Rorate Caeli

General Audience: Saint Pius X

In his General Audience at Castel Gandolfo earlier today, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of his holy predecessor, Saint Pius X. The immense apostolic work of the holy Pope was mentioned and praised in all its aspects: the reform of Canon Law, the catechetical work, his concern for the liturgy and for sacred music, his struggle against Modernism, his great accomplishments in the fields of frequent Communion and First Communion at a younger age.

The address is available here; we will post a translation when available. [Update: Check Asianews or Zenit reports in English, with translations of the main portions of the address.]

107 comments:

Paul Haley said...

In his time at Castel Gandolfo the Holy Father has, it appears, time to reflect upon the enormous task that lies before him and it is apparent to me that St. Pius X of holy memory will be his most efficacious guide in the work that lies ahead. It can only be a good thing that the Pope thinks of his illustrious predecessor in these perilous times. Faculties NOW!

By the way, some bloggers have pointed out that they have very little access to the TLM and the sermons, etc, that go along with it. There is a group at www.servi.org that has streaming videos of masses and sermons, as well as a host of other features may be helpful to those who are, shall we say, locked out of Tradition.

For a modest contribution one can partake of the enormous benefits of their apostolate and I will not get into the faculties question with this group except to say that I have satisfied my own conscience on this matter and if anyone has questions they should pose them to the fathers at their website. God bless those who take the time to correspond with these priests directly.

Anonymous said...

St. Pius X didn't restore the ancient practice of infant chrismation and communion, instead he introduced a new, even more bizarre custom of communion before confirmation.

Anonymous said...

The subject of the Holy Father's audience was not about a fraternity of priests, but instead it was about Pope St. Pius X.

Also, in his stance against modernism, this Holy Saint and Pope never said that in order to battle against modernism, that it would be lawful to ordain bishops without a papal mandate, or to build independent chapels for worship and offering the sacraments, or to start seminaries without faculties, or to tell Catholics that a fraternity of priests would have the authority to dispense Catholics from their Sunday obligation, or that a fraternity of priests could give marriage annulments. This is the Martin Luther method of dealing with modernism.

Pope St. Pius X was no Martin Luther. He was always obedient; otherwise he would not have been canonized.

Pope St. Pius X, pray for us.

Anonymous said...

I notice Papa Sarto doesn't have his pectoral cross hooked into one of the buttons of his simar in this photograph. Is there any significance to doing this or not doing it?

Good to hear the Holy Father talking about St Pius X.

KR

John McFarland said...

Anonymous 14:07,

St. Pius, being the Pope, did not have to answer the following question: what do faithful Catholics do when the spiritual sons of those denounced in Pascendi take over doctrinal and disciplinary control of the Church?

I shall be most interested to see how the current Holy Father deals with modernism modernism in his address, since St. Pius would no doubt consider him a modernist.

Anonymous said...

I have a number of questions regarding the application of Summorum Pontificum:

1. Can images, statues and relics be placed directly on or above a newly constructed altar to be used for the Extraordinary Form of Holy Mass?

I know the Cannons Regular of St John Cantius do place reliquaries ON the altar during Mass. Obviously they can keep the statues because the altar is pre-Vatican II. So, I'm curious how the reliquaries would be permissible.



2. I know of parishes that removed the relics from their altar stones after Vatican II, so I'm assuming that occurred in quite a few places. Also, the Ordinary Form of the Mass is celebrated quite often on a standard table-like structure. 

So, a) Is it necessary under Summorum Pontificum to celebrate the Extraordinary Form of Mass on an altar stone and one that b) contains relics? and c) If so, do the relics have to conform to the new guidelines of relics, that they be a recognizable piece of bone, etc?

3. Are ALL the rites that were in use in 1962 permitted? This would include, but not limited to, the distribution of all Sacraments, (Baptism, Confirmation, Unction, Holy Orders, Matrimony...) dedication of a church or consecration of an altar, enrollment in a religious confraternity or sodality, blessing of sacramentals, use of the 1962 Breviary... If not, which ceremonies or rites are permitted to be performed using the 1962 forms?

4. If the above are permitted, to what extent then, is the 1983 Code of Cannon Law applicable to those preferring or using the 1962 forms?

5. Is it permissible to receive Holy Communion in the hand at an EF Mass? I have read divergent opinions on this and need clarification.

6. Are lay ministers permitted to do the readings at Mass under the EF? I have read divergent opinions on this, as well.

7. Does Mass under the EF need to be celebrated on an altar consecrated using the 1962 (or prior, if older) rite of consecration?

8. If an altar had it’s relics removed, would it then need to be a) re-consecrated and if yes, b) would it need to be re-consecrated under the rites of 1962? (letter b, would seem to be redundant to question 7, but is actually a different matter.

Is there a place I can go for clarification on all of these matters? Thanks in advance.

Anonymous said...

Anon 14:07

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Delphina

Jordanes said...

St. Pius X didn't restore the ancient practice of infant chrismation and communion, instead he introduced a new, even more bizarre custom of communion before confirmation.

Not exactly. The Saint called on the Latin Church to lower the age of First Communion, but never said it should precede Confirmation. He apparently assumed everyone would understand that lowering the age of First Communion means lowering the age of Confirmation too. Today a few dioceses have restored the ancient, traditional order, but most continue to treat Confirmation as just a Catholic bar mitzvah.

As for the possible significance of how he wore the pectoral cross, that was a secret signal to everyone that he was a Freemason. (JUST KIDDING!!!!)

No, since I know nothing about how bishops have worn and wear pectoral crosses, I have no idea if there is any significance to how St. Pius is wearing his cross in this photo. Maybe somebody here can shine light on this.

Jordanes said...

St. Pius, being the Pope, did not have to answer the following question: what do faithful Catholics do when the spiritual sons of those denounced in Pascendi take over doctrinal and disciplinary control of the Church?

It doesn't appear that we have to answer that question either. The Church's doctrine and discipline can never be taken over by heretics and replaced by heresy.

I shall be most interested to see how the current Holy Father deals with modernism in his address, since St. Pius would no doubt consider him a modernist.

Is there really no doubt? But yes, it will be very interesting to find out what, if anything, he said about St. Pius' struggle against Modernism.

Anonymous said...

It would be nice for Mr. McFarland to give another brilliant explanation of how he justifies calling the present bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter, a heretic on the world wide web. I would hope for Mr. McFarland's soul's sake that he has a pretty solid argument.

Woody said...

"Obedezco, pero no cumplo."

Melchior Cano said...

Paul Haley,

" will not get into the faculties question with this group except to say that I have satisfied my own conscience"

Seriously? You throw barbs (often rightly so) at the modernists in the Church, and your answer is that you've satisfied your own conscience. Will you know shout with the modernists that "conscience reigns supreme." What in the world? Either be a modernist and stand by your bizarre statement, or be a Catholic man and explain the juridical situation of the fathers and how any supplied jurisdiction would apply to them.

This constant use by "traditionalists" of modernist understanding of the role of conscience, religious freedom, free speech, etc is becoming nauseauting.

Anonymous said...

"But yes, it will be very interesting to find out what, if anything, he said about St. Pius' struggle against Modernism."

Jordanes, I doubt that he mentioned it. However, if he did, it will prove something to me; that is, that he honestly has no idea of how, how shall I put this, "off" his thinking is.

Delphina

Jordanes said...

I went ahead and Babelfished the Holy Father's discourse and then did some amateur translation/editing so we non-Italian-speakers could read what he said about St. Pius X and Modernism. Only one sentence in the discourse is dedicated to that subject:

"Fedele al compito di confermare i fratelli nella fede, san Pio X, di fronte ad alcune tendenze che si manifestarono in ambito teologico alla fine del XIX secolo e agli inizi del XX, intervenne con decisione, condannando il "Modernismo", per difendere i fedeli da concezioni erronee e promuovere un approfondimento scientifico della Rivelazione in consonanza con la Tradizione della Chiesa."

I hope the following is an accurate translation:

"Faithful to the task of strengthen the brethren in the Faith, St. Pius X, confronting some tendencies that had become manifest within late 19th and early 20th century theology, intervened with the judgment of condemning 'Modernism,' in order to defend the faithful against erroneous conceptions and to promote a scientific deepening of Revelation that would be in consonance with the Tradition of the Church."

Anonymous said...

Jordanes:

I think it reasonable to assume that Pope St. Pius X would be outraged by what has happened since the Council, and I cannot imagine him approving of our conciliar documents, which is not to say that they are heretical documents but only flawed in serious ways.

Frankly, he'd have hurled anathemas and excommunications by the truckload to this lot of Satanists we have in the Church today, such as the nun in Illinois who escorts women to abortuaries and Fr. Raymond Gravel in Quebec. Even the existence of a Fr. Gravel would not have been tolerated for one second by Pope St. Pius X and, for all my support for some endeavours of Benedict XVI, it must be asked why he has done NOTHING to remove Gravel or the priest who simulated a marriage between two men in Toronto or the Illinois nun, &c.

This relfection from Castel Gandolfo might be a signal of what is to come. Remember, the Feast of St. Pius X falls in the first week of September.

To respond very briefly to another poster, most of those questions have been answered now and, yes, the other Sacraments have been restored in their traditional forms as options. No, Communion in the hand is not permissible at a Latin Mass, although we so far do not have an official word on this. Apb. Burke, however, seems to be taking the same line on such qq. as Fr. Ignacio Barreiro did so long ago. A certain Fr. Zed dismissed Fr. Barreiro's arguments but the latter was spot on and Fr. Zed was dead wrong. You see, law is not a blunt instrument but, to be valid, must take into account reasonable conditions. The ethos of the T.L.M. includes associated customs as part of the law pertaining to it. But I'd prefer to defer to Fr. Barreiro on this on or the priest who wrote the study to which Abp. Burke added that preface.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

The anonymous poster here who compared the S.S.P.X to Lutheranism is just a garden-variety ignoramus who obviously doesn't know the first thing about the law or teaching of the Church. It's hardly worth responding to him or her. The concept of a 'rightful disobedience' is well established and recognised and is not the same thing as the 'wrongful' disobedience of a Luther. The Society has not devised its own theology or arrogated to itself the faculty to make new doctrine; it merely adheres to everything that was always taught and believed. Not a parallel case with Lutheranism.

As for jurisidction, the S.S.P.X has not created its own dioceses and recognises the local bishops in sees. I'm surprised the moderators here even allow this sort of amateurish nonsense to appear on this blog. Kindergarten class was over here about five years ago.

The real question is whether or not the present Society disobedience is rightful. I consider that it is not, but I also think that Society supporters believe otherwise and are acting honestly, which is more than one can say for all those priests out there who break every rule in their own Novus Ordo book--and do so daily.

If the Society supporters are honest in their belief that there is a state of necessity requiring disobedience to save souls, ironically, they are protected by the 1983 Code which they reject. There is almost divine humour in the situation: the New Code protects them clearly.

So we should let the Pope and the S.S.P.X sort out this *internal* matter. The real problem is that many of the clerics in NewChurch are material heretics who have led their flocks into heresy--when they are not busy abusing children, that is.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

Jordanes, I doubt that he mentioned it. However, if he did, it will prove something to me; that is, that he honestly has no idea of how, how shall I put this, "off" his thinking is.

He did mention it, and his thinking may not be as "off" as you and others believe it to be.

Paul Haley said...

Melchior Cano said...

Paul Haley,

"will not get into the faculties question with this group except to say that I have satisfied my own conscience.

Seriously? You throw barbs (often rightly so) at the modernists in the Church, and your answer is that you've satisfied your own conscience. Will you know shout with the modernists that "conscience reigns supreme." What in the world? Either be a modernist and stand by your bizarre statement, or be a Catholic man and explain the juridical situation of the fathers and how any supplied jurisdiction would apply to them.


I asked to see the celebret given to this group by the then Head of the Ecclesia Dei Commission and it was provided to me. The Father Superior of this group was ordained vaildly in 1973 and the four priests subsequently ordained in 1995 were ordained by a Bishop of a diocese in full communion with the Holy See. The priests hold to everything that the Church has held since apostolic times and refuse only those novelties implemented in the years following Vatican II. They subscribe to the concept of rightful obedience and to this day accept everything that can be reconciled with Tradition. That is what I meant buy having satisfied my conscience.

I have to say, however, that I wondered how long it would be that someone would attack me for having even mentioned them. As for my having "thrown barbs" at others, I have only stood up for what I've been taught over 16 years of Catholic education from 1946 - 1962. If that is throwing barbs then I will have to plead guilty to the charge. In point of fact, I specifically hoped that anyone having concerns about the group would discuss it with the fathers concerned through their website. I did not want to start a theolgical "food-fight" on this forum with third parties being absent from the discussion - third parties who are the only ones that can respond accurately to the questions presented to them. I did not want to start that fight and will have nothing more to say about the matter. If you want answers, talk to the priests through their website at www.servi.org and leave me alone.

Matthew said...

Zenit has posted an English translation here:
http://zenit.org/article-30087?l=english

Knight of Malta said...

"The real question is whether or not the present Society disobedience is rightful. I consider that it is not..."

Query in the way of a syllogism:

1.) There are diocese throughout the world where the only Mass not damaging to the Catholic soul is an FSSPX Mass.

2.) A Cardinal at the highest level of Church hierarchy has said that a Catholic may go to an FSSPX Mass and, even, give monetarily to such a Mass, and this Cardinal has never been contradicted by anyone of higher ecclesial rank.

3.) Therefore, in certain circumstances, it is legitimate to attend an FSSPX Mass--in fact, it is, again in some circumstances, a Catholic's duty to do so.

As to the poster who is all tangled in his mind over communion before confirmation, just remember it was very common in the Church to give communion to infants moments after birth (and baptism). The practice is still very much alive in the Catholic and Orthodox east. Don't get too in the weeds over this one my friend!

Jordanes said...

As to the poster who is all tangled in his mind over communion before confirmation, just remember it was very common in the Church to give communion to infants moments after birth (and baptism). The practice is still very much alive in the Catholic and Orthodox east.

He was referring to the practice of First Communion before Confirmation/Chrismation, which was introduced in the Latin Church in the early 20th century -- apparently before then, no church had ever had Confirmation after First Communion. I'm not aware of any evidence of First Communion before Confirmation/Chrismation in the early Church, and that Wikipedia article to which you link does not mention any evidence of it either.

Jordanes said...

Thanks for the ZENIT link, Matthew. The ZENIT translation of the relevant passage is:

"Faithful to the task of confirming brethren in the faith, St. Pius X intervened with determination in the face of tendencies that manifested themselves in the theological realm at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th, condemning Modernism, to defend the faithful from erroneous concepts and to promote scientific reflection on revelation in harmony with the tradition of the Church."

Gideon Ertner said...

"...just remember it was very common in the Church to give communion to infants moments after birth (and baptism)."

Yes, but they had also been chrismated between Baptism and Communion.

Knight of Malta said...

"I'm not aware of any evidence of First Communion before Confirmation/Chrismation in the early Church..."

Fair enough. I guess my point was that it was nothing to criticize the Saint over (not that that was the poster's intention, but might have been interpreted so.)

Gideon Ertner said...

About the servi.org website: They certainly seem to be, in doctrinal terms, good and orthodox Catholics.

However, I remember coming across their website some time ago and noting the conspicuous absence of even the slightest reference to the local diocese or indeed to any other ecclesial structure whatever. That is still the case. Judging from their website, the Catholic Church only exists on 8025 Maverick Rd in Colorado Springs.

This sort of 'independent' group (as well as the FSSPX in more than a few instances) misses one of the most vital elements of Catholicism: the absolute need for ecclesial communion with and obedience to - not only the Pope, but also the Ordinary of the place (as far as the limits of lawful obedience allows).

This need is partly practical: someone must keep doctrinal and disciplinary oversight - it is just not enough to claim that you merely hold to all the Tradition of the Church; someone in authority must vouch for that or else the claim devolves into subjective opinion. But it also is an essential part of the spiritual constitution of the Church: no member can live seperated from the head.

The only instance in which it is legitimate to refuse obedience to one's Ordinary is when he is compromised and orders one to act unlawfully. As such, the work of the 'underground' Church in China, for instance, is completely justified.

Now there definitely is a case for saying that it would be unlawful for a Bishop to forbid his priests to use the Old Rite; in such an instance independent celebrations might be justified. However this is most certainly not applicable to the diocese of Colorado Springs since as far as I can see there is an FSSP priest who says Mass at the other end of town every Sunday.

Knight of Malta said...

"Yes, but they had also been chrismated between Baptism and Communion."

Really; now that's interesting. Do you have some evidence for that Gideon?

John McFarland said...

Anonymous 18:32,

I did not call the Pope a heretic. Neither I nor any son of Adam has the authority to judge him, nor the ability or right to judge the state of his (or anyone else's) soul.

I certainly am prepared to call him a modernist, because he is a modernist.

In this connection, I would suggest to you several of the SiSiNoNo articles on then Cardinal Ratzinger from the 90s and perhaps the early 00s. You can find them on www.sspxasia.com.

Bro. Jason said...

I believe that Pope Benedict's praise of the Catechism of Pope Pius X is probably the most interesting of all other points in the address. The Catechism is wonderful and in no way "oecumenical":

32 Q. What should a Christian do who has been given a Bible by a Protestant or by an agent of the Protestants?

A. A Christian to whom a Bible has been offered by a Protestant or an agent of the Protestants should reject it with disgust, because it is forbidden by the Church. If it was accepted by inadvertence, it must be burnt as soon as possible or handed in to the Parish Priest.

Paul Haley said...

Gideon Ertner said:

Now there definitely is a case for saying that it would be unlawful for a Bishop to forbid his priests to use the Old Rite; in such an instance independent celebrations might be justified. However this is most certainly not applicable to the diocese of Colorado Springs since as far as I can see there is an FSSP priest who says Mass at the other end of town every Sunday.

The question arises as to what rightful obedience entails and this is where we lay people, in my opinion, must butt out and leave it to the clerics involved to work things out if, indeed, that is even possible..

There is, indeed, an FSSP parish in the diocese but that presence was only allowed IMHO to counteract the presence of the independents who have been there since 1977, invited by the way by lay people who could not get the presiding bishop to give them the sacraments in the ancient form. The crux of the matter is what happens when the bishop requires the priests to celebrate the NOM and serve under the yoke of lay parish councils. What happens to the practice of the Faith and the salvation of souls in such instances? What happens to families split between attendance at the ancient form and the NOM when the kiddos know there is not the same religion being practiced and preached in both "forms"? What happens when their catechetical formation is completely different? I know the problems from personal experience and I assure you there is more to it than simple obedience.

Once again, I ask you to communicate with the priests themselves as I am nothing but a lay person trying to do the right thing in a sea of diabolical disorientation. But, I can tell you that these priests provided me with a spiritual life preserver in 1989 without which I most assuredly would have been lost. This was at that time when the TLM was non-existent in the diocese. For that alone, they most assuredly deserve my loyalty and they shall have it!

Anonymous said...

P.K.T.P. I agree with your comment:
"The anonymous poster here who compared the S.S.P.X to Lutheranism is just a garden-variety ignoramus who obviously doesn't know the first thing about the law or teaching of the Church."

Yet I don't think it is right for you or the moderators of this blog to block anyone from posting their opinions we have this chance to evangelize, correct and maybe change people minds.
Some people don't have the knowledge or the background of the Catholic Church to really understand why some of us disagree with the MODERNISM within the Church.

Some of us need to STOP feeling superior to others because we have a better idea of the apostasy that is going on within the Church.

Yes I know that Ignorantia juris non excusat.
but arrogance shown on this blog by some members is not cool either.

St.Pius X pray for us!

Anonymous said...

Knight of Malta:

That's not much of a syllogism. I was referring to *supporting the position* of he Society, not attending its Masses. I agree that its Masses fulfil the Sunday obligation and I am aware of what Msgr. Perl (not a Cardinal) wrote about giving a small contribution.

The quesiton is whether or not the Society's position is legitimate. Is it legitimate to reject the Pope's offer of a universal particular church when Rome continues to support very damaging theological positions at the same time? There, I hope I've phrased it to be fair to both sides on this.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland:

Modernism is a declared heresy, so if you called the Pope a Modernist, you called him at least a material heretic. And don't try to waffle out by saying that you used the small-case m and only referred to something that is not doctrinal.

What many of us might think is that he is indeed a material heretic but not a formal one. However, it might not be prudent to write that on a blog. The best course right now is to find the source of the various errors and correct them. If we all have good wills, it should be possible to do so. Correct the errors and the mispractices can be fixed and the Faith restored by degrees. Right now, errors are rampant and the churches, as a result, are empty.

P.K.T.P.

dcs said...

Therefore, in certain circumstances, it is legitimate to attend an FSSPX Mass--in fact, it is, again in some circumstances, a Catholic's duty to do so.

I accept this, however, the fact that it is legitimate to assist at an SSPX Mass does not at all imply that it is legitimate for an SSPX priest to offer it. For example, it is legitimate to approach a priest without faculties for confession in some circumstances (common error), but it is gravely forbidden for such a priest to hear confessions except in extremis. So one can't go from saying that it is legitimate for the faithful to assist at SSPX Masses to concluding that it is legitimate for the SSPX to offer Mass.

dcs said...

As for jurisidction, the S.S.P.X has not created its own dioceses and recognises the local bishops in sees.

Yes, but SSPX superiors exercise jurisdiction (which they don't have) over their subjects.

Gideon Ertner said...

Do you have some evidence for that Gideon?

That is the way it is done in the Eastern churches to this day. It is carried over in toto from the ritual used for adult converts, who also received Baptism, Chrismation and Communion at the same service.

Sean said...

Mr. Haley said:

"The question arises as to what rightful obedience entails and this is where we lay people, in my opinion, must butt out and leave it to the clerics involved to work things out if, indeed, that is even possible."

Kudos, Sir!I have a very close relative who is a Catholic pries. He was ordained in the New Rite and offered the New Rite Mass for the first 10 years after his ordination. He now offers exclusively the traditional Mass. He refuses to offer the New Mass, not because it is invalid, but because he is convicted that the externals of this Mass weakens the Faith of Catholics. For this, he has been sidelined by his bishop. He has been left with no means of income.

He occasionally reads this blog and marvels how so many laity wax eloquent about the present catastrophe in the Church and their solutions without any reference to how the present chaos has affected priests. He struggles everyday with the question as to whether or not he is pleasing God by permitting himself to be removed from public ministry when so many Catholics have no access to the traditional Faith. He has declined invitations to pastor independent chapels as well as kindly offers from the SSPX to work with them. He has great respect for Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX, but does not know whether this is what God truly wants, and he prays daily for the grace to discern His Will.

I could continue detailing the spiritual struggles of this priest and probably the many more like him. Suffice it to say that perhaps the discussions of Church affairs should indicate a bit more understanding that priests cannot afford to be arm chair generals in the present spiritual warfare.

Sean

Melchior Cano said...

Mr. Haley,

Don't get so defensive. If they have a celebret, then they're clearly not sede-vacantist, and regardless of the appearance on the local level, they're canonically regular. So, why would you not say that? What benefit from allowing the pretense to stand that their faculties are a matter in which one needs to satisfy one's personal conscience?

Joe B said...

Some of us think Millieism shown by some on this blog is just as 'not cool', but there is truth in much of it, so bring it. Many souls hang in the balance, and often a strong opinion gets through more effectively than 'sweetness and light', and it adds spice. Don't be so sensitive. It's a blog, not an encyclopedia, and an excellent one at that.

Anonymous said...

"I did not call the Pope a heretic. Neither I nor any son of Adam has the authority to judge him, nor the ability or right to judge the state of his (or anyone else's) soul.

I certainly am prepared to call him a modernist, because he is a modernist."

John I do not understand your post.

Modernism has been condemned by The Church and is not compatible with Christianity. It is heresy, a 'synthesis of errors'. So if you've called the Pope a modernist then you have called him a heretic a heretic, just as if you called the Pope a Calvinist you would be calling him a heretic.

Or do you not think Modernism is heresy?

Gideon Ertner said...

"I certainly am prepared to call him a modernist, because he is a modernist."

In Pascendi, Pius X defines the teachings of Modernism thus:

- Denial that the existence of God can be known by the force of human reason
- Reduction of revelation to mere subjective experience
- Denial of any supernatural character of religion
- Reduction of dogma to a form of religious narrative that only has value in so far as it expresses the religious sense
- Denial of the unchangeable character of dogma and doctrine
- Subjection of faith to science
- Denial of the authority of the Church in temporal matters
- Insistence that the Magisterium derives its authority from the individual consciences of believers
- Subjection of the authority of the Church to the individual conscience of the believer
- Denial of the infallibility of Scripture and of the Church

If you believe yourself able to present passages where Josef Ratzinger clearly has expounded these views, please feel free to do so.

If not, please shut up and show respect for the Holy Father.

Jordanes said...

There's a word I've never encountered before: Millieism. What is Millieism?

Gideon Ertner said...

I was able to find one article from SiSiNoNo about Cardinal Ratzinger, from January 1998. Its criticism was singularly unimpressive. Its main points of criticism were:

1. He designated Protestant religious theories by the name of "theology" (but that is the name by which such speculation is commonly known, and besides St. Pius X, in the aforementioned blessed encyclical, refers to "Modernist theology" even though it is certainly as far removed from Catholic theology as Protestant theology is).

2. He expressed his opinion that neo-Scholasticism had proven ineffective at combating relativist theological speculation (which it certainly had, and this is an incontestible fact, but it is not clear that this fact constitutes a rationale for abandoning neo-Scholasticism as a system; Ratzinger does, however, not seem to advocate a wholesale rejection of neo-Scholasticism but rather an adaptation of it).

None of these points show remotely that Ratzinger is a Modernist.

3. Ratzinger asserted that "ecclesiastical or Church authority cannot simply impose that we must find in Holy Scriptures a Christology of divine filiation." This point is admittedly more problematic, but only if taken as a statement of doctrine rather than as a statement of fact. As such, it remains to be proven that with this statement Ratzinger wished to expound a doctrine that the Church does not by divine right have the authority to bind over the faithful to obedience to its doctrines (which is condemned as one of the errors of Modernism), or whether he was simply stating as a fact of contemporary culture that the Church has lost its ability to bind over the faithful to such obedience.

I don't at all find the evidence for the former interpretation conclusive. And may I remind that we are bound by the moral teaching of the Church to assume any person's good faith unless we have good evidence to the contrary: Ante omnia autem, mutuam in vobismetipsis caritatem continuam habentes: quia caritas operit multitudinem peccatorum.

Paul Haley said...

Anonymous Melchior Cano said...

Mr. Haley,

Don't get so defensive. If they have a celebret, then they're clearly not sede-vacantist, and regardless of the appearance on the local level, they're canonically regular. So, why would you not say that? What benefit from allowing the pretense to stand that their faculties are a matter in which one needs to satisfy one's personal conscience?


Melchior, I truly have no desire to lock horns with you in this matter. It's just that I believe these questions should be resolved by talking with those primarily affected, i.e., the clerics themselves. In closing, allow me to say that the local bishop told me in person that the priest(s) in question did not have faculties from him and that they got the celebret by subterfuge. (If you believe that, there's a bridge over the Hudson you may be interested in purchasing). He is not now the bishop but his successor continues the line that these priests do not have faculties and are practicing illicitly. I satisfied my individual conscience by personal investigation of the facts and went from there. I urge others to do the same. (I offered the link to their website because I knew there were many who did not have the advantage of daily access to the TLM, traditional doctrine and teaching and the other benefits and spiritual riches available there.)

Mr. Ortiz said...

Gideon,

That post rocks.

Thank you.

dcs said...

Really; now that's interesting. Do you have some evidence for that Gideon?

What Mr. Ertner writes about confirmation (chrismation) following immediately after baptism is so unobjectionable that I'm surprised anyone would ask for evidence! The traditional order of the sacraments is: (1) baptism, (2) confirmation, and (3) holy communion. There really is no dispute about that at all.

John McFarland said...

Mr. Ertner,

The Holy Father does not do clarity, and so I'm afraid I can't supply what you request.

But the whole tendency of his thought is very strongly in the direction of the positions that you epitomize in their pure form.
If you do not know that, either you don't understand what you're looking at, or you don't want to understand what you're looking at.

I've given many examples of the problems with the Holy Father's magisterium. When I get a minute, I'll try to recap them.

John McFarland said...

Anonymous 14:05,

I am not learned enough to make the judgment that the Holy Father's teaching is or is not materially (objectively) heretical.

No one on earth has either the right or the ability to determine whether, assuming that his teaching is materially heretical, that he is a heretic.

But I do know that what he teaches can often not be squared with the traditional doctrine of the Church.

He has far more in common with any liberal theologian you might care to name than he has with, say, Archbishop Lefebvre.

I take no joy in reporting and insisting on these very, very unpleasant facts.

But unfortunately, they are facts.

Anonymous said...

"Yes, but SSPX superiors exercise jurisdiction (which they don't have) over their subjects.

dcs:
How so?

Anonymous said...

"I accept this, however, the fact that it is legitimate to assist at an SSPX Mass does not at all imply that it is legitimate for an SSPX priest to offer it."

dcs:

If, as you posit, it is illegitimate for an FSSPX priest to offer Mass, I would assume that you believe it is sinful for that FSSPX priest to offer said Mass.
Then in turn would it not be sinful and illegitimate for the faithful to assist at this Mass since he would be assisting the priest in a sinful act?
Just curious.


Cruise the Groove.

Pablo said...

"... I'm surprised the moderators here even allow this sort of amateurish nonsense to appear on this blog. Kindergarten class was over here about five years ago..."

Self-righteousness is a sin.

Charity is a virtue.

This blog allows much because they practice Charity.

It is one of my favorite blogs because of this.

*

Anonymous said...

dcs wrote,

"As for jurisdiction the S.S.P.X. has not created its own diocese and recognises the local bishop and sees."

dcs, could you please elaborate on what you mean by...."recognises the local bishop and sees?"

In all but a few exceptions, the vast majority of Society chapels do not have any affiliation or association with the local bishops and sees. In fact, they have no more association than the local Protestant churches, or Synagogues, or Mosques. The Protestants also recognise that the local bishops are Catholic, and that they exercise jurisdiction in the diocese. Jews and Muslims also recognise that this is how the Church operates.

How does the S.S.P.X. think differently that the Protestants, Jews, or Muslims when it comes to recognising the local bishop and see?

Gideon Ertner said...

Mr. McFarland,

"But I do know that what he teaches can often not be squared with the traditional doctrine of the Church.

Oh really, and how do you "know" that if you are, as you yourself admit, "not learned enough to make the judgment that the Holy Father's teaching is or is not materially (objectively) heretical"?

I'm not saying I can't detect a few tendencies in his thought that could be causes for concern. But since I can't see anything manifestly heretical in it, and since I don't want to pretend to be particularly learned myself, I try my best to refrain from criticizing him publicly, and I always, always ascribe to him good faith, which I think is both reasonable and in keeping with Christian charity.

Anonymous said...

"How does the S.S.P.X. think differently that the Protestants, Jews, or Muslims when it comes to recognising the local bishop and see?"

The S.S.P.X. pray for the Holy Father and the local Ordinary in the Canon at every Mass.

The S.S.P.X priests acknowledge that the local Ordinary is a Catholic bishop, of the only true Faith, who recieved his ordination, consecration, and jurisdiction through valid orders in Apostolic Succession, and that they are linked directly to the Apostles, possessing the Apostles ordinary powers of teaching and confirming the faithful.

I am fairly sure that Protestants, Jews and Muslims do not lend creedence to this.
Cruise the Groove.

Anonymous said...

Have the moderators here seen the story on E.W.T.N. about the lawsuit of the Mayor of Mexico City against the Cardinal there? It is major news. The Cardinal is confident that he can prove in court that Mexican judges were bribed so that they would legalise abortion.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

The last poster just does not get it. The S.S.P.X recognises that the local bishops are the lcoal representatives of the apostles. The Society therefore obeys the local bishops to the extent possible given its respect for the highest principle of saving souls. The S.S.P.X does not just recognise that the local bishop is 'Catholic'; it recognises that he has the ordinary teaching and ruling authority of the apostles. Obedience to him is usually not possible owing to a general defect, the one making the Society's de facto autonomy necessary in the first place.

This is why the Society priests pray for the Pope and the local bisho at each Mass. They do not substitute the name of Bishop Fellay for the local bishop. The Society is also not divided into dioceses. Its clear intention is to accept the current jurisdictions of the Church to the extent possible.

This is not Protestant thinking. Protestants devise their own theology and then mean to establish permanent structures for its propagation. This is not what the S.S.P.X has done. As Catholics, the Society must recognise the authority of the Pope and diocesan bishops.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dear Pablo:

It is also a sin to post nonsense or to barge into a conversation with ill-considered opinions. The Catechism also teaches that we are bound to seek the truth honestly. I am becoming more than a little irritated with people who just spill their guts on this blog. Granted, we all make mistakes but we are bound to think things over before making wild accusations against others.

If the S.S.P.X had no value and no cause for complaint, His Holiness would not have entered into formal talks with it. He is trying to heal a rift, not deepen it. We don't people barging in and 'expaining' that the Society is Protestant. I am not a supporter of the Society, as everyone here knows, but this is just ludicrous. The Society adheres to what our fathers and ancestors always taught and believed. They are not Protestants. The place to find Protestants is in NewChurch and, no, I am not saying that everyone who prefers the New Mass qualifies as a Protestant. But Protestant theology and schismatic attitudes abound in NewChurch and this is demonstrably provable.

The S.S.P.X has chosen de facto separation not in joyful rebellion but in a spirit of profound regret. Nobody wants to be separated in any way from the Vicar of Christ more than does Bishop Fellay and his priests. These are not rebels but men who have found obedience to be an unfortunate duty. I happen to think that they are mistaken in current circumstances but I don't doubt the honesty of Society leaders. I do doubt the orthodoxy of many of the diocesan bishops and priests, and I and others here can explain in a second why.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland writes:

"No one on earth has either the right or the ability to determine whether, assuming that his teaching is materially heretical, that he is a heretic."

Actually, Mr. McFarland makes a good point but misstates it. We certainly do have the ability to make such determinations. The probelm is only that we lack the authority to correct a Pope. Instead, we must rely on prayer for this. Popes, when offered warnings from good faithful, are bound to consider the situation carefully and examine their own motives and positions.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

"The last poster just does not get it. The S.S.P.X recognises that the local bishops are the lcoal representatives of the apostles."

Mr Perkins,

Thats what I just said.
I do get it.

Cruise the Groove.

Anonymous said...

I asked the question, "How does the SSPX think differently (than) the Protestans, Jews, and Muslims when it comes to recognising the local bishop and see." There have been some good responses to this. I agree that it's a good thing that the Society chapels pray for the pope, and sometimes the local ordinary. However, this in itself does not constitute any sort of willingness to be subject to the lawful jurisdiction of the local ordinary, which is how the Church has always operated, even in times of great crisis in the past.

One poster commented that..."The SSPX does not just recognise that the local bishop is 'Catholic'; it recognises that he has the ordinary teaching and ruling authority of the Apostles."

If you don't mind if I ask...if the SSPX recognises that the local bishop has the ordinary teaching and ruling authority of the Apostles, then to whom or what, according to canon law, does the local bishop have jurisdiction over?

Anonymous said...

dcs wrote:

"Yes, but SSPX superiors exercise jurisdiction (which they don't have) over their subjects."

Really, I need help with the virtue of patience. Must I hunt through the Code for all the right canons on this? I've done so in the past but nobody else here bothers, except for Jordanes.

The Society has a plausbile case for its position. If it did not, the Pope would not have entered into formal talks with it. Salus animarum lex supreme est. The Society acts honestly to protect what the Church has always taught and believed. The Pope seems to believe that this claim is HONEST. That's important because anyone could enter such a claim falsely.

When there is reasonable and probable doubt, there can be 'rightful disobedience' to defend higher laws against lower laws. We now know for certain that the Society had a just origin for its complaint all along. We know this because the Pope himself admitted in a legal document in 2007 that the T.L.M. had never been suppressed at law. But it was suppressed in practice and illegally! This was done because bishops throughout the world misapplied law. De Missali Romano, which was the origin of the suppression, had insufficient legal authority to abrogate the ancient Mass. And yet it was used as an instrument for doing this. Priest were thrown out of house and home for doing what they had a right to do! Where is the justice for them!

I am not saying that the suppression of the Mass is the only reason for the Society's acts of disobedience. It is but one example.

Of course, the question for today concerns the conditions of today. So I don't think that the Society's position is objectively justifiable now. Others here disagree, and they have offered good reasons for their disagreement.

What we can find, as reasonable and just women and men, is that Society leaders are good Catholics who mean well and want unity with the Pope. They are not Protestants. We have a problem when they are cut off and the likes of 'Fr.' Raymond Gravel are not. Something is terribly wrong. Gravel is not a Protestant; he fails to qualify even as a Christian. So why does the Pope keep him as 'a priest in good standing'? Can one advocate the legalisation of abortion on television and be that?

There is now a priest in Toronto who simulated marriage between two men. This is a sacrilege. It is like descreating the Holy Eucharist. Why is he still a priest in good standing? We have a nun who escorts women to abortuaries in Illinois. That makes her a murderess. Anyone who wills a murder partakes of it. She may be a murderess but she's a nun in good standing, unlike the S.S.P.X nuns! Tell me another.

The only problem in the S.S.P.X, if there is one at all, is an error in judgement. In contrast, there are serious errors of discipline and faith in NewChurch. So, yes, I am very ANGRY when ignoramuses come here and call the Society Protestant. And I am NOT a Society supporter. I'm angry because such accusations are fundamentally unjust. If posters are hunting for Protestants (and I am not referring to dcs here, who is a good Catholic), they might start by looking in a mirror. If they don't find any there, try the local clown Mass.

P.K.T.P.

John McFarland said...

Mr. Ertner,

The Catholic and Apostolic Faith is all about God, and man in his duty of giving greater glory to God. This involves, among other things, taking up our crosses daily and following Christ, and battling against the world, the flesh and the devil, because many are called, but few are chosen. We must also pray constantly and never lose heart, fast and give alms.

At the moment, you can get a copy of Father Faber's Spiritual Conferences for five or six bucks plus P&H from TAN Books. Written in 1850 or so, it very much reflects the spirit of the preceding paragraph.

Let me suggest that you get and read that book, and then come back, look me straight in the eye (so to speak), and tell me that in your considered judgment, Father Faber and the Holy Father are talking about the same thing.

You could also use any of Father Faber's other books. I choose him because on his own account, he was not preaching a high-octane spirituality. He was just trying to push, pull and prod the generality of his readers (and particularly the upper crust of Catholic London that frequented his London Oratory) to start taking the spiritual life seriously.

Anonymous said...

"...And I am NOT a Society supporter."

Mr Perkins,
Just curious; we all know that you are not a "Society supporter", you have made this clear on many occasions. I assume that you repeatedly state this to show a level of impartiality when you {support} many of the Societies claims, exception being the "state of emergency", so I guess you do support the Society and that is a good thing...be that as it may, I am curious, if you did not have access to an FSSP or indult or any Ecclesia Dei Mass site, would you assist at F.S.S.P.X. Masses? Or would you search for a reverantly offered Novus Ordinary form?

Cruise the Groove.

Gideon Ertner said...

"As Catholics, the Society must recognise the authority of the Pope and diocesan bishops."

And so they do, in some manner and form, but only to an extent solely determined by themselves. And therein lies the danger, which is not perhaps so manifest now, but may be in the not-so-distant future.

I understand the Society's worries. I really do. The Church is devastated by accommodation to worldly values. So many dioceses are in the hands of bishops who are profoundly confused about certain aspects of the Faith. Even Rome itself is not entirely free from this problem. But if the Society submits to Rome and become regularized under a worldwide apostolic administration, what have they got to lose? They will be allowed to teach the Faith as they understand it, in its integrity, and to open chapels wherever they want, and if some whacko Modernist bishop comes along and challenges them they can tell him to get stuffed. Even in the event that Rome were to turn on them and condemn them they could just get up and leave - again.

Let's assume that the Society gets what they say they want: the Pope publishes a solemn bull clarifying the doctrine of Vatican II in unambiguous terms and issues a Syllabus against all contemporary errors. Will that be enough for the Society? Will they humbly thank the Holy Father for his pastoral solicitude and praise him for the soundness of his teaching?

Or will they say that sorry, something or other is not quite alright; that paragraph could be worded better and you forgot to mention such-and-such and until everything is exactly as we tell you it is and all the bishops in the world solemnly sign the Oath Against Modernism on the altar of St. Peter's and the New Mass is abrogated we'll keep on doing our own thing?

Only time will tell. But judging from what the Society's bishops are saying (perhaps minus Mgr. Fellay) I am not overly optimistic that in the end the Society will turn out to be quite so Catholic as they claim.

Gideon Ertner said...

"Let me suggest that you get and read that book, and then come back, look me straight in the eye (so to speak), and tell me that in your considered judgment, Father Faber and the Holy Father are talking about the same thing."

I haven't read anything by Fr. Faber, but I have read the Confessions of St. Augustine and at least some of St. Teresa of Ávila's autobiography. I've also read a couple of books by Josef Ratzinger and yes, I'd say they are all talking about pretty much the same thing, albeit in different circumstances and with different emphases. I'm sorry if you don't feel the same way. I really am.

Anonymous said...

P.K.T.P.,

I understand the Society's arguments for its position far better than you might think, and you did not state anything that I didn't already know regarding this.

But you did not answer my question, so I'll rephrase it, and leave out the request for canon law:

If the SSPX recognises that the local bishop has the ordinary teaching and ruling authority of the Apostles, then to whom or what does the local bishop have authority over?

Anonymous said...

Anon. tries again with this:

"If you don't mind if I ask...if the SSPX recognises that the local bishop has the ordinary teaching and ruling authority of the Apostles, then to whom or what, according to canon law, does the local bishop have jurisdiction over?"

How much more can we spell it out? The Society recognises the authority of the local bishop but its members feel obliged to disobey that authority in order to follow the highest law. This is possible because no authority on earth is absolute (not even the Pope's) and we are permitted and sometimes even bound to disobey legitimate authority. The Church has always recognised a distinctiono between rightful and wrongful disobedience. If the Bishop asks you to shoot your mother, you are bound to disobey. If he asks you to accept a teaching that manifestly contradicts a previous teaching, you are bound to ask for a clarification and an explanation.

Therefore, the Society regards the current situation as unfortunate and temporary; it does not see it as a permanent breach, as the Protestants do. The Society does not believe that it alone is the Church or the oracle of truth, only that many of those in authority in the Church--most of them--are not presently protecting and advancing the Catholic Faith. They feel obliged not out of a spirit of rebellion but in a spirit of profound regret, to disobey until the Faith is once again proclaimed and no longer problematised by ambiguous formulations.

Is this putting private judgement above the Faith? No, it is not. The Society wills belief in everything required of us by divine and Catholic faith. So it merely asks the curia to explain how the constant teaching of the Church can be reconciled to some conciliar and post-conciliar statements. Rome does not only have a right to explain the Faith: she also has the duty to do so in order to save souls and strengthen resolve. God did give us free wills and He does not ask us to assent to those opinions which seem counter to truth and are not proclaimed to be infallible. Being Catholic does not mean a blind following of everything a bishop might say. We are required to use our free wills to seek truth and pray for understanding.

P.K.T.P.

Long-Skirts said...

P.K.T.P. said:

"The Society adheres to what our fathers and ancestors always taught and believed. "

ONCE
THERE
WAS
A
FATHER

Once there was a father
Who loved his little girl
He held her hand and walked to Mass
So she could see the Pearl.

“My darling there is silver
My darling there is gold
But the greatest price is sacrifice
The world keeps that untold.

The world can give you silver
With gold it can entice
Diamond, topaz, rubies,
But none can match Pearl’s price.

Sacrifice gave birth to you
Sacrifice it fed
Sacrifice it guided you
Sacrifice it bled.

For every drop of blood He shed
Gave us the faith to trust
And made us rich in sacrifice
To give you Bread not crust.

And for awhile sometimes we stray
Believing not in Creeds
But when things don’t sustain our souls
Then turn to Pearl that bleeds.”

Failing father said he wished,
“For every time…a penny,”
He heard the daily words so rich,
“…be shed for you and many.”

The little girl she cried
Raining on his bed a flood
But father saw her sacrifice
“Your tears are crystal blood.”

Once there was a father
Who loved his little girl
He held her hand for his last Mass
But left her with…the Pearl!

Merci Marcel!!

Anonymous said...

Our Holy Father gives a little talk on Pope St. Pius X and it turns into an SSPX pro and con discussion.

Don't know about you all, but it is getting to the point where I do not even want to hear the about them anymore. Do you SSPX people think that the life in the Church revolves around you?

Joe B said...

Millieism - as of a Millie, or one who can't stand confrontation. The opposite of, say, Saint Jerome.

This wasn't a serious comment. But I do enjoy the argumentation here as much as I admire the calm, polite posts. The temperament is secondary to the information, that's all. Those who run this blog do a good job of drawing the line at excessive language, so Saint Jeromes, bring it.

John McFarland said...

Mr. Ertner,

Does the Holy Father's Milestones remind you of the Confessions and the Life?

LeonG said...

The Pope who was the most esteemed as "Christ-like" by St Pio da Pietrelcina is totally ignored by the post-conciliar papacies. Significantly, his writings condemn their liberal modernist philosophies and practices, in advance. No one who reads his thoroughly Roman Catholic works can overlook how they point the authentic finger of accusation at those who are currently embarrassing & confusing the church at every turn - moral, financial and liturgical.

We discover in this great and saintly Holy Father's works the only effective programme for restoring all things in Christ.

Pope Benedict XVI take note! please!

John L said...

'But if the Society submits to Rome and become regularized under a worldwide apostolic administration, what have they got to lose?'

This is the crucial point. What they have to lose is the right to refuse to say the Novus Ordo, to refuse to say that the Novus Ordo is offensive to God, to refuse to refrain from criticising dubious features of the Second Vatican Council such as its teaching on religious liberty, to refuse to refrain from criticising the actions of Paul VI and John Paul II, to refuse to refrain from attacking modernist theologians such as Marie-Dominique Chenu and Karl Rahner for their rejection of the faith, to refuse to refrain from stating that many bishops reject the faith and are trying to destroy it, to refuse to refrain from saying that the training of priests in the vast majority of seminaries is an attack on their faith.

The reason they would lose these rights if regularised under current circumstances is that it is the policy of the Vatican to deny these facts that the SSPX point out and insist on, and to suppress anyone who does point them out. Regularisation involves obedience to the policy decisions of one's superiors. So if regularised, the SSPX would have to practice this obedience. Look at the FSSP and other regularised traditionalist groups; they are not permitted to publicly exercise any of the above rights. An official recognition of the legitimacy of these rights, and a real commitment to upholding them, is thus needed if the Society is to be able to prudently accept regularisation. Otherwise it will be prevented from doing work that is essential to the salvation of souls, via the exercise of these rights.

Anonymous said...

Anon. re-phrases yet again, but I don't know what this ungrammatical question means:

"then to whom or what does the local bishop have authority over?"

Do you mean 'Over whom does the bishop have authority?' And what is the 'to what' all about?

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

What they have to lose is the right to refuse to say the Novus Ordo, to refuse to say that the Novus Ordo is offensive to God, . . .

If they become a worldwide apostolic administration, they wouldn't lose any of those rights.

Anonymous said...

P.K.T.P.,

I appreciate your reasoned response to my question, and I'd like to comment on one or two things that you mentioned.

You mentioned that Society members (although, technically, the laity cannot be members; only priests can) feel obliged to disobey that authority in order to follow the highest law, and that this is possible because no authority on earth is absolute and we are permitted and even bound to disobey legitimate authority.

To this I would like to say that there is only one authority on earth that can authentically interpret what God has wished us to believe. That supreme authority belongs only to the visible Church. Even if a pope is wrong on some issue, we are not allowed to leave the visible Church if we think that he is wrong. Didn't Our Lord say to Simon Peter...."Whoever hears you, hears Me, and whoever rejects you, rejects Me, and Him who sent Me?"

I'd also like to mention that if a Catholic attends a Society chapel, then there is no opportunity at all to submit to any legitimate authority on things that even a traditional Catholic would agree with, and as such, they cannot have the opportunity to disobey anything that would be wrong. They are totally cut-off from any relationship at all. As I have said previously, they have no more aasociation with the diocese than Protestants, Jews, or Muslims.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 19 August, 2010 23:46, yes, I agree entirely. It's gotten to the point that I seriously wonder why I should visit Rorate Caeli anymore. Everything always turns into the same old argument about the SSPX no matter what the content of the original post was.

Gideon Ertner said...

"The reason they would lose these rights if regularised under current circumstances is that it is the policy of the Vatican to deny these facts that the SSPX point out and insist on, and to suppress anyone who does point them out."

That is most manifestly untrue.

Rome has recently regularized groups such as the SIHM and the IBP without in any way denying them the right to teach what they have always been teaching (i.e. the opinions of Fr. Feeney and Mgr. Lefèbvre, resp.).

The only thing Rome has demanded is that they engage in civil discourse on these points and show respect for the office of the Holy Father. That is surely not too much to ask.

You can see the following on the IBP website. It hardly sounds like someone who has been gagged on the issue:

"Il est indéniable que Vatican II pose à l’Église les questions essentielles de la modernité : la conscience, la liberté religieuse, la vérité, la raison et la foi, l’unité naturelle ou surnaturelle du genre humain, la violence et le dialogue avec les cultures, etc. Mais le Concile date de 1965 et il n’est plus aujourd’hui un discours clôt. Nous le reconnaissons pour ce qu’il est : un concile œcuménique relevant du magistère authentique, mais non infaillible en tout point et, en raison même de ses nouveautés, en butte à certaines difficultés dans sa continuité avec l’Évangile et la Tradition. (...) Dans cette perspective, nous sommes invités à mener de façon constructive, à notre modeste niveau, un travail critique. Le débat fondamental qui est latent depuis quarante ans va pouvoir s’ouvrir au sein de l’Église, sans esprit de système, sur les points majeurs de discontinuité posés par le Concile et qui troublent la foi."

M. A. said...

"Do you SSPX people think that the life in the Church revolves around you?"

The life of the Church revolves around it's pillars of Scripture and Tradition, both of which the Society upholds. Frankly, I am quite glad that the Society exists because its voice is as an alert to the gaping holes in the Barque through which entering waters make it appear as though the ship is sinking. We know that the 'Ship' will not sink, but it will be because of the instruments God uses to save His Church, and I believe these instruments are the Trad Orders, of which the SSPX is a prominent one.

John McFarland said...

Anonymous 23:40,

You say:

"Our Holy Father gives a little talk on Pope St. Pius X and it turns into an SSPX pro and con discussion.

"Don't know about you all, but it is getting to the point where I do not even want to hear the about them anymore. Do you SSPX people think that the life in the Church revolves around you?"

The SSPX keeps coming into the conversation because it is the bulwark of the view that the Church authorities have departed from the doctrine of the Church, creating a state of emergency in which obedience must be sacrificed to the preservation of the Faith; because if we don't have the Faith, we have nothing.

Nothing revolves around the SSPX as such. But everything revolves around whether its analysis is right or wrong.

If it is right, then all other non-SV traditionalists are in some combination of denial, self-delusion and ignorance.

I would note that Mr. Perkins is about the only non-SSPX supporter among the denizens of this blogspot who seems to understand what the SSPX is saying. Practically no one else seems even to have tried.

Joey Belleza said...

This is my translation of the Holy Father's remarks:

Dear brothers and sisters!

Today I'd like to linger on the figure of my predecessor Saint Pius X, of whom we celebrate the liturgical memory next Saturday, underlining some subjects which can be usful also for the pastors and the faithful of our time.

Giuseppe Sarto, his birth name, born in Riese (Treviso) in 1835 from a farming family, after studies in the seminary of Padova was ordained priest at the age of 23. In the beginning he was the vice pastor at Tombolo, then pastor at Salzano, then a canon of the cathedral of Treviso with the role of episcopal chancellor and spiritual director of the diocesan seminary. In these tears of rich and generous pastoral experience, the future Pontiff showed that profound love to Christ and to the Church, that humility and simplicity and that great charity towards the most needy, which were the characteristics of his whole life. In 1884 he was nominated Bishop of Mantua and in 1893 Patriarch of Venice. On 4 August 1903, he was elected Pope, a ministry which he accepted with hesitation, since he did not consider himself worthy of an assignment so high.

[continued]

Joey Belleza said...

[my translation, continued]

The pontificate of Saint Pius X left an indelible sign in the history of the Church and was characterized by a notable effort of reform, synthesized in the motto "Instaurare Omnia in Christo"-"to restore all things in Chirst". His interventions, in fact, involved the diverse areas of the Church. Since the beginning, he didicated himself to the reorganization of the Roman Curua; then he began work for the revision of the Code of Canon law promulgated by his successor Benedict XV. He promoted, then, the revision of studies for the formation of future priests, founding also various regional seminaries, equipped with good libraries and prepared professors. Another important area was that of the doctrinal formation of the people of God. Since his years as a parish priest he had brought back a catechism and during his episcopate at Mantua he worked for the compilation of a unique catechism, if not universal, at least Italian. As an authentic pastor he understod that the situation of those times, also for the diocese of Rome, which then was diffused in Italy then the world. This catechism called "The Catechism of Pius X" was for many people a sure guide for the apprehension of the truths of faith through its simple terminology, which was clear and preceise for expostive efficacy.

He dedicated noteworthy attention to the reform of the liturgy, in particular the reform of sacred music, in order to lead the faithful to a deeper life of prayer and to a fuller participation in the Sacraments. In the motu proprio "Tra le sollecitudini" (1903, the first year of this pontificate), he affirmed that the true Christian spirit has its first and indispensible source in the active participation in the sacrosanct mysteries and in the public and solemn prayer of the Church. For this he recommended frequent attendance of the Sacraments, favoring the daily reception of Holy Communion, well prepared, anticipating opportunily the First Communion of children around their seventh year, "when the youth begins to reason".

Faithful to the task of comfirming his brothers in the faith, Saint Pius X, against certain tendencies which manifested themselves in the theological preferences of the end of the 19th/beginning of the 20th centures, intervened with deciveness, condemning Modernism, in order to defend the faithfyl from erroneous conceptions and promoting a scientific deepening of revelation in consonance with the Tradition of the Church. On 7 May 1909, with the Apostolic Letter "Vinea Electa", he founded the Pontifical Biblical Institute. The last years of his life were afflicted by the specter of war. The appeal to the Catholics of the world, given 2 August 1914 in order to express the "bitter pain" of the present hour, was the suffering cry of the father who saw his sons face against each other. He died soon thereafter, 20 August and his hunger of holiness began to spread through the Christian people.

Dear brothers and sisters, Saint Pius X teaches us all that at the base of our apostolic action, in the various times in which we operate, there myst always be an intimate personal union with Christ to be cultivated and grown day after day. This is the nucleus of his whole teaching and of all his pastoral committment. Only if we are in love with the Lord, we shall be capable of bringing men to God and to open them to His merciful love, and in this way to open the world to the mercy of God.

Anonymous said...

And what are the FSSP and the Institute of Christ the King and the Cody Wyoming Carmelites? Chopped liver?

Anonymous said...

"If they become a worldwide apostolic administration, they wouldn't lose any of those rights."

Jordanes,
Then I wonder why the Society has refused to accept an Apostolic Administration, which was offered to them.
I would think that this type of canonical regularization would still impede the Society from speaking the truth, at least that seems to be what the Society believes.
Bishop Fellay knows exactly what the Apostolic Administration means to the Society, as he did call it the "Rolls Royce" offer.
Cruise the Groove.

Anonymous said...

We do indeed know that the ship will not sink; it cannot do so, as we have Our Lord's guarantee of that. It remains to be seen as to whether or not the SSPX has been a positive influence on the Church.

In all of the crises that the Church has experienced, there has never been, to my knowledge, any positive influence from a group of priests who have removed themselves from the visible confines of the Church. There is no such thing as an eternal magisterium, or an invisible one to which Catholic can adhere. This is an invention of some traditionalists, and it also follows the thinking of Martin Luther, though of course Society adherents would not think of themselves as such.

I do know that there are many good people who are associated with the SSPX (priests and laity alike), but their position is untenable.

Anonymous said...

"I'd also like to mention that if a Catholic attends a Society chapel, then there is no opportunity at all to submit to any legitimate authority..."

Anonymous:
Not true in many cases.
There are many faithful Catholics who assist at both diocesan indult Masses and F.S.S.P.X Masses who do have opportunities to submit to legit authority, and do so.
Many faithful who, out of moral need cannot always assist at an indult Mass, so must needs assist at Society Masses, which is entirely permitted by legitimate Church authority, therby in both instances submitting to legitimate authority.

Cruise the Groove.

Jordanes said...

Then I wonder why the Society has refused to accept an Apostolic Administration, which was offered to them.

That's something only Bishop Felley and his fellow bishops in the SSPX can explain, and I don't believe they've publicly said anything about it.

Anonymous said...

"that's something only Bishop Felley and his fellow bishops in the SSPX can explain, and I don't believe they've publicly said anythining about it."

Well it must be a serious misgiving since Bishop Fellay does not want the Society to be in an irregular state for much longer.

Cruise the groove.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous wrote:

"Not true in many cases.
There are many faithful Catholics who assist at both diocesan indult masses and and FSSPX masses who do have the opportunity to submit to legitimate authority, and do so."

You are right, of course, that there are Catholics who assist at both, and therefore have the opportunity to submit to legit authority, but it's my experience that they are not many in number. I was referring to those adherents who exclusively attend Society chapels. Rome has said that they may indeed, as you have correctly stated, assist the Society Masses, (as long as it's not done in a schismatic spirit). However, the sacrament of penance, baptism and confirmation have not been condoned. And even though there are some Catholics who attend both diocesan and Society Masses, there still remain the Society priests who are offering the sacraments without authority of the local bishop, or Rome.

We could discuss the 'supplied jurisdiction' theme, but I'd rather not, since it would just end up in endless debate, with the citing of canon law to support both positions. Not fun.

Anonymous said...

On Jordanes's last comment:

They've publicly said that they will not accept regularisation of any kind until the doctrinal problems are resolved.

The difficulty there is that the Society members are not forbidden from adhering to all the theological positinos they hold, and they are not required to assent to anything new from Vatican II 'by divine and Catholic faith'.

Their position, as far as I can see, is that the errors being propagated by the bishops and clergy and even the Pope are a poison that needs to be eliminated in order to save souls. In other words, they want more than a right to preach the truth as they see it: they want the Holy See to condemn and reject pupblicly the views they consider to be dangerous errors.

Given their position, I cannot for the life of me see a resolution of this in the foreseeable future. What may happen is that the Pope might take unilateral action at some point to approve the S.S.P.X in some limited way. But one cannot regularise a group that refuses this. A gift cannot be enjoyed if the recipiient refuses to unwrap it.

The S.S.P.X has faith that, in time, the current crop of prelates will retire and, eventually, a new one will see the light and reject the post-conciliar errors in toto. But that day is not in sight.

My own view is that, whatever these supposed errors are, the Society's best position for saving souls is from a protected but recognised place in the Church. The Society is very limited in its effect operating as an independent body. There was a time when that was both necessary and the most effective position possible. That time ended in 2000 when the Pope offered them a p.a.a. for the first time.

Ultimately, this issue between my view and that of the Society is one of judgement, not logic. By judgement, we mean a reasonable assessment of a situation that comes from both intelligence and esp. experience. I feel that the hardliners prefer their position of splended isolation and would prefer never again to submit to Rome--even if this rebellious spirit operating mostly unconsciously. But the Society's view is apparently that the poison is so strong that it would not be possible to protect oneself from it if one were to obey those who are infected, even if those infected are limited to the Pope himself and his Roman curia.

Anyway, God knows if the Society's judgement is correct or not, and members of the Society--and other traditionalists--must act according to their own lights, provided they trust to prayer and a good will. In the end, we are not sinners if we do what we honestly believe to be right, and that applies not only to Society supporters but to those traditionalists like myself who do not support teh Society. As long as we act honestly and try our best to discern the truth of the sitaution, we do not sin. So we just do our best, knowing that our Lady's Immaculate Heart will triumph in the end.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

John L.:

The S.S.P.X would not lose its right to say the T.L.M. exclusively. Rome has also told it that it would be allowed to continue criticising the post-conciliarists and Modernists. You are wrong there. Both the Campos priests and especially the I.B.P. were given the right to criticise. Rome only asks that they are reasonsed criticisms and avoid unneeded polemics.

What the Society really fears is submission to a curia at Rome that still includes its enemies. The Pope has mostly removed the enemies of tradition from the Church (Hummes is the only one left in the top level, and he is due to retire next year). But of course, as long as secretaries and undersecretaries and officials and the Pope himself are influenced by untraditional theologies and Rahnerism, the Society declines.

The Society knows that, once it signs on the dotted line, very small concessions will be demanded from it over time. In a way, this is always necessary because Rome must take action to control its own circumscriptions. As Cardinal Richelieu said once long ago, Power seldom used is soon lost.

So, before that power is exercised over it, the Society wants the Pope to be 'one of its boys', boys like Robert Cardinal Bellarmine and St. Thomas Aquinas.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

To answer Cruise the Groove's question:

I have in my possession a letter from the P.C.E.D., directed to me, saying that attendance at Society Masses can fulfil the Sunday obligation. I would consider attending if there were no traditional Mass, whether Western or Eastern, that was approved by legitimate authority. I will attend the N.O.M. on very rare occasions when other options are impossible or very difficult and it is a matter of obligation. On such occasions, I look for the least objectionable one and park myself behind a pillar if possible, so that I can't see the shenanigans going on in the sanctuary, and I try to find one that has no music. The 8.00 a.m. Mass at the local cathedral, assisted by a Francisan who always wears the habit in public, is the best option. But I really dislike that option and will walk ten thousand mile to avoid it.

P.K.T.P.

mairedecortichon said...

What a pitiful rant all of this, this discussion about the FSSPX. Sanctity is what saves, not jurisdiction or blind obedience, what I know is that a lot of families are educating their children with the FSSPX, and those children do go to confession each week, they do know their Catechism by heart, and the parents? They try to stay out of mortal sin and go to confession as often as possible, with a contrite heart. It is silly to see modern Catholics argue about the FSSPX, in the mean time the parish(Nefarious Novus Ordo) next to door is full of heresy and demonic lies. To those who rant about jurisdiction and obedience, look at your western civilization, your cities and homes(sold to the demons, where sexual depravity reigns), with a Catholic Church totally unable to stop the militant, and silent relativistic atheism, with empty seminaries and perverts among the priesthood, you still think that the modern Catholic Church who preaches(material and formal) heresy will survive this? Our Lord promised that the Church will survive, but he never said that the number of the saved will be great, no,no,no, as we are already in darkness, the only people who will survive this are the very chaste, the very humble, and certainly some of the traditionalist.

Anonymous said...

Anon. who won't even give us a pseudonym, asks:

"Even if a pope is wrong on some issue, we are not allowed to leave the visible Church if we think that he is wrong. Didn't Our Lord say to Simon Peter...."Whoever hears you, hears Me, and whoever rejects you, rejects Me, and Him who sent Me?"


First of all, the S.S.P.X has not left the visible Church and Rome herself now admits this and admits that the Society is Catholic. The C.D.F. has even said that the issue is an "internal" one. So let us narrow it down to a matter of obedience.

Secondly, the Pope is ultimately fully invested with his teaching authority when he speaks infallibly. The Society is not rejecting or refusing anything infallible. Obviously, we are not a people who only listen to the Pope when he speaks infallibly but this is a very hard case here. When people have an HONEST desire to obey Holy Church and find that they cannot reconcile the sure and constant teachings with newfangled notions being spouted by legitimate authority, they have a right and a duty to ask questions. This all happened before in the Arian Schism. In the internal forum, which is where this leads, we are indeed bound to obey conscience, but we must relate this to the constant revealed teachings of the Church and not just rely on our own lights. If the Society members are stupid or wrong or just can't see the light owing to some defect of personality, God will not send them to Hell for this, but only for a bad will.

While only God knows all the circumstances, we can and should judge matters to the best of our ability. In the case of the S.S.P.X and other trads, I can see some wilfulness (on my own part, for example) and occasionally some pride (it's with nearly everyone) and I admit to being a bit of a contrarian. But I also see a love for the Church and a real attempt to respect Christ and our Lady. Most traditionalists seem to pray ardently and are attached to the Church. They do not come to church on Sundays to chat.

What I see in the N.O. people is a false-seeming saccharine brother-love and, a real spirit of rebellion and hatred for all that is good and beautiful, and a desire to take over and run the Church according to the whim of the herd. They want to conform the Church to the world.

Perhaps my powers of perception are flawed. I admit to imperfection. We try our best. But it seems to me that every aspect of NewChurch aims to invert the traditional faith of the fathers, not just on basic points of theology but in nearly every respect: music, architecture, dress, manners, liturgical terminology, devotions. We have an attempt to replace the greatest treasure possible with something completely foreign. I suspect that the origin of this substitution is demonic. If the Church before the Council was the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church extra ecclesia nulla salus, then any discontinuity with that cannot be from God. An inversion of truth is ... error, not a different truth. Truth and error will never meet and rejoice; good and evil will never come together and kiss.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

They've publicly said that they will not accept regularisation of any kind until the doctrinal problems are resolved.

Thanks, Mr. Perkins. I forgot about that. My brain is feeling especially sluggish today.

Anonymous said...

Many in authority in the Church do actually believe, or at least want to make others believe, that obedience to earthly Church authority trumps sanctity.

Martin.

M. A. said...

"It remains to be seen as to whether or not the SSPX has been a positive influence on the Church."

______________

Can one honestly say the Society has NOT been a positive influence thus far? I think it would be a crazed man who would say the contrary - that the SSPX has been an evil, or a bad influence in the Church.

Yes, in the very near future, we will most definitely see what role the SSPX has played in the Divine drama. The lines of demarcation will be clearly drawn, and at that point, all will be made manifest.

I would like to point out that neither am I an adherent of the SSPX. They do not disturb me as do the aged, fat ladies who carry our Eucharistic Lord in their purses!

Paul Haley said...

Would that we had the opportunity to ask questions directly to Pope Benedict XVI and Bishop Fellay in sort of a Q&A forum, to get answers to the many questions that trouble us in these times. That is, IMHO, the best use of technology for the salvation of souls that I can think of. But, we don't have that opportunity so those questions continue to vex us. And, it often consumes threads on Rorate-caeli to the chagrin of others who would like to see other topics discussed. Since I started the comments on this thread, I feel I must apologize as I said I didn't want to start a theological "food-fight". Mea culpa!

Joe B said...

Mr Perkins,

It sure isn't just your judgement, it's mine, too. I hate the Novus Ordo mass and I don't know too many Catholics who go to the TLM for awhile and then go back to the Novus Ordo. Recognizing the validity of the Novus Ordo, I look upon those who attend it as spiritually lukewarm or blind, but nonetheless Catholic. Catholicism is tradition, and Catholics who sell their inheritance for the Novus Ordo mess of porridge are seriously deficient in the Sensus Catholicus.

'Hold fast to the traditions we have given you ...' is sufficient for me in the case of the TLM and other sacred traditions, all of which SSPX carefully practices. Any pope who tries to bury something as sacred as the TLM under a cut and paste kindergarten product (again, not the consecration, just the banality of the rest of the Mass) deserves to be defied. Saint Peter's scandal to Saint Paul is nothing compared to those of the Novus Ordo hierarchy, including the popes. I'll gladly make my stand with those who defy them and defend the ancient and sacred version, especially when the longer time goes by, the more Rome admits SSPX has been right all along.

Of course, I disagree with you on SSPXs need for continued defiance. Without them we would have nothing traditional left in the practice of the faith. Nothing. Not the mass, not the Rosary, not Thomism, not ancient saints, not even Baptising all nations. And NOTHING HAS CHANGED, Mr Perkins, except a pope who is better than his predecessor, but who will be replaced by ... who? ... soon. Popes are very transient, and the group which gave us Paul VI (and their hand-chosen successors) still wields great power.

When we see, say, the dumping of the Novus Ordo in the circular file, a serious reform of the seminaries, and FSSP, Rome's version of tradition, with their own bishop and thriving inside Rome, then SSPX and I will part ways if they don't accept Rome's offers with a warm embrace.

Oh, is that going to take forever? No, I don't think so. Our Lady is on SSPX's side (inside the church, mind you). And so I am confident they have supplied jurisdiction.

joan said...

O Virgin most Faithful, O Tower of David, May we never turn from the right path. Keep us unshakably attached to it. Guard our Faith virginally intact, O Virgin most Pure, thou who has received the power to crush all heresies throughout the entire world. Keep for the Church,O thou Full of Grace, Her Sacrifice of the Mass according to the ancient and venerable Roman Rite. Keep us most faithful to this sure conveyor of grace. Cause to flourish within us, O Queen of All Saints, the holiness of the priesthood, of religion, of the family. Guard the Holy Roman Catholic Church and obtain for us the grace, O Mother of the Church, whereby we may from day to day become in the hands of God, instruments more docile and more apt for the saving of the greatest number of souls. O Mother of the Sovereign High Priest, grant us the grace by which we may work for the restoration of the Catholic priesthood, and thereby for the splendor of the priestly soul of Christ, illuminated by Whose rays, may the persons and families of our nation at length obtain the establishing of His kingdom.
O Queen of Martyrs and Confessors, pray that we shall labor until our last breath for the restoring of all things in Christ, for the spreading of His Kingdom, and to prepare for the glorious triumph of thy Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, O Mary. Amen.

Anonymous said...

P.K.T.P. wrote:

"What I see in the N.O. people is a false-seeming saccharine brother-love and, a real spirit of rebellion and hatred for all that is good and beautiful, and a desire to take over and run the Church to the whim of the herd. They want to conform the Church to the world."

While this may indeed describe some of the Catholics who attend the N.O. Mass, it certainly does not make up the majority of them, from my recent experience. I forced myself to attend two N.O. Masses in the last two months, at two separate churches and was pleasantly surprised. The priests followed to rubrics to the letter, and people who attended were respectful and devout.

P.K.T.P., now that I no longer attend a Society chapel, I also no longer have animosity for Catholics who do not attend the SSPX chapels, as I once did (I now attend an FSSP parish).

As Catholics, are we called upon to only love those who believe as we do? Should we only love those who attend a TLM? Does Our Lord and Lady only love those who attend the TLM?

I have seen beauty, humilty, and reverence in the N.O. Mass. I was surprised by this, but it is there. It's a bit hidden, and maybe not so overt as it is in the TLM. But of what use is the TLM to us, if it does not provide us with compassion for all, even for those who would want to conform the Church to the world? Of what use is the TLM if it causes us to believe that we are the only true Catholics?

Anonymous said...

How does one go about trying to get an FSSP parish in his diocese if the Ordinary will not do so [allow an FSSP parish]?

Martin.

Anonymous said...

Martin asked, "How does one go about trying to get an FSSP parish in his diocese if the ordinary will not do so?"

You can pray -a lot- and write respectful letters to the ordinary with your request. There's also the Ecclesia Dei that you may contact. But always - and this is sometimes difficult for trads - ALWAYS - be respectful in your requests.

The FSSP has only been in our city for a little less than a year. They were invited, finally, by the archbishop here. Before that, the faithful who loved the TLM were forced to have Mass offered in an old hotel which is owned by the diocese. In fact, this group, with the permission of the local ordinary, were able to keep the TLM going, in humble surroundings of one kind or another, for 20 or so years before they were recently allowed to have Mass in a real church. They had an elderly retired Jesuit priest who provided the TLM for them, but now there is an FSSP priest.

Now, after 20 years of being humble, faithful, respectful, and obedient to the local ordinary, this FSSP parish (housed in an NO parish, but that's okay)) is flourishing beyond all expectations. I believe that this is due to the patience of the humble souls who were true to their faith and were willing to suffer a bit, as well as be obedient. Justice can take time, sometimes a great deal of time, but if we truly love Our Lord and His Church, we can move mountains.

Paul Haley said...

How does one go about trying to get an FSSP parish in his diocese if the Ordinary will not do so [allow an FSSP parish?

Martin.

If the Ordinary won't allow it, I'm afraid you're only option is to appeal the decision to the Ecclesia Dei Commission, now part of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or to the Holy See directly. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings but the fact is there are many bishops who still don't want the TLM to gain a foothold in their dioceses.

Neal said...

Martin,

Invite the SSPX to celebrate Mass, and once they are set up suggest to the diocesan bishop that if he does not bring in the FSSP, traditional-minded Catholics will be tempted to join the schismatics. I've heard this has been successful on some occasions.

dcs said...

I think the goal would be a personal parish for traditionalists, not necessarily an FSSP apostolate. The two are not synonymous.

Anonymous said...

Attn to Neal:

Your scenario of inviting the SSPX as a ruse to get the FSSP reminds me of something. Remember Christ's parable of the man who was beset by robbers? He was passed by a priest and a Levite but helped by a Samaritan. To me the priest and levite translate to your official uncaring clergy and your fellow uncaring N.O. Catholics. The Samaritan translates to the caring valid but unofficial clergy and adherents to the Faith in the SSPX. Yet you seem willing to throw them under the bus to get an approved status.

Do you know of any group of clergy since the Vatican II Asteroid hit us that has suceeded in getting Romes's ear in discussing the problems it has caused? This after getting the Holy Father to stop the charade against the Traditional Mass. I would ask you to reconsider your plan.

A.M. LaPietra

Anonymous said...

"I look upon those who attend it as spiritually lukewarm or blind, but nonetheless Catholic"

Poor Mother Teresa of Calcutta! She did so much for the poor but remained such a blind and lukewarm soul!