Rorate Caeli
SSPX America starts new email update

The holy priests of the Society of St. Pius X in America have started an email update list. One can subscribe simply by entering their e-mail address in the webform on the left navigation bar at http://www.sspx.org/.

The update list will be sent out regularly and keep readers informed of new additions to the site and announcements, as well as forthcoming features.

Please sign up and forward to as many friends as possible. Since the media and Church officials rarely allow the truth of the SSPX to be told, this is a great way to stay up to date on the bastion of traditional Faith, unfiltered.
And please remember to follow @RorateCaeli on Twitter.

45 comments:

Anonymous said...

"this is a great way to stay up to date on the bastion of traditional Faith, unfiltered."

What a lie.

Bastions of traditional Faith don't get themselves suspended, excommunicated, invalidly attempt to absolve people of their sins, invalidly attempt to marry people, etc.

LeonG said...

"Since the media and Church officials rarely allow the truth of the SSPX to be told.."

And that is a fact from Archbishop Lefebvre and his meeting with Padre Pio onwards. Bishop Fellay is walking a media tightrope at present - damned if he appears to bound up in discussions with The Vatican & condemned for being an alleged schismatic.

Anonymous said...

"Since the media and Church officials rarely allow the truth of the SSPX to be told.."

I fail to see the difference between being on an email list versus visiting the website for the same information. This will have very little impact upon those people who rely upon the "media and church officials" for the truth. These people do not visit the websites of the SSPX and would not sign up for this news service.

"this is a great way to stay up to date on the bastion of traditional Faith, unfiltered."

This is another matter completely. First of all, how can Rorate Caeli even begin to believe that what comes from the SSPX will be "unfiltered". Even Rorate Caeli cannot manage that great feat. All 21st century news media seeks to manufacture consent. PERIOD.

There are different types of filtering. Not being filtered by your enemies simply means that you have the ability to present your material as freely as you would like. This can lead to propaganda just as readily as it can lead to the dissemination of truth.

"But prove all things; hold fast that which is good. From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves." 1 Thess. 5:21-22

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous 17 December, 2010 14:47,

Did you just wake up from a 40-year long beauty sleep? Your very uncharitable slander attack on perfectly honest Catholic priests, who have been fighting for all of us, at great personal cost and sacrifice, is unworthy a Catholic gentleman. I would think it more honourable to salute them and be ever thankful for the lifeboat the Archbishop has given the Church.

Indeed they have been navigating the stormy seas to the best of their ability.

I prefer not to debate their inevitable human shortcomings, just like the rest of us, but to be thankful for what they have achieved and pray that a solution to their present canonical situation may be found swiftly.

Before you throw a stone at the Archbishop, think about what you would have done, if you would have had to carry the burden of the cross of his office.

/Don C.R.

Melchior Cano said...

Anonymous,

Thank you for hashing out old lines that even the Vatican doesn't use anymore. So, you're arguing from the perspective of punishment: They were punished, therefore they did something bad. Brilliant!

The Faith was, and is, under constant attack since Vatican II. Faithful Catholics have been persecuted simply for believing in the orthodox Faith. We aren't living in normal times. Your argument comes off as that of a petulant child. These sorts of discussions require that we make distinctions; that you at least pretend to address the Society's claim of a state of necessity.

Andreas said...

Anonymous 14:47 --- Unfortunately, nowadays bastions of the traditional faith do get suspended or excommunicated; folks like Hans Küng don't.

Anonymous said...

If you're going to post those words about the Society, at least be brave enough and man up to post your name. I do not attend Mass at a Society Chapel, but I have in the past, and am very sympathetic to them and hold many of their views.

Phillip J. Carrion
San Francisco, CA USA

Joe B said...

Oh, boy. Here we go. Didn't even take time for pleasantries on this one.

Merry Christmas, all you Rorate Caelis.

Bill M said...

I signed up for the e-newsletter.
Say what you want about the SSPX but I have attended many Masses with them and three of my kids were Confirmed by the Archbishop back in 1980 at Post Fass, ID.

rodrigo said...

Bastions of traditional Faith don't get themselves... excommunicated

Of the two major cinematic treatments of the trial and execution of St Joan, I find it hard to say with any certainty which I prefer. The Bresson has a purity of vision, and sobriety, which commands the attention and exposes the sheer banality of the evil at work in the unjust process. Dreyer's film, on the other hand, is such a work of beauty, so astonishingly prayerful an experience, that none who see it can come away unaffected.

Christopher J. Paulitz said...

Right anon, they would be traditional if they caved 40 years ago and said the Bogus Ordo?

Anonymous said...

@14:47: What about people who are silenced for their manifestly unorthodox speculations on religious liberty, and then go on to write such documents as Dignitatis humanae? Come to think of it, that applies mutatis mutandis to almost all the authors of the documents of the Second Vatican Council!

Anonymous said...

To the brave first anonymous commenter:

Before you start to rip up anyone here please learn the difference between licitness and validity.

Have a blessed Christmas,

A.M. LaPietra

Anonymous said...

Bogus Ordo

Is this now the editorial position on the Mass of Paul VI - that it is bogus? Whereas I "DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand" I might conclude that they do if the comment is by one them.

If the new Mass is entirely bogus then the Church has allowed the overwhelming majority of her children sacramentally to starve to death.

I am no fan of the new rite and am very grateful I practically never have to avail myself of it, but your comment sends out the message that this blog outright denies its validity. This is, I suggest, not helpful.

Apart from anything else, shrillness from the blog authors themselves can scarcely be expected to bring forth less in the commentors.

--Benedict Ambrose

RobertK said...

"Bastions of traditional Faith ...etc." Anonymous 14:47
Kindly refer to some of the saints biographies to see that this is a silly statement. St. Athanasius and St. Mary of the Cross,(a recently canonised saint from Australia)were excommunicated, St. John of the Cross was imprisoned by his own Carmelite confreres. These are a few examples from my very limited knowledge. To be better informed on issues relating to the SSPX please take the time to read its history and the life history of Archbishop Lefebvre as well as well assome of the books written by him. Many misunderstandings would be avoided.

Christopher J. Paulitz said...

I said bogus. I didn't say invalid. Stick with what I say when you criticize me.

Jordanes said...

Opinions expressed by Rorate Caeli's individual contributors or moderators are strictly their own, and are not safely to be attributed to other contributors unless they express agreement with those opinions. The blog owner occasionally will post an editorial expressing Rorate Caeli's viewpoint, but even then individual contributors or moderators might not agree with it on all points. What Mr. Paulitz thinks of Paul VI's Missal may or may not be the same as what other contributors or moderators think, and his opinion obviously is no more the editorial position of Rorate than mine is.

It has been a while since we've issued this particular notice, but commenters here are reminded to be moderate in all their expressions -- particularly when they wish to offer some criticism or objection to the SSPX. Although Rorate does not adhere to the SSPX, relentless criticism or denunciations of the SSPX are apt to make more difficult their regularisation. Certainly if one wishes to engage in such criticism, readers will be more likely to take such criticism seriously if the critic does not post anonymously. (Indeed, as a matter of common courtesy, all commenters should at least adopt a screen name, or sign their comments in some way.)

Jack O'Malley said...

I have never attended an FSSPX Mass but I believe history will show that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was a hero of the Faith. I hope that some future pope will have the good grace to canonize him. Without him there would have been no Traditional Mass.

And I hope that Bishop Fellay receives a cardinal's hat as the just reward for bringing his Society back into canonical regularity.

Christopher J. Paulitz said...

Bogus Ordo is just the pet name some of us have for what we know, if said by the book, is a valid Mass.

And I in no way speak for others on this blog.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes and CJP, your clarifications are much appreciated.

--Benedict Ambrose

Anonymous said...

Some of us seem to forget, that before 2007, and especially from the period immediately after the introduction of the '65 Missal up to the '88 consecrations, the SSPX really was it. They were the only one, with several priests diocesan and religious, who refused to go with the Revolution and the changes, and maybe a religious order here or there. Pre '88, there wasn't a motu proprio giving priests the right to say the Old Mass, which was never suppressed. Even with this mp, papal statements, etc. things are very much in bad shape. Imagine the situation in 1972, or 80, or 85. The Society was there if a young man wanted to pursue a vocation, there were no others. After the consecrations, the bashing, labeling of rebel, schismatic, non-Catolholic, invalid etc. kept on coming. Do not be so quick to forget all the good the SSPX has, and continues to do. While I, or any other Catholic, can debate on their current situation, whether they are right, should there be a regularization, etc, a comment such as the first anon's is completely inappropriate.

Phillip J. Carrion

Christopher J. Paulitz said...

And, let is not forget that the SSPX priests don't marry anyone -- the sacrament of marriage is confected by the man and the woman. So your claims of invalidity are really don't make any sense.

Anonymous said...

"My sister stayed out late with another boy and didn't get punished last night. Meanwhile while washing my dad's car, I accidentally got some water in the car, which upset other members of the family, who didn't appreciate water on all the fabric. I didn't mean to do it, but I was severely punished for it.

Therefore I've left my family, disowned my father and detest the other family members. It's just not fair that I should be punished while my sister is not. And to me, this is proof of my father's inability to govern me and my sister's hopeless and fallen state."

-Christopher Thomas
Do these priorities make sense?

Mr. Ortiz said...

Come on, let's be kind. If Allies and Germans can stop shooting at each other during Xmas during the Great War, can't people on this blog stop their cat-fighting for a little while?

I have never attended an SSPX event. Never will. But I know the Holy Father cares deeply about them, and wants them in full communion and protected.


If we acted more like Pope Benedict does, with manifest serenity, might be not be more worthy of the name Catholic?

Yes, I know the Church is a mess.

Let us reform our own lives, pray, and sacrifice.

God hears us. And He is good.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"but commenters here are reminded to be moderate in all their expressions -- particularly when they wish to offer some criticism or objection to the SSPX..."

As well as when they wish to offer some criticism or objection to the Holy Father's words and actions, or to the apostolate of the Ecclesia Dei institutes. Remarks to the effect that the FSSP, ICRSS, IBP, etc. are "traitors" are unjust and show a marked lack of the very same respect that a few combox regulars here demand for the SSPX.

Paul Haley said...

IMO the best way to treat ignoramuses is to ignore them. They are like little children demanding attention and throwing fits in order to attain their goal of self-adulation.

dcs said...

And, let is not forget that the SSPX priests don't marry anyone -- the sacrament of marriage is confected by the man and the woman. So your claims of invalidity are really don't make any sense.

I'm afraid that's quite wrong. Canonical form requires that the couple have their marriage witnessed by a priest with faculties from his Ordinary, or some other witness delegated by the Ordinary. SSPX priests are neither, so the marriages witnessed by them are invalid (absent any extraordinary circumstances).

Anonymous said...

Attn. DCS:

Do you believe the Roman Catholic Church does not consider marriages by the Greek or other Orthodox churches to be valid?

A.M. LaPietra

Anonymous said...

As a follower of Rorate since its inception, I must admit times have sure changed here. Rorate contributers seem to be taking on a much more pro-SSPX slant.

As a recent new SSPXer I hope that this is an indication of a softening of conservative Catholics toward the Society and a recognition of the indispensable role they have played in rescuing the Church from Modernism.

The impact that Society schools have had on my children is nothing short of a miracle. Yes, Catholic education is in crisis--but it is alive and well in Society schools--the truth in all its glory is being taught.

Gen

James McCoy said...

A.M. LaPietra:
I'm not a Canon Lawyer and should probably consult the Code before saying this . . .but I think the Catholic Church does view them as married. So, also does it view a Lutheran or Baptist couple to be married. But, I don't think the varieties of Orthodox churches or those other denominations are claiming to be members of the Catholic Church. SSPX adherents most certainly are and therefore invoke the "state of necessity" argument. I understand and sympathize with the SSPX, and greatly respect H.E. Marcel Lefebvre, R.I.P., but I can't go there for weddings and confessions. I'm not convinced I'm going to rot in hell if I receive absolution from a juring (oops, I mean 'Novus Ordo'), priest aside from the now much more common availability of these sacraments in the Traditional forms administered by priests in good standing.
James McCoy, Saint Cloud, MN

Anonymous said...

What I would like to know is why the anti-SSPX folks and the SSPX supporters will not simply discuss this matter in an environment of scholarly debate. Lets get down to the arguments.

"Anti SSPX people" give us your argument and please back it up with concrete evidence. Now lets hear from the other side. "SSPX supporters" lets have your argument and supporting evidence. Now lets be able to look at both positions and determine which stands.

This would be better for the whole situation because it help to eliminate the false notions people have about the SSPX. Thank you.

Pascendi said...

The SSPX should read, study and reflect on Fenton's "Episcopal Jurisdiction and the Roman See" (American Ecclesiastical Review Vol. CXX, Jan- Jun, 1949).

Christopher J. Paulitz said...

Dcs, sorry, I figured repeating for the umpteenth time that we're in extraordinary circumstances would be redundant. But we are, and even my FSSP priest friends don't question SSPX marriages.

Shevyn said...

I've signed up the mailing list. period.

Anonymous said...

This is disappointing. On some level I can appreciate SSPX holding to traditional teachings and practices and I pray regularly for their full normalization with the Church--but I can only go so far with this because obedience to the holy father is central. So it is disappointing that Rorate Caeli presents the SSPX as being so stellar.....

Anonymous said...

Without getting into the SSPX argument per se, allow me to point out that "bogus" is a word that actually means something, i.e., false, fake, phony.

Let's try not to be like Lewis Carroll's Humpty-Dumpty who claimed that any word he used meant only whatever he wanted it to mean.

Anonymous said...

Attn. Mr. McCoy:

Your rationale escapes me. Some in the Anglican Church have believed themselves to be Catholic for centuries. Do you think those who were married by Anglican clergy (who were of the Catholic mindset) and are now accepted as Catholics due to the latest initiative from Rome will be required to remarry? Those people accept Vatican II so there will be no problem there.

You may have problems with the SSPX but I have problems with Pope John Paul II (Vicar of Christ) kissing the Koran. Even after doing this, he allowed the Traditional Mass to be celebrated only by indult when for years his commission (behind closed doors) declared it was never forbidden. Koran kiss yes, Traditional Mass restricted.

A.M. LaPietra

Anonymous said...

"Let's try not to be like Lewis Carroll's Humpty-Dumpty who claimed that any word he used meant only whatever he wanted it to mean."


We kind of see almost every prelate today acting like Humpty-Dumpty. They say a word and claim it has a meaning different from its accepted meaning. People are always trying to defend the council by trying to interpret what it said. Trying to give a word a meaning that does not belong to it. There is a good section in "Iota Unum" on this. Unfortunately I don't have the book with me. Otherwise I would quote it here.

Anonymous said...

"So it is disappointing that Rorate Caeli presents the SSPX as being so stellar....."

Some contributors do. Others don't.

dcs said...

I figured repeating for the umpteenth time that we're in extraordinary circumstances would be redundant.

Extraordinary circumstances (such as not being able to find a priest with faculties to witness the marriage for a month) apply to the individuals contracting marriage, not to the Church as a whole.

Cruise the Groove said...

This is great news.
It looks like things are really gearing up for the FSSPX!

Anonymous said...

dcs,

I would think an emergency situation exists in the Church when the German bishops "en masse" inform the Pope that they will not return the consecratory formula to "pro multis." In other words, the Holy Father is told that he can go pound salt.

I continue to be amazed at all the SSPX bashers on the blog who are only selectively outraged at episcopal disobedience and only selectively concerned about whether or not the SSPX is in communion with Rome. It would seem to me that given the present day ecclesiastical realities, you might prepare yourselves to make a distinction between "juridical" communion and "moral" communion.

Giles

Dof said...

I appreciate your point, Giles, and agree with you in so far as the internal forum goes - though only God and a man's confessor is judge of that. There would be difficulties in applying this to the external forum since the visibility of the Church would be gravely undermined, and anyone could claim this moral communion. (My guess is that Luther did something similar.) What do you think?

Christopher J. Paulitz said...

"Extraordinary circumstances (such as not being able to find a priest with faculties to witness the marriage for a month) apply to the individuals contracting marriage, not to the Church as a whole."

That may be your interpretation, but not mine. And I know a slew of priests, FSSP, Institute and others in traditional orders, all in full communion with Rome, who would also disagree with your interpretation as well.

Let me also state for the record that I have never even stepped foot in an SSPX chapel (I've been to Masses at an affiliated independent parish, but never an SSPX official chapel).

Just want to make sure you know I'm only an outside observer and supporter -- all while assisting at a diocean Sunday TLM every week.

Holding On said...

I did want to say that for all the excitement, fervor, passion, and even stridency on this thread, I do, in my own, odd way, genuinely appreciate, and almost even relish it, both the informative views presented, and the visceral commitment that lays behind them.

I'm reminded of that scene in the movie 'Pearl Harbor' where Alec Baldwin as Col. Doolittle points to the Affleck and Hartnett characters and says words to the effect, "you know how I know we're going to win this war? Because of guys like them."

As I have learned more about the historic patrimony of the pre-1958 Church and what has happened in the past 50 years, I have been enduring periodic bouts of darkness, depression, confusion, and despair. But Rorate Caeli threads like this infuse me with the spiritual certainty that somehow, even if I don't live to see it, this Church is going to turn around - because of the Holy Spirit and because of folks like you.

Have a Blessed Nativity, everyone.