Rorate Caeli

An update from the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer

From the Papa Stronsay blog:

Last night I was surprised to be alerted to the article of Damian Thompson in The Telegraph blog. We had not been asked about this project as I am sure the organisers would state. It is true that our faculties for celebrating the Mass in public are restricted to the islands of Papa Stronsay and Stronsay.

I would like to give our friends and families an update on our process of canonical erection. To be as clear as possible I limit myself to saying that things are not at all easy for us.

Our seminarians, two of whom could be ordained to the priesthood, finish their studies this month and are not able to be ordained because we have not been canonically erected as yet. We ask for your prayers.

For the rest, let me invoke St. Arsenius as quoted by St. Alphonsus. I am thankful for their wisdom particularly in a time when one would like to speak from the heart; and loudly.

Restraint and silence are the better roads.

Devotedly,
Fr. Michael Mary, F.SS.R.
Rome, 15 May, 2010

The update comes on the heels of the Catholic bishop of Aberdeen blocking a Traditional Latin Mass that was to be celebrated in St. Magnus Cathedral, Kirkwall. The cathedral is now held by the Church of Scotland, which had given permission for the Mass to be offered.

64 comments:

Mark said...

The Bishop is entitled to forbid such things - indeed CIC Canon 993 provides that his express permission is required for worship in No Longer Catholic sites.

Still, I wish he had been more gracious about this (and followed the example of the Cardinal), but also that Damian had not chosen to try and resurrect an eight-month-dead story. I pray it does not cause the FSsR too much difficulties.

Timothy Mulligan said...

Hence, the SSPX.

Anonymous said...

The FSSR has no right complain. They knew what they were doing.

Anonymous said...

We are praying for you, Sons of St. Alphonsus!

Persevere.

Anonymous said...

"Restraint and silence are the better roads."

This is probably exactly what the sex abuse scandal victims were told.

wsxyz said...

Anonymous -
Did you bother to read the note? The FSSR are not complaining. In fact, Fr. Michael Mary stated that he was never approached about the possibility of offering the "forbidden" Mass.

Anonymous said...

This might be being taken out of proportion. If the FSSR have restricted faculties, then their being able to offer this Mass was already blocked before the bishop said a word.

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

The Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer are getting exactly what the SSPX doesn't want to get into.

Anonymous said...

How interesting. I have mentioned the Sons recently, asking why it is taking Rome years to give them canonical form when it should have taken on a few weeks. Notice how their superior declines to comment on the reasons and then asks for prayers? Could it be that Rome has waited because she intends to incorporate the Sons (and other group?) into their own personal and international diocese or other particular church? One must reaslly wonder.

I find it hard to believe that the delay was simply Rome's way of 'hammering' this traditionalist group. Such a manœuuvre would only help prevent any arrangement with the S.S.P.X. I prefer to think that the reasono for the delay is positive and interesting rather than negative and treacherous. But it is something we can pray on.

P.K.T.P.

John McFarland said...

If you reconcile with Rome, you will not be permitted to work anywhere except wherever you were when you were reconciled. If there are exceptions other than the FSSP, I am not aware of them.

Several years ago, Bishop Fellay mentioned a more aggressive neutering process in France. The local bishops in effect told the FSSP in their dioceses that they could only stay if they became priests of the diocese, in which case they would be permitted to continue offering the Old Mass in the church where they were. I would be interested in knowing whether that process continues, and whether it has been pursued elsewhere.

Father Michael Mary's attitude of resignation is only admirable if his decision to make peace with Rome was the right one. The treatment he and his confreres have received would seem to be more evidence -- if more were needed -- that in fact the state of necessity continues.

Et Expecto said...

Bishop Peter Moran was 75 on 13th April. He will have tendered his resignation before that date, and will soon be replaced.

It will not be long before all the bishops of his generation have moved on and hopefully will have been replaced by ones with more open minds.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know or have any theories on why the FSSR have not been canonically erected yet?

Mark said...

'The local bishops in effect told the FSSP in their dioceses that they could only stay if they became priests of the diocese, in which case they would be permitted to continue offering the Old Mass in the church where they were.'

Seems unlikely, John; otherwise, how can one explain new Mass centres?

Anonymous said...

I had heard that the Sons of the Redeemer were regularised.If so why can't they exist as every other regularised order?

Or are there different levels of "regularisation"
Similar to different levels of being "in communion" with Christs Body.

Or perchance they are not regularised, but were just told that they are.
D.P.H.

Anonymous said...

I am surprised that Bishop Fellay is mentioned as someone vigilant about the machinations of newchurch with whom he is negotiating, in what Bishop Williamson rightly calls a dialogue of the deaf. The Tridentine Mass is still outlawed, except for the extraordinary cases. Were it not for Archbishop Lefebvre, there would be no Mass. He had no faith in the modern Vatican, as a result, he built a viable network that is otherwise impossible under bishops like those in Scotland, or for that matter, in Rochester, NY and Los Angeles, California.

Anonymous said...

They may have not been erected on account of the bitter internal division which came to the fore immediately upon the annoucement of "reconciliation".

When the agitators in the Curia saw it did not get the whole bunch of them, they might have put a stop to it.

Anonymous said...

What else can he do? Admit that he made a mistake?

Archbishop Lefebvre said long ago that Rome was not to be trusted which is why he went ahead with the consecrations.

It's as plain as the nose on your face where the hearts of the present residents of the Vatican (including Benedict) are, and it isn't with Tradition. They pay us lip service only.

Delphina

Gideon Ertner said...

"If there are exceptions other than the FSSP, I am not aware of them."

Well, the IBP, for one. And I believe that the AAJMV is allowed to erect chapels outside the territory of Campos diocese without the local Bishop's consent, at least within Brazil. But I may be incorrect on this.

The fact that Fr. Michael Mary sounds so frustrated in his statement indicates that Mr. Perkins is probably too hopeful as to the reasons why the FSSR aren't regularized yet. It is strange because I believe that Mgr. Moran was quick to give the FSSR limited faculties once they asked for reunion and he also visited them some time ago and said a private (TLM) Mass for them.

I would put it down to lower-level Vatican squabbling and petty politics. It is surely not the fault of the Holy Father - he probably would have cut through had he not had a zillion other things to deal with at the moment.

Anonymous said...

Well, Gideon, if the Holy Father can't override his subordinates, what good is he?

Delphina

David Werling said...

Didn't it take over four years for the FSSP to get full canonical regularization?

These things take time. Bishop Fellay knows this as well. That's why he's working out all the difficulties, especially the theological ones, before reconciliation. This way the life the fraternity isn't disturbed when and if regularization occurs.

I think the FSSR knew what they were getting themselves into, and even though they are strained at the moment, they are going about things the right way given all the circumstances.

I think it is interesting that Damien Thompson has come out with egg on his face. His blog piece made it sound as though Moran had simply forbidden the Mass after it had already been planned. It turns out that nothing had been planned at all. The priests they wanted to offer the Mass hadn't even been contacted. I think Damien got goaded into this by whoever sent him the letter. That person, who ever he or she may be, really ought to be ashamed of him or her self for causing all this ruckus.

Anonymous said...

I suspect the simply reason for not yet being errected is numbers.

There is a certain protocol about these things that goes back to the pre-Vaticana II era.

Since most of us here argue for restoring the status quo, its a bit surprising we do not want this protocol observed.

Erection as an institute of pontifical rite requires what, 10 or 30 professed members.

This group does not have the numbers.

Its just that simple.

Anonymous said...

I've long been sympathetic to the SSPX and have prayed for unity.

Whatever the reasons for this delay, it does not take the mind of Aquinas to recognize that this certainly does reinforce one of the key points the SSPX has been making for quite some time.

The FSSP was founded in very special circumstances, on the heels of the excommunications, and the founders were able to obtain a personal audience with the Holy Father. Yet 2 decades later they still have no Bishop. Not even as an assistant-under-secretary-of-something-or-another.

Treating a group like the FSsR in this fashion, even if there are good reasons for doing so, certainly does not aid the matter of unity.

Canonical structure is such a simple thing to resolve. These men have tried very hard to do what they have thought right. And a piece of paper can't be signed giving them canonical structure? Surely in the name of Church Unity a simple piece of paper can be signed even if the canonical structure provided is not perfect? It certainly can be edited at a later date.

And again in regards to a traditionalist Bishop. Surely there can be found one good man among the entire Church, from any of the traditionally minded orders, to serve in such a capacity? Perhaps as an undersecretary of espresso, tea, and hot cocoa. For goodness sake, we already have a secretary who releases the "10 commandments of driving."

Or for that matter, declare the small little island of Papa Stronsay to be its own diocese and appoint such a man as bishop of the island.

Even the dogs are given the scraps from the table.

LeonG said...

Compromise has frozen church leadership with subsequent divisions according to Our Blessed Lady at Akita. Unfortunately, all the indult societies are hamstrung by the same problem of compromise with what is basically unacceptable. This is why they experience very slow growth. Most bishops have set out to exploit their vulnerable position & Vatican lethargy. Therefore, the Holy Redeemer community can expect nothing other than to fall prey to identical post-conciliar indultarian trends. Everything will be done by ecclesiastical officialdom to undermine their progress. In the meantime, Rome will sit and do nothing except asphyxiate the world with profuse florid sentiments in characteristic equivocal postmodernist verbiage.

John McFarland said...

Mr. Perkins,

Do you have any information about the following:

Can the IBP can operate outside its original locations?

What has been the situation of the FSSP in France in recent years?

Joshua said...

No one has mentioned the other current apostolate of the F.Ss.R. - in Christchurch, New Zealand. I attended Mass there last year and found them working in perfectly regular order, with no difficulties with the diocese. (The Diocese of Christchurch also has an F.S.S.P. priest based at the cathedral, where he celebrates daily Mass.)

Anonymous said...

Anon. wrote:

"Erection as an institute of pontifical rite requires what, 10 or 30 professed members."

Um, while I don't remember the numbers off the top of my head, I do believe that they have 25 members or so, mostly in Scotland and a few in New Zealand. Not the reason.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

David Werling asks:

Didn't it take over four years for the FSSP to get full canonical regularization?


No, it didn't. They were founded in the summer of 1988 and received canonical foundation as a society of pontifical right about four months later. And there were just 12 of them.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Gideon Ertner writes:

"Well, the IBP, for one. And I believe that the AAJMV is allowed to erect chapels outside the territory of Campos diocese without the local Bishop's consent, at least within Brazil. But I may be incorrect on this."

Yes, you are incorrect about this. They were allowed to keep three or four chapels that are outside the Campos territory. These chapels existed at the time of their foundation. From their canonical erection in 2002, they need permission from the local bishop to establish more--even within Brazil.

The Campos structure was originally supposed to cover all of Brazil but when the Brazilian Bishops' Conference heard about it, its members hit the roof. As a result, they were confined to a tiny gilded cage in the territory of one out of the 262 dioceses of Brazil--oh, plus the three or four original chapels outside that territory.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

David Werling offers this ridiculous opinion:

"These things take time. Bishop Fellay knows this as well."


These things don't take time at all. The F.S.S.P. was erected in four months from the time of its application. Sorry, actually, it was 3 months (18 October, 1988).

If someone wants to do something, it takes an instant. But if someone does not want to do something, there are a million reasons for not doing it.

How come it took almost no time to reconcile the Institute of the Good Shepherd in 2006?

The comparison with the S.S.P.X is without foundation. It is the Society that is refusing regularisation in that case, not Rome! What on earth is Mr. Werling saying?

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland's point on this question is a bit garbled. First of all, the case he's referring to in France was unique and was more complicated than that.

Secondly, the F.S.S.P. is not an exception at all: it can go nowhere without permission from the local bishops. It cannot establish apostolates in sees without the permission of the bishops of those places. There is now evidence that Rome may 'fly in' Fraternity priests where bishops claim they cannot provide Latin Masses. However, to date, I do not know of any cases of this happening. We only have one letter from that Perl of low price mentioning it as a possibility.

Ironically, there is soon to become one exception to all of this. It is ironic because the Anglican ordinariates were not devised for the purpose of offering Traditional Latin Masses. But they are de facto dioceses and their priests have the right to offer the T.L.M. wherever and whenever they like; also, their bishops tend to be pro-Tridentine and will likely not stop this. But it won't happen often, I think, because the incoming priests' faithful are not used to Mass in Latin and will want Mass in sacral English. Still, some can and will offer our Mass.

Also, in law, the F.S.S.P. could go to the Anglican ordinary to get around the local bishop, and the Fraternity could ask the Anglican ordinary if it may have access to its churches to offer Latin Masses at available times. In law, at least, there is not one bloody thing the local bishop could do to stop this. But it won't happen often. Why? It is because the Anglican ordinariates are about to become ... [drum roll] financially dependent on the local Roman bishops. They will not want to displease those local Roman bishops .... (Also, the Anglican ordinaries have few sacred places to begin with.)

Nevertheless, this is a new juridical step. Next, we could have ordinaraites (for example) for the Traditional Latin Mass.

P.K.T.P.

mare said...

So many Bishops are wimps and liberal and scared to death of the traditional Mass. Why? Because it is so holy and centers on Jesus and not the presider or persons in the pews distracting one trying to pray. Yes, it is treacherous. Mary Ann in NJ

Anonymous said...

Most of the bishops in the world are wimps and even worse than that. They are scared to death of the traditional Mass. Why? Because it is so reverent, solemn and focuses on Jesus rather than the "presider"?????

umblepie said...

'The Tridentine Mass is still outlawed, except for the extraordinary cases' (Anonymous 15thMay 16.49)

Sorry, but you are 100% wrong. Where have you been since July 2007 when Pope Benedict issued his Motu Proprio confirming the inalienable right of all priests to celebrate the traditional Mass? For some reason the traditional Mass is named as the 'Extraordinary Form' of the Mass, this has nothing whatever to do with the circumstances in which it can be celebrated, as you imply in your comment.

Erection as an institute of pontifical rite requires what, 10 or 30 professed members.
This group does not have the numbers.(anonymous 16th May 01.13)

Rather a loose comment, and your numbers do appear rather random?
As it happens, and to my limited knowledge as a parishioner of Our Lady's chapel,Stronsay, served by the FSSR., there are currently 5 brothers at Seminary in Nebraska, 2 of whom are hoping to be ordained to the priesthood this year; 2 in the Mission in Christchurch N.Z.; and 6 at Golgotha Monastery,Papa Stronsay; all of these brothers have made at least their first profession. In addition there are 3 priests, making a grand total of 16 members of the community.

Anonymous said...

"Didn't it take over four years for the FSSP to get full canonical regularization?"

NO certainly not. Getting a canonical status required a few weeks and in the case of FSSP, it was recognized as a Pontifical right institute extremely quickly Autumn 1988.
You're confusing the "ad experimentum" statutes which are a rule for anybody in the Church with a simple, diocesan status or for pontifical right as well that is granted first "ad experimentum".

ICR-SP has been working under a diocesan status during years without any big problem before being granted pontifical right last year.
If I have read correctly, this FSSR is still waiting for the initial, ad experimentum status after 4 years and this is very unusual.

It seems Rome is simply doubting of the viability of this fledgling order. An attempt of Trad. Capuchins failed in Pennsylvania : they had their ad experimentum from Bp Timlin but they never grew up and so were dissolved a few years later.

As for getting a pontifical statute with very few members, you can see F.S.V.F which got it very quickly in 1988 if I'm correct and I'm not sure if they had 10 members then. FSSP started with 12 if I remember well.
It was very odd from the start when Fr. Michael Mary reconciled with Rome without having anything, not even a temporary status. Not a single trad. society has ever been so foolish.
They can certainly pray a lot and above all to be wiser next time.

Alsaticus

Paul Haley said...

What I infer from all this is that the modernists continue to insist that traditional orders must agree in principle to celebrate the novus ordo sacraments despite any individual concerns of conscience about those sacraments. They couch it in terms such as "agree in principle" to leave some sort of out for those they are trying to lure into their web of deceit. It won't work, of course, just as it didn't work for ABL and many independents who believe they have valid concerns about the entire philosophy that the modernists are trying to impose on them. This web of deceit, unfortunately, appears to begin at the top and we have heard nothing that convinces us that this web of deceit will be dismantled.

If one observes both masses, for example, there is no doubt that they are different and that they signify different things. Match up the Solemn Pontifical Mass celebrated recently at the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception by Bishop Slattery with any of the local novus ordo "celebrations" and one can come to only one conclusion - there are two different religions at play under the concept lex orandi - lex credendi (not de jure but de facto). That the Holy See continues to allow this obvious disconnect from reality is the real problem. You see, there are many modernists in positions of power in the hierarchy and until or unless they go to their eternal "reward", things will not change much.

As for any traditional order being able to operate independent of local bishops anywhere in the world, forget it! They have de facto excommunicated Tradition and they will not allow it to gain a foothold ever again. That is the unfortunate truth about SP, the remission of excommunications, the doctrinal discussions and other such inducements being offered by Rome. (I was going to say "inconvenient truth" but I didn't want to ally myself with that nitwit).

Anonymous said...

The dying branches are trying to starve the good branches.

The two most recent Pope's admit that V2 is fruitless (ref: Fatima visit). Pope BXVI puts his hope in the new communities - but he does NOT nurture them, unless you are of the NO.

IMHO, the FSsR should make ammends with the FSSPX and say to ROME, "your leadership is unhealthy, SP does not remove the crisis. We will dialogue when issues have been settled. Until that time we make repair with the FSSPX where we are safe and prosperous."

I pray that all Traditional Orders and aspirants to the priesthood and religious life would align with the FSSPX and demand justice for our Holy Faith.

Gliste

Anonymous said...

After reading His Holiness comments at the Fatima visit I am discouraged. I have less trust in his ability to fend off wolves or seemingly to feed his sheep.

The Pope says publicly that he supports the TLM but does nothing to enforce that support.

Perhaps Pope BXVI will back down soon and remove the SP experiment saying that it causes division and is unmanageable.

Perhaps he will create a reformed NO mass and outlaw the TLM. Then he would excommunicate all FSSPX bishops, priests and those religious and laity that assist with them.

Would that the current FSsR position hinder or promote such a horrible eventual outcome?

Gideon Ertner said...

"...if the Holy Father can't override his subordinates, what good is he?"

He's the bloody Vicar of Christ, successor of St. Peter, Supreme Pontiff and Universal Pastor, that's what he's good for!

Gideon Ertner said...

"It was very odd from the start when Fr. Michael Mary reconciled with Rome without having anything, not even a temporary status. Not a single trad. society has ever been so foolish."

You don't get it, do you? The community came to the conclusion, after thorough theological reflection and consultation with the FSSPX, that supplied jursidiction does not apply for religious orders and that they could therefore not - in good conscience - continue to live as an order without recognition by the Holy See.

The FSSPX's whole argument for its continued existence hinges on its belief that its priests have supplied jurisdiction. If Fr. Michael Mary believed that his own order did not do so, he would certainly have committed a grievous sin if he had continued on apart from Rome for much longer; in that perspective uncertainty about the future at the hands of Vatican bureaucrats becomes a decidedly irrelevant factor.

Anonymous said...

To the person who called Fr. Michael Mary a fool, I would humbly suggest rereading Matthew 5:22.

John Lamont said...

Alsaticus writes:

'It seems Rome is simply doubting of the viability of this fledgling order.'

Isn't that the point of statutes ad experimentum?

In any case, the monastery seems reasonably well established.

John McFarland said...

Mr. Perkins,

My apologies for the confusion. In all the details, I sometimes lose track of the fact that nothing has changed, and that there is no reason to think that anything will change.

C. said...

What the Scottish bishop did is common. If you want a priest to celebrate Mass in another diocese, it's no problem.

Oh wait, a Tridentine Mass? Let me enumerate the technical problems with your request and make dark hints about your orthodoxy and the suitability of the priest for the clerical state--request denied.

I hope the Holy Father addresses this in his rumored clarification document, because it is a big problem: bishops intimidate their own priests into not saying the Mass, and then they deny priests from other dioceses the ability to say the Mass. What is the point of Summorum Pontificum if bishops can effectively prevent its implementation?

Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland asked:

"Mr. Perkins,

Do you have any information about the following:

Can the IBP can operate outside its original locations?

What has been the situation of the FSSP in France in recent years?"


1. The I.B.P. cannot open additional apostolates without permission from the local ordinary. That is why the Opus Dei Cardinal-Archbishop in Santiago, Chile, ordered them to leave his Archdiocese, and even the entire country. They managed to stay there very cleverly, by claiming that their Masses at properties owned by them were not public Masses but were unscheduled Masses sine populo--sed cum populo; that is, for invited guests (another ludicrous distinction from S.P.). The fact that these unscheduled Masses just happen to occur at the same time every week is pure coincidence, of course. As long as the I.B.P. does not advertise them in accordance with a regular schedule, they are private; and if others publish the schedule, well, that's not the I.B.P.'s fault!

Seriously, though, they cannot open new apostolates without permission from the local ordinaries. What makes the I.P.B. different from the others is that the T.L.M. is its normative liturgy, a condition the F.S.S.P. was never able to have inserted into its constitutions (remember Protocol 1411-99?). But I argued in 1999 that this issue was being blown way out of proportion, and I was right. The ONLY issue that counts is the right to open apostolates without permission from the local jackass liberal bishops. Notice how 1411-99 is moot in light of S.P. and became irrelevant even before then?


2. The F.S.S.P.'s situation has not changed. Month after month after month it must say only one Mass per month in the Diocese of St. Claude, for example. Until the local looney bishop allows for it to offer more Masses there, it cannot do so. Ditto for the I.C.R. in the Archdiocese of Reims.

They are treading water. No jurisdiction for traditon means no freedom. Ironically, should the Pope publicly recognise Society Masses, non-Society traditionalists will be free. In the same way, every advance we've gained in the movement has come by way of the S.S.P.X. I'm not a Society supporter and yet I'm honest enough to admit it. It galls me that some here would try to deny this.

P.K.T.P.

St. Rafael said...

"He's the bloody Vicar of Christ, successor of St. Peter, Supreme Pontiff and Universal Pastor, that's what he's good for!"

-Well when is he going to start acting like it?

St. Rafael said...

Anyone who saw True Restoration's interview with the British district superior of the SSPX, Fr. Paul Morgan, knows sadly what Fr. Morgan warned about, is coming to fruition.

The FSSR is heading towards implosion.

Gideon Ertner said...

"...nothing has changed, and there is no reason to think that anything will change."

Absolutely true. Nothing has changed these past 50 years. The Catholic Church is still the Catholic Church, the Bishop of Rome is still the Vicar of Christ, the Holy Sacrifice is still offered daily on the altars of the Lord all around the Earth, the true faith is still upheld in the teaching of the Pontiffs, the Church is still pure and immaculate, and her sons are still weak and sinful.

That is the essences. Accidents are an entirely different matter altogether.

umblepie said...

Just to put the record straight, there is one additional professed brother in the FSSR community (who I inadvertently overlooked in my original comment). Thus the FSSR community currently numbers 17, comprising 3 priests and 14 brothers. If the FSSR receive canonical approval soon, 2 of the seminarians could be ordained to the priesthood this year, meaning that the FSSR will have 5 priests. Hardly a fledgling community -Alsaticus!

Anonymous said...

"You don't get it, do you? The community came to the conclusion, after thorough theological reflection and consultation with the FSSPX, that supplied jursidiction does not apply for religious orders"

Mr Ertner,

Not completely true.
There is a priest of the FSSR that believes that the FSSPX have supplied jurisdiction.
He has told me so himself.

John McFarland said...

Mr. Ertner,

The true Faith is not being upheld in the teaching of the Roman Pontiffs from and including Paul VI. It may be that behind all the modernism that they really still believed and believe in the true Faith, but they certainly haven't been teaching it. At bottom, they've been providing a theological rationale for an accommodation with the forces of the world.

Benedictine traditionalists are like conservative Republicans who believed that George Bush was pro-life and in favor of limited government and a balanced budget: people who are deluding themselves.

Anonymous said...

"Just to put the record straight, there is one additional professed brother in the FSSR community (who I inadvertently overlooked in my original comment). Thus the FSSR community currently numbers 17, comprising 3 priests and 14 brothers. If the FSSR receive canonical approval soon, 2 of the seminarians could be ordained to the priesthood this year, meaning that the FSSR will have 5 priests. Hardly a fledgling community -Alsaticus!"

Okay so it's a flourishing "society" still without any canonical status. You make the mystery thicker my friend ...

Here is what the "prior" is writing :
"I would like to give our friends and families an update on our process of canonical erection. To be as clear as possible I limit myself to saying that things are not at all easy for us." (Fr. Mickael Mary)

So why no canonical status since June ... 2008 ?
Why "things are not at all easy for us" ?
When they were relatively easy for FSSP, ICR-SP, FSVF, IBP etc.
I have no grief against the FSSR and wish them well - their adventure in these tiny Scottish islands is quite spectacular -, but this is a very weird situation and without precedent if I'm correct for a trad. society.
If you have some clues to solve the mystery, please I'll be glad to understand.

Alsaticus

nb. for one anonymous : all founders of trad. societies/institutes have negociated and fixed a status quickly ; even Abp Lefebvre discussed the canonical status with Rome in 1988.
The PCED headed then by cardinal Hoyos noted : "As a sign of this full communion with the Catholic Church, they have changed their name to Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer and are on the way to the approval of their Institute. "... it's a long way to Papa Stronsay.

Anonymous said...

"There is a priest of the FSSR that believes that the FSSPX have supplied jurisdiction."

Even the founder of IBP believes that the SSPX has supplied jurisdiction, and wrote so on his blog. He also wrote that he is not going to condemn the SSPX for their "irregular" activity.

To Mr. Perkins:

It took TWO YEARS to finally approve the IBP as an institute under the pontifical law. It was in 2008.

Anonymous said...

and they promised a Bishop for the FSSP. a long road indeed. Get real. The will is not there.

dcs said...

Even the founder of IBP believes that the SSPX has supplied jurisdiction, and wrote so on his blog. He also wrote that he is not going to condemn the SSPX for their "irregular" activity.

The question isn't whether the SSPX has supplied jurisdiction (to celebrate the Sacraments, for example) but whether the Church supplies the jurisdiction that the SSPX superiors exercise over their putative subjects.

Anonymous said...

The FSsR have a link to the FSSPX on their web site and they do not have a problem with FSSPX supplied jurisdiction.

I pray Father Mary does not let the lights go out while he waits for Rome. He is prepared to be a martyr - noble sentiments perhaps but I don't agree.

Anonymous said...

DCS,

the principles of supplied jurisdiction are the same for sacraments and institutes of priestly life.

Inasmuch as they are communities, they need no supplied jurisdiction, because the natural law constiutes superiors of every society with the authority to govern.

Inasmuch as they are community of priests, the authority over priests is nearly tantamount to jurisdiction over sacraments and sacramentals.

Therefore I see no problem with supplied jurisdiction over members, as you claim exists.

What basis do you have for your doubts?

Anonymous said...

A religious order is not the same thing as a priestly society.

In the latter you have all kinds of spiritualities and characters, in the former you have to conform and adopt the spirituality of the order.

That means, simply it is not as easy to recruit new members, and it grows slowly. Once the Sons of the Redeemer have at least 10-12 solemnly professed members, they'll be on the road to recognition as an institute of pontifical rite.

Its just that simply.

OK they have 17, but they are not all solemnly professed are they?

---------

As for all the naysayers who are convinced the hierarchy are entirely modernist and want nothing other than to destroy the Catholic faith....

Until you leave wealth, family, friends, career, marriage possibilities, and commit yourself to following Christ, you really should think twice before throwing mud at these religious who out of faith put their trust in the Roman Pontiff and who have not been deceived, for their merit is from God, and it shall be rendered unto them in full.

As for the Pope not being more generous, he has the Redemptorist order to contend with; if he erected a traditional version of them, then the major Orders would no doubt storm Rome out of fear that the Pope would go behind their backs and establish traditional forms of each of them.

The Papacy is a Monarcy, but often the intrigues in the Church against that monarchy are more like a chapter from the Dune Trilogy, than a page from the New Testament.

Pray for the pope!

dcs said...

the principles of supplied jurisdiction are the same for sacraments and institutes of priestly life

Except that one is recognized in Church law and the other isn't.

Gideon Ertner said...

"There is a priest of the FSSR that believes that the FSSPX have supplied jurisdiction."

I think they all believe that. But it is beside the point because the FSSPX is not a religious order, as is the FSSR.

Anonymous said...

On the anonymous reply to D.C.S.:

I believe that the superior of the Sons was referring to an established separate requirement pertaining to religious orders, one that makes their situation different. I have seen this mentioned on their site. Naturally, the S.S.P.X denies the claim. Like Anon., I favour the S.S.P.X side. I don't know enough about the matter to comment further. The purpose of my post here is simply to alert readers to the fact that there is a dispute in a matter of principle here.

P.K.T.P.

Gideon Ertner said...

"The true Faith is not being upheld in the teaching of the Roman Pontiffs from and including Paul VI."

Again: I was talking essences, not accidents. All Popes throughout the ages have from time to time taught things that were not completely true. But it is a dogma of the Faith that none have taught so solemnly.

My point was merely that if the recent Popes had taught error solemnly, the Church would cease to exist. But they haven't, and she hasn't. The Church is not changed in her substance by any number of misguided, ambiguous or confused statements coming from any Pontiff. Such things have always happened and will always do so. The Holy Spirit has allowed us to live with this for the past 2,000 years so I trust He will see us through in the future as well.

John McFarland said...

Mr. Ertner,

The indefectibility of the Church is not the issue. The Holy Ghost guarantees that.

The salvation of souls is the issue. There is not guarantee of that.

The teachings of the conciliar popes are not regrettable lapses. They are part of a revolutionary program of which Paul VI was the patron, and in which the future Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI were prominent activists.

That program was the digging out of the cracked cistern of compromise with the world. Not just practical compromise, but compromise in principle: an adoption of the principles of the French Revolution, supposedly purified by Christianity.

Look up the New Testament references to "world" in a biblical concordance, and you'll find one implicit or explicit denunciation after another.

But the conciliar Church embraces the world, dialogues with the world, seeks mutual enrichment with the world, devotes itself to integral human development. Here and now.

Very little talk of heaven, beyond giving the general impression that getting there is pretty easy work. Why else the white vestments at a Novus Ordo funeral Mass? And Hell? A handful of references in forty years, most of them most charitably described as oblique.

Belief gives unbelief some sort of spiritual uplift, while unbelief protects belief from vile fundamentalism.

With apologies to Bishop Williamson of the SSPX, one might say:

Vile fundamentalism: 2+2=4

Wholesome belief as enriched by dialogue with the world: 2+2=4(or 5)

Does the Pope think that the Patriotic Church in China is schismatic? Hard to tell, isn't it?

Read the work of the Holy Father for what's in there, not what you want to be in there. Compromise and its chief instrument, dialogue, directed to earthly felicity and fraternal solidarity, are everywhere. Virtually all his talk of God is of God as the provider of this felicity and solidarity, and hence the patron of the process of mutual enrichment between belief and unbelief that will bring this felicity. That's somehow better than atheism, although apparently not sufficiently better for us to call upon the atheist to repent and believe the gospel.

It's pretty tough to get to Heaven when the chief shepherd teaches this sort of thing. And many who think that they are Catholic -- not to mention everyone else -- aren't going to make it unless and until they are taught the full and unadulterated faith.

As the Ethiopian eunuch says to Philip the deacon in the Acts of the Apostles, how can I know, unless someone teach me. But the eunuch had Philip.

Our shepherds -- all the way to the top -- have by and large shown themselves hirelings. Until we again hear from them the voice of the Good Shepherd, we must keep our distance, and seek out those who speak like the Good Shepherd.

Anonymous said...

I think they all believe that. But it is beside the point because the FSSPX is not a religious order, as is the FSSR.
--------
Who says that the FSSR is a religious order - the FSSR or Rome? If the latter, when did it say it?

Anonymous said...

Damian Thompson has a special talent for resurrecting old quarrels, bickering with everyone under the sun and not hesitating to put friends in difficulty provided this allows him to post some saucy story.
His obvious homosexuality (just google a bit, Andrew Brown from the Church Times outed him publicly and he is not the only one) is the reason behind his wet stance on the matter and his support for Archbishop Nichols, the one who continues to allow the homo masses in Soho.
An homosexual Catholic journalist has the right to be in our prayers, but he has no right to cover and condone homosexual scandal.