Rorate Caeli

Now what?

From the sermon of the Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), Bishop B. Fellay, on Pentecost Sunday, in Bavaria, after a mixed analysis of the messy and confusing situation in the Vatican - where many seem to foil the good measures intended by the Holy Father:

Therefore: We simply keep on going. It is so clear, so obvious, it contradics all that can be seen. But, alas, we keep on going. Which is why, my dear faithful, this call to prayer [remains]. Because we can see that, at the human level, we try to do what is possible, but we can go no further. The discussions now come to an end. But what will happen afterwards? I do not know. It is said that the Pope would resolve the matter later this year. This solution should be something in our favor. But it is said that the condition is that we accept the council. Yet our arguments remain exactly the same as at the beginning. What will happen? I really do not know! But we should not fear. What I want to emphasize is this: Let us be under no illusions. We move on. We are on God's side, on the side of Catholics, of Doctrine, of Morals. We need all of it. ... Just hold on, continue, but without discouragement. For if now there is another shock, we could be discouraged. No, no discouragement, let us remain loyal to the end! [Source: FSSPX - German District; tip: Osservatore Vaticano blog]
For a more adequate picture of the moment, we add his own words pronounced in Minnesota a few days later:
"The truth is that Cardinal Levada has called me to Rome and it appears that it will be around the middle of September. That’s the only thing I know. It’s about the discussions we had with Rome. After these discussions, it had been said that 'the documents will be given to the higher authorities.' These are the exact words. That’s the only thing I know about the future. All the rest is made up. Please don’t run after these rumors." (DICI)

74 comments:

Anonymous said...

Please reconcile with the Vatican and get officially approved. This irregular situation needs to end!

Sean said...

Dear SSPX Bishops, priests, and faithful: accepting acknowledgement from Rome does not mean you have to acknowledge all that Rome does! Of course there remains much that is wrong within the Church; but your presence within the ranks will help to improve things. You have fought for long enough outside the city; now it is time to come inside! Praying daily that you will accept a generous offer from the Holy Father.

Anonymous said...

Seems like progress is in short supply, if only because this speech once again suggests that, whatever happens, the SSPX will decide for itself what doctrine means.

In other words, it still hasn't said goodbye to the notion that they can make their own magisterium, which is the root of protestantism. Even if that magisterium is exclusively created by selective reading of accepted traditional parts of the proper magisterium.

Much may be going wrong in the Vatican, many mistakes were made, some councils may better not have been held at all - but it is the Pope who has authority, and not the SSPX. That point still seems to be hanging over everything. Alas.

Anonymous said...

Yawn!

paul said...

Dear Sean

I presume you mean well but it's somewhat demeaning of you to suggest that SSPX-ers (including "followers" like myself) have somehow been outside the Church.

Re "generous offer" from the HF, as anything formal would be offered to and accepted (or not) by the SSPX and not mere followers, anything I might say next counts for nothing. But I can't help observing that there's much more to a settlement than things like admin. arrangements and strength of language in criticising NewChurch outrages. IMHO a key example is how the SSPX teaches us to avoid the NOM, to the extent that if there is no TLM available, it's better to avoid the NOM than to make one's Sunday obligation there.

So before any kind of "generous offer" can be accepted, either the HF will have to accept that it's OK for Catholics (SSPX) to believe and behave as if the NOM is sinful, or the SSPX will have to recant that view.

Which is why (rightly IMHO) the SSPX needs to have the doctrinal issues sorted out with Rome first, and why a mere administrative solution doesn't have a future.

And why should the SSPX hasten for a pseudo-solution? They (and their followers) are just doing exactly what good Catholics should be doing when faced with the sort of crisis we are facing.

More generally, if people want to put and end to the NOM, then as Bob Newhart says: Just stop it! Priests stop offering the NOM. Lay people stop attending it.

Cheers
Paul

Anonymous said...

Look, you all know, or should know, of Levada's history (Archbishop of SF). To think that we can or should join forces with him and the thousands of modernist prelates like him boggles the mind.

Just so you know, I had a private meeting with my own local Ordinary (now emeritus) back in 1989 and he admitted to me that Rome's purpose was to lure traditional Catholics into the NO or conciliar way of doing things. This was shortly after I had asked him to establish a TLM under the provisions of the Ecclesia Dei indult in the diocese and he refused.

So, I see these inducements being offered to traditional groups, and the FSSPX is only one of those being offered such inducements, as more of the same tactics as during the 1988-89 time-frame. The requirement is always the same, i.e., that we give up the fight for Tradition, or at least be quiet about it, and accept Vatican II. That is like`saying: "you must give up the Faith of your fathers and grandfathers and join us because we know better than they what is acceptable to God."

Those of us who see two different religions at play here (pre Vatican and post Vatican II) simply will not give in. We will go to our graves, if necessary, believing the perennial magisterium of saintly popes before the Council and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX before we accept any newfound counter-syllabus (their words, not mine) proposed by the modernists.

And so, it is with some measure of disgust that I see Rome continuing to put pressure on us - such as this latest proposed September meeting. Do they really think we will give up the fight? Do they really think we will knuckle under to their demands? If they do, they are sadly mistaken. Why don't they simply admit that our sacraments are valid and legitimately conferred and leave it at that? The reason, dear friends, is that their minds have been clouded by the disease of modernism, the synthesis of all heresies declared as such by St. Pius X in 1907. May Almighty God have Mercy on us!

LtCol Paul E. Haley, USAF(Ret)

Brian said...

But it is said that the condition is that we accept the council.

What is meant by "accept the council"? Ay, there's the rub.

Henry said...

But it is said that the condition is that we accept the council.

But what in precise theological terms does it mean to "accept" the council?

Nothing. Zero, zilch, nada. That's what it means to accept the council, which said nothing dogmatically that anyone could accept, even if they wished to. Certainly, nothing that anyone has to accept.

Ok, we accept the fact that the Council occurred, more's the pity. And we certainly accept that the Church made tragic pastoral errors in its wake.

That's precisely why the Church so much needs the SSPX back in a "regularized" status. So it can best support Pope Benedict in steering the Church back on course.

It's not for me to say how the SSPX needs the Church. But I know how the Church needs the SSPX.

So please, Bishop Fellay, please say you "accept" the council (blah, blah, blah, etc) and--for the good of the Church--accept whatever cadillac offer the Pope makes.

(I see that the verify word right now is "cring". Which obviously means, "Just do it!")

New Catholic said...

Date corrected, anonymous, thanks.

Anonymous said...

I agree, Brian. What does 'accept Vatican II' mean, inasmuch as it seems to infer that it promulgated new dogma - which it did not. The novel spin to old dogmas (eg religious liberty)were never promulgated as being de fide in any sort of coda - like all other Church Councils. Indeed, both John XXIII and Paul VI explicitly said that this was NOT what Vatican II was all about. Rather, it was just a vast, ecclesiastical parliamentary 'green paper'/think tank which tried to launch new kites to see whether they would fly. They didn't. But, apart from the wounded pride of the Vatican II generation, now passing - at the end of the day, there really are no dogmatic issues to square away re Vatican insights. As 'insights' is all they ever were!

Ah, such is hubris!

Tony from Oz

Anonymous said...

How can one accept "the council" seeing the desert it has created? Obviously, that phrase means more than accepting the fact that a council took place.
We continue to hear how wonderful Vatican 2 was and how much it has done for the Church. Look around and ask who would honestly say such a thing?
cm

Anonymous said...

Paul Haley's comments remind me of the more radical elements one finds in Eastern Orthodoxy or Protestantism. There are not two religions at play. I'd urge him not to 'go to the grave' with those views.

paul said...

Dear Henry

It's not just blah blah.

Do you want the SSPX to stop rejecting the NOM?

Mr. Ortiz said...

Accepting Rome--with all its problems--has been a perennial challenge. Yes, perhaps modernism is making things particulary bad, but, really, if you read even a little history, you realize that the Divine treasure has been put in the hands of sinful men. That's part of the mystery of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church--it's not a museum.

The devil can feign every virtue, a saint once said, except obedience.

SSPX must realize that a spirit of Pride can take root even amid the wealth of Tradition.

I pray they reconcile fully soon.

LeonG said...

"This irregular situation needs to end!.."

But not at any price!

LeonG said...

"it still hasn't said goodbye to the notion that they can make their own magisterium, which is the root of protestantism...."

What on earth is this nonsense? The roots of protestantism are more really to be found in the NO liturgy which is why so many tens of millions of Catholics no longer go to Mass or have become protestants. Look at the statistics and their substance. Study the liturgical abuses.

Anonymous said...

We need all the help we can get from SSPX.

This should be posted widely:

http://calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=3f7bd841-3f48-4d81-a1ff-4c51ab1ae195

A familiar manoeuvre?

LeonG said...

Each time we have a posting about the SSPX out come the usual strings of ill-informed insinuations about schism; heresy; sectarianism; invalidity and so on. When are the same people going to do some reading and study the situation as it has occurred and not from the same outworn viewpoint?

Cruise the Groove. said...

"More generally, if people want to put and end to the NOM, then as Bob Newhart says: Just stop it! Priests stop offering the NOM. Lay people stop attending it."

Many of us Catholics who want the TLM, exclusively, full time, do not have access to it, so therefore we go to the NO to fulfill our holy day obligations.

Just another mad Catholic said...

Dear LtCol Haley

That was in 1989 under a different Pope, the Holy Father recognises that Rome handled the situation badly in the late 1980s and is trying to do things right this time.


Do you have no trust in the Holy Father?

Mark VA said...

I would rather eat the crumbs that fall from the Novus Ordo table, if it be God's will, than to even contemplate having a banquet with schism, or her equally ugly younger sister, impaired communion.

Anonymous said...

To those who offer criticism of my comments I can only say: (1) it seems like two different religions are at play realizing full well that there can only be one and (2) if the pope is trying to do things right this time, why all this business about us having to accept Vatican II before we are regularized? To us, we are REGULAR it's the others who are not REGULAR.

Nevertheless, I accept the criticism in the manner in which it is offered. But, one has to express what is in one's heart no matter the consequences. And the consequences to those of us formed before Vatican II are serious indeed!

LtCol Paul E. Haley, USAF(Ret)

Anonymous said...

Anon. 12.29 repeats the old canard: it is Protestant to decide what is true or not, for Catholics merely follow the Magisterium like mindless drones. This argument fails to distinguish between private judgement and informed understanding. Is it 'private judgement' that is used to recognise the Magisterium in the first place? The Church nowhere guarantees that every pronouncement of the Magisterium is invested with an infallible authority.

From what Bishop Fellay is saying first here and then there, it emerges that any 'solution' proferred by Rome is coming later this year, not now (although, by this present date, he might be aware of what will be required). On the matter of what Vatican II entails, we are bound to offer "a religious submission of intellect and will" and to "shun contrary doctrines" or whatever does not accord with a teaching that a Pope or the College of Bishops declares upon a matter of faith, "even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act" (cf. Canon 752).

So we may withhold assent and ask Rome to clarify a docrine declared by Vatican II, but we must still yield a submission of both intellect and will. However, the Canon does not say that this submission must be absolute; it is to be seen as a general norm that may be limited by other rights of the faithful. As the salvation of souls is the highest law, any submission of the intellect and/or will is limited to the extent that one finds that two of the Church's non-infallible teachings seem contradictory. In such cases, one should submit to the extent possible by asking Rome to clarify but not to obey commands which adhere to one such teaching but violate another. In submitting the intellect, we must use the intellect to determine what to submit to.

In conclusion, if faithful act upon their right to make their concerns known to the Church (cf. Canon 212), the onus falls to the Church to resolve difficulties and remove apparent contradictions in teaching. While this process ensues, we have an ordinary obligation to submit and wait but not an absolute one, the greater duty being to protect the salvation of souls.

Most of the faithful apparently do not discern a problem and accept Vatican II, even if they do not know completely what this entails. For those who, in good faith, see a problem, there is a right to limit submission for the sake of salvation. So the Pope's course should be to resolve the problem for the latter group while protecting most faithful from any danger of being misled (from his point of view). So, given his pastoral responsibility, the answer should be for him to recognise that the Society is Catholic and to grant its priests faculties but also to ask other faithful to avoid the Society as a general norm.

As for accepting Vatican II, this can only mean accepting its teachings insofar as they do not contradict other non-infallible as well as infallible teachings. Really, it is not the Council per se that must be accepted but only the Magisterium of the Pope and of the College of Bishops acting together with the Pope. So, to assist the Society in resolving the difficulty, the Pope might merely ask that the Society recognise the full scope of this authority. It would seem, then, that the first item of business is to recognise a complete definition of that scope, one that takes into account current problems.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

'Paul' writes:

"IMHO a key example is how the SSPX teaches us to avoid the NOM, to the extent that if there is no TLM available, it's better to avoid the NOM than to make one's Sunday obligation there."

Does the S.S.P.X teach this or is this only being taught by certain priests in the S.S.P.X. Please clarify.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I 'get the feeling' that "accept the Council" was not a locution used by the Holy See but is Bishop Fellay's casual translation of what is being asked of him. At this point, I have no idea what that might be. Also, I cannot see how the S.S.P.X has denied anything that it is forbidden to deny. Does it deny that Vatican II was an œcumenical council? No. Does it deny the full scope of the authority of the Magisterium? No. Does it withhold assent from any teaching of the Magisterium that requires assent by divine and Catholic Faith? No. If it fails to offer a complete submission of intellect and will to some Vatican II teachings, does it claim to do so for a legitimate reason? Yes, it does. So where does the problem lie? If Rome wants to resolve any apparent misunderstaning, let Rome resolve it!

Perhaps the S.S.P.X will be asked to affirm certain things which it has never denied. This might be considered necessary so as to assure the faithful that the Society's refusal to obey some particular demands is animated by a desire to observe a more complete obedience to Holy Church. I don't know: that's pure politics, since the real problem lies in Rome's reluctance to condemn and anathematise the heresies which now abound among those claiming to be Catholic. But if the Society be asked to confirm what it has never denied and would never deny, so be it.

If this matter is so urgent, why is it taking four and more decades to resolve? Given his pastoral duty over the whole Church, surely this Pope should grant a temporary status to the Society pending a resolution of the doctrinal problems. What, after all, is best for souls? What is needful to souls?

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

LeonG,

Perhaps when the self-styled Magisterium end their increasingly tiresome and offensive comments on the Holy Father and good prelates such as Cardinals Burke and Ranjith, not to mention the equally offensive and self-defeating criticism of the hundreds of millions of Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo every week.

DefensorFidei said...

"Each time we have a posting about the SSPX out come the usual strings of ill-informed insinuations about schism; heresy; sectarianism; invalidity and so on. When are the same people going to do some reading and study the situation as it has occurred and not from the same outworn viewpoint?"

Each time we have a posting about the SSPX out come the usual strings of ill-informed insinuations about the "Conciliar Church"; accusations against any and all Catholics who do not accept the SSPX line; schismatic and ignorant declarations about how the SSPX represents the sole salvation of the Catholic Church (the Holy See included) while Ecclesia Dei communities are nothing more than evil traitors who ought to be treated as filth. When are these blind and fanatical followers of the SSPX going to open their eyes to realize that they aren't the only real Catholics left?

Anonymous said...

I agree with a few here that the statement "But it is said that the condition is that we accept the council..." is a very interesting one.

What does the official Vatican-speak mean in making this condition to the SSPX?

And just as importantly what does "accept" mean to the SSPX?


Archbp Lefebvre was a signatory to the documents of Vatican 2, and yet made clear his great concerns with some of its "concepts" regarding ecumenism, liturgy and religious liberty.

Clearly he "Accepted" the council as a legitimate ecumenical council. What one might argue he did NOT accept was some of the implications it made.

It is not clear to me from what Bp Fellay states what the Vatican means by "Accept" but his statement followed by "But our concerns remain the same" implies that the "accept" means something more than simply accepting the Vatican 2 council as a legitimate ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, which, to my knowledge, the SSPX has always done.

Perhaps the clue therefore is that "accept" implies the initiatives of the council rather than the council itself.

And yet it would seem strange that the Holy Father, knowing that in ecumenism and religious liberty lie the issues with the SSPX, would demand that they "accept" them.

Is there any light that can be shed on this cryptic use of the word "accept"?

Anonymous said...

One thing for certain is that, if the SSPX were to accept an offer, we would see the separation of the wheat from the chaff among the Society's followers. How many will turn their venom and hate on the Society itself, once reconciled? It has become clear that a portion (hopefully small) of the Society's followers have no interest in reconciliation and despise the Church. Those are the true schismatics and they need our prayers.

New Catholic said...

Friends, do not be too concerned with details, such as words, at this moment. For instance, the Bishop did not say "to accept", but "annehmen" - which may have a hundred different degrees of meaning in translation - and this in a verbal setting, in a sermon/homily, where there is always a certain flexibility of the terms used. So, please, do not take this so intensely at this moment.

Malta said...

I'm not a Canon Lawyer, but I am a lawyer. What does "accepting" Vatican II mean?

You can, for instance, accept that it was a valid council, but, because it was a pastoral council, one can, ultimately, reject every word printed in every document from Vatican II (except those things re-iterated which are dogmas from years, centuries, even millenia past.)

For now it is law. But an unjust law not only should, but must be abhorred. The New Mass being the perfect example.

I've said this before, but remember Lateran IV said Jews and Muslims must wear distinctive dress. That is a law that was rejected, and is rejected to this day. Councils can fail; and even fail terribly. Vatican II was the penultimate failure!

Read Gherardini on this! He is a respected theologian inside the Vatican! He was invited to the doctrinal discussions with FSSPX; he demurred because he was too sympathetic to FSSPX's side! You can't make this stuff up!

Anonymous said...

"Perhaps when the self-styled Magisterium end their increasingly tiresome and offensive comments on the Holy Father and good prelates such as Cardinals Burke and Ranjith, not to mention the equally offensive and self-defeating criticism of the hundreds of millions of Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo every week."

Some of what you write has to be addressed Anon, but even if some SSPXers behave in such a manner , it is no excuse for not being informed of the objective, historical facts that happened to cause the problems with Rome in the first place.

I pray everyday to Our Lady for the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X that it will become once again fully active in the Church.

Barbara

Anonymous said...

Bishop Falley and FSSPX,

You have been fighting from outside the city walls, it is time to bring the fight within the walls, those of us who have kept tradition within our hearts and minds will help you.

Like the Crusaders of the first Crusade all of us together, men, women and children will fight the enemies of the Church who have so confortably settle within Our belove Catholic Church.

We will fight not with metal swords but with the sword of truth, we'll pray the rosary, we will wear the scapular we will fast,and we shall all receive the sacraments worthily.

But we need you inside the city walls.

The Grace of Our King, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will not abandoned us, Our Blessed Mother, his Angels and his Saints will do battle with us.

But the time to fight for souls is here, and it must be done from inside the city walls.

Now more than ever.

Viva Cristo Rey y Santa Maria de Guadalupe!!!


PS. to Rorate Caeli if you decide not to publish my comment please forward it to Bishop Fellay.

Anonymous said...

P.K.T.P.

I hope someone reads your comment to the Holy Father.

"If this matter is so urgent, why is it taking four and more decades to resolve? Given his pastoral duty over the whole Church, surely this Pope should grant a temporary status to the Society pending a resolution of the doctrinal problems. What, after all, is best for souls? What is needful to souls?

P.K.T.P."

Gratias said...

First, Benedict XVI gave all priests the right to offer the forma extraordinaria of the Mass. Second, he lifted the excommunication of their four bishops at great cost. Third, he gave us the gift of UE that pretty much ensures FSSPX can carry on as always. If now their problem is that Vatican Council II actually took place, I would argue that the FSSPX is like a flirtatious young girl that will never give in.

It is now time to man-up and accept this offer that cannot be refused if one holds dear the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Anglican ordinariate is now in progress, and very likely was put in place to help the
FSSPX make up their minds. The time to rejoin is now, with this Holy Father. The appropriate response of Bishop Fellay to an offer of a Latin Mass Ordinariate should be:
Deo Gratias.

We need the FSSPX working from the inside, with their wonderful missionary spirit. Pray that they do not miss the boat, of barque.

New Catholic said...

Gratias, just to be clear: there is no offer. At least no solid, specific offer. As Fellay himself said, there is a meeting scheduled for this September.

So let us make this a Summer of prayer, of sacrifice and prayer.

NC

Cruise the Groove. said...

"So let us make this a Summer of prayer, of sacrifice and prayer."

And Action.

LeonG said...

This is not an answer Anon Said. The typical remarks by those who dislike The Confraternity are mostly inaccurate.

The comments made by some in the SSPX are repeated more often elsewhere in The Church too even by modern Catholics. Indeed, Anonymous Said, the NO church is in such a lamentable state someone has to say so be they SSPX or others who are well-studied in these domains. It is such that even the pope himself is attempting to change the NO liturgy yet again but many of his bishops and presbyters are resisting just as they are any concession to tradition. However, the blame for the bitter carping against the establishment is heaped on The SSPX. Look at the situation with Confession - even the pope has something to say about how it has been neglected by the presbyters and bishops. In the traditional chrch this is not the case.

Furthermore, we do not only receive criticism of liturgical abuses and so forth from SSPX but from many more observers who do not belong to The Confraternity.

Another most salient factor for you to consider, Anon Said, are all the insults and the misinformation traditional Catholics have been treated to since the late 1960s. I have been on the end of much of these myself and I know my parents were undeservingly insulted on several occasions by clergy and lay alike. I have heard modern priests and lay quite freely make gratuitous and digraceful remarks about pre-conciliar popes and priests which probably are not true but were made nonetheless. Additionally, there is plenty more I have experienced & witnessed in my Catholic life about the post-conciliar church (modern young homosexual and alcoholic clergy for example) that might have taken my faith away but thank God it has not.

Certainly, while I am not a member of the SSPX, I can only express my deepest gratitude to them for the respect, the hope and the great spiritual care they gave my parents and others in order to keep Tradition alive in The Church. They have made immense sacrifices to achieve as such. This is the best testimonial to their Society.

Therefore, many of the adverse comments here and elsewhere about The SSPX are based on either sheer antipathy; much ignorance or a misplaced sense of injustice.

As has been illustrated above there are far more non-SSPX who are critical of the church and the pope but, as usual, they are given a free ride. This is the same for the many members of the church who resist papal governance; behave as they wish and routinely flout liturgical rubrics without any disciplinary consequences.

Time for some fairness, ladies and gentlemen.

Joe B said...

"... the hundreds of millions of Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo every week."

There's the rub. There aren't nearly that many. There used to be, but not now, not every week. So where's the poison and how much of it is inherently in the Novus Ordo and it's endless liberal variations and its anti-tradition bent (and thus its anti-Catholic bent)? SSPX's position is, indeed, that the Novus Ordo is dangerous to your faith, and the falsity of the claim above says it's true. There is clear devastation there.

Besides, why do you need SSPX? You have FSSP. Is FSSP not capable of getting it done? If not, why not? Maybe you say it's because they don't have bishops. Well, why don't they? How many decades does that take? (Answer: it's not about qualifications, it's about a church still intent on going in a different direction than the TLM and tradition, so any trad bishops would be a problem, not a solution. And you know that's the reason.) But if that's the real problem - they still don't want to go towards our traditions, but away from them - then I would expect them to suppress SSPX at the earliest opportunity. It might take a new pope or so, or maybe just an ill pope, but sooner rather than later they will do it. And then FSSP and the rest of the non-players go easily and quietly into the night. Or would you have them disobey Rome?

I prefer to recognize the obvious reality of a sick Rome and the canonical liberality of charity under such conditions. Have no fear, "cling to your traditions" and you won't go wrong. Am I asking you to choose between Roman authority or Catholic tradition? No, today's Rome is. And that alone ought to cause you to hold your fire about SSPX.

Rome has said they are inside the church, and you know they are fighting the good fight, so unpanick and let it play out.

mundabor said...

I do not get what "accept Vatican II" should mean.

Insofar as Vatican II repeats what was always held true, there's nothing specifically V-II to accept, as the SSPX believes all of it already.

Insofar as Vatican II innovates/says things the wrong way/is frightfully misleading, there's nothing to accept as innovations cannot, qua definitione, be part of the ordinary and universal magisterium and bad formulations must certainly be given the right interpretation.

There is also no doubt that V II was a merely pastoral council and therefore that no extraordinary conciliar decrees (which would have been part of the Sacred Magisterium) have been issued.

Finally, I can't imagine Fellay really asking the Pope to renege on V II qua V II. This is not a realistic position, nor is it a necessary one. Approach the V II in the right way with an hermeneutic of continuity and everything will be fine.

Archbishop Lefebvre signed all the conciliar documents.

Mundabor

Jordanes551 said...

"So let us make this a Summer of prayer, of sacrifice and prayer."
And Action.


Sacrifice IS action. Let our action be in Christ, or else it will be in vain.

Brian said...

The Bishop did not say "to accept", but "annehmen" - which may have a hundred different degrees of meaning in translation

What is meant by "annehmen" the Council? Ay, there's the rub.

Anonymous said...

Mundabor writes:

"Archbishop Lefebvre signed all the conciliar documents."

Yes, but this signature did not denote acceptance of them at all. We've been through this before. It was merely a custom for bishops to sign to indicate that they had participated in discussions regarding the documents.

When you sign to a binding formula, there is a wee little clause near the signature saying, "I hereby swear that I assent completely and without reserve to the foregoing". That was not there! Whoops!

P.K.T.P.

paul said...

Dear Cruise the Groove

Re. "Many of us Catholics who want the TLM, exclusively, full time, do not have access to it, so therefore we go to the NO to fulfill our holy day obligations"

Instead, do what we do and what we teach our children to do under such circs.: just stay at home and say the Rosary.

Anonymous said...

N.C.:

Attend to Bishop Fellay's words more carefully. In mid-June, he said that there was "no standing offer". Why the adjective? If someone asked you if you would be available to mow lawns in Minnesota and then you were asked if you had been offered a job to do so, you might say, "there is no standing offer", as such a query is not an official offer.

But if no one on the planet had asked you if you would be available to mow lawns in Minnesota and you were asked if you had an offer to do so, you might say, "I have received no such offer". You would not likely qualify this by saying, "I have received no standing offer".

I surmise that Msgr. Pozzo, on behalf of Levada, has 'suggested a solution for consideration'. This is not an official offer! but it does have knowable content which might be pondered during the hot Roman summer.

Translation: Rome has already made the Society an offer but, oh!, it's not official! No, no, no, no, no, said Sir Humphrey. The officials have not officially offiated and the extending of an official offer; nor have they been officious in doing so.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Now what indeed. Now that all the main views have been amply expressed in this thread I want to point out the daily praxis.

I attended a Catholic friend's wedding this past weekend. He married an Anglican in the Anglican church by an Anglican priest.The only reason I agreed to go is because the local NO priest also witnessed the marriage.

This Catholic man took communion bread with his bride at this service. I am pretty sure that is against the Catholic faith. The NO priest said is was ok...I was supposed to take his word for it....he and the Anglicans are very chummy you know. The NO priest said the Gospel reading.

On Sunday I went to the local NO mass (out of duty for my Sunday obligation). All the typical abuses were present (sic). No confessional, no sense of sin, no reverence worthy of God. The message was psyco social, God is all love, with no mention of his justice, people constantly talking, women ministers, yada yada ad infinitum.

It truly hit home for me that if I did not continue to make a stand for the faith of our Fathers, I too would be washed away with this tide of feel good religion....this undisciplined faith.

I certainly do not put the NO in a kind light. I avoid this mass as much as possible and I never go for communion at the NO. Nor do I disrupt the service, instead I pray the Rosary.

I attend Mass with the FSSPX, before that the FSSP (for three year), before that the NO.

What a awful mess our Church is in. God help us.

Anonymous said...

The 62 Missal was freed, the excommunications were lifted, doctrinal discussions have taken place. All under this Pope. I have Faith and offer to enter the fold completely will be made and the SSPX will accept it. Although this Pope's decisions regarding the SSPX have ruffled feathers the Holy Spirit is guiding him and looking over the SSPX as well. The world had gone on and Rome has not imploded. It is time for the SSPX Priests and Bishops to re-enter the walls of Rome and help effect change from within. I think this is their mission now. This Pope and future ones will need their support and guidance in the years to come. As it stands now the Pope receives little support in regards to all things Traditional. 500 Priests and a couple of Bishops will help greatly in this regard. And clearing up any last confusion as to their status will put a great many Catholics at ease once and for all. Yes, reunion will be good for many souls. Pray for them all.

Cruise the Groove. said...

Paul,
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and this binding under pain of mortal sin for all Catholics who are physically able to, and the law says nothing about only going to an SSPX Mass or saying the rosary at home if there is no SSPX Mass available:

"Sunday Mass and Holy Day Obligation


It is both a precept of the Church and Church law that Catholics must worship God on Sunday and Holy Days of Obligation by participating in the Holy Mass. This follows from the fact that in the Mass it is Christ Himself who worships the Father, joining our worship to His. In no other way is it possible to adequately give thanks (eucharistia) to God for the blessings of creation, redemption and our sanctification than by uniting our offerings to that of Jesus Christ Himself. Following the example of the Old Covenant the Church does this weekly, on the day of the Lord's Resurrection.

Canon 1247
On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass; they are also to abstain from those labors and business concerns which impede the worship to be rendered to God, the joy which is proper to the Lord's Day, or the proper relaxation of mind and body."

John McFarland said...

Let me offer the following from the report on the ordinations at Econe that appears on www.sspx.org, the website of the U.S. District of the SSPX,

"Bishop de Galarreta ... He restated the particular historical circumstances which called the Society, by the providence of Almighty God, into existence; reiterating the fundamental opposition between the Faith of the Catholic Church and the liberal values accepted and promoted by Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar Magisterium."

The SSPX exists because of "the fundamental opposition between the Faith of the Catholic Church and the liberal values accepted and promoted by Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar Magisterium."

If you do not understand this, whatever your view of the Society, that view is a fantasy.

But if you understand this, you will properly understand the following summary of the Bishop's subsequent remarks:

"He reminded those present that although there can be no compromise with error there is no conflict of interests between fidelity to the deposit of the Faith and a Charity which is humble and gentle. And on this feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, he insisted that—despite the lack of any evident positive developments, the Society ought to maintain contact with Rome (the Primacy of Peter) as a matter of principle."

Anonymous said...

I personaly believe that an offer has been made by Rome, and Bishop Fellay and the other FSSPX bishops are very seriously considering to accept.

The time is approching where the bishops from the FSSPX will have to ordain new bishops, if they do, they will incur excommunication again.

I doubt Bishop Fellay will risk all the progress made so far.

So let us pray, God willing we will have good news by September.

Anonymous said...

Attn. Cruise The Groove:

Let's say the Holy Father tomorrow switched to the Traditional Mass to undo the damage to the Faith caused by the Novus Ordo Mass and forbade it. Would you feel the same way if your friends and family refused the Traditional Mass and stayed home to say the rosary?

Let us not forget that for at least from 1988 onward, Roman officials including Cardinal Ratzinger officially knew the Old Mass was never forbidden. Did you consider reading the rules of our Faith to those Roman officials?

A.M. LaPietra

Anonymous said...

I have a friend who recently became a Catholic through the Anglican Ordinariate and when I asked if they had been asked to accept Vatican II the reply was "Don't be stupid, Rome knew we would never have anything to do with Vatican II. None of us would have become Catholics if we had been asked accept it." If the Anglicans are not being asked to accept Vatican II then why should the SSPX? What's good for the goose etc.

paul said...

Dear Cruise the Groove

You should not imply that I (or the SSPC for that matter) was referring to "only going to an SSPX Mass". But if by "SSPX Mass" you mean celebrated by a priest with an outlook compatible with that of the SSPX, we may be in agreement on definitions at least.

I think we might agree that sacrilegious Masses should be avoided? The question is does the NOM in itself count as sufficiently sacrilegious to warrant being avoided. My understanding is that the SSPX teaches so.

LeonG said...

"If the Anglicans are not being asked to accept Vatican II then why should the SSPX?"

Anonymous Said

This is known as liberal modernist humbug. Many of us have been listening to this for the last 50 years or more.

John McFarland said...

Dear Anonymous 05:14,

"I personaly believe that an offer has been made by Rome, and Bishop Fellay and the other FSSPX bishops are very seriously considering to accept."

Bishop Fellay has flatly denied that there has been anything of this sort.

Your remarks can fairly be described as the triumph of hope over reality.

John McFarland said...

Dear Anonymous 08:21,

Did you friend accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

If he did, he accepted Vatican II, since the CCC is the Catechism of Vatican II.

If he didn't, just what did he accept in becoming a Catholic, besides refuge from female and sodomite bishops?

Henry said...

Paul: Do you want the SSPX to stop rejecting the NOM?

Just as it's not clear what "accepting" Vatican II means, it's not clear what "rejecting" the NOM means.

In any event, accepting Vatican II need not mean accepting the Novus Ordo as you see ordinarily see it, which itself is a rejection of the Council's liturgical recommendations. Whether or wise or unwise, the Council called only for some organic revision of the Tridentine rite, not for the fabrication of some new order (novus ordo) of Mass.

I have read not only Sacrosanctum Concilium, but also the minutes of the 50+ meetings of the Council's liturgical commission that wrote the constitution on the sacred liturgy, considering hundreds of interventions submitted by the bishops.

The Council did NOT call for turning the priest around, nor for stripping altars, nor for ripping altar rails out, nor for communion in the hand, nor for gutting the offertory, nor for alternatives to the ancient Roman canon, nor for replacing the propers with non-liturgical songs and ditties, nor for abandoning Latin and Gregorian chant, nor for grinning consecrations and waist-high elevations, nor for high fives and back-slapping all around, nor for altar girls and EMHC's.

So, whatever accepting Vatican II or the Novus Ordo may mean, it need not mean accepting any of these things. In short, Vatican II did not call for the rite of Paul VI, and the rite of Paul VI did not call for these perversions of the Roman rite.

Cruise the Groove. said...

"Let's say the Holy Father tomorrow switched to the Traditional Mass to undo the damage to the Faith caused by the Novus Ordo Mass and forbade it. Would you feel the same way if your friends and family refused the Traditional Mass and stayed home to say the rosary"

Anon,
Yes I would, the obligation to assist at Catholic Mass on every holyday is always in force be it Novus Ordo, TLM or Uniate Divine Liturgy.
I would personally be very glad that the HF prohibited the NO.
All Catholics would then have to assist at the TLM, if the Holy Father infallibly commanded it.

Joe B said...

"On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass."

Cruise, ever read Michael Davies' "The Rising In the Vendee"? If those people were mortal sinners, we're all in trouble.

There are lots of exceptions. Sickness, travel, car breaks down, and more applicable to our discussion, if you suspected the priest was abusing alter 'kids' and there was no other mass around, surely you wouldn't go. Point is, there are exceptions, and endangering the faith of your children is clearly one of them. The question is, if you wouldn't send your children to a mass, should you even go?

The church is dying under the Novus Ordo. Undeniable. No, it won't disappear, but it is going that way. It is not producing priests, not holding onto parishioners, not passing on anything in the way of Catholic faith, since there is absolutely no control over what is being taught in the name of Catholicism. Something will rescue us, but until that time the Novus Ordo is clearly harmful to the faith because whatever is being taught in parishes is being showcased in the mass.

You cannot deny the big picture. Ninety percent drops in seminarian counts are simply not acceptable or deniable.

Nobody can order a soul to do that which is harmful to the faith. Nobody. If you're attached to the Novus Ordo, fine. If you are concerned about the loss of the faith of your children (you should be) then until you can change things, you better not be exposing them to that danger. Better to stay home. If you wouldn't let children go to it but you don't have children, then do whatever you think. If you have a wonderful Novus Ordo priest who lives in the traditional world, fine, go. You're lucky. But that isn't the larger Novus Ordo reality, is it?

mundabor said...

"It was merely a custom for bishops to sign to indicate that they had participated in discussions regarding the documents".

I have read around some time ago (might have been iota Unum; I might be wrong) that many bishops refused to sign some of the conciliar documents tout court.

Besides, that Lefebvre's signature be a signal that the SSPX doesn't refuse V II qua V II is somethign I have read in a booklet of the SSPX themselves (alas, lost in a move).

Once the controversial parts of the V II documents have been re-interpreted in a way conform to Church teaching, and this has been made explicit, I can see no reason why the SSPX should insist on the Church throwing the entire V II in the bin.
This is never going to happen, anyway.

M

Anonymous said...

Cruise the Groove:

Canon 1247 on Mass attendance is mitigated by established commentary in ecclesiastical law. The obligation to assist at Mass does not obtain if it is "physically or morally impossible" to do so. Further laws define these categories. For example, at the present time, an example of physical impossibility is an expected travel time to Mass of more than one hour.

I'm sure that the S.S.P.X would point to "moral impossibility" to counsel members to avoid the New Mass. However, I can't see how this can be a general policy because the New Mass is offered with some reverence in many places. Again I ask this: is this Society position official policy of the Society?

P.K.T.P.

Cruise the Groove. said...

P.K.T.P.

This is from the US District webpage of the SSPX on attendence at Novus Ordo Mass.
In part it reads:

"Is the Novus Ordo Mass invalid, or sacrilegious, and should I assist at it when I have no alternative?

The validity of the reformed rite of Mass, as issued in Latin by Paul VI in 1969, must be judged according to the same criteria as the validity of the other sacraments; namely matter, form and intention. The defective theology and meaning of the rites, eliminating as they do every reference to the principal propitiatory end of sacrifice, do not necessarily invalidate the Mass. The intention of doing what the Church does, even if the priest understands it imperfectly, is sufficient for validity. With respect to the matter, pure wheaten bread and true wine from grapes are what is required for validity. The changes in the words of the form in the Latin original, although certainly illicit and unprecedented in the history of the Church, do not alter the substance of its meaning, and consequently do not invalidate the Mass."
to be contnued....

Cruise the Groove. said...

continued...
"However, we all know that such a New Mass celebrated in Latin is an oddity, doomed to extinction by the very fact of the reform. The validity of the New Masses that are actually celebrated in today’s parishes more than 30 years later is a quite different question. Additives to the host sometimes invalidate the matter. The change in the translation from the words of Our Lord, "for many" to the ecumenically acceptable "for all" throws at least some doubt on the validity of the form. Most importantly, however, is the fact that the intention of the Church of offering up a true sacrifice in propitiation for the sins of the living and the dead has been obliterated for 30 years. In fact, most liturgies present the contrary intention of a celebration by the community of the praise of God. In such circumstances it is very easy for a priest to no longer have the intention of doing what the Church does, and for the New Mass to become invalid for this reason. The problem is that this is hidden and nobody knows. Whereas the traditional Mass expresses the true intention of the Church in a clear and unambiguous manner, so that everyone can be certain of the priest’s intention, the New Mass does no such thing. Consequently, the doubt of invalidity for lack of intention, especially in the case of manifestly modernist priests, cannot be easily lifted or removed.

Clearly, an invalid Mass is not a Mass at all, and does not satisfy the Sunday obligation. Furthermore, when it comes to the sacraments, Catholics are obliged to follow the "pars tutior," the safer path. It is not permissible to knowingly receive doubtful sacraments. Consequently nobody has the obligation to satisfy his Sunday obligation by attending the New Mass, even if there is no other alternative.

However, even if we could be certain of the validity of the Novus Ordo Masses celebrated in today’s Conciliar churches, it does not follow that they are pleasing to God. Much to the contrary, they are objectively sacrilegious, even if those who assist at them are not aware of it. By such a statement, I do not mean that all those who celebrate or assist at the New Mass are necessarily in mortal sin, having done something directly insulting to Almighty God and to our Divine Savior."

Cruise the Groove. said...

continued...
"Sacrilege is a sin against the virtue of religion, and is defined as "the unbecoming treatment of a sacred person, place or thing as far as these are consecrated to God" (Jone, Moral Theology, p.108). The moral theologians explain that sacrilege is in itself and generally a mortal sin (ex genere suo), but that it is not always a mortal sin, because it can concern a relatively small or unimportant thing. Here we are speaking of a real sacrilege, the dishonoring of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, by the elimination of the prayers and ceremonies that protect its holiness, by the absence of respect, piety and adoration, and by the failure to express the Catholic doctrine of the Mass as a true propitiatory sacrifice for our sins. Here there are varying degrees. Just as it is a grave sacrilege and objective mortal sin for a lay person to touch the sacred host without reason, so it is, for example, a venial sin to do the same thing to the chalice or the blessed linens, such as the purificator or pall.

Likewise with the New Mass. It can be an objectively mortal sin of sacrilege if Holy Communion is distributed in the hand or by lay ministers, if there is no respect, if there is talking or dancing in church, or if it includes some kind of ecumenical celebration, etc. It can also be an objectively venial sin of sacrilege if it is celebrated with unusual respect and devotion, so that it appears becoming and reverential to Almighty God. This in virtue of the omissions in the rites and ceremonies, which constitute a true disrespect to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and to the Blessed Trinity, and of the failure to express the true nature of what the Mass really is. In each case, the subjective culpability is an altogether other question that God only can judge.

However, regardless of the gravity of the sacrilege, the New Mass still remains a sacrilege, and it is still in itself sinful. Furthermore, it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing, even if it is only venially sinful. For the end does not justify the means. Consequently, although it is a good thing to want to assist at Mass and satisfy one’s Sunday obligation, it is never permitted to use a sinful means to do this. To assist at the New Mass, for a person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a venial sin. It is opportunism. Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior, to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger of scandal to others or of the perversion of one’s own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and even if it is the only Mass available. [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]"

Henry said...

"For example, at the present time, an example of physical impossibility is an expected travel time to Mass of more than one hour."

Then I wonder whether a "moral impossibility" would be inapplicable if there were a serious and reverent Novus Ordo Mass available no more than an hour's travel away.

Joe B said...

Obviously most Novus Ordo bishops think the same thing of the TLM - it should be avoided altogether, stay home rather than go to it. So what's the point?

Henry said...

JoeB: "[the TLM] should be avoided altogether, stay home rather than go to it."

Actually, in long-time advocacy of the TLM under multiple bishops, I never had one suggest any such thing.

There are likely some bishops who feel this way, but probably not many, surely not most.

Joe B said...

Henry, good to hear that.

As for how many bishops think we should stay away from the TLM, they would not be wise to say it, of course, so it's no wonder you haven't heard them say it. But they have the obligation to offer the TLM widely and generously and don't, so that's sufficient for me to say most bishops don't want us attending it. And the foot dragging for decades confirms it.

Anonymous said...

Responding to your comment
" John McFarland said...
Dear Anonymous 05:14,

"I personaly believe that an offer has been made by Rome, and Bishop Fellay and the other FSSPX bishops are very seriously considering to accept."

Bishop Fellay has flatly denied that there has been anything of this sort.

Your remarks can fairly be described as the triumph of hope over reality.

05 July, 2011 13:00"

I live in the real world and there is nothing wrong with hope.

But in real life it happens, and quite often may I add that just because they deny it in public doesn't mean it isn't true behind close doors.

Some people just like to pick fights.

Sad!

John McFarland said...

Dear Anonymous 07:38/05:14,

I said:

"Your remarks can fairly be described as the triumph of hope over reality."

Bishop Fellay was at great pains to say that as far as he knew, nothing was afoot.

So on your account, Bishop Fellay went out of his way to lie to those of us present, at some length, with a great show of openness and sincerity, promising to let everyone know if he learned of everything -- as part of his sermon in the middle of the Winona ordinations.

This only avoids being calumny because you don't have a shred of evidence for your defamation.

Indeed, it probably hasn't even occurred to you that you've effectly called Bishop Fellay a pluperfect bum.

So I'm afraid that I'm going to have to stand my original assessment.

P.S.

In addition, Bishop Fellay strongly implied that the hierarchy is too much at odds with itself for any progress to be plausible.

If you were seriously considering a deal with the Vatican, would you make such devastating criticism of those who had offered the deal?

Anonymous said...

Responding to John McFarland

John it is called politics, all of us including the Curia play the game.

I am for tradition and respect Bishop Fellay, but I don't put any human being on a pedestal like many people in here.

If you don't agree with me you can simply ignore my comment.

And so that you know you are naive and in case you don't know it is called politics, and yes, even the Curia, and Bishops from the FSSPX use it.

One more thing I am not saying that I am right, but you cannot prove that I am wrong either at least not for now.

So I guess will have to see in September, if I am wrong what's the big deal?

I am only human I'm allow to make mistakes. ;)

John McFarland said...

Dear Anonymous 5:26,

Still no evidence.

Cynicism is not evidence.

Imputations of naivety to someone you don't know is not evidence.

Opinions for which there is no evidence are worthless.

Anonymous said...

In response to John McFarland

Jonh people like you enjoy piking arguments,shame, shame shame.

I will keep my cynicism and yes, you are very naive, I don't need to know you to detect it.

PS. I hope the regulators allow this post, some people in here seem to pick arguments or attack others for no good reason.

ka said...

The important thing is for SSPX to be back inside the tent, then they can work on things from the inside, much more productive than trying to do it on the outside.