ways of thinking.
There will come a day, dear friends and colleagues, when we will have our views and principles vindicated for Our God will not be mocked. St. Paul said as much: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle." II Thess, Chap 2, vs 14.
I predict the society will recieve faculties to hear confessions within the month.
Mr. Hunter: Good luck. I predicted that the Twins would eliminate the Yankees in four games. Your prediction deserves a better fate than mine, but I'm not betting a buck on it.
For your prediction to come true, the present pontiff would need to undergo a repetition of Paul's experience on the road to Damascus. Such an eventuality ought to be prayed for but not, alas, predicted or wagered on.
I predict that the Society's faculties to hear confessions will be recognized by the Holy Father within six months.
Mad Catholic,
You ask for patience yet in your latest rant you infer much and seem to have become impatient and uncharitable when not understanding Mr. McFarland's reference to traditional orders.
If I might speak about Mr. McFarland comments in his reference that other trad orders exist to undermine the FSSPX. That is true - have you not read about the establishment of the FSSP for that very purpose? JP2 said it as have Cardinals and other V2 curia.They are out to reform the FSSPX.
Today, happily, it seems that many of the good priests of the FSSP are not focussed on that and would rather focus on being faithful traditional Catholics. The MP has helped.
Unhappily the FSSP can be tossed out of a diocese at the whim of a Bishop and dare not say too much. Besides the FSSP agreed not to criticize V2 publicly. Instead they say there are abuses in the Church and refer greatly to pre V2 Catholicism :)
You attend Church with the FSSP (as do I) so no doubt you hear exhortations from them to not to focus on the bad things in the Church and not to criticize, but to instead focus on being a good Catholic.
In my Church this means not to speak up when you see blatant non-Catholic things happening. In my Church I see Taize posters that entice Catholics to their prayer meetings (breaking the first Commandment); nuns putting on conferences drawn from pagan spirituality (breaking the first commandment). We are not to say a word.
One time an FSSP priest refused communion to a immodestly dressed women (she was dressed like a tart and her breasts were proudly displayed for the priest at the communion rail); yet this 'parishioner' complained to the NO pastor and Bishop.
The FSSP were told to cease and desist or else they would be kicked out of the parish. This was after the MP by the way.
I never forget - we largely have the Traditional rite because of the FSSPX. Without them where would the Traditional Latin rite be? The rank and file would undoubtedly be far far thinner.
Your bottom line is about obedience to the Pope. I am happy that you value true obedience and are a convert from liberalism but please remember the bigger picture.
One time after mass I asked the NO priest if he could ask his noisy NO congregation to conduct their socializing in the parish hall or breeze way because we could not properly recite the Rosary before the TLM. A reasonable request?
Just another mad Traditional Catholic
Once again, I feel it necessary to state that the Holy Father, as Vicar of Christ and Supreme Head of the Universal Church, needs no one's approval, and that includes Bishop Fellay, to grant temporary faculties and worldwide jurisdiction to the bishops and priests of the SSPX pending completion of the doctrinal talks now either underway or soon to begin.
It is a red-herring to say that the SSPX hasn't accepted Rome's latest offer in this regard. They don't need to accept anything and that is the point that has obviously escaped many who see this as some sort of negotiation between equals; it is nothing of the sort. Would that the Holy Father would do as I request. What are they going to do...refuse papal faculties and jurisdiction? Methinks not.
Of course, the other part of this scenario is what would the SSPX do with such faculties and jurisdiction? I think they would do exactly what they have been doing - holding fast to the Faith and concentrating on the salvation of souls. What is wrong about that? Methinks nothing, nothing at all.
Indeed FSSP with whom I have regular contacts when I am in France have been easy prey to the un-Catholic bishops of France. Barbarin in Lyon for example has given them a torrid time and sent them packing from the diocese without a whimper. In the meantime and elsewhere in France, FSSP carried on as though nothing had happened.
Your remarks about not criticising Vatican II are correct. However, FSSP are not the only ones who behave outwardly as though VCsII were fine, the documents clear without equivocation and that their liturgy is perfectly alright and that Bugnini had no sinister intentions in producing his much validly debated and maligned protestant anthropocentric vernacular service which has wrought endless destruction on the church since 1969. One wonders why his liberal ally Pope Paul VI (RIP) gave him unhindered access to him in order to push it through the bureaucracy. Then later he was significantly sent off to Iran in exile. Only a revisionist, ignoring the harsh contemporary post-conciliar realities would attempt to rehabilitate him and his products. The universal devastation arising from them speaks for itself.
FSSP keep off many such subjects but this is not necessarily culpable.
In all honesty if you get an FSSP priest on the topic of why they prefer The Holy Mass in Latin then you are approaching issues from the right perspective but the outcome is the same. Their desire to celebrate of The Latin Mass (1962 version approximately)is an implicit critique of the Bugnini fabrication. You cannot prohibit private thoughts though. It is interesting to probe them nonetheless. Priests are often excellent at revealing themselves by what they don't say, in the context of what is and the questions that examine their thoughts and feelings. If you understand how discourse and its informal rules are constructed then inner dispositions are not too difficult to prize out.
The rest is just a question of interpretation but, of course, this is a contemporary trend, is it not. Nothing appears to be clear these days.
Just Another Mad Traditional Catholic (10/14 3:27):
Our FSSP started out sharing a novus ordo church. What a disaster! If you ever want to experience first hand the dichotomy between the two, that's the place to be. The icing on the cake for me was one Saturday I showed up for confession and it was right after a wedding. The wedding party (in low cut gowns and tattoos all over their backs and arms) lounging in the church yacking up a storm with no regard for the Blessed Sacrament.
'Tis better to have your FSSP "Latin Mass Comminity" in a shed than share with the novus crowd.
Mad Catholic,
Sorry to mistake you for a Canadian. I don't recognize many anglicisms in your writing: more proof that at this point you're all just more or less adequate imitations of Yanks?
The posts subsequent to yours give a pretty good idea of the actual state of the FSSP. I would add that it wouldn't be altogether unfair to view the FSSP as on the road to the same status as Jacobites in Britain, or admirers of the Confederacy in the States, or monarchists. If you're not fighting back, your likely fate is to end up a nostalgia buff.
Oh, dear. So young and already an SSPX Deal Freak (if you'll forgive my 1960s slang).
If you read Bishop Fellay's interview, and his literal dozens of previous letters, conferences and interviews to the same effect since the 2001 "thaw," you will see that the SSPX sees no point in a deal in the absence of Rome's mending its ways. As I think you can see from the latest interview, Bishop Fellay thinks that a deal can be had for the asking, and I think he thinks that that deal would give the SSPX everything Archbishop Lefebvre wanted in 1998, and perhaps more besides.
But it's not 1998, and the Society doesn't think a deal is enough, if Rome can't be trusted -- and it can't be trusted. In the scriptures and the Fathers and the Doctors and the pre-1962 councils, the Church stood above the world. Since 1962, those who took over the levers of power in the Church -- including all the popes of that period -- have been trying to cut a deal with the world, and changing doctrine and/or practice in order to effect or facilitate that deal.
You can deny that if you like -- you have plenty of company around here -- but it's obvious true to anyone who doesn't simply refuses to admit what's right before his face.
To use a small symbol: there is no way to compromise the thought behind the Dies Irae and thought behind "funeral" Masses in which the celbrant wears white vestments.
Until the Pope and those who think like him stop chasing a deal with the Church's enemies, and neglecting and adulterating Church doctrine in the process, there can be no deal between Rome and Econe that isn't a sellout by the Society.
I'm familiar with what the Fathers say about Peter. I'm also familiar with what St. Paul said to him when St. Peter wouldn't stand up to the judaizers.
'Tis better to have your FSSP "Latin Mass Comminity" in a shed than share with the novus crowd.
Anon:
Ain't that the truth.
I object most vociferously to the phrase "cutting a deal". There is no deal to be cut when and if the Holy Father decides to grant faculties and jurisdiction. It is his prerogative and his alone. Of course, the bishops and priests of the SSPX can decide to go into formal schism by refusing to accept the Holy Father's jurisdiction but I hardly think that is within the realm of possibility nevermind probability.
"If you read Bishop Fellay's interview, and his literal dozens of previous letters, conferences and interviews to the same effect since the 2001 "thaw," you will see that the SSPX sees no point in a deal in the absence of Rome's mending its ways."
Mr McFarland:
The problem, though,is primarily that while yes, the FSSPX and the rest of Christendom does hope and pray that Rome and the rest of the Church does mend her ways, the Society still stands without the faculties to hear confessions and validate marriages.
This horrendous situation cannot continue for much longer.
How can mens souls possibly stay in the state of sanctifying grace without the Sacrament of Penance?
So while Rome and the Society hems and haws about Religious Liberty, Collegiality and the state of the liturgy, souls are being lost daily since the Holy Father has not given, unilaterally,to the FSSPX, faculties to absolve sin.
Men can split hairs ad infinitum about "ecclesia supplet" and "common error", but unless souls are invincibly ignorant of the lack of supplied jurisdiction and ordinary jurisdiction, souls remain in a state of sin.
Mr. Haley,
The only reference to "cutting a deal" in this (now lengthy) string is mine, and it refers to Rome's trying to cut a deal with its enemies. Since that is the essence of the conciliar program, I don't see any reason to apologize for it.
But of course your real issue is the grant of jurisdiction. Let me offer a few thoughts on that.
First of all, it strikes me as utterly chimerical. If a substantial part of the European episcopacy went ballistic over the withdrawal of the "excommunications," which changed nothing and was (as the Pope said) an act of charity, what would they do in the face of a unilateral declaration by the Pope that the SSPX is back in the fold, no acceptance of V2, no nothing? Let me put it to you this way. If the Pope did as you hope, and his doing so were to be definitively attributed to the intercession of a particular holy person (say Archbishop Lefebvre), the only appropriate response would be: Subito Santo!
As for the concept that such a grant of jurisdiction would force the SSPX's hand: I'm no canonist, but I am a lawyer, and this strikes me as simply goofy. The Pope has jurisdiction over the SSPX and its members right now. They are not denying his jurisdiction; they are refusing to obey him regarding certain matters for reasons that they have made quite clear. Whatever precisely you have in mind (a mass incardination under the Pope himself?), it will change nothing. They will continue to disobey him when and as they think they must disobey him. Is the point that then he will have grounds for excommunicating them? Here I am entirely ignorant; but I can't conceive that, whatever the juridical status of that excommunication, the disobedience that sparked this second excommunication would have any more or less moral significance than the disobedience that sparked the first. If they're not already of the high road to Hell, it's just crazy to think that this neat little legal ploy is not going to put them there.
Frankly, I haven't paid much attention to the whole concept (I rarely practice law when I'm not being paid for it), but it looks to me as if most of you and like-minded souls are at bottom legal positivists -- that is, you think that when something of a legal nature gets duly enacted by duly constituted authority, it's point, match, game.
But you'll have a lot of trouble squaring that with the treatise on law in the Summa. You could look it up.
I've had the same experience as the others with the shared NO/FSSP churches. The most recent one has two altars; I'd forgotten how strange, and totally without precedent, that is. It's clear that sacred traditions of the church are just another buffet option. I suppose that that is, in some way, the definition of liberalism: put truth and error on equal footing, and assume that people will choose the right one. Or am I mistaken, and it's just optimism?
Nevertheless, I am grateful for the priests and the Masses of the FSSP. The Mass is stronger than the politics of those who would use it for evil ends.
" Tis better to have your FSSP "Latin Mass Comminity" in a shed than share with the novus crowd."
Anon:
" 'Ain't that the truth.' "
We been sharing a church for a year now, and I can't stand it. My family has more frequently been traveling to the ICKSP - a little longer drive - but well worth it so as not to be affected by the N.O. ambiance. If the bishop does not give us our own place, I predict the decline of our community. Certainly, there are those in this diocese who would favor that outcome.
I'm praying and fasting for the recognition of the Society. Together, we would have a greater impact in the Church, in society, in the whole world.
Regularized or not, I would rather attend a Mass by an SSPX priest than ever set foot again at another N.O. Mass, something we have done when traveling.
The "doctrinal discussions" will be opened on 26 October...
http://www.romandie.com/ats/news/091015132433.oeg7uacv.asp
John,
If a substantial part of the European episcopacy went ballistic over the withdrawal of the "excommunications," which changed nothing and was (as the Pope said) an act of charity, what would they do in the face of a unilateral declaration by the Pope that the SSPX is back in the fold, no acceptance of V2, no nothing?
With all dues respect, John, who cares what they would do? What I'm saying is the Pope is the Supreme Legislator and if he gives papal jurisdiction and faculties to the SSPX, it would be illogical to refuse same. It's analogous to the Supreme Court making a ruling in favor of a plaintiff and then having the plaintiffs say they're not going to abide by that ruling. The plaintiffs could say they were so dissatisfied with the ruling, that it didn't go far enough, that certain people or persons were not punished enough, that they're going to leave the country (church), but that is not within the realm of possibility, IMHO, in this case.
You understand, of course, that I'm merely constructing a strawman to show that the Pope has the final say and his ruling is the only one that counts and that he needs no approval from anyone to give faculties and jurisdiction to the SSPX pending completion of the talks and definition of a more complete and lasting juridical structure down the road.
The Pope has jurisdiction over the SSPX and its members right now. They are not denying his jurisdiction; they are refusing to obey him regarding certain matters for reasons that they have made quite clear.
John, you may be more attuned to the views of the SSPX leadership than I but I doubt that they are refusing to obey the Pope in any matter where obedience is required according to canon law with all the "conscience" provisions in the 1983 Code. They have said they have questions and these questions need to be answered but they have not, to my knowledge, openly disobeyed and defied the Supreme Legislator at least in terms of their collective conscience (state of necessity, etc).
So, finally, my point is that the Pope can act unilaterally regarding jurisdiction and faculties to the SSPX and if the conciliar bishops throw a hissy-fit, so be it.
Bishop Fellay appoints the representatives on the SSPX side for the "doctrinal discusssions":
Bishop de Galarreta, Fr. de Jorna (Ecône), Fr. Gleize (Ecône), Fr. de La Rocque (France):
http://www.laportelatine.org/international/maison/communiques/representants091015.php
John, you may be more attuned to the views of the SSPX leadership than I but I doubt that they are refusing to obey the Pope in any matter where obedience is required according to canon law with all the "conscience" provisions in the 1983 Code. They have said they have questions and these questions need to be answered but they have not, to my knowledge, openly disobeyed and defied the Supreme Legislator at least in terms of their collective conscience (state of necessity, etc).
Hmmm. Those conscience provisions of the Code of Canon Law don't seem to have had any effect on the validity of the automatic excommunications of women who pretend to get themselves ordained as priests.
Mr. Haley,
I think that the Pope's authority to do what you suggest is undeniable.
But:
1. Does the Pope think so, given his embrace of collegiality?
2. Does he have the intellect and will to decide that he should do it, and then do it notwithstanding the "firestorm" that inevitably would result?
As regards the actions of the SSPX, their failure to disband and continuation of performing their priestly duties are acts of disobedience against duly constituted authority. There's nothing in the rules and regs that gives them any aid and comfort (other than as regards the botch that the Vatican made of the 1988 "excommunications," which is now academic) and the Society doesn't pretend otherwise.
Maybe you understand some subtleties that I don't; but I don't think so. I think you're entangled in a legalistic mindset that prevents you from understanding the real point:
ARE THEY JUSTIFIED IN THEIR DISOBEDIENCE?
The reason why you cannot obey your father when he tells you to lie or steal is not because there's a clause in the Fourth Commandment to that effect.
Jordanes said:
Hmmm. Those conscience provisions of the Code of Canon Law don't seem to have had any effect on the validity of the automatic excommunications of women who pretend to get themselves ordained as priests.
With all due respect, Jordanes, I believe it's a case of apples and oranges. Women priests have never been allowed in the history of the Church. Male priests, on the other hand, have been ordained by bishops since day one and there is no question on the validity of their orders. After the suspensions, you can claim they were illicit but the SSPX claims necessity. That's why I'd like to see this matter solved once and for all.
Women priests have never been allowed in the history of the Church. Male priests, on the other hand, have been ordained by bishops since day one and there is no question on the validity of their orders.
But has the Church ever winked at bishops and priests being ordained contrary to a proper and lawful directive of the Roman Pontiff?
After the suspensions, you can claim they were illicit
Because they are.
but the SSPX claims necessity.
And there's the heart of the problem: unless and until the Holy See accepts that it was really morally necessary for the SSPX to operate outside the integrity of the Body of Christ (or at the least accepts that the SSPX members sincerely believed it and can be trusted not to initiate further breaches), there can't be any granting of faculties or lifting of the suspensions. Given what we can tell from how the Roman Church has approached the matter of the reconciliation of other traditionalist groups, it seems highly unlikely that the "necessity" argument will convince very many prelates in Rome.
"Given what we can tell from how the Roman Church has approached the matter of the reconciliation of other traditionalist groups, it seems highly unlikely that the "necessity" argument will convince very many prelates in Rome."
Jordanes, please detail Rome's handling and thought process regarding your statement.
Thanks.
Holiz
ARE THEY JUSTIFIED IN THEIR DISOBEDIENCE
but the SSPX claims necessity.
And there's the heart of the problem: unless and until the Holy See accepts that it was really morally necessary for the SSPX to operate outside the integrity of the Body of Christ (or at the least accepts that the SSPX members sincerely believed it and can be trusted not to initiate further breaches), there can't be any granting of faculties or lifting of the suspensions.
Two very important questions. The Pope is the Supreme Legislator is he not? If he decides that the SSPX acted out of a necessity, even if only a perceived necessity, then he can (1)vacate the suspensions and (2)grant temporary jurisdiction with faculties until the talks conclude and a more permanent juridical structure can be determined. He can lay waste to the argument that the SSPX is in a permanent state of disobedience justifying the supensions a divinis to remain in effect.
The concept that these bad-boys cannot be accepted into the legitimate ministry of the Church because they were once disobedient out of a perceived necessity makes a mockery of the virtues of Mercy and Justice IMHO. They are not outside the Body of Christ any longer but they are being treated as if they are.
It is long past time for the Holy Father to act in my judgment. For him to accept the innumerable atrocities perpetrated by clerics with canonical status and faculties and yet maintain that it's the SSPX that are the bad-boys is in my mind the ultimate of non-sequiturs. Look at the long list of perpetrators of iniquity that have traversed these blog pages recently and then tell me it's the SSPX that are the prodigal sons. No, arguments to the contrary the Holy Father can and should act immediately.
Jordanes said in part:
Given what we can tell from how the Roman Church has approached the matter of the reconciliation of other traditionalist groups, it seems highly unlikely that the "necessity" argument will convince very many prelates in Rome.
With all dues respect only one person has to be convinced...His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, Pastor of the Universal Church and Supreme Legislator. I am not one of those who thinks his mind is already made up on that matter. As to those "other prelates in Rome" well, the less said about them the better IMHO.
Paul Haley said, "Look at the long list of perpetrators of iniquity that have traversed these blog pages recently and then tell me it's the SSPX that are the prodigal sons."
Rome does little or nothing to these sons of iniquity. Nor are the trespassers repentant. Makes one wonder about the visible Catholic Church.
Pro NO bloggers will say not to worry but I have reservations. The fruit is rotten.
I hear strong opinions and three notions of thought, namely 1) ecclesia dei 2) sifting (resist bad teaching) 3) sede.
I refuse to participate at the NO and pray hard for God's will to be done.
Anon Anon
Jordanes, please detail Rome's handling and thought process regarding your statement.
I had in mind the cases of Campos, the Institute of the Good Shepherd, and the Transalpine Redemptorists. With each of them, regularisation is accompanied by (or is being linked to) assurances or an understanding of not setting the community against or outside of the regular structure of the Church.
Jordanes,
You say: "unless and until the Holy See accepts that it was really morally necessary for the SSPX to operate outside the integrity of the Body of Christ (or at the least accepts that the SSPX members sincerely believed it and can be trusted not to initiate further breaches), there can't be any granting of faculties or lifting of the suspensions."
Let me first of all protest the notion that the SSPX or its members are "operat[ing] outside the integrity of the Body of Christ." If the SSPX is right, they are certainly not outside the Body of Christ. If they are wrong, they still probably are not outside the Body of Christ, since it seems pretty clear that their intent is the opposite of separating themselves.
The essence of membership in the Body of Christ is doing what Christ has commanded. Doing what his vicar on earth has commanded is not always consistent with the will of Christ.
As for the issue of whether jurisdiction "cannot" be granted to the SSPX, do you really mean will not be granted, in the sense that unless the Pope himself converts to traditionalism, he will not regularize the SSPX? If so, you are surely right.
If, on the other hand, you mean "cannot" in the sense that it is beyond his power to regularize them if they are wrong in their belief that they are permitted and indeed obliged to disobey him in certain respects -- I rather doubt that.
After all, it's anyone's guess what "full communion" is. On traditional doctrine it's nothing: if you accept the doctrine and authority of the Church, you are in communion unless you have been excommunicated; and if you don't accept them, you're not. Now I know absolutely nothing about the appropriate undestanding of a bum rap excommunication; but it doesn't matter for present purposes, since everyone agrees that no member of the SSPX is currently under excommunication. So under traditional doctrine, the SSPX certainly seems to be in communion.
But does the Pope think that he can't regularize the SSPX as long as they maintain the existence of a state of necessity, because they're not in full communion?
I don't know -- and neither do you. My guess is that full vs. partial communion is a classic conciliar notion, which is to say that it is quite elastic. If the Pope can encourage a rapprochement between the Chinese underground Church and the Patriotic Church, even though the latter's constitutive documents are unapologetically schismatic, why should he strain out the gnat of SSPX regularization?
Isn't the whole Ratzingerian Communio notion that love trumps the technicalities?
So, if I may be cynical, I think it's all (ecclesiastical) politics. If the Pope wanted to regularize the SSPX, and thought he could get away with it (neither of which, I think, is true), theological and canonical considerations wouldn't stand in the way.
In regard to Mr. McFarland's latest comments may I say that it is impossible for me to tell what is in the Pope's mind regarding regularization of the SSPX. For example, I cannot tell "if he wants to" but I can say that he has the power and the authority to do it.
To me the concept of waiting for interminable discussions to end before taking action regarding the salvation of souls is, well, inconceivable. I say salvation of souls because for me that is what the jurisdiction and faculties question is all about - so that Catholics can attend SSPX chapels without any qualm of conscience about the validity of the sacraments received from them or any question about whether they are in communion with the Holy Father, indeed, whether they are truly Catholic.
And, I might also say that for the SSPX to maintain that "something has to happen" before they accept regularization, like the conversion of Benedict XVI for example, is also inconceivable. He is either the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the Universal Church with supreme legislative power or he is an impostor. He cannot be both.
Mr. Haley,
I understand what you want the Pope to do. I agree that he has the authority to do it.
But he isn't going to do it.
Nor does it make any sense for him to do it, unless he believes in it -- and he doesn't believe in it.
So if you're calling for prayers for his conversion, I will join you. But I don't know what else you or I or anyone else on earth, besides the Pope himself, can say or do.
"He is either the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the Universal Church with supreme legislative power or he is an impostor. He cannot be both."
Three possibilities:
1) Ecclesia Dei (sp)
2) Sift
3) Sedevacant (sp)
Obedience is not so cut and dry.
There is a prayer from Blessed Be God that speaks of being faithful despite errors.
Post a Comment