Rorate Caeli

Official interview with Bishop Bernard Fellay on the September 14 meeting with Cardinal Levada

Following the meeting that Bishop Bernard Fellay and his two general Assistants had, in the Vatican, with Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on September 14, 2011, at 10 AM, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X answered our questions.


[Bishop B. Fellay's words:] 


[1. On the Doctrinal Preamble mentioned in the official Communiqué released by the Holy See:] "This document is titled Doctrinal Preamble, it was handed to us for a profound study. Due to this fact, it is confidential, and you will understand if I do not say anything else about it to you. Nonetheless, the word preamble indicates well that its acceptance constitutes a preliminary condition for all canonical recognition of the Society of Saint Pius X by the Holy See"


[2. On the content of the Doctrinal Preamble:] "I must in the name of objectivity recognize that one cannot find, in the doctrinal preamble, a marked distinction between the dogmatic area and the pastoral area subject to discussion. The only thing I can declare, because it is included in the communiqué, is that the preamble contains, 'doctrinal principles and criteria of interpretation of Catholic doctrine necessary for ensuring fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church and to the sentire cum Ecclesia, while leaving open to legitimate discussion the study and theological explanation of particular expressions and formulations present in the texts of the Second Vatican Council and of the Magisterium that followed it.' There it is, not more, not less."


[3. On the canonical statute to be proposed, concerning the rumors of an Ordinariate or of a Prelature:] "As you correctly recall, this canonical statute is conditional [on a response to the Preamble]; its exact format cannot be seen but afterwards, and still remains the object of discussion." 


[4. In response to the question, "When do you believe you will present your response to the proposition of Doctrinal preamble?"] "As soon as I have taken the time that is needed to study this document and to consult with the main officials of the Society of Saint Pius X, because, in such an important matter, I am obligated before my brethren not to take any decision without consulting with them beforehand.
"But I can assure you that our decision will be taken for the good of the Church and of souls. Our Rosary crusade that has been taking place for several months must increase in intensity to allow us to obtain, through the intercession of Mary, Mother of the Church, the graces of light and strength of which we have greater need than ever." 

[All the main points have been translated above. Update: Official translation by the American district below:]



At the conclusion of the meeting that Bishop Bernard Fellay and his two General Assistants had at the Vatican with Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on September 14, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X answered our questions [for the readers of DICI].

How did this meeting go?
The meeting was conducted with great courtesy and with equally great candor, because for the sake of honesty the Society of St. Pius X refuses to evade the problems that remain.  Moreover
the theological discussions that took place during these past two years were held in this same spirit.
When I stated on August 15 of this year that we were in agreement on the fact that we did not agree about the Second Vatican Council, I also made sure to explain that when it comes to dogmas, like the doctrine of the Trinity, we are quite obviously in agreement when we find them mentioned in Vatican II.  One sentence must not be taken out of its context.  It is to the great credit of our theological talks that they seriously examined and elucidated all these doctrinal problems.
The joint press release by the Vatican and the Society announced that a doctrinal document was delivered to you and that a canonical solution was proposed to you.  Can you give us any particulars?
This document is entitled “Doctrinal Preamble”;  it was handed over to us for in-depth study.  Hence it is confidential, and you will understand why I say no more about it to you.  However the term “preamble” does indicate that acceptance of it is a preliminary condition for any canonical recognition of the Society of St. Pius X on the part of the Holy See.
On the subject of this doctrinal preamble, to the extent that this does not concern its confidentiality, can you confirm that it contains, as announced in the press release, a distinction between what is de fide [essential to the faith]—to which the Society fully adheres—and what is dependent on a pastoral council, as Vatican II itself claimed to be, and thus could be subjected to criticism without calling the faith into question?
This new distinction was not only announced in the press release;  I have personally heard it from various sources.  As early as 2005, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos told me, after I spent five hours explaining to him all the objections to Vatican II that the Society of St. Pius X had formulated:  “I cannot say that I agree with everything that you have said, but what you have said does not mean that you are outside the Church.  Write to the pope therefore and ask him to lift the excommunication.”
Today, for the sake of objectivity, I must acknowledge that in the doctrinal preamble there is no clear-cut distinction between the inviolable dogmatic sphere and the pastoral sphere that is subject to discussion.  The only thing that I can say, because it is part of the press release, is that this preamble contains “certain doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation of Catholic doctrine, which are necessary to ensure faithfulness to the Church’s Magisterium and to ‘sentire cum Ecclesia’ [thinking with the Church]. At the same time, it leaves open to legitimate discussion the examination and theological explanation of individual expressions and formulations contained in the documents of Vatican Council II and of the later Magisterium.”  There you have it;  no more and no less.
As for the canonical status that is said to have been proposed to the Society of St. Pius X, on the condition that it adheres to the doctrinal preamble:  there has been talk about a [personal] prelature rather than an ordinariate;  it this correct?
As you correctly note, this canonical status is conditional;  only later on will we be able to see the exact modality of it;  it still remains a subject for discussion.
When do you think you will give your answer to the proposal in the doctrinal preamble?
As soon as I have taken the time necessary to study this document, and to consult with those who are chiefly responsible for the Society of St. Pius X, because in such an important matter I have promised my confreres not to make a decision without consulting them first.
But I can assure you that our decision will be made for the good of the Church and of souls.  Our Rosary crusade, which continues for several more months, must be intensified so as to enable us to obtain, through the intercession of Mary, Mother of the Church, the graces of light and strength that we need more than ever.  (DICI no. 240 dated September 14, 2011) 


[Translator: Michael J. Miller, M.A. Theol.] [Source: DICI

106 comments:

Cruise the Groove. said...

Is this good or bad?

Cruise the Groove. said...

Its good.

TJ said...

Well, he didn't say no. So this is good news, at least for the present.

Athelstane said...

"is this good or bad?"

It is cautious, but in a charitable way - by my reading.

A key point was where he lets slip a hint of substance: there does not seem to him to be a clear enough distinction between sacred dogma to which the SSPX must subscribe on the one hand and the "pastoral" magisterial texts of and after the Council on the other. That sounds to me like precisely the sort of thing the Society would be likely to request a "clarification" of, perhaps even a tweaking of the wording of the preamble, if Rome agrees.

But there's not much more to say. I don't think any of us expected an immediate "yes" or "no" on this. There will be a huddle, and some back and forth clarifications over the next few months. And we can only pray it leads to positive results.

Cruise the Groove. said...

During these months of back and forth huddling I hope we may go to SSPX confessions.

thomist said...

I feel bad for the FSSP and the other trads who have truly been faithful.

Cruise the Groove. said...

It certainly seems as if Bishop Fellay will accept regularisation.

But it seems strange that no temporary faculties have been granted until there is agreement. Does this mean that Rome accepts that supplied jurisdiction and some kind of deputation has been triggered by a state of necessity? It is certainly against the tradition of the Church to allow the Sacraments to be administered outside of her ordinary jurisdiction (excepting genuine cases of necessity). But it seems that Rome is quite sanguine about 600,000+ Catholics receiving the Sacraments outside of the ordinary jurisdiction of the Church.

I am confused. But will be delighted if there is an agreement that doesn't tie the SSPX to the John Paul II-interpretation of Vatican II.

Melchior Cano said...

thomist said...
"I feel bad for the FSSP and the other trads who have truly been faithful."

Why?

Adfero said...

thomist said...
"I feel bad for the FSSP and the other trads who have truly been faithful."

The FSSP was created by taking priests from the SSPX. The founding members of the FSSP were at one point in the same position as the SSPX is now.

There's nothing to feel bad about.

Anonymous said...

About the doctrinal Preamble - it has been stated that it is confidential and will be kept as such. However, if there is anything in the Preamble that seems to go against the Faith, the SSPX could rewrite those passages, sign it and send it back. That would make it clear that it accepts what can be accepted and rejects what cannot be accepted according to Tradition, that is what Holy Mother Church has always held, taught and professed to be true from infallible statements of the perennial magisterium. Then, the ball would be back in Rome's court where it belongs IMO. One can expect, I think, the SSPX to go over this document with the utmost care.

PEH

twinkletide said...

It seems that history is repeating itself but now on a much bigger scale. Abbé Laguérie founded the Institut du Bon Pasteur with the principle of criticising certain aspects of the Council. Surprisingly they were approved by the Holy Father and Card. Castrillon. So I think we can hope and pray that Our Lord will guide the SSPX into this so privileged situation.

M. A. said...

"I feel bad for the FSSP and the other trads who have truly been faithful."
___________

I don't. I believe the FSSP and the other regularized institutes are prayerfully anticipating and desiring the reconciliation. We are all in this together; the battle lies ahead and we must be united.

Anonymous said...

In response to Thomist
"I feel bad for the FSSP and the other trads who have truly been faithful.

14 September, 2011 17:24"

Why???

The FSSP the other Traditional groups within the Church are still very important and always will be.

What is important is to give Catholics access to the beautiful Traditional Masses that have been absent from Catholic life for so many years.

All this groups should only have one thing in mind and that is bringing the respect for the HOLY OFFICE OF THE MASS, bring back the SACREDNESS AND THE RESPECT TO WHAT IS HOLY AND DIVINE.

The FSSP along with the other Traditionalist groups and hopefully the FSSPX should ONLY have one AIM, that is to WORK for SALVATION OF SOULS in the service of Our Lord Jesus Christ within his HOLY CHURCH.


Praise Lord Jesus Christ you are in control of everything.

Holy Mary mother of God pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death,
AMEN!

Anonymous said...

During the past few hours on this and additional blogs, several posters have seized upon the fact that in regard to the Holy See's discussions with the Society, the Holy See has left open "to legitimate discussion the study and theological explanation of particular expressions and formulations present in the texts of the Second Vatican Council and of the Magisterium that followed it."

Posters have described the above from the Holy See as revolutionary and favorable to Traditionalists.

How does the above statement from the Holy See differ from the following contained in the 1988 Protocol that Archbishop Lefebvre signed?

"3. Regarding certain points taught by the Second Vatican Council or concerning subsequent reforms of the liturgy and law which appear difficult to reconcile with tradition, we commit ourselves to a positive attitude of study and of communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics."

I also add that the 2006 agreement that the Holy See signed with the Institute of the Good Shepherd recognized the Institute's right to criticize Vatican II.

Tom

SkinnyBaldGuy said...

The FSSP took what they could get so they could feed the faithful. The SSPX wanted more; they wanted rights and recognition to go with it. When history books are written it will be shown that both were necessary and played a role in the restoration of the Church. Hopefully that time is now.

John McFarland said...

Dear Cruise,

Bishop Fellay said that he'd review the Preamble, and then provide a response.

Until the response is forthcoming -and made public along with the preamble, we have two main pieces of information on which to base our prognostications:

1. To date, the SSPX has rejected root and branch everything that the Church leadership has stood for doctrinally since Vatican II. Just to make sure everyone what eyes to see understands this, it has quite recently issued vigorous and carefully reasoned denunciations of the beatification of Pope John Paul II, and the convoking of Assisi III

2. In the full interview, Bishop Fellay repeats his remark of August 15 (presumably based on his review of the dossier of the conversations) that the Vatican and the SSPX "were in agreement on the fact that we did not agree about the Second Vatican Council."

I therefore respectfully submit that a favorable reaction from the Society is something less than remote.

P.S. In respect of SSPX sacraments:

If the Pope is not worried, and Bishop Fellay is not worried, just why is it that you're worried?

Anonymous said...

We must not forget to give ALL credit to OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, but also to our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI for doing all he can in bringing about this possible return of the FSSPX to the Church.

Cruise the Groove. said...

"If the Pope is not worried, and Bishop Fellay is not worried, just why is it that you're worried?"

Rather
The Pope has said through the PCED that SSPX confessions and marriages are invalid.

Bishop Fellay beleives in the SSPX arguments on Ecclesia Supplet.

I am not sure Bishop Fellay and the FSSPX are correct on this matter.
We need official clarification from the supreme legislator on this, if anything has changed.

If I am correct this an extremely important matter.
Even if I am not...

Anonymous said...

"P.S. In respect of SSPX sacraments:

If the Pope is not worried, and Bishop Fellay is not worried, just why is it that you're worried?"

Right on!

Delphina

Melchior Cano said...

Mr. McFarland,

You have neither seen the contents of the Preamble, nor are you privy to the specifics of today's conversation. I think Bishop Fellay's tone indicates a true hope, guided by caution and prudence.

However, and let's be honest here, since you seem opposed to an agreement, you make absurd statements, such as, "I therefore respectfully submit that a favorable reaction from the Society is something less than remote."

On what basis? Did you just get off the phone with His Excellency? Did Cardinal Levada brief you on the status? Your speculation is worse than useless; it is an attempt to promote an ideology through wishful thinking.

As to "if no one is worried, why are you worried?", again, seriously? I say this as someone who receives the Sacraments from Society priests and has no objections to doing so. But if you're argument is really that it doesn't matter since we know it's ok, and deep-down, Rome knows its OK, then it seems there are only two options:
A. You haven't really thought this through
B. You've lost at least a good portion of the Sensus Fidei

Igumen Gregory said...

i have to tip my hat to Bp. Fellay. he will entrust this document to the holy Virgin Mary in ongoing prayer. Bravo, Monseigneur!

Anonymous said...

Melchior Cano

Love it!

Well said!!!

Anonymous said...

I take great heart in the fact Rome Herself has said points outside of De Fide statements are open to discussion and disagreement. In the past forty years, the Church has never been willing to make that assertion. At this point in time, of course, depending on what is actually in the Preamble, The Society is in a much better position than it was yesterday. Anyone, please correct me on this, but I believe an Ordinariate for The Society is better than a Prelature. An Ordinariate (e.g. the incoming Anglicans) seems to afford a bit more autonomy than a Prelature. Prelature, to me, seems more of governance while Ordinariate has more to do with structure and operation.

This Preamble may very well be Rome's Best And Final. I'm not suggesting in any way The Society acts like it was on "The Price Is Right." The Holy Father Has been the most generous and accommodating of Sacred Tradition. I pray Rome hasn't painted The Society into a corner with one last "we'll show you," but it's my opinion The Society needs to move prayerfully and quickly and solidify themselves into the Church at large because I fear the Holy Father may lose patience and the succeeding Pope may by far be less amused at entertaining The Society.

Prayerfully,

Matt

Athelstane said...

Hello Mr. McFarland,

I therefore respectfully submit that a favorable reaction from the Society is something less than remote.

Perhaps some of us could be forgiven for thinking that a favorable reaction from the Society is something you really don't hope for.

But none of us have seen the Preamble; we can only speculate. His Excellency implies that most, albeit perhaps not all, of the "conciliar Magisterium" is to be left in an "agree to disagree" box, which would not be inconsistent with the results of the discussions as they have been represented to us, or indeed with the arrangement reached with the Feeneyites in the 70's. Or heck, for that matter, almost any university theology school you care to name.

But having said that, I know enough to know that sentiments such as yours seem to be widely shared in Society precincts, to wit: "agree to disagree" may not be enough for many to accept any formal arrangement with Vatican, no matter how generous its structure seems. Whether that is the course of wisdom - only time will tell.

Jordanes551 said...

To date, the SSPX has rejected root and branch everything that the Church leadership has stood for doctrinally since Vatican II.

"Everything"? Really? So you're saying that the SSPX has formally apostasised? For example, the SSPX doesn't agree with a single word contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

I think it's better if we let the SSPX speak for itself, Mr. McFarland.

Athelstane said...

I take great heart in the fact Rome Herself has said points outside of De Fide statements are open to discussion and disagreement. In the past forty years, the Church has never been willing to make that assertion.

But it's been its effective practice where most modernist theologians are concerned.

Perhaps they decided, finally, that the SSPX deserved at least equal treatment.

Anonymous said...

I would agree with Matt, Pope Benedict XVI has indeed been most generous and accommodating of Sacred Tradition, and to the SSPX.

I too worry that time might be running out for our Pope and for the SSPX to accept what Rome has offered.


I pray Bishop Fellay gives us his answer SOON!

Saint Michael Come To Our Defense said...

*

This was True once, and is True now:

“Just as the chief priests and ancients hated Jesus unto death, but they needed an Apostle to betray him, so we may blame Jews and Freemasons and others like them for engineering the destruction of the Church, but it has taken churchmen from within to do the actual betraying and destroying.”

**********************************

“Your Eminence, even were you to give us everything we wanted, still we would have to refuse, because we are working to christianise society, whereas you are working to de-christianise it. Collaboration between us is not possible.”

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to then Cardinal Ratzinger.


*

Anonymous said...

Comments like the one from
"Saint Michael Come To Our Defense"

Just now are the ones that create division and puts into the minds of the SSPX hardliners erronous ideas such as "US VS THEM" and "WE ARE THE REMNANT" and "WE ARE BETTER THAN THE 1.1 billion Catholics obedient to Rome and subjects to the Pope" type of attitude.

I'm sorry but this is just wrong.

Cruise the Groove. said...

Saint Michael...

Words of Archbishop Lefebvre:

"If Rome wishes to give us a true autonomy, the one we have now, but with submission, we would want it. We have always hoped for it: to be subjected to the Holy Father; no possibility of despising the authority of the Holy Father".

Tradical said...

"agree to disagree" may not be enough ...

Interesting thought since this is the position of Ecclesia Dei congregations (less or more). Would we have Summorum Pontificum w/o the SSPX - doubt it.

One thing that has not been mentioned is the backdrop hovering behind these events.

The threat of a real schism being fomented in Austria is foremost in my mind and the reports that they are linking up with other disaffected groups elsewhere in Europe and North America.

The pieces appear to be set. Next move could be a doozy.

Lefebvrefan said...

Cruise the Groove said...
"Rather
The Pope has said through the PCED that SSPX confessions and marriages are invalid."

This is simply not true. The document which states that the Society has no ministry within the Church was explained by a Cardinal who spoke directly with Bishop Fellay to be a highly political document that the Pope does not agree with.


http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2010-1031-mccall-fellay.htm

Cruise the Groove. said...

Lefebvran

Please show me the official Holy See statement that FSSPX confessions and marriages are valid.

Not FSSPX interpretations of canon law or an article by Brian McCall on a quote from Bishop Fellay at a conference.
After all the FSSPX says that it is an sin to attend the NO, and that is garbage.
An official document from the Holy See that FSSPX confessions are valid.

sradagan said...

St. Michael CTOD,

You quote Apb. Lefebvre's famous "collaboration is impossible" line as some sort of proof that the SSPX could never accept a hypothetical regularization if it were to remain faithful to the vision of Apb. Lefebvre. You do realize, I hope, that the quote you provided was uttered nearly a year before the 1988 consecrations? Despite +W's recent claim that these words were spoken after the breakdown of the talks, the reality is that they were uttered BEFORE the talks between the SSPX and Rome in 87/88. For the year between this oft-quoted statement (probably spoken in exasperation) and the 1988 consecrations, the Archbishop worked with Rome to come to an accord so that the Society could indeed act in a canonically-regular fashion. The only thing that stopped the regularization from materializing was a lack of trust that the promises offered by Rome would be fulfilled.

Let's keep our history straight and our implied arguments honest, shall we?

Tradical said...

@cruise
FSSPX says that it is an sin to attend the NO

Got a reference for that?

I believe the position held is that attending the Novus Ordo could endanger your faith. etc.

Tradical said...

@cruise

Just read the posting in remnant.

Are calling Bishop Fellay a liar or just looking for something a little more substantial?

John McFarland said...

Dear Jordanes,

The SSPX rejects root and branch everything of significance in the acts of Vatican II and subsequent doctrinal pronouncments that are not a restatement of doctrine taught by the Teaching Church before Vatican II.

If you can demonstrate exceptions to this generalization, I will gracefully admit my error, but I'm highly confident that any such error will be pretty small beer.

Any Catholic who understands the faith delivered once for all to the saints, and is not a victim of wishful thinking, must recognize that the doctrinal gap between the Vatican and the SSPX is not bridgeable. It was true when the Archbishop made his famous remark to then Cardinal Ratzinger, and it is still true. It follows that the fate of the Preamble is already sealed. The only good that it and the eventual release of the dossier of the conversations can do is to make more Catholics understand the radicality of the issues at stake between the Vatican and the Society.

Melchior Cano said...

Mr. McFarland,

"If you can demonstrate exceptions to this generalization, I will gracefully admit my error, but I'm highly confident that any such error will be pretty small beer."

You are asking Jordanes to prove a negative, which is, of course impossible. You are making an assertion, the burden of proof lies on you. If not, the old adage applies, "What is freely asserted is freely denied."

Tradical said...

demonstrate exceptions to this generalization

Ok - I'll bite.

I believe they don't object to celibate permanent deacons.

They do object to married permanent deacons.

rodrigo said...

John McFarland,

Inter Insigniores and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis are rejected by the Society, are they? Your district of the SSPX must be rather more progressive than the ones with which I'm familiar.

Tradical said...

Second bite:

The SSPX is aligned with the rules for seminaries that was part of V2. I just read this in Open Letter to Confused Catholics

I'm certain that two specific instances will invalidate the gross generalization.

Cruise the Groove. said...

Tradical

In the SSPX book "Christian Wafare" on page 289 under an examination of conscience for confession, under the Third Commandment here is what it says that is sinful and should be confessed, in examining your conscience, paragraph 3:

"Have you attended and actively participated in the "New Mass"?"

I know this is not an official Church document, but nothing the SSPX prints is an offical Church document.

As to as far as Bishop Fellay stating that certain reserved sins were referred to the Vatican and the Vatican replied that these sins were absolved, I have no doubt that Bishop Fellay was telling the truth and these reserved sins are absolved, but there is no statement from the Vatican about all SSPX confessions being valid.

Lefebvrefan said...

Cruise the Groove. said...

“Please show me the official Holy See statement that FSSPX confessions and marriages are valid.”

If there existed an official statement which clearly and unambiguously stated that the Society's priests had jurisdiction to hear confessions and perform marriages, we wouldn’t be having these discussions, Cruise.

However, Chris Ferrara recently points out that there actually is an official statement: that of Cardinal Re of the Congregation for Bishops when the decrees of excommunication were lifted by Pope Benedict’s authority on January 21, 2009:

In virtue of the faculties that have been expressly conceded to me by the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, in virtue of the present decree, I lift from Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta the censure of excommunication latae sententiae declared by this congregation on July 1, 1988, and declare void of juridical effects beginning today the decree published then.

Void of juridical effects! And what are the “juridical effects” of excommunication now considered void? According to the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

Can. 1331 §1. An excommunicated person is forbidden:

1/ to have any ministerial participation in celebrating the sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever;

2/ to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments;

3/ to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance.

So, the effects of excommunication are essentially three: (1) forbidden to administer sacraments, (2) forbidden to receive sacraments, (3) forbidden to exercise any office or ministry in the Church. From which it follows that the lifting of the excommunication of the four Society bishops should mean—if words have meaning—that the four bishops are now able to administer and receive sacraments and exercise offices and ministries in the Church, as are the Society priests, who were never excommunicated in the first place.

For the full article go here: http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2011-0831-ferrara-full-communion.htm

Lefebvrefan said...

Cruise,
I want to add that I personally attended Bishop Fellay’s conference in October, 2010. He explained that the cardinal who approached him about changing the time and venue for the then upcoming SSPX ordinations in Germany, told him that the Pope is not in agreement with what was said in the document purporting to hold that the Society holds no active ministry within the Church. Now either Bishop Fellay is lying in which he does not deserve to have his status regularized or he is telling the truth. I believe he is telling the truth.

We also have to look at Rome’s actions. While some dicastery leaders talk as if the Society has no jurisdiction for confessions or marriages, others act in a much different way. In all cases where certain grave sins were confessed to a Society priest where remittance is reserved to the Holy See, Rome never required a new confession; the permission was invariably granted to the Society confessor to absolve the sin, meaning of course that the Society priest had faculties.

Similarly former SSPX priests who left to join the Fraternity of St. Peter or the Institute of the Good Shepherd never had to be re-ordained, conditionally or otherwise.

Even more recently, Chris Ferrara noted that:

Rorate Caeli has reported that on May 28, 2011 Father Daniel Couture, the Society’s District Superior of Asia (whom [he] had the privilege of assisting during a pilgrimage in Japan), was delegated by Bishop Fellay to accept the vows of Mother Mary Micaela, who has transferred from the Congregation of the Dominican Sisters of New Zealand, a Novus Ordo congregation, to the Dominican Sisters of Wanganui, established by Bishop Fellay. The report notes that Mother Mary “had special permission from the Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes in Rome to do this.”

As Chris Ferrara explains from the above:

Obviously, the approval of this transfer implicitly recognizes the ministry of Bishop Fellay in establishing the Dominican Sisters of Wanganui, the ministry of Father Couture in receiving the vows of the Novus Ordo nun who transferred into that order, and the canonical mission of the Society at large in delegating one of its priests, through one of its bishops, to admit a nun into an order with which the Society is affiliated and whose superior is Bishop Fellay.


The bottom line is that Ecclesia Supplet and the Holy Father and Rome acknowledge the Society’s legitimately ministry through their actions, if not yet clearly and unambiguously through their words. The clear and unambiguous declaration is what we are all praying for to happen, first and foremost for the good of the Church so that Tradition can be restored to its proper place, and secondly for the good of the faithful who need the recognition that the Society has been acting properly in this fight all along.

Anonymous said...

Tradical,

With all due respect to Bishop Fellay, but he is not infallable, neither do I think he thinks of himself that way, with that being said he is not a liar but he can definately be wrong.

This REMNANT word is causing so much trouble because people have use it to auto denominate themselves with it, and it is wrong.

The Remnant will be those whom Our Lord will give the graces necessary to stay faithful in difficult times or the end times if you want, but LET'S BE CLEAR THE REMNANT WILL NOT BE THOSE WHO DECIDE TO WALK AWAY FROM THE CHURCH while calling themselves Catholics.

Perfect example this morning the crazies from RADIO CRISTIANDAD calling themselves the REMNANT.
Following the arrogant priest JUAN CARLOS CERIANI and going to the MASS he offers in San Luis, Argentina once a month.

This is the kind of division that must be STOP.

What is going to happen to them if Ceriani is not around are they going to go with another renegade priest???

Meanwhile they are missing the sacraments because according to them, they are the only true Catholics, and the rest of us who are faithful to Rome are just apostates who are going to hell.

This type of attitude is the same one you will find in the SSPV, coming from the crazy Dimond brothers, etc.

This bad will towards Catholics who are faithful to Rome is the result of people putting their own personal agenda ahead of HOLY MOTHER CHURCH.

Tradical said...

I love this statement:
... the doctrinal gap between the Vatican and the SSPX is not bridgeable.

This is incorrect - if V2 was held as being infallible - then we have a significant problem. Fortunately, it is not. If ambiguous documents can be interpreted contrary to the Faith - then they could be interpreted aligned with the Faith. In a way I believe this is where the interpretation of continuity is founded.

In addition, things have changed in the Church since 2005.

The fruits of V2 are maturing in the heat of the summer (dying on the vine may be an apt metaphor) and the temperature is still on the rise with a real schism brewing in Europe (Austria) etc.

John McFarland said...

Dear Mr. Cano,

For a generation now, the SSPX has been blasting away at Vatican II in principle and in practice. The literature is voluminous.

Within just the last few months, there have appeared a brief but trenchant study demonstrating the heterodoxy of Pope John Paul II, and a briefer but equally trenchant denunication of the convoking of Assisi III as sinful and blasphemous.

The Vatican of 2011 is the Vatican of Vatican II and Assisi. Pope John Paul was the Pope of Vatican II and Assisi. His successor is another Pope of Vatican II and of Assisi. The entire hierarchy, chosen virtually to a man by the current pontiff or his successor, is the hierarchy of Vatican II and Assisi.

There is no middle ground here. There is only the duty to find out the truth -- and once found, to cleave to it.

Cruise the Groove. said...

Lefebvran

The penalties due to the excomms are no longer in existance.
The lack of jurisdiction for valid confessions and marriages does not stem from the excomms, but rather the Society at present being suspended and having no canonical standing.

I recently contacted my diocesan Ordinary and he informed me that I may not go to confessions of the SSPX as they are invalid in my diocese.
They have no canonical mission and the legislator of jurisdictional measure in this diocese will not give them the power of the judge and this overides any percieved Ecclesis Supplet argument the Society may put forth in canon law.
The law of faith and salvation as well as the "state of emergency" rabbit that is always pulled out of the hat does not apply hear because 99.9% of dioceses including this one offer valid confessions and marriages

Anonymous said...

Just remember that the SSPX serves a number of dioceses where the "Mass of All Ages" is not offered. There are still American bishops who do not support the TLM.

They have their ways of intimidating the priests and those faithful in the pews.

Tradical said...

@cruise
SSPX book "Christian Wafare" on page 289

I figured you would bring this up.

SSPX Position: Participation at NO is a danger to the faith. If not - what is all the fuss about?

Whether or not active participation results in a proximate danger to a persons faith is a subject between the Priest and the penitent.

Did the book say it is a 'mortal sin' or something to consider in your examination of conscience?

Questions, that I can see being asked of a penitent are: Was there an act of sacrilege at this Mass?" Did you receive communion in the hand? How did you purify your hands afterwards?

etc.

Tradical said...

@cruise
... contacted my diocesan Ordinary and he informed me that I may not go to confessions of the SSPX as they are invalid in my diocese.

Did you really expect a different answer?

Why do you want to go to confession to an SSPX priest so badly?

Alan Aversa said...

... I must acknowledge that in the doctrinal preamble there is no clear-cut distinction between the inviolable dogmatic sphere and the pastoral sphere that is subject to discussion.

That could mean two things:

(1) Either the Vatican does not or cannot reconcile Vatican II with tradition (hermeneutic of rupture?)

or

(2) it is trying to conflate the pastoral and dogmatic spheres (hermeneutic of continuity?).

Nevertheless, it would be good to have the SSPX "biga" back in the dough. Since there are 1,444 EF mass locations in communion with Rome and 690 SSPX ones, bringing the SSPX ones on board would increase Extraordinary Form parishes in communion with Rome by 48%!

John McFarland said...

Are those of you waving dcouments regarding the nature of the priesthood and priestly formation saying that these documents are at odds with the traditional teaching and discipline of the Church? If not, you are not supplying counterexamples to my generalization.

(As regards priestly formation, I am reminded of the story of the then head of the relevant dicastery enjoining Archbishop Lefebvre to following the regulations for the seminaries that he had promulgated. The Archbishop's reply was, Eminence, I believe that I'm the only one who does.)

Celibate permanent deacons? The whole point of the permanent deacons exercise was to permit men to become clergy whether or not already married, and to live with their wives as husband and wife. In permitting marriage after ordination, it goes beyond even the tolerance of a married clergy granted Eastern Catholics ad duritiam cordis.

Tradical said...

@cruise

The law of faith and salvation ...

So now you are a canon lawyer?

There are canon lawyers (or maybe they're just lawyers) who disagree with you (sorry can't go for references right now).

In truth this is a 'he says' 'he says' argument.

On one side Bishop Fellay relaying information that supports the position of the SSPX etc.

On the other you have the local ordinaries who are speaking as we have come to expect them to speak.

John McFarland said...

Dear Athelstane,

Let me confirm your suspicions.

I don't want a deal.

I don't want a deal because the Vatican of Vatican II is not teaching the faith delivered once for all to the saints.

Cruise the Groove. said...

"Why do you want to go to confession to an SSPX priest so badly?"

Because my wife and I are attached to the TLM and 3 out of 4 weeks in our diocese we only have access to the TLM at the SSPX chapel where they offer confessions right before Mass.

Tradical said...

@ John,
You asked for two examples and I provided them.

Celibate permanent deacons... Does apply since the SSPX doesn't have a problem with them.

The circumstances surrounding your judgement of the implementation is secondary.

Tradical said...

@John

I don't want a deal ...

Pretty strong words. Do you believe the Pope is still the Pope?

Do you deny the possibility that the Pope may be captive in the walls erected by the curia?

So basically, you are on the side of the Liberals/Modernists - that Tradition should have no recognition within the Church.

Am I reading you correctly?

Lefebvrefan said...

Cruise,

If you are going to put your trust completely in the judgment of your local Ordinary on whether the Society has jurisdiction to hear confessions, then there hardly any point in discussing this matter further.

Concerning your contention that the state of necessity ceases to exist because 99.9% of the confessions and marriages in dioceses are valid, I have to ask first where you got those figures? It seems you are guilty of what you accuse others of doing: pulling the rabbit out of the hat! A very significant percentage of marriages end in annulment, far more than .01%! If these marriages end in annulment, it means they were never contracted validly!

In any case, validity is simply not the issue. The Novus Ordo Mass, for instance, if celebrated according to proper rubrics is valid. That doesn’t make it good. To demonstrate the realty that validity does not equate to goodness, consider this example: If a priest showed up nude on the altar and performed the Novus Ordo properly according to rubrics, it would be valid. But it would clearly not be good! Nor could one attend in good conscience even if there were no other Mass around for hundreds of miles. The priest by his lack of attire would be objectively offending God and this would taint any other good in the Mass.

Now we all recognize a sin against the sixth commandment, but it is more difficult to recognize a sin against the first. The Novus Ordo, according to the Society, even if valid, contains accretions which are sins against the first commandment. While these accretions do not necessarily destroy validity, they objectively destroy its goodness.

Consider this gem which is said after the Host has been consecrated:

“When we eat this bread and drink this cup...” It’s no longer bread folks, so this language is deficient and objectively offensive to God, despite the good intentions of the priest and faithful who try to impose a traditional understanding on such a text.

Anyway, we live in difficult times, and I for one hope for the Society to receive full and unambiguous recognition that they are and have always been faithful to the Church and are and have always been in communion and union. I don’t require this for my conscience in receiving sacraments from Society priests, but I can certainly understand the scruples of others like yourself, Cruise. I hope you can at least understand how persons like myself can receive sacraments from Society priests in good conscience, even if you do not agree.

Cruise the Groove. said...

We all should accept "deals"

Christ offered us the "deal" to know love and serve Him in this world and be happy with Him in the next.
Or to not, and be miserable for eternity in Hell.

I call this the ultimate deal.

Tradical said...

@cruise
..Because my wife and I are attached to the TLM a....

Are you attached only to the TLM or do you agree with the position of the SSPX with regards to the Second Vatican Council.

Why don't you go to confession to a Diocesan Priest in your area?

I am a little confused by your statements - no offense meant.

John McFarland said...

Dear Tradical,

The fact that the teachings of Vatican II are not infallible is not very comforting when its teaching forms the theory and practice of virtually the entire Church, and is supported by virtually the entire hierarchy, and is believed by practically everyone in the pews who believes anything.

Is your line of thinking that Bishop Fellay should say:

"Holy Father, the teachings of the Vatican are an abomination; but since they're not infallible, we're going to join back up with you, and not say anything unpleasant about them."

Tradical said...

@cruise
We all should accept "deals"

I disagree. The FSSP accepted a 'deal' and look what happened to them in 2000ish.

In addition they are still limited to areas where the local Bishop is either friendly to Tradition, or wants to counter the SSPX.

Finally, as said earlier, we need to pray for Bishop Fellay, the members of the SSPX, and the above all the Pope for this to be resolved.

Tradical said...

@john,

You asked for a specific example. I have provided them.

Moving off to different implementations etc is what I would call 'scope creep'.

Last bit of clarification (for others - I think John knows this): The SSPX holds the following with regards to the docs of V2:
1. Docs that repeat prior Magisterium - Accept
2. Docs that are ambiguous - need clarification to remove ambiguities.
3. Docs that are contrary to prior Magisterium - rewrite completely.

Cruise the Groove. said...

Tradical

I agree with much of what the SSPX, Monsignor Gherardini, Romano Amerio, say about VII.

My wife and I work 6 days a week, Mon-Sat 9-6, and at present, cannot get off from this schedule that easily.
We do on occasion to drive to the nearest diocesan confession which is almost 50 miles away in the middle of the week [we live in a very rural area].
It would be so much easier on all involved if we could go to confession on our day off Sun right before Mass.
But life is not supposed to be easy...

Tradical said...

@John,

Weird statement since you are putting words in my mouth (virtual).

Here's my own words:
There is only one Pope. He is (currently) Pope Benedict XVI. In all things that are not contrary to the Faith (weird to be saying that) we owe him allegiance.

He is hemmed in on all sides and if the Pope is willing to provide the SSPX with a situation that will allow it to continue the work officially, then so be it.

I would not want to see the SSPX gagged (as I believe the FSSP to be so), but if Bishop Fellay with the information he has decides that they can 'accept' what is written in the preamble - then game on.

Tradical said...

@cruise,

Yours is a difficult situation.

If you believe the SSPX doesn't have jurisdiction in spite of the items put together. Then you are stuck for the time being.

My guess is that you've been in this situation for years.

That said, it is probably best if you would leave the jurisdiction issue alone for a while and continue holding the course you have set.

God Bless and prayers.

Jordanes551 said...

Any Catholic who understands the faith delivered once for all to the saints, and is not a victim of wishful thinking, must recognize that the doctrinal gap between the Vatican and the SSPX is not bridgeable.

Not bridgeable? Oh well, then. So much for the Catholic Religion. It seemed so right, but it turned out to be just another delusion. . . . .

Of course the doctrinal gap is bridgeable. It will take humility, commitment to truth, and the ability to acknowledge the limits of our ability to grasp the mysteries of the faith, but it can be done.

But then what you really mean is that unless the See of Peter acknowledges that the SSPX is right about every doctrinal or theological issue, the SSPX will not reconcile with the Catholic Church.

I don't want a deal because the Vatican of Vatican II is not teaching the faith delivered once for all to the saints.

Or is it that you don't want to think that the Church teaches the faith delivered once for all, because that would render untenable your current position outside the visible communion of the Church?

Cruise the Groove. said...

I would rather see the Society "gagged" but have faculties for sacraments, than continue down the road they are on with no faculties and no canonical mission.

Though I have been at several FSSP Masses where the priest larupped VII big time, with the gag off.

SkinnyBaldGuy said...

LEFEBVRAN SAID:

“When we eat this bread and drink this cup...” It’s no longer bread folks, so this language is deficient and objectively offensive to God, despite the good intentions of the priest and faithful who try to impose a traditional understanding on such a text.

Just playing referee here:

Your argument above is without merit as the TLM also refers to the consecrated host as "Bread" (ie. 'Bread of Heaven' & 'Bread of eternal life') as does St. Paul in one of his epistles.

SkinnyBaldGuy said...

CRUISE THE GROOVE:

I'm not a canon lawyer but Canon 1335 allows for reception of the sacraments or sacramentals for "any just cause" by a priest w/o faculties.

John Salza wrote about this topic here: http://scripturecatholic.xanga.com/703979099/10-do-sspx-priests-have-jurisdiction-to-hear-confessions/

Take it for what it's worth... Personally I stick to FSSP for confession but I've gone to SSPX once for a 'just cause.'

Mr. Ortiz said...

The way I see it,

Mr. McFarland is a heretic, quite formally.

Perhaps it's more complicated than that.

Enlighten me.

Tradical said...

@cruise

I meant publicly gagged.

Anonymous said...

If the SSPX decides to accept the deal I wonder if the superiors of the FSSP and the SSPX will be sharing dinner anytime soon?

Jordanes551 said...

The fact that the teachings of Vatican II are not infallible is not very comforting when its teaching forms the theory and practice of virtually the entire Church, and is supported by virtually the entire hierarchy, and is believed by practically everyone in the pews who believes anything.

Is it really possible for teachings to form the theory and practice of virtually the entire Church, to be supported by virtually the entire hierarchy including the Holy See, and to be believed by practically every Catholic, and yet those teachings are irreconcilable with the Catholic Faith? Such a scenario sounds to me like it's teachings we ought to listen to, or else it's the triumph of the Devil over Jesus through the replacement of the Catholic Faith with something else and the virtual subversion and death of the Mystical Body of Christ.

Perhaps things, awful as they are, aren't really as horrendously bleak as you like to say they are.

Anonymous said...

I don't think that this Preamble can be interpreted as anything other than basically positive for Catholic tradition.
No where is there the statement that the SSPX must categorically accept Vatican II as a first condition for re-admission to the Church, nor does it state that the SSPX must accept the teachings of the Vatican II Popes....as was so viciously stated two years ago by the Vatican Secretariate of State that this would be a requirement.
Rather, it states that Vatican II is up for discussion and questioning....it is no longer sacrosanct, off limits to criticism and repudiation.

That is a victory for tradition.
And it's nothing short of amazing. Considering the mindset in the Vatican less than seven years ago....even less than two years ago!

Lefebvrefan said...

@SkinnyBaldGuy

Fair enough. But “Bread of Heaven” and “Bread of Eternal Life” certainly connote something much more than mere “bread”. The demonstrative pronoun “this” also directs our attention to what is immediately on the altar, which certainly is not mere bread. Even if there is biblical support for the passage, there is no justification for the timing and juxtaposition of this statement being immediately after the moment of the Consecration.

How about this accretion- another responsorial hymn: “Christ has Died. Christ is Risen. Christ will come Again.” True enough as an isolated theological statement. But as Cardinal Ottiaviani explains, the timing of this statement is terrible. It occurs immediately after Christ has been made Transubstantially present on the altar. To refer to Christ in different tenses- being dead, being risen and coming again in the future – at this important time- confuses and undermines the reality of his sacramental presence which is what the focus should be. He is here at the altar right now. We shouldn’t refer to him dead, risen or coming again as if He was not here present right now immediately before us. It undermines Faith in the Real Presence and therefore is not good.

Take another example, the notorious “for many” vs. “for all”. We all know that Christ said “for many”, and consequently- even if it can be argued that “for all” can be understood in a non-heretical sense, the net-net is that the Novus Ordo until recently contained a lie about what Our Lord said. Evidence that this accretion rendered the Novus Ordo not good is simply the fact that Our Pope has decided to remove it and change it back to the traditional formula.

Tradical said...

@jordanes 22:14

is it really possible ...

yep - Arianism is a good example.

Whether or not things are that bad now is another question that probably can't be answered for a while.

Athelstane said...

Hello Mr. McFarland,

I appreciate the clarification:

I don't want a deal because the Vatican of Vatican II is not teaching the faith delivered once for all to the saints.

My point, of course, wasn't that I thought you would deny it, but that you were simply reading your hopes into what little we know about the Preamble or the Society leadership's reaction to it. What you hope might in fact not be what actually happens.

But that's neither here nor there, because your comments here don't leave me with any other conclusion but that you're functionally, if not formally, a sedevacantist - and I choose my words carefully here. If you retain any allegiance to the Pope, it's an entirely hypothetical Pope, with no real connection to the apparent modernist termite you see as occupying the See of Peter. And the result, in this view, is that 99.994% of the Catholics in the world are formal heretics, including traditional Catholics regularly attending canonically regular TLM masses or sacraments. Only the SSPX possesses the faith - not the Pope, nor the FSSP, nor the ICK, nor the IBP, nor Barroux, nor Campos, etc. Only the SSPX. No one else. At the very least this is certainly sededeprivationism which is very difficult to distinguish from outright sedevacantism.

I don't say that out of any rancor, because I'd like to believe I'm wrong about that, not least because I'm sure we agree in most of our particulars about what plagues the Church as it exists today.

Oliver said...

There are political considerations here as well as the seemingly hopeless doctrinal ones. Bp. Williamson has talked of a liberal wing of the Society that I suspect would warm to the latest terms and lean on Bp. Fellay to sign. The other bishops meanwhile have posted nothing but negative comments since the talks and represent a formidable force against any deal. They deeply distrust Rome.

Jordanes551 said...

yep - Arianism is a good example.

Nope, it's not. Not even during the Arian crisis were the Pope, almost every single bishop, and almost every single Catholic Arians, and not even then did the Church or the Holy See cease teaching the faith once delivered.

Anonymous said...

Is it Boxing Day? Where's Perkins???

Anonymous said...

The irony of so many who claim to be traditionalists echo the heresy of Martin Luther....
There are many reasons I want to see the SSPX reconcile, not the least of which is to separate the Catholic wheat from the heretic chaff. The SSPX will be far stronger without the dead weight of those who hate Rome and the Pope.

Knight of Malta said...

Those who say that the FSSPX doesn't want to reconcile have a cognitive dissonance. Who was it that asked for the freeing of the Mass of All Time from Rome? Who asked of Rome doctrinal discussions? To whom is the Rosary Crusade directed? Who asked for the lifting of the excommunications? Does this see like a group not wanting reconciliation?

+Lefebvre was very close to a reconciliation.

That said, they are not going to budge from their position vis a vis Vatican II. But why should they? That nebulous, purely pastoral, bag of air Council said nothing that benefits the faith. It has only been used by the enemies of the Church to destroy her. Is that the working of the Holy Spirit? By the fruits...

Msgr. Gherardini has said the free will of men can interfere with the general guidance of the Holy Spirit at a Council--one can say this is especially so at a Council that does not seek to define, but seeks aggiornamento with a fallen world.

Last I remember Christ called the Pharisees a "brood of vipers", and chased the Money Changers out of the Temple--He didn't wax on and on about the benefits of false religions, as Vatican II does, but said that if you don't know the Son, you don't know the Father, period.

John McFarland said...

Dear Athelstane,

My allegiance is to the real Pope.

The nature of my allegiance is, however, obviously affected by the quality of his teaching, much as my judgment on my real natural father would be affected if he were insane or a bigamist or a mob hit man or the fanatical follower of a crank theory.

Do you understand what a formal heretic is? Roughly, it is someone who holds doctrines that contradict the Faith, knows this, and does it anyway.

Thanks to the teaching of the past generation, the generation of Vatican II, of whom the current Holy Father has been a leading light since he was still in his 30s, the vast majority of those who call themselves Catholics don't have a clear enough idea of the faith to be heretics.

And I'm afraid that this description fits a great many traditionalists. The sedevacantists at least understand the problem. "Soft" traditionalists do not. Either they don't know, or they don't want to know, because they sense that if they admitted the problem, they'd have either to embrace Vatican II and become smells and bells liberals, or deny that the pope is the pope.

Athelstane said...

Hello Mr. McFarland,

My allegiance is to the real Pope.

The nature of my allegiance is, however, obviously affected by the quality of his teaching, much as my judgment on my real natural father would be affected if he were insane or a bigamist or a mob hit man or the fanatical follower of a crank theory.


Given your past statements about Pope Benedict XVI, I'm still left to conclude that your allegiance to him remains...hypothetical. Theoretical. The quality of his teaching is (it would seem) very low, and so therefore is your allegiance. It appears to function like a dimmer switch. A dimmer switch almost ready to click over to "off."

Thanks to the teaching of the past generation, the generation of Vatican II, of whom the current Holy Father has been a leading light since he was still in his 30s, the vast majority of those who call themselves Catholics don't have a clear enough idea of the faith to be heretics.

I can't help but think that you're letting Joseph Ratzinger off too lightly here. He's universally admitted to be a tremendously intelligent man. He had a reasonably traditional seminary and theological formation, back when such things were still generally possible, however much modernist ideas were beginning to creep in. How can he not have a clear idea of what the traditional Catholic faith is? In short, how can he not be a heretic - in your view?

Who is the final arbiter of the faith in this world? Who has the final right to decide? If it is no longer Peter - however flawed the current incumbent is (and we have had our share of such through the centuries) - doesn't that call our Catholic faith into question? That's the hard question that many in the SSPX have yet to wrestle with. Waving Galatians 2 around doesn't help much unless you've been divinely inspired - like St. Paul was.

Well...two eventualities seem most likely. Either the SSPX leadership will accept an agreement (however tweaked) with the Vatican in the near future, or they won't. If it's the former, you may have a choice to make yourself.

Anonymous said...

"I feel bad for the FSSP and the other trads who have truly been faithful."
I understand this sentiment.
Why you ask?

Here's what I've noticed having attended a FSSP chapel for over a year now.

The bottom line: The bishop can flake at any time. I've seen many examples. One priest was ready to take over his Church in Canada and at the last minute they shut him down, he had to move down to a chapel in the southeastern US. Bad for the people in that large city in Canada good for the people that eventually got this great priest. How about the FSSP chapel in Canada last year where the Bishop suddenly declared no communion on the tongue due to potential spread of the flu bug. C'mon, who believes that? The care with which the FSSP priests use when distributing holy communion is incredible and there is virtually ZERO chance of any flu bug being spread.

In the chapel I attend the FSSP priest seems to constantly be tiptoeing around or perhaps trying overly hard to please the (somewhat liberal) bishop while trying to collect enough money to gain some independence. The red Latin/English mass books that are so effective for new Latin Mass attendees? Those have been replaced by a new, less controversial version that doesn't say things like "you don't reply amen when receiving the holy eucharist" The book's print is so small that it's useless, just like everything else that is an accommodation to the conciliar church. I can just imagine that some of the modernist bishops looked at that red english/latin mass book and despised it because of what it pointed out about the V2 mass.

How about the confirmations that the FSSP are not allowed to do by the control freak modernist bishops?

I can name many more examples of things I've seen, I think these are prime examples of why we could feel sorry for the FSSP.

I'm extremely grateful for the FSSP, but to deny that they're often handcuffed by the liberal bishop (lets face it, nearly every bishop in north America is liberal) is to deny reality. WHEN the SSPX gets canonical status I'm taking my family there.

Jordanes551 said...

Anonymous Self-Righteous Ranter, demanding that we rescind our decisions to remove your unwelcome and inappropriate comments is exactly what you should do if you want to ensure that none of your comments are ever again allowed here.

Just saying.

Gratias said...

Mr. McFarland says there is no middle ground here. What happened to "in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis"? No cleaving of the Catholic Church will take place for it is One and was built by Christ starting with Peter and continuing through Benedict XVI. Take this offer and join the rest of us. We need the SSPX and they need the Holy Father. Stop the agonizing and join up. The Church has plenty of enemies without. We need to circle our wagons, as it were.

Ivan said...

Laudetur Iesus Christus!

Anonymous said...

Tom, and I guess you are holy and shower in holy water every day???

Cunjo said...

Wow. What a council. Will st. Nicholas come and punch somebody? :D
Just kidding.

Are sacraments of Orthodox Church valid?

David said...

But it seems strange that no temporary faculties have been granted until there is agreement. Does this mean that Rome accepts that supplied jurisdiction and some kind of deputation has been triggered by a state of necessity? It is certainly against the tradition of the Church to allow the Sacraments to be administered outside of her ordinary jurisdiction (excepting genuine cases of necessity). But it seems that Rome is quite sanguine about 600,000+ Catholics receiving the Sacraments outside of the ordinary jurisdiction of the Church.

I am confused. But will be delighted if there is an agreement that doesn't tie the SSPX to the John Paul II-interpretation of Vatican II.


Cruise the Groove, why did you lift a section word-for-word from my post on Fisheaters without properly attributing it?

Tom McKenna said...

I hope the fathers of the SSPX accept and become fully regularized within the Church. I fear they are beginning to skate on very thin ice when, e.g., they operate a mission in a place like Richmond, Va: now if the FSSP operates an entire parish, canonically recognized and entirely devoted to the traditional Mass and sacraments, what becomes of the supposed "state of necessity" cited by the SSPX to justify their extra-canonical situation? If one can receive the traditional sacraments by orthodox priests in a parish "untainted" by anything "new-church," why does the SSPX operate a competing shop across town?

I love and admire the SSPX, and was in Ridgefield back in the days of Sanborn and Jenkins... but I'm worried that they are in serious danger of irrelevancy if they do not come in now--with an ordinariate or PP, they will have the freedom they need, and will no longer have to have recourse to sophisms like "necessity" to justify their important ministry.

Tradical said...

@jordanes 00:34

Arianism was rampant and if 'the world groaned under arianism' there is a strong parallel if not exact.

Tradical said...

@gratias 07:14

While it is a nice invitation to come and swim in the mainstream. It is prudent to ensure that at least the SSPX would be equipped with a very good shark cage.

If the SSPX cannot fulfill its mission (the preservation of the Priesthood etc) within the normal structures, then there is no shark cage and they would be picked apart.

poeta said...

The SSPX has always named three preconditions for agreeing to a canonical structure: freeing the Mass, withdrawing the excommunications, and holding the doctrinal discussions. These were viewed as proof of Rome's goodwill, and they have all now been fulfilled.

The SSPX has have never made it a precondition that Rome should denounce or abandon the novelties of Vatican II. In fact, they have said that when Rome returned to Tradition the SSPX would no longer be needed. Meanwhile, the time may have arrived for the SSPX to carry on its fight from "within the walls."

Tradical said...

@poeta,

'within the walls'
Good point and I think the only people who can make that judgement now is Bishop Fellay, his assistants and the ones with whom he will be discussing the 'preamble.

Our lot in this is to watch and pray (ala Rosary Crusade ...).

John McFarland said...

Dear Athelstane,

If I were a child, and my natural father became so mentally unbalanced that I couldn't obey him much of the time, he wouldn't become my "hypothetical" father. He would remain my real father, but he would not be entitled to the same level of obedience as if he were sane.

I have no ability to determine the state of the Holy Father's soul, and it would be a sin for me to try. But I do have the ability -- primarily through the good offices of the SSPX -- to see that much of what he is teaching is not of the faith delivered once for all to the saints.

The authoritative character of the Pope's teaching assumes that he is teaching to explain and defend that faith. He is the servant of the Faith, not its master; and he has no authority to the extent that he is not functioning as its servant.

Ecumenism is not of the Faith. Civil liberty for false religions is not of the Faith. Collegiality is not of the Faith. They have no more authority to bind the faithful on the Holy Father's lips than they do on Fr. Hans Kueng's.

My point regarding a deal is quite simple. Given the differences between the Vatican and the SSPX, any expectation of a deal is delusional. The chances are about as good as the chances of Pope Benedict's embracing the magisterium of Pascendi and Notre Charge Apostolique and Quas primas.

My plea to the deal dreamers is this: stop kidding yourself, and start looking into why it is that the SSPX is taking such a hard line.

Does Bishop Fellay strike you as an ideological mad dog? Did Archbishop Lefebvre?

rodrigo said...

Mr McFarland,

I find your comments on this thread very strange, and hard to reconcile with traditional Catholic doctrine. Do you accept that it is manifestly heretical to claim that the local Church of the city of Rome can fall into error? Do you accept that it has always been necessary for every church - that is to say the faithful throughout the world - to be in agreement with the Roman church? Do you accept that clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to the Pope's jurisdictional power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world?

~

I cannot help but wonder if in Mr McFarland we do not have a genuine "Lefebvrian": someone who has convinced himself that the pious union founded by Archbishop Lefebvre is actually the Church founded by Christ. If so, he is the first I have come across, and his writings should be preserved for study by future generations of theologians.

Michael Ortiz said...

Roderigo,

I second your comments.

And pray for all readers of this blog, and for the SSPX to come into full communion with Peter.

Janet Baker said...

"I would rather see the Society "gagged" but have faculties for sacraments, than continue down the road they are on with no faculties and no canonical mission."

No no no! Without the traditional teaching regarding religious freedom, the working class has no hope at all. Our enslavement is almost complete. If we can't feel the pain of our current political situation, and see its relation to this exact struggle, see its relation to the erroneous doctrine of Vatican II, God help us.

John McFarland said...

Dear Tom McKenna,

It is my distinct impression that the FSSP's coming into the same neighborhood as the SSPX is a much more common scenario than the converse.

My favorite example is Post Falls, Idaho, which is hardly a metropolis, but which is a center of SSPX activity: a church, two schools and two sets of nuns.

A further point is that if and when the SSPX moves into the vicinity of an FSSP establishment, it is not there to compete with the FSSP; but when the positions are reversed, my guess it that the FSSP is almost always there to provide an alternative to the SSPX.

For the Vatican, the FSSP is above all a counterweight to the SSPX. What is to be made of that fact is a conversation for another day, but I think that clearly it is a fact.

Anonymous said...

Tom McKenna,

I agree that the SSPX needs to get their canonical status but see my previous post on the FSSP. They're NOT free to do what they want to do and they're always at the whim of the bishop. So it's great if you have a traditional minded bishop, what happens if he retires or gets promoted or moved? That stable FSSP community is now at the mercy of a new bishop who might be anti tradition. Also, what about confirmations? Many bishops won't allow the FSSP to do them. Heck, my FSSP chapel informed us that the bishop requires all children attending the catechism classes to be fingerprinted. Really? Would the FSSP have done this if the Bishop didn't make them? I felt like telling the Bishop just because your liberal, conciliar mess let the pervs run wild for decades doesn't mean I should have to pay the price by having my kid fingerprinted.

The SSPX needs to get official status within the Church but the traditional minded Catholics really really NEED the SSPX with canonical status within the Church.

Jan Baker said...

John, I personally want to thank you for your lucid comments. There are many who do not seem to understand the role that doctrine plays in our day to day struggles. They have all along wished only for the traditional mass and sacraments. I have to think they do not struggle very hard! The whole gay movement--which has delivered the final blow to marriage, and a death wound to African American womanhood in the process, who now have only a one in seven chance of marrying--is a result of the doctrinal errors of Vatican II. Nancy Pelosi herself has attributed her pro-choice vote explicitly to the teaching of Vatican II regarding 'sacred secularism,' with which they uncrowned Christ and abandoned the principle of the Catholic state, which had been the ace in the hole of every initiative to better conditions for working people without corrupting them with class warfare. People in the trenches understand defeat begins at the ideological level, and Vatican II knocked our feet completely out from under us. The poorest are suffering the most, and Christ is still there among them. Thank you for your clear statement of the impossibility of reconciling with error on the major issues of collegiality, ecumenism, and so-called religious freedom.

Michael Ortiz said...

"Thank you for your clear statement of the impossibility of reconciling with error on the major issues of collegiality, ecumenism, and so-called religious freedom."

Ironically, it may be that the Magisterium itself will label these issues fairly "open", allowing SSPX to have various opinions about them, and still be in full communion.

Not so the private, magisterial judgments coming from some posters.

Ah, well.

(By the way, I agree that the way these ideas have been implemented post 1965 has been a disaster.)