Rorate Caeli

Kolbe, the Immaculata, and the Council

In his most recent Letter to Friends and Benefactors, the Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), Bishop Bernard Fellay, speaks about the doctrinal talks with the Holy See:

________________________

SUPERIOR GENERAL’S
LETTER TO FRIENDS AND BENEFACTORS #75

Dear Friends and Benefactors,

The enthusiastic response to the Rosary Crusade we encounter throughout the world fills us with consolation and prompts us to take up this theme once again with you. If we are petitioning Heaven with this multitude of Aves, it is because the hour is indeed grave. We are sure of Our Lady’s victory because she herself foretold it, but the events that have been unfolding for nearly a century—since this triumph was announced at Fatima—oblige us to suppose that all kinds of other woes could yet befall mankind before this victory.

Yet the rules given at Fatima by the Mother of God were quite simple: if the world does not convert, it will be punished: “There will be a second war, more terrible than the first.” The world did not convert. And God’s answer was not long in coming. Since the Second World War, the world still has not converted. And if people think Russia has converted, they will have to explain to us in what it has converted, and to whom— economic liberalism?

Almost one hundred years later, we observe that the world has surely not become better; quite the contrary. The war of the unbelievers rages harder than ever, but it has taken an unexpected turn: the demolition of the Church is being carried out especially by subversion, by infiltrating the Church. Our holy Mother the Church is in the process of being transformed into a pile of spiritual ruins while the exterior façade remains more or less intact, thus deceiving the multitude about its real condition. And it has to be admitted that this subversion acquired an unexpected increase of efficacy on the occasion of the Second Vatican Council. It doesn’t take an advanced degree in theology to figure this out; today it is an historical fact.

What part of the responsibility should be attributed to the Council itself? This is a difficult question, but it is clear that this Council was not without effect, and its consequences have been well and truly disastrous. Because of it, the Church fell in step with the world. “We, too, in fact, we more than any others, honor mankind,” said Paul VI at the Council’s conclusion. And the man-centered orientation of Vatican II was harped on by John Paul II. But this orientation is indeed odd for the Church of God, supernatural in its essence, having received from Our Lord Jesus Christ not only its constitution and means, but first and foremost its end, which is nothing else than the continuation of His own redemptive and salvific mission: “Go into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned.” (Mk. 16:15-16).

And now, here is the tragedy: the divine mission of the Church has been replaced by a purely human one. It is a great mystery that leaves one astounded. Salvation now comes second, to say the least.

Few men—very few men, unfortunately—understand that the terrible crisis of the Church since the Second Vatican Council is a chastisement more terrible than any other, for this time the catastrophe is spiritual: what is wounded, what is noiselessly killed in the midst of an indifference worse than death, are souls. The loss of grace in a soul is the most terrible harm that can happen to it because it makes no noise, it is not felt. And the voice of the watchmen has fallen silent. The call to conversion, to penance, to the flight from sin, temptations and the world has given way, if not to indulgence, then at least to sympathy with the world. There is a real will to make peace with the modern world.

The mission of salvation has given way to a new sort of humanitarian mission; it is a matter of helping men of every condition and religion to live well together on earth.

There is no doubt that everything connected in the message of the Blessed Virgin of Fatima, what is referred to as the Secret of Fatima, has not yet come to an end. Certainly, what we are living is per force part and parcel of the events that will end one day, eventually, with the triumph of Mary. What will happen? How will we recognize it? In any case, it will at least entail the conversion of Russia according to the very words of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

In 1917 at Rome, the foes of God were celebrating the 200th anniversary of Freemasonry and the 400th anniversary of Protestantism with parades of special violence against the Holy See. The demonstrators boisterously proclaimed the reign of Satan over the Vatican and the Sovereign Pontiff. Maximilian Kolbe, still a seminarian, witnessed these painful events and said:

This mortal hatred of the Church, of Christ, and of His Vicar on earth is not just an outburst of misguided individuals, but rather a systematic action that proceeds from the principle of Freemasonry: the destruction of all religion, but especially the Catholic religion. [Pisma Ojca Maksymiliana Marii Kolbego franciszkanina, Niepokalanow, maszynopsis, 1970; English tr. from The Immaculata Our Ideal, by Fr. Karl Stehlin (Warsaw, 2005), p. 39]….

Is it possible that our enemies should deploy so much activity so as to attain superiority while we stay idle, or at best apply ourselves to prayer without getting to work? Might we not have more powerful arms—the protection of Heaven and of the Immaculate Virgin? The Immaculata, victorious and triumphant over all heresies, will not yield to the advancing enemy if she finds faithful servants obedient to her command: she will bring off new victories even greater than can be imagined. We have to put ourselves like docile instruments into her hands, employing
all lawful means, getting the word out everywhere by the diffusion of the Marian press and the Miraculous Medal, and enhancing our action by prayer and good example. [Testimony of Fr. Pignalberi reported during the process of canonization].

He founded the Militia of the Immaculata just a few days after the October 13th apparition of Our Lady at Fatima, when the great miracle of the sun took place. It was in fact on October 16, with six fellow seminarians, that he consecrated himself to the Immaculate Heart of Mary for the purpose of leading the whole world to God by the Immaculata.

One cannot but be struck by the affinity between the message of Fatima and the response of the Polish Franciscan while reading his act of consecration:

O Immaculata, Queen of heaven and earth, Refuge of sinners, our most loving Mother, to whom God deigned to entrust the entire order of mercy, behold I, N., an unworthy sinner, cast myself at Thy feet and humbly ask Thee to deign to accept me completely and utterly as Thy property and possession; and do with me as it pleases Thee: all the faculties of my soul and body, my entire life, my death and my eternity. Dispose of me as Thou willst, so that what has been said of Thee might be fulfilled: ‘She will crush the head of the serpent,’ and also, ‘Thou alone hast vanquished all heresies throughout the world.’ Make of me an instrument in Thy immaculate and merciful hands, which serves Thee, in order to increase reverence for Thee as much as possible in so many fallen-away and lukewarm souls. Thus the benevolent reign of the Sacred Heart of Jesus will spread more and more. For whatever place Thou enters, Thou shalt implore upon it the grace of conversion and sanctification, for all graces come to us from the Sacred Heart of Jesus only through Thy hands. [Scritti di Massimiliano Kolbe, new ed. (Rome: ENMI, 1997), Vol. I; Eng. version, The Immaculata Our Ideal]

Very dear faithful, it is in this same spirit that we launched the Rosary Crusade. But prayer is only a part of it: let us not forget the other two very important elements, penance and devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. By mortification, we wish to make reparation for the insults given to Mary, and in union with her sorrowful Heart we wish to associate ourselves as closely as possible to the sacrifice of the Cross of our Lord, because by it our salvation is effected. Thus we are at the heart of the message of Fatima: “God wishes to introduce devotion to my Immaculate Heart.” Perhaps not enough emphasis is given to this aspect, which seems to us even more important than the consecration of Russia and which is the second condition indicated by Mary to the pope for her triumph: consecrate Russia and promote devotion to her Immaculate Heart.

In this month of October we are going to enter into a new phase in our relations with the Vatican, that of the doctrinal discussions. What is at stake is very important, and we recommend them to your prayers. Undoubtedly that also is a part of our Crusade, and obviously this intention is included in the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary we all desire. That also completely outstrips all our own powers, and it would be folly pure and simple to undertake such an enterprise were it not sustained by the power of the supernatural means such as prayer and penance.

We do not want to conclude this letter without also thanking you for your generosity, which enables our work to develop throughout the world. There is one thing, though, that slows us down: the harvest is abundant, but workers for the harvest are lacking. Our Lord has already said it and has shown the remedy: pray for vocations! How we should like to come to the aid of all the faithful who only have the Mass once a month, or only on Sundays, unable to benefit from normal pastoral care… Yet the good Lord has gratified us this year with 27 new priests, and we expect an even slightly larger number next year. But even that is not enough, so great is the demand worldwide.

You are deeply thanked for all your efforts. May God reward you with the abundant graces and blessings we implore on you all, your families, your children. May Our Lady of the Rosary, the Immaculate Heart of Mary, protect you.

On the Feast of the Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, October 11, 2009.

+ Bernard Fellay
Superior General

73 comments:

Anonymous said...

I dont agree with Fellay that the Church was ok, before Vatican II: the garbage that was already in the Church exploded during pope poul vi.
And popes never teach heresy to the whole of the Church.

Paul Haley said...

It is nice to see things put in their proper perspective and Bishop Fellay does just that in this letter. Without the Immaculata we are quite possibly spinning our wheels.

Anonymous said...

God bless this holy, Catholic bishop. If only there were more ...

Knight of Malta said...

The allusions to Fatima are interesting. Most in SSPX also believe in Akita:

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-0531-ferrara-fatima_and_akita.htm

Our Lady's words there were exceptionally grave. Then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger said the message of Akita and Fatima are "essentially the same." Interesting.

John McFarland said...

Anonymous 23:33,

"I don't agree with Fellay that the Church was ok, before Vatican II...":

He didn't say anything about the Church being OK before V2. Please read it again

"And popes never teach heresy to the whole of the Church."

Says who?

***

Knight of Malta,

Allusions to Fatima? The SSPX's rosary crusade's intent is that the Blessed Mother's call for the consecration of Russia be carried out.

If I may put it in my customary diplomatic fashion: you and the other guys who preponderate on this site need to go to school to the SSPX, and I thank New Catholic for giving you a start. Whether or not you agree with the Society, until you understand what they're saying, and behind that the traditional doctrine of the Church that they are appealing to, you're like a one-legged man trying to kick down a door.

Notice also what His Excellency said about structural and canonical considerations: absolutely nothing; zilch; nada. First things first; and without faith, it is impossible to please God. Unless the Lord lay the foundation, the builders build in vain -- and that includes the builders of the various flavors of prelature.

Knight of Malta said...

John,

I was only implying that I think it is interesting that SSPX places Fatima in the context of the talks-perhaps an allusion to the missing portion of the Third Secret and the crisis of faith since, especially, Vatican II. I would be honored to be schooled by SSPX, and occasionally go to their masses when I can make it...

Anonymous said...

Jordanes, how do you square tonight's post of Bishop Fellay's remark regarding Pope John Paul II to your statement tonight regarding Pope John Paul II?

You stated tonight..."No, the authentic restoration began during John Paul II's reign."

Bishop Fellay stated..."it has to be admitted that this subversion acquired an unexpected increase of efficacy on the occasion of the Second Vatican Council.

"And the man-centered orientation of Vatican II was harped on by John Paul II."

Pope John Paul II was, I believe, a holy man. I certainly don't doubt his personal holiness and in so many respects, he was a far greater man that I could ever be.

But his personal holiness aside, do you truly believe that the Church, which had collapsed to an even greater extent during Pope John Paul II's reign than prior to his reign, was set on the authentic course toward restoration during his Pontificate?

Thank you.

Tim

slcfranciscan said...

I absolutely trust Bishop Fellay with my spiritual life and well-being. If only the world had more bishops as wise and holy as he!

Anonymous said...

In light of these new provisions for the Anglicans, I think that the Pope could recognise full faculties pro tempore for the S.S.P.X and it would cause very little controversy. Let us pray for this.

P.K.T.P.

John McFarland said...

Tim,

As regards Pope John Paul's holiness, I would remind you that "judge not, lest you be judged," doesn't only refer to negative judgments on the state of another man's soul.

As regards the differences between Bishop Fellay and Jordanes: I, too, await with great interest Jordanes' response to His Excellency's remarks.

Anonymous said...

Tim (I apologise but I don't know your surname):

It is the Mass that matters. The ten years of darkness were 1974 to 1984, during which time, according to the Pope himself then reigning, there was no right of the faithful to benefit from the Mass of Ages.

The restoration in legitimate authority begain on 3 October, 1984 with the publication of Quattuor Abhinc Annos. The door opened if only by a crack.

In 1988, "Ecclesia Dei" opened it much wider. The precedent set for the Campos in 2002 has been very significant.

From 1988 to 2005, about thirty societies were founded by legitimate authority to celebrate the Traditional Mass. This all happened in the pontificate of John Paul II. So, yes, the restoration began in the last pontificate, with the present Pope playing an important role in it.

P.K.T.P.

John McFarland said...

sicfranciscan,

The Psalmist is quite clear on the proposition that we should not put our trust in flesh.

Bishop Fellay could (God forbid) sell us out. God will not.

Jordanes said...

"And popes never teach heresy to the whole of the Church."

Says who?


Anonymous probably had in mind Pastor Aeternus, which declares "that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer will that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals. . . ."

That, of course, is not at all the same as "popes never teach heresy to the whole Church." Granted, there have never been any instances of popes teaching heresy to the whole Church, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians -- still, there have been a few instances of popes holding erroneous, heretical opinions which they nevertheless did not teach to the whole Church as binding on the faithful.

M.A. said...

This letter reminds me of that passage in the gospel where Our Lord states that His sheep know His voice. I don't know about others, but I recognize the voice of the Master speaking through this Bishop!

Sr. Lucia had made similar remarks, e.g "hour is indeed grave", "woes could yet befall", "Church...pile of spiritual ruins", "penance...devotion to the Immaculate Heart", "reparation", etc.

What a beautifully, thoroughly Catholic appeal to Catholic hearts! Bravo Bishop Fellay! Even though not affiliated with the SSPX, I am a zealous participant in the Rosary Crusade.

Jordanes said...

Jordanes, how do you square tonight's post of Bishop Fellay's remark regarding Pope John Paul II to your statement tonight regarding Pope John Paul II? . . . do you truly believe that the Church, which had collapsed to an even greater extent during Pope John Paul II's reign than prior to his reign, was set on the authentic course toward restoration during his Pontificate?

Yes, I do believe it. In addition to the important points made by Mr. Perkins, John Paul II laid the groundwork for the Church's gradual recovery from the post-Vatican II craziness and collapse in catechesis, discipline, and liturgy, through his commissioning and issuing the new Catechism, through such documents as Pastores Dabo Vobis and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, and Ecclesia de Eucharistia, Redemptionis Sacramentum, and Liturgiam Authenticam.

This is not to say there isn't much to be properly and equitably criticised about his pontificate. However, it's not true that the Church "had collapsed to an even greater extent during Pope John Paul II's reign than prior to his reign" -- the worst of the collapse was under Paul VI. The time of John Paul's reign was the turning of the tide.

Regarding Bishop Fellay's comment that "the man-centered orientation of Vatican II was harped on by John Paul II," that shows a serious misapprehension of their allegedly "man-centered orientation." It isn't placing Man in the center, it is proposing the Church's "humanism" as the alternative to secular humanism. From the very beginning of his reign until his holy death, Pope John Paul II constantly "harped on" the fact that man, the pinnacle of God's creatures here below, finds his real dignity and glory only in Christ, who is true God and true Man.

Jordanes said...

As regards Pope John Paul's holiness, I would remind you that "judge not, lest you be judged," doesn't only refer to negative judgments on the state of another man's soul.

So you would have us believe that Jesus told us, "Don't say anybody is saintly, lest you too be said by God to be saintly"??

What a horrible thing, to have God tell you that you're a saint!

Anonymous said...

To the gentlemen P.K.T.P and Jordanes:

I could make the same argument, that the "restoration" began during Pope Paul VI's reign.

Pope Paul VI, a man whom I believe was holy, gave us Humanae Vitae, Credo of the People of God, Jubilate Deo and any amount of documents that reiterated Traditional teachings.

Pope Paul VI granted the so-called "Agatha Christie indult" and recognized the right of elderly priests to offer the TLM.

That said...

What restoration has begun?

The TLM restoration, for example?

Pope Benedict XVI declared in 2007 that "the use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often.

"Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful."

His Holiness declared last year that Summorum Pontificum constituted "merely an act of tolerance, with a pastoral aim, for those people who were brought up with this liturgy, who love it, are familiar with it and want to live with this liturgy."

The Novus Ordo Mass is here to stay and will remain the Mass that the great majority of Catholics encounter, according to Pope Benedict XVI.

Conversely, the TLM will be restricted severely as "the use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often."

That restoration?

Tim

Anonymous said...

I mean no disrespect, honestly, but are Traditional Catholics (most especially the SSPX) ever going to get tired of this anxiety and fear that radiates throughout most (not all) of its messages? Fatima is not dogma. The world has always been full of sin and sinful people. The only difference today is we all know about it instantaneously via the many media outlets.

Traditional Catholics make living the life of Christ, the life of a Christian, WAY too difficult.

Anonymous said...

"However, it's not true that the Church "had collapsed to an even greater extent during Pope John Paul II's reign than prior to his reign" -- the worst of the collapse was under Paul VI."

Sorry, but virtually every imaginable way to consider the state-of-the-Church indicates that the collapse of the Church, at least the Latin Church, was greater following the reign of Pope Paul VI (technically, Pope John Paul I).

Again...the SSPX, whose message from Bishop Fellay you posted tonight, spent the entire reign of Pope John Paul II lamenting that the collapse of the Church had accelerated during his (Pope John Paul II's) reign.

Tim

Anonymous said...

Time writes this:

"Pope Paul VI, a man whom I believe was holy, gave us Humanae Vitae, Credo of the People of God, Jubilate Deo and any amount of documents that reiterated Traditional teachings.

Pope Paul VI granted the so-called "Agatha Christie indult" and recognized the right of elderly priests to offer the TLM."


1. Humanæ Vitæ was not good. It is only seen to be good because what was *expected* at the time was bad. H.V. was vastly inferior document to Casti Connubii, 1930, regarding artificial contraception. In fact, H.V., through some omissions, misled the faithful and made matters less than ideal. I always tell people to read C.C., not H.V., on the subject. C.C. clarifies that the procreative end is primary and not equal to, the unitive end of coition. C.C. also makes clear that there is a third end of marital coition; namely, the avoidance of concupiscence.

H.V. in no way contradicts C.C. but it is less complete and is misleading. For example, some people falsely think that the unitive end is superior because Paul VI keeps mentioning it first in the formula 'unitive and procreative meaning [sic] of the conjugal act'. Not so.

Also, Paul VI undermined his own case by presenting too good a case for the opposition in his preamble.


2. You can't cite the Cardinal Heenan Indult or the exceptions for older priests in "De Missali Romano" because those were initial exceptions to a general rule. They were exceptions made under necessity or strong protest, not reversals. And the second of the two was designed to assure that the old Mass would disappear over time, even among elderly priests.


You can always find something good that Paul VI did and say, Ah, the beginning of a counter-movement. I prefer to use judgement when it comes to separating exceptions from norms.

John Paul II's pontificate is often misunderstood. He did indeed make things far worse in general, and he did bad things Paul VI never would have done. At the same time, he realised some of the problems from the 1960s revolution and sought to counter them.

What is important is not to assess what he did but at what rate. If a ship as big as the Barque of Peter goes off course, it takes a lot of steering just to overcome the inertia and make it start to change direction. John Paul II did indeed start the counter-revolt, even though he also contributed to the revolt. The two are contraries but not contradictory.

There are things John Paul II did--bad things--which even Paul VI would never have done. But you have to assess things from the time they were done, not another time. Paul VI ushered in a revolution in which every aspect of doctrine, liturgy, and discipline was overthrown. He went to details, like the French Revolutionaries before him. He even changed terminology.

Paul VI was, in personal terms, an unlikely revolutionary. But that's what he was in real terms. John Paul II was no revolutionary. He was a mild conservative (formerly a mild liberal) with very bad artistic and liturgical taste and impaired judgement when it came to œcumenism, in particular.

Without John Paul II, there could have been no Benedict XVI. I do not write this to lionise the latter. By no means. Wotyla and Ratzinger, as they then were, were definitely part of the problem, not the solution: they were dangerous periti in their time. But now is not then.

Still, it would be wild blindness to think of Benedict XVI as a traditionalist. He is nothing of the kind. But I think that he is a neo-conservative, neo because he has come to realise that many of his impulses as a young man were, shall we say, questionable. So I'll call him a newfound conservative with good taste in liturgy and music. What the Church needs, however, is a traditionalist pope. She needs a St. Gregory the Great.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

Sorry, but virtually every imaginable way to consider the state-of-the-Church indicates that the collapse of the Church, at least the Latin Church, was greater following the reign of Pope Paul VI (technically, Pope John Paul I).

Okay, the collapse was greater, because it did not stop during John Paul II's reign. But it wasn't a collapse of greater extent than that under Paul VI, which is what I thought you were saying.

Again...the SSPX, whose message from Bishop Fellay you posted tonight, spent the entire reign of Pope John Paul II lamenting that the collapse of the Church had accelerated during his (Pope John Paul II's) reign.

Probably in his mind the collapse had accelerated, but in fact it slowed somewhat. Nowhere near enough, of course.

Bear in mind also that Bishop Fellay is writing to the Friends and Benefactors of the SSPX -- he is bound to say things to the SSPX's benefactors that he wouldn't be expected to say in other contexts.

Jordanes said...

That restoration?

Yes, that restoration. The groundwork has been laid. We won't get to see the finished structure. The seeds have been planted, and have already begun to sprout. We won't live to see the harvest.

Anonymous said...

Tim asks if we have a restoration.

My answer is that we certainly have a restoration, but that its author is Jesus Christ, not Benedicft XVI. While I have never been a S.S.P.X supporter, I try to be fair. Without the S.S.P.X, there would be no restoration. God has used the Society as His instrument. His choice. Not for me to wonder why.

The S.S.P.X first of all assured the survival of the Church Traditional, which is the True Church by definition. This Church exists inside and outside the Society but the Society protected her.

The restoration *in terms of legitimate authority* did indeed begin under the pontificate of John Paul II. This momentous event came on 3 October, 1984. It continues apace. It still has far to go.

Benedict XVI is only a man. He erred in law when he wrote in S.P. that the Mass of the Ages and the Freemasonic Liturgy of Bugnini were different forms of one rite. No, they are separate liturgical rites. One is a Catholic Rite; the other is a Masonic and Protestant rite which nevertheless does confect the Blessed Sacrament when offered with the right intention. God brings good even out of evil, just as he did even from the hands of the Donatists.

Benedict XVI has done marvellous good work. God is using him too to restore the Church. But it is God Who is the author of this divine act. This Pope is far better than the last one and the last one was far better than was Paul VI, who was, in my belief, the worst pope in history. Was Paul VI holy? I have no idea and that is beside the point.

The liberals are loyal to their master, the devil. Cardinal Hummes, more than even Mahony, serves the Prince of Darkness night and day. Whether he does so culpably I do not know, but I find it hard to believe that such communists as he are tolerated by His Holiness.

Do not be afraid. We need fear no evil because our Master is perfect.

P.K.T.P.

LeonG said...

The major problem for many neo-catholics is that they just have no understanding of what The Church represented prior to the Councils and how these created a place for woolly-headed liberal modernists to dominate ecclesiastical use of language and the pastoral process. This unmerited situation had been hitherto denied them.

As for sin in The Church, it existed already but it was always condemned and the necessary sacramental graces given priority of status as the antidote. One example of liberal modernist indifference was to shelve the issue of sexually perverted priests. Rather than follow excellent advice on environmental isolation and treatment (since cure is highly improbable) Pope Paul VI (RIP) had the proposals squashed in favour of the type of approaches which have led to the current scandalous crisis.

There is little or no discipline left in the post-conciliar church while The Vatican maintains a virtual and incriminating silence on the continued secular criminal prosecutions of criminal bishops and their clergy who flout the laws of God and society across a wide range of indictable offenses including paedophilia, fraud, misappropriations of church funds and so on. This is systemic and the liberal attitudes that predominate towards them.

Comprehensively, the liturgical anarchy that we experience on a daily basis in this new church model characterises the liberal modernist perspective that is anthropocentric and protestant in its psychology. Post-conciliar papacies have propagated these tendencies by their public demeanour which is documented in detail and which is faithful to the liberal trends pursued in ecumenical and interreligious activities. Furthermore, close scrutiny of their writings and their public liturgical behaviours suggests the same.

The nature of the contemporary crisis is so grave that The Roman Catholic Church before the Councils of the 1960s bears precious little resemblance to that of the post-conciliar church. Comparisons bring mostly sharp contrasts while, it has to restated emphatically that the so-called reformers in the 1960s were determined to make this so. And they have almost succeeded. The residual problem posed to them by Tradition is the one side of the equation they have not been able to eradicate.

Read all Pope St Pius X's writings with an open heart and it can be seen, he understood what was coming once the customary ramparts were undermined.

LeonG said...

There was certainly no turning of the proverbial tide, liturgically speaking, under the anthropological phenomenologist papacy of John Paul II (RIP). His liturgical norms and mores were essentially what liberal modernism anticipated - inculturation replete with what the pre-conciliar church understood as illicit praxis. The objective evidence is well documented. There are photographs in abundance available.

In fact, if The Church had pursued the authentic liturgical restoration desired by pre-conciliar papacies on the subject it would have been to educate and sensitise interior dispositions rather than scandalise an entire generation of Catholics with unnecessary and uncustomary liturgical behaviours that have served only to destroy the unity of The Church and sow discord. There would have been a flowering of the use of Gregorian Chant and sacred polyphony as an indispensable accompaniment. The actual outcome alone provides ample evidence of the sense of rupture with the past. It also demonstrates that we await still an authentic reorientation of The Church towards a Roman Catholic restoration. There is almost no evidence of it yet apart from a few sporadic attempts to reintroduce The Holy Mass in Latin by a papacy that clings onto the liberal idea of religious pluralism and liturgical novelty, such as wholesale employ of vernacular usage.

LeonG said...

St Maximilien Kolbe roundly condemned ecumenism - particularly the genre we have experienced since the Councils.

Peter said...

"Fatima is not dogma"

Fr Schmidberger explains why the SSPX puts emphasis on Fatima (in German, http://www.piusbruderschaft.de/lehre/predigten/3460-predigt-von-pater-schmidberger-in-fulda-2009).

Roughly it's about the solution given by Our Lady in Fatima to the "errors of Russia". The "error of Russia" is marxist atheistic materialism. It is still spreading, but now not under the name of communism (see Obama).

Also, as far as I know, St. Maximilien Kolbe is in high regard in the SSPX as a model of modern, but rooted in Tradition, spirituality.

"John Paul II constantly "harped on" the fact that man, the pinnacle of God's creatures here below, finds his real dignity and glory only in Christ, who is true God and true Man."

"Human dignity" is a secular term coined by the revolutionaries to separate man from obligations to God.

Where the Church Fathers speak about "human dignity"?

Has anybody heard that phrase before 1700s?

There's no human dignity, coming from God or not. Every human deserves damnation. That we have a chance to save our souls is an act of God's mercy. We do not deserve that. Believe in "human dignity" and you soon forget about that, like all the liberals.

What you are trying to say is that God filled us with some "dignity". Which reminds me Jewish rabbis who claim that God studies Talmud at night, Torah during the day, and asks rabbis for advice before every important decision in Heaven. Which reminds me archbishop Zollitsch saying that God has shown us merely "solidarity", probably because we, the people, filled with "dignity" are too great to need mercy.

"Human dignity" is just good old pride.

Peter said...

"St Maximilien Kolbe roundly condemned ecumenism - particularly the genre we have experienced since the Councils."

He was also explicitly praying for the conversion of the "Jews and Freemasons", which was "corrected" on the wave of postconciliar devastation to "enemies of the Church".

It's a trap of political correctness... how can "Jews and Freemasons" be "enemies of the Church"? They're our friends now!

Our Lord told St. Faustina Kowalska explicitly that she should pray for "heretics and schismatics that injure his Mystical Body". The words of Our Lord himself (!!!) were changed to "separated brethen" in recent issues.

To falsify words of Our Lord when they upset the liberals - I can't think of greater scandal and impudence.

Also many prayers were changed (falsified).

Jordanes said...

"Human dignity" is a secular term coined by the revolutionaries to separate man from obligations to God.

Evidence??

There's no human dignity, coming from God or not. Every human deserves damnation.

You veer close to Calvinism. Jesus has no dignity? Our Lady has no dignity? The saints have no dignity?

No human has dignity, so we may use and abuse and destroy our neighbor as we see fit?

Would you care to retract your assertion that there is no human dignity?

That we have a chance to save our souls is an act of God's mercy. We do not deserve that.

Dignity is not about what a man deserves. It refers to worthiness, not desserts.

Peter said...

"Evidence??"

Sow me any passage written before the Enlightenment where "human dignity" appears.

"You veer close to Calvinism. Jesus has no dignity? Our Lady has no dignity? The saints have no dignity?"

Is original sin a calvinist novelty? All they have good is of God, not of men. Are you trying to deny the necessity of grace for salvation? But grace is given for free ("gratis"), not because of dignity.

"No human has dignity, so we may use and abuse and destroy our neighbor as we see fit?"

That's the liberal error. We are not allowed to do that not because of our "inviolable dignity", but because God has told us to do so. And he has done it because of mercy and love, not because we're so worthy.

"Dignity is not about what a man deserves. It refers to worthiness, not desserts."

Then we should correct the nigrics to say "Domine, dignus sum" before communion. How liberal.

Jordanes said...

Sow me any passage written before the Enlightenment where "human dignity" appears.

Show me evidence that it was Enlightenment writers who first applied "dignity" to a human being.

Is original sin a calvinist novelty? All they have good is of God, not of men.

But since according to you men have no dignity, not even from God, that means they have no good, not even from God.

Are you trying to deny the necessity of grace for salvation?

Obviously not, but you have denied that God has ever made any man worthy -- has ever granted any man dignity. You have said that Jesus, Our Lady, and all the saints have no dignity.

But grace is given for free ("gratis"), not because of dignity.

Yes, we have dignity because of grace, not grace because of dignity. But you claim that we don't have dignity at all, not even because of grace. Perhaps that is because God does not bestow grace on His creatures?

That's the liberal error. We are not allowed to do that not because of our "inviolable dignity", but because God has told us to do so.

Ah, so things are good or evil simply because God has decreed what is good and what is evil? That's definitely a Muslim and a Calvinist conception of God, but it's not the Catholic conception.

Then we should correct the nigrics to say "Domine, dignus sum" before communion. How liberal.

Don't be silly. Evidently you don't know what Liberalism is and isn't. Of ourselves we are not worthy to receive the Holy Eucharist -- but we are worthy to receive Him because of the dignity we are given by God. If not, we would be sinning to receive something so immensely holy that we are not worthy to receive. If we did not confess our unworthiness, we would not have the dignity God gives to us.

Man received his dignity at Creation. He lost most of it through Original Sin. It is restored, and then some, in Jesus. Deny that and you deny the Faith.

wheat4paradise said...

Peter, re: human dignity.

Hebrews 2:7.

Paul Haley said...

Is it proper now for us to say who was a better or worse pope than the other? Almighty God selects the Vicar and He knows best who to put in the Chair of Peter at any given time. It does us no good to question His Providence. In fact, it may even lead to our own destruction.

We have what we have and in Pope Benedict XVI we have the beginnings, at least, of sanity with respect to the Liturgy and some sort of dialogue with the SSPX without the sanction of excommunication looming over their heads.

To those who are saying that the current Holy Father hasn't done enough or, that he shows remnants of modernism in his character, I say only that he inherited a massive task when he became the Head of the Universal Church. How many of us would be able to shoulder the burdens he has inherited, even granting that he may have been responsible for some excesses himself as a periti and theologian?

No, the Rosary Crusade is the answer and Bishop Fellay rightly calls for our participation in that endeavor. The Mother of God knows "which buttons to push", if you will, in the restoration of all things in Christ, Her Son. We must trust Her, I think, to do what must be done and we must simply pray for all the occupants of the Chair of Peter, including the current one.

Peter said...

Jordanes, I know you like picking some element and pretending that it stands for the general thing.

"But since according to you men have no dignity, not even from God, that means they have no good, not even from God."

Having something from God doesn't mean being worthy of receiving it. God who gives makes His gifts good, not man who receives through his "dignity" makes them good.

"Yes, we have dignity because of grace."

So we are worthy of receiving something and the proof lies in the fact that we have received it. Indeed, there were some Protestant sects adhering to that theory.

"Ah, so things are good or evil simply because God has decreed what is good and what is evil?"

It's either God or man. Is it man because of his dignity? That's what the secular liberal thinks. Add to this that the "inviolable human dignity" is "God-given" and you will have a Church liberal in his endless struggle for novelty - which is essentially making decisions what is now good and what's evil.

"He lost most of it through Original Sin"

"Most of it". Being half-damned is not Catholic teaching.

Mar said...

St. Louis de Montfort writes that in order to maintain humility we should think of ourselves as 'vas stercorum, semen putridum, esca vermium'.

Jordanes said...

Jordanes, I know you like picking some element and pretending that it stands for the general thing.

No, you don't.

Having something from God doesn't mean being worthy of receiving it.

Of course. I never said otherwise.

You, however, still maintain that Jesus, Our Lady, the saints, Christians, and mankind in general do not possess and have never received any dignity from God.

God who gives makes His gifts good, not man who receives through his "dignity" makes them good.

True, but irrelevant. Nobody here has said anything so absurd as that it is man's God-given dignity that makes God's gifts good.

"Yes, we have dignity because of grace." So we are worthy of receiving something and the proof lies in the fact that we have received it.

Don't be silly. We have dignity because of grace -- we don't have grace because of dignity.

Do you also deny that in Christ we can merit heaven?

"Ah, so things are good or evil simply because God has decreed what is good and what is evil?" It's either God or man. Is it man because of his dignity?

You claim that we are to refrain from abusing and destroying our neighbor not because God has given all men an inherent dignity that calls for us to love even our enemies, but merely because God says we should do it. As I said, that's a Muslim or a Calvinist conception of right and wrong, not the Catholic one.

Add to this that the "inviolable human dignity" is "God-given" and you will have a Church liberal in his endless struggle for novelty - which is essentially making decisions what is now good and what's evil.

You don't know what you're talking about. Catholics hold that human dignity IS God-given, not self-originated or simply there. It is the Scriptures, not Liberalism, that tell us God made man in His own image and placed him over all His other creatures, and that in Jesus mankind is crowned with glory and honor, with all things under his feet.

"He lost most of it through Original Sin" "Most of it". Being half-damned is not Catholic teaching.

So you adhere to the Calvinist heresy of total depravity too? I guess that would explain your denial of human dignity.

Catholic teaching does not maintain, and has never maintained, that when Adam fell, he entirely lost the dignity he has as the pinnacle of God's creation. He lost original holiness and justice, but his nature was not totally corrupted, only wounded or marred. This is distinct from man's status under original sin, which is that he is destined for damnation apart from Jesus.

But enough already. In your next comment on this subject, you may clarify or correct or retract your errors. Further insistence that men have no dignity from God will not be tolerated.

K Gurries said...

The recent Papal encyclical takes up the question of integral human development and the Christian and notion of humanism. It is quite the opposite of a naturalistic man-centered (anthropocentric) humanism. I posted a short summary here.

http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2009/09/on-integral-human-development.html

Keith

Jordanes said...

Mar, it is the paradox of Man and his condition as a fallen creature that if he does not have the humility of which St. Louis speaks, he further disfigures and lessens his dignity.

Peter said...

I repeat: there is no such thing as "human dignity" as has been pronounced as understood since the Enlightenment, that is a dignity which allows a sovereign man to decide what is good and what is evil, establish positive laws contrary to natural law and God's law, embrace and profess that religion which he considers true and that finds man itself and earthly wellbeing the ultimate goal of man's existence. It is man-centered. To say that such "human dignity" is God-given is blasphemous, not "lack of humility".

I have not denied the existence of dignity nor that men can take part in it, since it is an entirely different thing than the "human dignity", as described above, which is pride.

John Paul II had been using the phrase "human dignity", whether he clarified it or not it was widely understood in the man-centered way stated above, as it is clear in the practice of many events of different kind that happened in the Church in the last 30 years, of which most notorious was the Assisi, that is, putting man's well-being on Earth above God's law, man above God, man in the centre.

I do not adhere to any Calvinist errors and please don't impute that I do and that I have said what I have not.

Anonymous said...

The SSPX certainly believes that Catholics have the right to say "who was a better or worse pope than the other?"

Popes are not gods. Therefore, why do certain Catholics portray Popes as gods?

Our Tradition makes clear the fact that we have the right to make our spiritual needs known to our Churchmen (that includes Popes) and to challenge them even to their faces should they require correction.

Unless we're wish to think of Popes as gods, we have every right to consider that Pope "A" reigned in superior fashion to Pope "B".

The "we-dare-not-question-a-Pope" mentality among many Catholics is what led to the post-Vatican II collapse of the Church.

Had more Catholics joined with the SSPX and other such groups in their holy and fierce resistance to post-Vatican II Papal policies that shipwrecked the Liturgy, our Church would not have collapsed liturgically and spiritually.

Each Pope is a human being. Human beings differ from each other in intelligence levels, leadership skills and decision-making abilities.

As a result of the above, some Papal reigns have been very positive and others have resulted in disasters to the Church.

Why pretend otherwise?

Tim

Anonymous said...

Peter your comments are well taken especially so when considering what PKTP and LeonG have posted....and to which you originally commented on.

wheat4paradise said...

Peter, please show us where any modern Pope was expressly advocated in favor of a human dignity 'which allows a sovereign man to decide what is good and what is evil, establish positive laws contrary to natural law and God's law, embrace and profess that religion which he considers true and that finds man itself and earthly wellbeing the ultimate goal of man's existence.'

No Pope has ever taught such a thing. Prove otherwise if you can.

Paul Haley said...

Tim,

I merely asked the question is it proper at this time to engage in such a debate with Pope Benedict XVI having his hands full trying to work wonders in the restoration of the Faith? The other question closely related to the first is what difference does it make now how we view all the previous popes who have gone to their eternal reward and have undergone their particular Judgment by the Supreme Judge?

You obviously think it is productive to engage in this sort of matching up one against the other; I do not. As I said in my post "we have what we have" and that by Divine Will the current occupant is Benedict XVI who is trying hard IMHO under difficult circumstances. I will give him the benefit of the doubt no matter your feeling on the matter.

As for your statement that: "The SSPX certainly believes that Catholics have the right to say "who was a better or worse pope than the other?" may I ask you to cite some reference to that effect? This seems to go against the scriptural exhortation: "Judge not, therefore, lest ye be judged". IMHO there's far too much of that "judging" going on around here.

Anonymous said...

"Bear in mind also that Bishop Fellay is writing to the Friends and Benefactors of the SSPX -- he is bound to say things to the SSPX's benefactors that he wouldn't be expected to say in other contexts."

The message propagated by Bishop Fellay has remained consistent.

Bishop Fellay hasn't minced words when speaking to "Novus Ordo" and secular media outlets.

He has said "A" regarding the post-conciliar crisis of faith when he's communicated with SSPX Friends and Benefactors.

He has said "A" when speaking to everybody else.

I have never found him to be a man who "plays" differently to different crowds.

Tim

Anonymous said...

Mister Perkins writes (by the way, feel free to address me by my last name "Collins"...or anybody is free to use "Tim")...

"While I have never been a S.S.P.X supporter..."

Why? Particularly as you stated that the "S.S.P.X first of all assured the survival of the Church Traditional, which is the True Church by definition. This Church exists inside and outside the Society but the Society protected her."

Tim

Anonymous said...

Funny...but the faster that the post-Vatican II collapse of the Latin Church accelerates, the faster that we will reach the day of restoration.

The collapse will continue to be rapid throughout Pope Benedict XVI's reign.

Why? Because His Holiness has made it clear that the Novus Ordo is here to stay and that the TLM, while having been "freed," will, incredibly, be held in check.

His Holiness declared:

"The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often.

"Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful."

Pope Benedict XVI also declared that Summorum Pontificum "is merely an act of tolerance, with a pastoral aim, for those people who were brought up with this liturgy, who love it, are familiar with it and want to live with this liturgy."

The bad news is that the post-Vatican II rot will continue to spread throughout the Church.

The good news is that as the rot spreads, the TLM, even though prevented for now from returning to its rightful place of glory throughout the Latin Church (that is, as the primary Liturgy)...

...TLM communities will continue strengthen.

TLM communities will generate the necessary vocations to renew the Church.

TLM communuities will instill young Catholics with a tremendous sense of Catholic identity and loyalty, which will be unmatched at Novus Ordo parishes.

As the rot speeds down its course, the Church will reach the point of unbearable collapse.

At that time, probably at least 100 years from now, the Latin Church will have turned to the TLM exclusively...and therefore, the end to the long post-Vatican II nightmare.

Tim

Jordanes said...

I repeat: there is no such thing as "human dignity" as has been pronounced as understood since the Enlightenment, that is a dignity which allows a sovereign man to decide what is good and what is evil, establish positive laws contrary to natural law and God's law, embrace and profess that religion which he considers true and that finds man itself and earthly wellbeing the ultimate goal of man's existence. It is man-centered.

I appreciate your clarification and correction of your earlier erroneous statement, "There's no human dignity, coming from God or not."

That defective concept of human dignity, however, is not at all what the Church means when She talks of our dignity.

To say that such "human dignity" is God-given is blasphemous, not "lack of humility".

That's correct -- human dignity does not grant us such liberties. Those things are contrary to human dignity.

I have not denied the existence of dignity nor that men can take part in it, since it is an entirely different thing than the "human dignity", as described above, which is pride.

Maybe you did not intend to deny the existence of human dignity, but you said things that can't mean anything other than a denial of the existence of human dignity.

John Paul II had been using the phrase "human dignity", whether he clarified it or not it was widely understood in the man-centered way stated above,

Widely understood by whom? Certainly he always specified that authentic human dignity is found only in Christ, in God. This is seen from his very first encyclical until the end of his pontificate (cf. Redemptor hominis 8, 10).

as it is clear in the practice of many events of different kind that happened in the Church in the last 30 years, of which most notorious was the Assisi, that is, putting man's well-being on Earth above God's law, man above God, man in the centre.

For all the objections that are justly raised against Assisi, I don't think John Paul II's motive or intent at Assisi was to put man's well-being on earth above God's law, to put man above God, or to put man in the center. Evidently he wanted to encourage man to put God in the center, to place himself under God, and to put Heaven above concerns for well-being on earth. Assisi was entirely the wrong way to go about that, though.

I do not adhere to any Calvinist errors and please don't impute that I do and that I have said what I have not.

My objections have been both to what you said and what your words seemed to imply. As I said, I appreciate your clarification and rephrasing of what you had previously said.

Jordanes said...

The message propagated by Bishop Fellay has remained consistent.

Bishop Fellay hasn't minced words when speaking to "Novus Ordo" and secular media outlets.

He has said "A" regarding the post-conciliar crisis of faith when he's communicated with SSPX Friends and Benefactors.

He has said "A" when speaking to everybody else.


I didn't say Bishop Fellay has been inconsistent or contradictory, nor did I mean that he minces words or plays differently to different crowds, or that he is insincere. I was referring to what he will necessarily emphasise to one audience as opposed to what he will emphasise to another audience.

John McFarland said...

Just for the record, I think it fair to say that all of Bishop Fellay's dozens of communications regarding the crisis in the Church since the 2001 "thaw" with the Vatican that I have read -- letters, conferences, interviews --he has always said substantially the same thing that he says in his present letter, other than the detailed discussion of Fatima and devotion to the Immaculate Heart.

I would add that the even more numerous communications by other members of the SSPX on the subject that I have read, have been substantially consistent with Bishop Fellay's.

I have learned from or through the SSPX almost everything I know that is worth knowing about the crisis in the Church. In my experience, its yes is yes, and its no is no.

In this connection, I'm a little surprised at the relative calmness of the non-SSPX fans in dealing with Bishop Fellay's letter. Subject to my amateur status and personal and stylistic quirks, and comments on particular matters like l'affaire TAC, I'm pretty much handing on what was handed to me. This tends to confirm my suspicion that most of the non-fans have the SSPX at second hand at best.

Then, too, His Excellency is in his writings as he is (only more so) in person: a hard man to dislike. That fabulous smile of his is a virtual permanent fixture.

Anonymous said...

"I didn't say Bishop Fellay has been inconsistent or contradictory, nor did I mean that he minces words or plays differently to different crowds, or that he is insincere.

I was referring to what he will necessarily emphasise to one audience as opposed to what he will emphasise to another audience."

Thank you.

Tim

Sean said...

Mr. Perkins,

I don't like the sounds of this.

Santiago, Chile, Oct 22, 2009 / 01:03 pm (CNA).- In an interview with the Chilean daily, “El Mercurio,” the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, Bernard Fellay, acknowledged that the Vatican is considering the possibility of converting the Lefebvrist group into a personal prelature as part of the discussions aimed at bringing about reconciliation. Fellay, who visited members of the SSPX movement in Chile, is one of four bishops whose excommunication was lifted by Pope Benedict XVI last January. Asked about the speculation that the Society of Pius X could be made into a personal prelature similar to Opus Dei, Fellay responded, “There is a lot of truth to that. I think the Vatican is moving towards that kind of canonical solution.”

New Catholic said...

Sean,

Do not worry about this. This is called prudence.

Which is why we did not report this even though this interview was granted several days ago.

NC

Anonymous said...

Tim,

The glee with which you anticipate the decline of Christ's Church is almost masonic.

You write: "TLM communities will instill young Catholics with a tremendous sense of Catholic identity and loyalty, which will be unmatched at Novus Ordo parishes."

Having left the traditionalist world after being a sedevacantist and, later, a Lefebvrist, all I can say is that Catholic identity and loyalty are alive and well at the local parish level. I had been away for so long that, I, too, had almost come to completely believe the recursive propaganda and uncharitable calumnies directed at fellow Catholics. A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth; consequently, many in the traditionalist world are not seeing the signs of restoration and improvement at the local level, because they've worked themselves up into a self-righteous frenzy, determining -- like Seventh-Day Adventists -- what The Church can and cannot do.

I wonder if the bishops of the SSPX know just how modernist they sound when they suggest they're going to teach The Church. If you remove the incense and the '62 Missal from their arguments, you'd be staring at a Hans Kung in a cassock gesticulating wildy and telling the Church what it should or shouldn't be.

Christ built His Church on Peter, not a self-proclaimed "faithful remnant." Christ keeps his promises.

Dan Hunter said...

New Catholic,

Per the interview with Bishop Fellay in Chile:
Do you think that there will be no personal prelature for the FSSPX, or do you think that there will be some other kind of granting of at least temporary faculties very soon?
What do you mean by, "prudence"

John McFarland said...

Sean,

Bishop Fellay has been saying for a while now that the Vatican is ready, willing and able to give the SSPX a personal prelature status. But he's also been saying for at least that long that he's not interested. For the same reason -- the primacy of doctrine -- he's not likely to be interested in any other variant.

John McFarland said...

Anonymous 1:45,

Pleased to meet you.

First of all, would you please mind your manners and not say "Lefebvrist," and I'll mind mine and not call you a Rahnerist.

Now: I'd be interested in your telling us a bit about why it is that you find the SSPX critique of the conciliar Church, which I for one find obviously true, obviously wrong?

A good place to start would be one or more of the big three: ecumenicism, religious liberty, collegiality. But I'll take what I can get.

Or another way to come at it would be if you would sketch the nature of the "identity" and "loyalty" that you find alive and well in your local parish. What is it loyalty to? the integral and unadulterated faith given once for all to the saints, whose doctrines they know, or to something else? Is the "identity" based on holding that faith, or is it based on something else?

I'd also be curious to know what of the SSPX literature you have read.

Anonymous said...

Dear Sean:

If you ask me, Bishop Fellay did not specify the structure but, in two different expressions, he spoke in generalities.

I note that he has now confused the structure and has said different things on several occasions.

Trust me, if the incoming Anglicans (souunds like missiles!) can get structures which are equivalent in law to dioceses (as personal ordinariates are), there is no bloody way the S.S.P.X will get stuck with a personal prelature, which is not equivalent in law to a diocese but would put the S.S.P.X under local bishops.

No, I don't think that the report is ominous at all. In light of Fellay's record on this, I am beginning if he can remember which structure is which--and I don't think he much cares at this point. That will be worked out by his canonical experts.

I find it hard to believe that Bsp. Fellay is moving towards ANY structure at this point. If he does, he could face some large defections.

More likely would be simply a curial recognition of the Society's faculties.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Collins asks why I have never been a supporter of the S.S.P.X. I have answered that question in some detail on this blog in the past. Suffice it to say for the present that I see no need to support the Society. I think that one can be loyal to tradition and to the Pope without having to support the Society. I also think that the Society was in the right between 1970 and 2000 but not thereafter: once the Pope offered it a de facto diocese of its own (which has been done ever since 2000), the emergency was over. But I'd rather not debate that here all over again. Once was enough.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland, misremembering, writes:

Bishop Fellay has been saying for a while now that the Vatican is ready, willing and able to give the SSPX a personal prelature status.


No, wrong, the Vatican has been offering the 'ritual' apostolic administration structure since 2000, not the p.p. Fellay has said so directly in 2000, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2009. I marshalled the quotes several times in the past. When Fellay called it the 'Rolls Royce' structure and yet refused it, it was offered and then accepted by the Campos priests. That's WHY the Campos got one.

P.K.T.P.

Sean said...

Mr. Perkins, New Catholic, and Mr. McFarland, many thanks for your reply. A personal prelature would be a disaster.

John McFarland said...

Mr. Perkins,

It is certainly true that you have worked very hard to explain these distinctions, and I have barely tried to understand them.

But bear with me, and go over it once again. How is it that the priests of Campos can operate in any particular place outside Campos without getting somebody's permission?

I don't need a treatise; juridical structures are part of my stock in trade. I just need to understand what makes them entirely free to set up shop in Rio or London or Morrisville, Vermont.

In the interests of full and fair disclosure, I hasten to add that chez moi this is just a mental exercise in violation of my general custom not to discuss legal matters except for money. In the absence of a return of Rome to tradition, I can't conceive that a Campos-style deal would be made available to the SSPX except in connection with a Campos-style sellout. After all, to discuss the Campos deal without mentioning Bishop Rifan is rather like staging Othello without Iago.

Dan Hunter said...

Mr McFarland:
Sorry not Mr Perkins here, but I feel compelled to say something,

I believe it unwise and against charity to compare His Excellency Bishop Rifan, a great prelate of the Church, to an evil ner'do well such as Iago, even if he is only imaginary.
I apologise if you meant no offense against Bishop Rifan, but he did quite the opposite of "selling out",rather, he accepted an generous and salutary offer of complete unity with Peter and in so doing established himself as a loyal son of the Mystical Body and an enormous source of strength to the traditional movement.

Anonymous said...

"But I'd rather not debate that here all over again. Once was enough."

That is fine with me. There isn't anything to debtate. You don't support the Society.

Millions of Catholics, including His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, support the Society.

That is far more important than your support (or mine).

Tim

LeonG said...

The Society of St Pius X had no intention in 2000 or at any other time, and quite rightly so, of compromising its mission to bring into the public light of discussion the extremely important question of the damage inflicted on The Church by the Councils of the 1960s. There would be no acceptance of diocese or any other structure for that matter, in exchange for keeping silence over the disaster perpetrated by the liberal modernist processes in Rome diffused throughout Christendom to its detriment both liturgical and pastoral. The grave consequences, as Bishop Fellay pertinently states, are quite clear to see today.

Furthermore, the attempts by Pope John Paul II (RIP) to make concessions to SSPX were opposed openly by the same bishops we see opposing his successor today on the very same issues. The Ecclesia Dei was seen by the pope then as a concession to those whose sentiments preferred the old ways but meant much less to him personally. His intentions were to inculturate the liturgy. Moreover, it was predictable then to many of those engaged in saving the traditional faith, including my own parents, that the bishops would subvert it and they did. The late pope did nothing effective to overcome this episcopal subversion, typically enough. To claim that this policy laid the foundations for a restoration is an empty one. It was also used to attempt to undermine the SSPX in the form of "indult" societies such as FSSP who are muted on the conciliar question as a compromise for using the 1962 books. The results of these are far from satisfactory though they have had little adverse effect on the Society other than to absorb some potential members perhaps. The bishops once again have made sure that the indultarian movement has not travelled very far in its short history.

Pope Benedict XVI is the first post-conciliar supreme pontiff to do anything that might be construed as effective in the restorative direction but as usual it has characteristic liberal hallmarks included: "two forms, one rite" that contrasts sharply with Pope St Pius V's "one missal, one one united church"; exclusive use of vernacular once firmly anathematised and accepted as such by all popes until we arrive at Paul VI (RIP); ecumenical and interreligious projects to continue unabated and so on. Furthermore, most bishops manifest their now customary hostility or indifference towards tradition in any guise.

Indeed no deals: it is entirely comprehensible why Bishop Fellay should want to take everything carefully stage by stage and during this time make a substantive appeal to Our Blessed Lady of Fatima. The attempts of the Councils of the 1960s to water Her down for ecumenical imperatives are not working either because The Church is going nowhere in the future without Her Majesty.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous (at 23 October, 2009 01:45) said ...

"The glee with which you anticipate the decline of Christ's Church is almost masonic."

Really? Then be certain to include such men as Pope Benedict XVI and John Paul II among those of us who supposedly "in almost masonic" fashion "anticipate the decline of Christ's Church."

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, declared in March 2009 that "in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel...God is disappearing from the human horizon..."

Josef Cardinal Ratzinger stated in Salt of the Earth that the Church will have collapsed to the point that She will "again be characterized more by the mustard seed, where it will exist in small, seemingly insignificant groups..."

Josef Cardinal Ratzinger declared "how much filth there is in the church, and even among those who, in the priesthood, ought to belong entirely to him"...the Church seems like "a boat about to sink, a boat taking in water on every side."

Pope John Paul II spoke of the "silent apostasy" that exists among Catholics.

Anonymous, you attacked me but in reality, you attacked Popes Benedict XVI and John Paul II, whose declarations I simply parroted.

So much for my supposed "masonic glee."

Tim

New Catholic said...

Dear Mr. McFarland,

I second Mr. Hunter's words, and ask you please to refrain from criticizing Bishop Rifan in the future here.

Thank you,

NC

Jordanes said...

Millions of Catholics, including His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, support the Society.

I suspect that would be news to the Holy Father. His "support" for the SSPX is not at all like the support exhibited by Mr. McFarland and formerly exhibited by Anonymous 1:45. Apparently the most that can be said is that he is "sympathetic to" certain of the SSPX's concerns.

John McFarland said...

Tim,

It's to be noted that nobody seems at all scandalized at what Anonymous 23 Oct 1:45 said about you, even though it was pretty nasty, and quite without any discernible basis in what you wrote.

In any event, I for one think that Anonymous 1:45 owes you an apology if he turns up again.

John McFarland said...

Jordanes,

I think the SSPX's best guess at the number of its faithful is about half a million worldwide. Throw in its fellow travelers and you're probably at no more than a million, and quite possibly fewer.

The Pope is certainly not a supporter. That's the problem.

But I daresay that someone who purports to see the green shoots of restoration in the pontificate of PJP II should be hesitant to cast the first stone at someone whose enthusiasm is a bit out in front of his facts.

Jordanes said...

The latest edition of "The SSPX Proselyter" says:

The Pope is certainly not a supporter. That's the problem.

Or maybe it's not a problem.

But I daresay that someone who purports to see the green shoots of restoration in the pontificate of PJP II should be hesitant to cast the first stone at someone whose enthusiasm is a bit out in front of his facts.

Your opinion, to which you are most welcome, is duly noted.

Anonymous said...

"I suspect that would be news to the Holy Father. Apparently the most that can be said is that he is "sympathetic to" certain of the SSPX's concerns."

To me, all signs indicate that the Holy Father supports the Society.

From the lifting of the excommunications to his refusal to act against the Society's mose recent ordinations...

...from his desire years ago to have forged peace between Rome and the Society...

...to his desire to initiate discussions Monday with the Society, I don't have any doubt that Pope Benedict XVI supports the Society.

Tim

John McFarland said...

Tim,

Go read the Pope's encyclicals, and the SSPX's commentaries thereon.

And then come back and we'll talk about the Pope as a supporter of the Society.

Jordanes said...

By those lights, the Holy Father supports Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and Lutheranism.