Rorate Caeli

The two proposals - and how the SSPX Superior General views them

Yesterday, at Ruffec (Indre Department, Centre, France), Bishop Fellay [the Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X - FSSPX / SSPX] received the first vows of a religious woman of the Society [the Sisters of Saint Pius X]. In the end of his sermon, he addressed the ongoing discussions with Rome.

...

If nothing, or close to nothing, has been said, it is because things are more complex than they may appear.

Rome has presented two proposals to the Fraternity of Saint Pius X: one doctrinal, the other canonical. Neither one, nor the other are clear. These two texts are modifiable, they can be rewritten, their essence being preserved. The problem is to find out what the essence is. There are lots of questions, but not many answers.

Rome moves one step towards the Fraternity. The latter must examine it seriously. The texts will be the object of a very attentive study. The Fraternity will not sign a text that is not clear. It will not do anything that may diminish its Faith or the spirit of its Faith. And it will not make a move if it is not certain of the good intentions regarding it. And, according to each different curial prelate that is questioned, a different response may be obtained.

It is a decisive phase, which, whatever its outcome, will not be without consequences. [Source: Fecit-Forum, author: Austremoine]

108 comments:

poeta said...

Sounds as if they are giving all this the careful attention it deserves. Oremus.

Cruise the Groove. said...

It sounds like another few sesssions of doctrinal discussions are in order to interpret the meaning of this Preamble.
Will things ever be clarified and will this never end?

Cruise the Groove. said...

I guess Bishop Fellays response will not come October 7 2011, but maybe Oct 7 2013.

Anonymous said...

Round and round the mulberry bush we go. Will it all end, while we yet live? Oh, no: not a chance, no, no.

Harder! Harder! Bash that square peg into that round hole. Drive it in! Make it go!

P.K.T.P.

AldoCP said...

My prediction is that the SSPX will NOT sign.
The Vatican has a bad reputation of taking groups "back" only to de-construct them at a later date. There are several examples. The FSSP is one such example. There are several others.

Anonymous said...

"My prediction is that the SSPX will NOT sign.
The Vatican has a bad reputation of taking groups "back" only to de-construct them at a later date. There are several examples. The FSSP is one such example. There are several others."

This is probably true. If the Vatican and Pope Benedict XVI are negotiating in good faith with the Society (which is uncertain), then God Bless them.

If the Society refuses this agreement because it sees that the Vatican is not negotiating in good faith, will not answer additional questions, or expects mere acceptance regardless....then God Bless the SSPX for refusing.

Jack said...

\\Rome moves one step towards the Fraternity.\\

The SSPX needs to move towards Rome.

**The Vatican has a bad reputation of taking groups "back" only to de-construct them at a later date. There are several examples. The FSSP is one such example. There are several others.**

FSSP was never, as a group, out of full regular communion with Rome, so they never needed to be taken "back".

Most holy Theotokos, save us.

Anonymous said...

Wise as serpents, innocent as doves, that is the road for the future as I see it. The SSPX and, for that matter many independents, will not give in to anything or anyone that does not correspond to what the perennial magisterium has taught. If anyone thinks otherwise, they are mistaken.

It is frustrating for us to wait and see what happens but that is our role as ordained by God. Given what He suffered for us, can we do anything less than be patient and prayerful? Methinks not.

PEH

Henry said...

"The FSSP is one such example."

An example, I would say, of how a true flower can flourish in the Church and add fresh new beauty to it.

The spread of the TLM in the U.S. is likely due to the FSSP more than any other single factor. Probably a majority of the priests of my knowledge who have learned to say the TLM have been assisted by the FSSP, which has been involved in introducing the TLM anew into many dioceses. A majority of the "big" TLM's we've seen on TV have been conducted by the FSSP.

With the much smaller FSSP having done so much good, imagine how much good the SSPX could do within the Church if regularized.

Enoch said...

The complaint, by Bp. Fellay, is that the text is not clear. Well, he had stated after receiving the preamble, that the SSPX could ask for clarifications on the contents. So....why does he not say anything about the need to ask for clarification? Does he worry that he will seem weak if he mentions this? Does he worry that it will seem as if he is catering to what Rome wants if he sees the need to ask for clarification? Who is he afraid of offending?

LeonG said...

"Neither one, nor the other are clear."

Was he expecting them to be? One non-variable factor with post-conciliar speak is nothing is ever clear. All is open to further clarification yet nothing can be definitively clarified: therin lies the subversiveness of liberal modernism. Nothing changes with liberal modernist Rome but everything is open to change. Who can place their trust in such an institution?

thetimman said...

I have a different take. I read Bishop Fellay's open acknowledgment that this is a "decisive phase" as being fairly hopeful.

Joe B said...

I think SSPX will accept the offer because I have faith that this Holy Father and the last genuinely recognized SSPX's wonderful fruits as remarkably Catholic for this age, and both wanted the divide bridged. SSPX personifies the old great priestly orders succeeding when they are all failing, and it is noticeable to all those of good heart, as Holy Fathers tend to have. Out of prudence I suspect there will be time and care put into the negotiations, but because both sides are acting for the good of souls, it's likely they will work out the details, especially with the help of Archbishop Lefebvre and Our Lady.

In fact, I don't see a big split should Bishop Fellay accept the offer, but I see the possibility of SSPX blood in the streets if he turns it down with finality.

JDF said...

The problem is that the Vatican wants to please everyone: the Protestants, the Orthodox, the SSPX, the charismatics, the Neocatechumenals, etc. etc. etc.

In a situation like this, the Vatican always has to speak in the vaguest possible terms lest someone else be offended.

Cruise the Groove. said...

And yet the millions of "Catholics" who do not believe what the Church teaches are not made to sign anything and they remain canonically regular.

Laborum said...

I hate to admit this but when was the curia in releasing clear and concise documents? Anybody remember the controversy over limbo? This is not the first time. All in all, I think the preamble is good and friendly to the Fraternity, but even here it did not escape the "problem of clarity".

Cruise the Groove. said...

Yesterday at the SSPX Mass, Father said in his sermon, that if Bishop Fellay signs the Preamble, all the SSPX and their afiliates will follow the Bishop and there will much to suffer for the SSPX.
Fr said that if Bishop Fellay does not sign that he fears the persecution from Rome will be huge.

Cruise the Groove. said...

"Rome has presented two proposals to the Fraternity of Saint Pius X: one doctrinal, the other canonical."
I wonder what the canonical proposal is?

Long-Skirts said...

Henry said:

""The FSSP is one such example.
An example, I would say, of how a true flower can flourish in the Church and add fresh new beauty to it."

Remember, Bishop Fellay isn't just thinking about the Mass he is responsible for the WHOLE Catholic Faith and many, many sheep under him and the sheep in the rest of the Church. Of course we would like to be "regularized" in the eyes of the world but never at the cost of even one soul. This is a True and Great Shepherd, Bishop Fellay, and he has to protect, hundreds of Catholic grade schools, high schools, colleges, monasteries, convents, seminaries,
retreat houses and ALL that has flowered because of the graces from the one, True Mass that these Priests started in Motel Rooms, school gyms, peoples' basements for the Good of the WHOLE Church...if we had had to sit around and wait for them to be approved by weak Bishops and given a beautiful Church to say the Holy Mass in we would none of us have the one, True Mass again. So our Bishop Fellay must be careful not to let harm come to Our Lord's great work or even one of His sheep.
We are praying Novenas in our Chapel and as the mother of vocations I dearly pray Bishop Fellay doesn't leave our Priests & Nuns to just any Bishop, hopefully we'll be under the protection of the Pope and hopefully he will feed His sheep and protect all the souls.

THE LILY

"The martyrs were bound, imprisoned, scourged, racked, burnt, rent, butchered —and they multiplied." (St. Augustine)

NO BURNING TEARING
SCOURGING SKIN
IT'S PSYCHOLOGICAL
ALL WITHIN.

NO ROTTING FLESH
OR PUTRID BLOOD
IT'S STERILE CLEAN
NO RANCID CRUD.

FOR BUTCHERED
TORTURED BOUND UP SKINS
REVEALS THE TRUTHS
OF BISHOPS SINS.

THEY WANT IT NICE
THEY WANT IT HUSHED
WITH VEINS OF ICE
GOOD SOULS ARE CRUSHED.

THE SILENT COLD
IS BETTER YET
FROZEN SOLID
CAN'T BEGET.

FOR MARTYRED BLOOD
REVEALS THE CHURCH
BLIND SOULS SEE TRUTH
AND END THEIR SEARCH.

"WE CAN'T HAVE THAT!"
THE BISHOPS' SAY.
“SO LET'S IGNORE...
THEY'LL GO AWAY.

ENLIGHTENED MEN
DON'T SCOURGE THE SKIN
ENLIGHTENED MEN
KEEP BLOOD WITHIN."

BUT THEY FORGOT...
THE WOMAN BLEEDS
AND MONTHLY MAKES
A BED FOR SEEDS

WHERE NICE AND HUSHED
THEY'LL GROW TO MEN
AND SEIZE THE OARS
FROM WRISTS THAT BEND...

ON PETER'S BARK
WHERE BLOOD STILL FLOWS
FROM WOMAN'S WOMB...
THE LILY GROWS!

Anonymous said...

Can someone please explain why the SSPX needs to sign any kind of agreement with the Vatican. As I understand the situation Abp. Lefebvre was suspended for ordaining priests after being told not to by Paul VI. The priests he subsequently ordained have also been suspended. Since when does a suspension require such elaborate machinations? Even the excommunications were lifted without any real fanfare. Can't the suspensions simply be lifted? Anything else seems, well, strange.

Anonymous said...

From this morning's Matins:

"Then Eliachim the high priest of the Lord went about all Israel and spoke to them, Saying: Know ye that the Lord will hear your prayers, if you continue with perseverance in fastings and prayers in the sight of the Lord."

May God grant them the light to know and do His will. May the Mediatrix of all Grace not leave them destitute of the assistance they need to give themselves anew to God's will, with humility, trust, and fortitude. May God grant them the grace to respond efficaciously to all the graces he is offering them.

AldoCP said...

The dispute is not about "feelings" and "beauty." The dispute is about the Teachings of the Catholic Religion. In particular, it's about whether Vatican2 taught any new doctrines. Rome will be the first to answer that there were no new doctrines BUT on the other hand, Vatican2 was the "occasion" to publish the Novus Ordo. And THAT IS new "doctrine." My bishop asked me to say out loud, so he could hear me say it, that the Novus Ordo was "valid" and "licit." So, I said it.
The hierarchy in the USA now admits a loss of about 30% of the Faithful. They are not correct. We lost closer to 80%. Archbishop Lefevre was right.

Anonymous said...

Bishop Fellay is quite unclear here about how the Roman document is unclear. What exactly is the SSPX position in all of this other than: "It will not do anything that may diminish its Faith or the spirit of its Faith"? Hard to argue with that, but what does that mean concretely?

Anonymous said...

Jack writes:

"The SSPX needs to move towards Rome."

Why? The S.S.P.X has never moved away from Rome. The cause of the canonical irregularity was a 1975 action of Rome, not an action of the Society. The 1976 suspensions were an act of Rome, not of the Society. As we now know, these were unjust acts, taken on the mistaken grounds that the ancient Mass had been abrogated. We now know that it was not.

The Society has never denied any teaching that requires the assent of faith; nor has it ever refused a teaching that requires submission of mind and will. It merely asks Rome to explain apparent contradictions between conciliar pronouncements and previous teaching that *is* binding on the faithful. It remains faithful to the previous teachings, as we are all bound to do. So it is Rome who needs to take a corrective action by removing the incorrect and unjust acts of 1975 and 1976. As usual, Jack doesn't know what he's talking about. Does he ever?

P.K.T.P.

TheLastCatholicinBoston said...

I wonder if the time is right for SSPX to write to all the non associated independent Latin Mass Chapels of the world in order to bring them into full communion with SSPX!

I'd love to see the modernists start to sweat.

Anonymous said...

Henry:

You overstate your case. I have been keeping the numbers since the beginning. It is not the case that the majority of diocesan preists have learned the ancient Mass from the F.S.S.P. It is the case that the F.S.S.P. has been enormously influenctial.

It took some time for the Fraternity to become established in the U.S.A., for example. The great majority of the early priess to offer Latin Masses re-learned it, and the majority of the 'next generation' then learned it from these re-learners.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Rome has delivered a proposal to the S.S.P.X. Now it is time for the S.S.P.X to deliver a proposal to Rome. I suggest the following three points.

First, before signing anything, the Society asks that a regularised S.S.P.X will be allowed to use its present liturgy, both at Mass and Office, exactly as it is at present. For the Mass, this means an unreformed 1962 Missal except for the 1958 rites for the Triduum Sacram. The Society asks that the Ordinary of the 1962 Mass be granted in perpetuity in good faith, and that there be a moratorium on any changes in the propers for a period of fifty years.

As regards the Traditional Latin Mass used by others (non-S.S.P.X), a fifty-year moratorium apply for all changes both to the Ordinary and the propers.

Comment: Of course, a Pope cannot bind his successors. However, by agreeing to this in principle, Rome can have an expectation of future S.S.P.X co-operation.


Second, as regards the canonical structure, it should not be a personal prelature because the structure should embrace not only the secular clergy of the Society but also the religious clergy of all ranks in the institutes which are affiliated with the Society; moreover, it should embrace faithful laics who may register in it, just as laics can register in the Apostolic Administration of St. John-Mary Vianney in Brazil. Canon 294 would make all of this impossible; and Canon 297 would enable the local Marxists bishops to forbid new Society apostolates in their respective sees.

The structure should not be an ordinariate because such a structure is typically cumulative with dioceses within an episcopal conference.

The structure should be a diocese or other particular church that, under Section 2 of Canon 372, is “distinguished by the rite of the faithful or by some other similar quality”. If such a structure would violate the terms of various concordats, the residential prelate in such a structure could be the Pope himself, and he could govern it through a delegate elected by the S.S.P.X and confirmed by the Pope. Let the new structure be the [personal] Archdiocese of St. Gregory the Great, with the S.S.P.X becoming a society of apostolic life within it.

TO BE CONTINUED

Anonymous said...

P.K.T.P. Continued:


Lastly but most importantly, the previous two conditions may only come into force after the doctrinal difficulties have been resolved. This has been Bishop Fellay’s constant position. So far, they have not been resolved. Therefore, there can be no regularisation at this juncture. However, in order to move towards a resolution in which the Society asks for doctrinal clarifications of conciliar and post-conciliar documents, Rome should make a declaration that the Society members are presumed to be Catholic and that Society Masses fulfil the Sunday and holyday obligation to assist at Mass. If Rome wants to counsel faithful to avoid the Society until doctrinal issues are resolved, so mote it be.

Rome's offer has been found to be too unclear. Let the Society, therefore, have the opportunity to propose a clear resolution for Rome to consider.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I am certain that Bishop Fellay and the entire S.S.P.X. appreciate the many folks who have declared that "the Society should do this...the Society should do that...the Society should not sign anything until Rome agrees to..."...

...for without our expert help, the Society would be lost in dealing with Rome.

Anonymous said...

Rome’s Proposal to the Society

Since Rome continues to take the view that regularisation should precede doctrinal resolution, let the Pope simply remove the 1975 suppression and the 1976 suspension a divinis. The result will be a regularised Society acting illicitly except in the three dioceses where it existed canonically in 1975 and where it still functions. Secondly, however, Rome can simply grant a temporary exemption from the canons requiring episcopal consent. This exemption would remain in force as long as the Society, in Rome’s view, continues to discuss in good faith the doctrinal difficulties. Rome will ask the faithful, in the mean time, to avoid the Society apostolates on the grounds that the faculties of their priests are only provisional and temporary and should therefore not yet result in permanent bonds with the faithful. In making this judgement, Rome will also admit that Society Masses fulfil the obligation. The justification for such an admission is that it has been admitted privately now for nine years (and on many occasions), and so it is now widely known in any event.

It will take time for Rome to remove the cancer of liberalism and the virus of Modernism so as to see the doctrines clearly. In the mean time, there can be temporary and provisional arrangements designed to enable the S.S.P.X to assist Rome in clarifying controverted and confusing teachings.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

THANK YOU ANONYMOUS FROM ANOTHER FELLOW ANONYMOUS.


"Anonymous said...
I am certain that Bishop Fellay and the entire S.S.P.X. appreciate the many folks who have declared that "the Society should do this...the Society should do that...the Society should not sign anything until Rome agrees to..."...

...for without our expert help, the Society would be lost in dealing with Rome.

26 September, 2011 18:15"

Anonymous said...

To all the Anonymous forces out there who do nothing but counsel breathless watching, it should be pointed out that some of us do have sensible proposals for the S.S.P.X. They are only that. God guides each of us in His own way, and each of us should do what he or she can do to help the situation. Souls are at stake. So if you have nothing intelligent to say, just don't say it. Sometimes an inaction can be an act of charity.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I think you should be a little careful with all your knowledge P.K.T.P.

That is out of charity as well.

Jeremiah Methuselah said...

Cruise - a superb analysis. (3rd posting).

Anon (in 2 parts) SSPX do NOT need permission for the Old Mass and liturgy, many forget this. Vide Quo primum please.

Your “fifty-year moratorium” is entirely arbitrary, without a base ? Where does it come from please ?

JM

Anonymous said...

God is omnipotent, right? Then, pray to God that His ministers will find a way to unify their efforts for the good of His Church and the salvation of souls. Prayer is not breathless watching but is the most propitious solution for us lay people.

PEH

Anonymous said...

J.M.:

Quo Primum Tempore could not grant the ancient Mass in perpetuity and this has been understood for some time now. The right to the T.L.M. comes from the law of immemorial custom which preceded Q.P.T. and was merely recognised by it. Popes can not bind their successors. The refererence in Q.P.T. was a common formulation meant to discourage tinkering but that is all.

The fifty year period was meant to be arbitrary. In the aftermath of a revolution, there needs to be a period of stasis, and fifty years is an appropriate period because the sixties revolutionaries will all be dead by the end of it. We cannot insist on no change to the propers: it is tradition that the Mass remains ‘relevant’ over the centuries precisely by changing the calendar. However, there have been few changes over long periods in the past. For example, the editio typica was not changed one whit in content from 1637 to 1885—far more than fifty years.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Some anonymous coward wrote this:

"P.K.T.P, with all due respect I think you have too much time in your hands."

What a pathetic comeback. How common. One can never lavish too much time on correcting a forty-year error that has lost countless souls. I'm glad that this churl has enough time on his hands to read what I have to write.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Again, from the variuos critics, we have only pridefjul complaints. We can skip the one-liners and move on.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

P.E.H.:

God's omnipotence is not in question here, is it? The power of prayer is not in question, is it? Or do you have some secret information revealed to you that I do not pray? Somewhere or other, I've even heard that God also expects us to think and to act. I've followed these developments for some time. As a result, I have a perspective to share. Others here do too. Is there a problem with that?

P.K.T.P.

NBW said...

"It took some time for the Fraternity to become established in the U.S.A., for example. The great majority of the early priess to offer Latin Masses re-learned it, and the majority of the 'next generation' then learned it from these re-learners."

My opinion- the Latin Mass took so long to catch on because many of the FSSP were placed at the furthest corners away from the archdiocese. At least that is the case in my area. It would be my fear that they do the same to SSPX if they were to be taken back.

Cruise the Groove. said...

There are many diocese within many US states that do not have the FSSP, but do have the SSPX.

I am sure this is the case in many country's as well.

Michael Ortiz said...

PKTP:

Why do you rarely if ever cite Canon 296 (Lay persons can dedicate themselves to the apostolic works of a personal prelature by agreements entered into with the prelature. The statutes, however, are to determine suitably the manner of this organic cooperation and the principal duties and rights connected to it.) when you state your opinion that laity cannot join a prelature?

Anonymous said...

"...for without our expert help, the Society would be lost in dealing with Rome."

Well, without my expert help, what would the Holy Father do?

Delphina

Anonymous said...

Dear Cruise the Groove:

In the case of the U.S.A., there are only two dioceses which have every-Sunday T.L.M.s from the S.S.P.X but not from any approved source. These are the Dioceses of Las Vegas and Crookston. You are right, of course, that there are many which have the S.S.P.X but not the F.S.S.P. The majority of U.S. dioceses have neither. The majority are served by diocesan priests, and this usually does not entail a full provision of community.

The ratio of approved to Society Masses in the U.S.A. in terms of dioceses is 3:1; in France, it is 1:1. That is a huge difference. But it is fair to say that the large number of Society Masses greatly increases access *within* sees.

Approved Masses have been catching up to Society Masses and overtaking them in terms of number throughout the world. Again, however, the number of Society Masses is substantial and greatly adds to access for faithful. In India about six or seven dioceses have every-Sunday S.S.P.X Masses; whereas there are zero on any basis from approved sources.

In France, a recognition of Society Masses by Rome would mean that we would have recognised Masses in about 88 of the 93 dioceses. Exceptions would then only be some rural underpopulated dioceses (Mende, Viviers, Langres, Digne) plus, oddly, the very populous Diocese of Cambrai.

In the U.S.A., a recognition of Society Masses would not much change the situation in terms of numbers of sees in which every-Sunday T.L.M.s are offered. There would still be about 25 U.S. dioceses with no every-Sunday T.L.M.s (out of 176 Latin sees). So the P.C.E.D. has much work to do, especially in places such as Laredo, Gallup, Pueblo, Mobile, Shreveport, Evansville, Steubenville, Greensburg, Springfield (Mass.), Burlington (Vt.), Saginaw, New Ulm, Superior, Duluth, Jefferson City, both dioceses in Montana, Nashville, and Western Texas dioceses.

In Latin America and Canada, the work is only beginning. The same is true for Portugal, most of Central and Eastern Europe, Catholic parts of Africa, India and most of the East.

Australia would be helped greatly by recognition of Society Masses. N.Z. is doing well in comparison to other countries.

P.K.T.P.

Thank goodness I have so much time on my hands. It's because I am extremely wealthy.

Anonymous said...

I would humbly suggest that the Society should consider seriously the offer Rome has made as this Holy Father may likely be the last that truly understands them and time is not on his side.

Anonymous said...

It has been forgotten already that, at the meeting on Holy Cross Day, Rome and the Society also exchanged findings of the other’s perspective on doctrine. This means that Rome now has in her possession grounds for making a declaration on the present status of the Society. Don’t be surprised if an announcement on this is made soon. It might come after the Society has made its decision on the Preamble, or it might even come before, so as to affect the proceedings and the outcome. For example, Rome could announce a finding that the Society’s members are presumed to be Catholic in law and that none of them are presumed to be schismatics, apostates or heretics. That might have certain juridical effects and some of these might even be specified. Just a thought. Fortunately, Bishop Fellay has a lot of time on his hands—all the time in the world. Not everyone has that.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

God's omnipotence is not in question here, is it? The power of prayer is not in question, is it? Or do you have some secret information revealed to you that I do not pray? Somewhere or other, I've even heard that God also expects us to think and to act. I've followed these developments for some time. As a result, I have a perspective to share. Others here do too. Is there a problem with that?

P.K.T.P.


Not at all. My point is only that it is in God's Hands and He being omnipotent can accomplish anything within His Divine Will. If it's in His Will that there will be a reconciliation, then, there will be one. If not, then, we must accept whatever comes. Those of us who choose to pray for an outcome, be it ordinariate, apostolic administration, prelature, personal diocese or simply that His Will be done, should not be classified as sitting on our hands breathlessly waiting for others to do the heavy lifting. We all know and appreciate your fine work in this field of endeavor and we share your goals, even it it be silently and in prayer.

PEH

Knight of Malta said...

" Rome will be the first to answer that there were no new doctrines..."

Aldo, I think you mean "Dogmas"; there is a huge divide between doctrines (teachings) and Dogmas (infallible teachings).

Vatican II did not teach new dogmas, but it did instruct new doctrine (loosely speaking). The problem becomes when doctrine and dogma collide, as they did at Vatican II. Vatican II said Hindus are on a "loving trusting flight towards God." Well, that's not true; Hindu pagans believe in gods, not God. So, there is but one example of a fallacious statement from Vatican II.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Ortiz:

The Society is not there to promote a particular pastoral project; nor is it there to ensure a better distribution of clerics to serve the needs of faithful. Read Canon 294 in its entirety: “Their [sc. personal prelatures] purpose is to promote an appropriate distribution of priests ... of the *secular* [emphasis added] clergy”. What about the hundreds of religious priests who are affiliated with the Society?

Of course I agree that laics can be affiliated with personal prelatures, but personal prelatures are not particular churches equivalent in law to dioceses (vide Canon 368). This means that lay members of personal prelatures remain as subjects of the local bishops; and that means that, to receive the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation and Marriage in the traditional Rite, they need the permission of the local Modernist bishops.

The supporters of the S.S.P.X will not accept that sort of subjugation to the local bishops. What happens when a local bishop refuses to allow the Baptism of children in the traditional Rite?

Those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition need pastoral and full Sacramental care, a cura animarum, from those who share their charism of spirituality. WE HAVE A PRECEDENT FOR THIS, thanks to the Campos deal of 2002. So why on earth would you want to propose anything less? A fortiori, one of the documents of Vatican II openly suggests the erection of “personal parishes” (cf. Presbyterorum Ordinis, 10, para. 2). The Code of Canons of 1983 responded to this call in Section 2 of Canon 372: “there may be established in a given territory [which can be universal] particular churches distinguished by the rite of the faithful or by some other similar quality”. It fits like a glove. A “Rolls Royce” structure of this kind (the term used by Bishop Fellay) was offered to the Society in 2000, in 2004 and in 2009. So why would you want to foist on us a Yugo when a Rolls is available?

Do you really think that Society supporters want to be subject to the local bishops? What sort of pastoral care can be given to us by bishops who pray with infidels and wreckovate sanctuaries? Consider the Bishop of Bathurst, Canada, who, just last week, removed the faculties of a priest who dared to call sexual inversion immoral from the pulpit. Consider Bishop Gilles Lussier of Joliette, who supports the living abomination, pro-abortion promoter of inverted marriage, ‘Father’ Raymond Gravel. Consider the Brazilian bishop who actually has a hammer and sickle on his ecclesiastical coat-of-arms. You can have it!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dear P.E.H.”

Praying and working for something are complementary, not contradictory. But I would want us to pray for that which is good. Nobody who wants tradition to thrive should be asking God for a personal prelature, just as nobody who wants to go to Heaven should be asking for a hole in the head. If you simply want to pray for an ideal and unspecified outcome, by all means do so. But I urge everyone here to pray and work for what works. God helps those who help themselves; and we are called upon to love Him also “with our whole minds”.

Jordanes551 said...

A reminder to all, especially to certain of our Anonymous commenters: No more comments like this one --

"P.K.T.P, with all due respect I think you have too much time in your hands."

Interact with your interlocutors statements and arguments substantively. No ad hominem. Address ideas and arguments, not with persons.

Michael Ortiz said...

PKTP,

Thank you for that response. I understand your position, and in many ways, find it compelling. I am not pushing any specific canonical solution for the Society. I am praying for them, and for the Holy Father's intentions.

I am a parisher in an NO parish that wouldn't know a Latin antiphon if it knocked them on the head. I have been to several TLM's in McLean, Va, and have seen what so many Catholics have been deprived of for 40 years, and it sickens me too.

Anonymous said...

Dear P.K.T.P.,

Praying and working for something are complementary, not contradictory.
Agreed. I never said they were contradictory.

But I would want us to pray for that which is good.
Praying that God's Will be done is IMO a good thing to pray for.

Nobody who wants tradition to thrive should be asking God for a personal prelature, just as nobody who wants to go to Heaven should be asking for a hole in the head.
Suppose it is God's Will that a personal prelature be offered and accepted. Also, your use of the analogy "asking for a hole in the head" is over the top IMO. That is, on its face preposterous and I know of no one that would be praying for such a thing - except, perhaps an insane person.

If you simply want to pray for an ideal and unspecified outcome, by all means do so.
Praying that God's Will be done is not praying for an "unspecified outcome" IMO but that He who is more brilliant intellectually than all of us who have ever lived will find a solution that, perhaps, we have never even thought of.

But I urge everyone here to pray and work for what works. God helps those who help themselves; and we are called upon to love Him also “with our whole minds”.
Presumably, you include those praying fervently that His Will be done are among those "who help themselves" including, by the way, if his Will is that the proposed structure or preamble should be summarily rejected by the SSPX. Not that I think that will happen, I don't, but it may be a process of going back and forth with successive editing of documents before any agreement is reached, if ever.

Finally, IMO we are asking for the same thing but doing it in different, albeit complementary, ways.

PEH

Anonymous said...

I have no faith in the SSPX. it is nice that some of you do. What is the difference in their "spirit" and what the condemn as the "spirit" of others' interpretation. They seem blind to the planks in their own eyes but all too familiar with the one's in their brothers and sisters. Therefore, I doubt they will reconcile with Rome, for in actuality they believe they are superior.

Anonymous said...

"Rome has presented two proposals to the Fraternity of Saint Pius X: one doctrinal, the other canonical. Neither one, nor the other are clear... The Fraternity will not sign a text that is not clear." I interpret Bp. Fellay's words as the Fraternity will not sign.

HSE said...

To Anonymous 16:48 - "Can someone please explain why the SSPX needs to sign any kind of agreement with the Vatican . . . Even the excommunications were lifted without any real fanfare. Can't the suspensions simply be lifted? Anything else seems, well, strange."

Well said; I couldn't agree more!

Enoch said...

Long Skirts wrote:

"Remember, Bishop Fellay isn't just thinking about the Mass he is responsible for the WHOLE Catholic Faith and many, many sheep under him and the sheep in the rest of the Church."

Long Skirts, from your description above, it sounds as if Bp. Fellay is the true Pope, in your eyes. You said that he is responsible for the WHOLE Catholic Faith, and the sheep in the rest of the Church. However, I'm not sure that even Bp. Fellay would equate himself as being resonsible for the WHOLE Catholic faith, and the sheep in the rest of the Church. He knows full well that he does not hold The Keys. Only Pope Benedict XVl holds The Keys, even if some of the supporters of the SSPX may think otherwise.

HSE said...

I'm thinking how rough the priests in their own dioceses have it! Consider the El Paso Bishop who is attempting to silence Rev. Michael Rodriquez by reassigning him to a parish in West Texas. Father Rodriquez has publicly condemned homosexuality at city council meetings and openly responded to the city's decision to extend health insurance benefits to all its employees, regardless of marital status or sexual orientation. (Who challenged Father on the Council? A Catholic, of course.)

The good news??

Father Rodriguez plans to obey his bishop AND he "intend[s] to try even harder to be a good, holy priest."

LOOK OUT WEST TEXAS!!

Cruise the Groove. said...

"They seem blind to the planks in their own eyes"

What are the planks in their own eyes?

Though the Preamble does not appear clear right now to Bishop Fellay I am sure HE will ask the Holy Office what it means in clearer terms.

Anonymous said...

Could somebody please inform me as to what the SSPX desires from Rome?
Seriously.

Anonymous said...

P.E.H. writes:

"Praying that God's Will be done is IMO a good thing to pray for."

That's funny. that is exactly the formula I asked our Latin Mass group to use in its communal Rosary--and they did it for the last two Saturdays. But it does not exclude certain other formulas I might use in my private Rosaries, eh?

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

P.E.H. writes:

"Suppose it is God's Will that a personal prelature be offered and accepted."

Suppose that it is God's will that all traditionalists abandon the Latin Mass and adoopt the Novus Ordo with balloons and guitars. That would be about the same thing, since a p.p. would be a juridical disaster--and for the reasons I've given. But God allows us to pray for what we deem to be good, and we are not faulted for that, for then the intent is good. Still, it does not exculpate us from using our brains. They were a giftr. Use 'em.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

That "true flower" can wither and die overnight on the flaky whim of a single bishop. Oh, and no confirmations either. Nope, sorry, the "true flower" simply cannot live the FULL tradition of the Church freely and without fear of the whims of a bishop.

Anonymous said...

The Church is just starting to right itself under this Pointificate. I pray the SSPX can agree with the Preamble and be regularized. All the benefits to the Church will not be realized in my lifetime I fear but for the future they will be clear. For that I hope and pray with God's speed this whole chapter in Church history can be closed and that the SSPX can bring into wider circles all the good they have in their souls for the Pope, the laity and Holy Mother Church.

Anonymous said...

P.E.H. writes:

"Praying that God's Will be done is not praying for an "unspecified outcome" IMO but that He who is more brilliant intellectually than all of us who have ever lived will find a solution that, perhaps, we have never even thought of."

Yes, it is praying for an unspecified outcome. If God grants what we never even imagined, then we could not have specified that outcome in our prayers.

Look, any fool who reads Canons 294 to 297 can see that the p.p. structure would be a disaster for the S.S.P.X unless the negative clauses were waived, in which case it would be a p.p. in name only. I, for one, will work assiduously to warn everyone about how dangerous that structure could be. Sorry if you don't like it.

We've seen how A.C. has cheated the TAC and given their hope to the non-traditional hirelings of Forward in Faith in England. We've seen how Protocol 1411-99 harmed the F.S.S.P. There is a 'history here.

P.K.T.P.

Gratias said...

Are we more Catholic than the Pope?

Pride is a capital sin.

The thread was interesting, for I learned that SSPX priests are all suspended, yet they hesitate to have their sacraments recognized by the Holy Catholic Church. I appreciate reading the magnificent poems of Long-Skirts, and the statistics of P.K.T.P. We cannot whip each other up in a frenzy here. The reality of the present is that most faithful Catholics attend awful Novus Ordo masses. Twice a month we can make the pilgrimage to a far away Diocesan mass, but otherwise we suck it up and take a Mass - sometimes with tambourines and all - for the team of Christ. We will not attend an SSPX Mass until they are recognized by the Holy Father.

Join now so we can all work together in the unity of the Church. Una Voce, hundreds of Diocesan priests, ICK, Norbertines, FSSP and thousands of lay people are making use of the Summorum Pontificum legislation of our beloved Benedict XVI. Vatican II Council did happen. A particular group cannot abrogate it now. No new dogmas seems quite an achievement for the SSPX. The perfect can be the enemy of the good. We should all keep in mind that we have to work for the Church, not separated from it.

That said it is a blessing to have Rotate Caeli as a platform for interaction between different views. There will not be a Pope more friendly to tradition than this one. He will not legislate again, Summorum Pontificum was it. Benedict seeks to convince through Reason. The apostolic succession from Peter to our day should be more than enough to rejoin in humility for the good of the Catholic Church.

Mar said...

To Anonymous 04:05 who asked: "Could somebody please inform me as to what the SSPX desires from Rome? Seriously." Well, it's a long story - seriously. For any answer to make sense you would have to know the background and the context of the present status quo.

Quite recently someone put up on the internet an interview with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre which dates from the late seventies. It is a very good interview and provides precisely the background and context that is needed to answer your question. After you read it you may want to rephrase your question, or better still, be able to answer it for yourself.

Anonymous said...

Long Skirts wrote:

"Remember, Bishop Fellay isn't just thinking about the Mass he is responsible for the WHOLE Catholic Faith and many, many sheep under him and the sheep in the rest of the Church."

And some keep on getting offended when some of us say that there are some fanatics in the FSSPX.

I rest my case.

poeta said...

The greatest service the SSPX could give to the Church at this moment is to insist upon clarity. It sounds likely that that is what they will do.

Anonymous said...

I don't know what is the Will of God with respect to the FSSPX but I'm willing to accept it whatever it may be. One thing I feel relatively sure about - He does not desire balloons and guitars at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Our Lord's final prayer before His Ascension was for unity of His disciples - that all may be one. That is what I am praying for.

PEH

servo said...

Ad hominem against the SSPX is allowed?

New Catholic said...

Well, that's a long rant, dear last Anon.! We are certainly glad we helped you get it out of your system...

Anonymous said...

"Quite recently someone put up on the internet an interview with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre which dates from the late seventies. It is a very good interview and provides precisely the background and context that is needed to answer your question. After you read it you may want to rephrase your question, or better still, be able to answer it for yourself."

I have just searched for and found a "suppressed interview with the Archbishop."

If that is what you referenced, the Archbishop said the following in regard to two Vatican II documents:

"Religion and Freedom," I have not signed. The other one, that of “The Church in the Modern World”, I also have not signed. This latter is in my opinion the most oriented toward modernism and liberalism.

"This ideology says that all the cultures are equal; all the religions are equal, that there is not a one and only true faith."

Vatican II does not teach that.

The Archbishop also stated the following:

"I requested to see the pope last August. The pope refused unless I signed a statement accepting unconditionally all the resolutions of Vatican II. I would very much like to see the pope, but I cannot sign resolutions paving the way for the destruction of the church."

He also said that it was important to remain attached to the TLM.

1. The Church does not teach that "all the religions are equal, that there is not a one and only true faith."

2. The Church teaches that the TLM "was never abrogated."

3. Rome does not require that the SSPX must accept "unconditionally all the resolutions of Vatican II."

4. In 1988, the Archbishop signed a protocol with Rome.

Again, what is it that the SSPX desires from Rome.

They must desire something as they have entered several times into discussions with Rome

I am not Spartacus said...

The SSPX is not considered to be in full Communion with Rome despite the fact it offers the Immemorial Mass and teaches what has always been taught and dispenses the Traditional Sacraments in all of their pellucid glory.

They "existed" in the tautological spirt and truth (but not as an official designated Order) then dominant during the Reign of the great Catholic Traditionalists, Pope St Pius Xth and Rafael Cardinal Merry del Val; there was just no need for them then.

Back then, one could not even imagine, even by ingesting the most powerful hallucinogenics then available, what would become of our Catholic Church and how it allowed itself to be dragged (pun intended) down into the pit of sodom so far that a man like Bernard Cardinal Law could not only remain in full communion with the Catholic Church but receive plum assignments even after it was publicly proven that he protected predatory pederastic priests and moved them to new Parishes where they could prey upon innocent young Catholic adolescent males.

Even after all of that sodomitic and evil behavior had been revealed to the world, Pope Blessed John Paul II installed Cardinal Law as ArchPriest at The Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore and Pope Benedict XVI has been using him as a secret Diplomat working with the Vietnamese.


Yes. We have eyes and we can see who is and isn't treated as though they are in full communion with the Church.

Pope Blessed John Paul II was no Pope Saint Pius Xth; Pope Benedict XVI is no Rafael Cardinal Merry del Val; and the Catholic Church of today continues to repudiate Tradition as it nearly drowns in the sinkhole of iniquity and tries to extricate itself from grave evil by constantly introducing novelties and innovations in obviously direct contradiction to the Holy Ecclesiastical Orthopraxis then dominant under the glorious reign of Pope St. Pius Xth and Rafael Cardinal Merry del Val.

I want The Church of today to return to the Church of all days.

Joseph said...

Anon 13:13

Did you take your medicine this morning?

Long-Skirts said...

Enoch said:

"Long Skirts, from your description above, it sounds as if Bp. Fellay is the true Pope, in your eyes. You said that he is responsible for the WHOLE Catholic Faith, and the sheep in the rest of the Church."

That's what you want to think Enoch. A real Roman Catholic Bishop and Shepherd must always be concerned for the good of the whole Church. The schools, seminaries, monasteries, etc. are the ones under the auspices of the SSPX Order. And yes, everything Bishop Fellay does by example and word is most definitely for all Catholic souls now and in the future. If only more Bishops would care so much! Also, remember, the SSPX could have had their little "approvals" a long time ago but being true good Shepherds they begged and prayed for the Pope to free the True Mass for ALL their bretheren priests. Even you.

"However, I'm not sure that even Bp. Fellay would equate himself as being resonsible for the WHOLE Catholic faith, and the sheep in the rest of the Church. He knows full well that he does not hold The Keys. Only Pope Benedict XVl holds The Keys, even if some of the supporters of the SSPX may think otherwise."

Pope Benedict is most assuredly our Pope and we who assist at the True Masses confected by the SSPX priest know that too. Now, whether he's a good or bad Pope, strong or weak Pope only God knows and history has certainly taught us that many Popes were weak in the past so we must pray for him constantly but as Baptized Catholics we should never let ANYone take away our inheritance.

Anon. 27 September, 2011 11:58 said:

""Remember, Bishop Fellay isn't just thinking about the Mass he is responsible for the WHOLE Catholic Faith and many, many sheep under him and the sheep in the rest of the Church.""

"And some keep on getting offended when some of us say that there are some fanatics in the FSSPX."

To say that a true Roman Catholic Bishop feels concern for the WHOLE Faith is fanatical? Does he not "feed My sheep"? As a true Bishop, I think he would even feed you, Anon.

"I rest my case."

You rest, Anon. but I shall keep running the good race!

and THEN there's Anon. 27 Spt. 2011 13:13 who said:

" we live a in the 21th century we cannot go back to women staying at home, and taking care of the household and men being the sole provider for the family..."

How many times have I heard that as I was expecting our, 5th, 6th, 7th and on up to our 10th child. It's a good feminist Catholic, you are!

"...SSPX schools, and even families who might even allow the husband to beat the crap out the wife because women are inferior and should have their place under men."

Well, actually, Anon. I have always enjoyed being "under" my husband and as far as husband beating up their wives...I don't know...my husband knows to run when he sees me with a frying pan raised up in the air.

"Some them even though well read and informative need to go to a sanatorium."

Hey, guy, write me off line. My husband, one of them "tyrants" is a Clinical Psychologist, Ph.D., I will be happy to give you his number, speaking of needin' a sanatorium. :-)

Long-Skirts said...

Anon. 27 September, 2011 13:13
also said:

"HIPOCRITE TYRANTS."

JUDITH’S LITTLE
BROTHERS

I’ve been big sister
All my life
Seen trials and tears
Much love and strife.

I took some hits
The biggest and tall
For the love of them
My siblings small.

But once again
I’m called to fight
For little brothers
With all my might.

My little brothers,
Fathers they be,
Need sisters older
Judiths like me

To walk behind,
While men do scorn
And praise these priests
And toot the horn

To give support
As they help others
And back them up
My cassocked brothers.

But how you hate,
You say to me,
These other Christs
That live for He.

With that my hair
Stands up on end
For born a Catholic
I will defend.

You better run,
You better hide,
To bully His Blood
I won’t abide.

With sacrifice
And daily Mass,
Big sister I -
Will kick your…

…as I was saying
To all them others --
Don’t mess with Judith's
Little brothers!!

and that's just the kind of hair-pin I am

John McFarland said...

Dear 13:13,

The confusion has come from Rome, for just shy of 42 years now.

It didn't start in Rome, but Rome has inflicted it upon the faithful -- and made infidels out of many of the faithful.

Vatican II was confusion confounded, and the post-conciliar era has been more of the same.

The SSPX generates confusion only for those whose response to their analysis of the mess is: "don't confuse me with the facts."

Enoch said...

P.K.T.P. wrote:

"Suppose that it is God's will that all traditionalists abandon the Latin Mass and adopt the Novus Ordo with balloons and guitars."

P.K.T.P., this is a little out of context from what you were writing, but where do you get the idea that the norm for the Novus Ordo is to use balloons and guitars?

I've attended many Novus Ordo Masses in the last few years, in different areas over the U.S., and I've never seen balloons. And there were guitars used only once. I've never seen clowns or puppets, either, though you did not mention them.

Again, where do you get the idea that some of these things are the norm at the Novus Ordo?

Anonymous said...

To anon 13:13:
Are you a wooman or a feminine activist?

ATW said...

Long-Skirts said:

"Remember, Bishop Fellay isn't just thinking about the Mass he is responsible for the WHOLE Catholic Faith and many, many sheep under him and the sheep in the rest of the Church."

I agree with you. Bp. Fellay must consider the good of the whole Church, as any good and faithful Catholic should. Right now, at this point in time, the good of the whole Church, and of the world, is dependent on the Consecration of Russia as requested by Our Lady of Fatima. Bp. Fillay knows this and this is the intention of the current and prior Rosary Crusade. He also certainly knows that the SSPX can more easily aid the Holy Father in carrying out this task from a position "within" the Church.

All things through the lens of Fatima. Bp. Fellay understands this.

I will continue to pray that God's will be done in this as in all things.

Enoch said...

Long Skirts wrote:

"A real Roman Catholic Bishop and Shepherd must always be concerned for the good of the whole Church."

Yes, I agree, but you have not said this previously. You said that Bp. Fellay is responsible for the WHOLE Catholic faith. Being "responsible" isn't the same thing as being simply concerned. Perhaps you did not really intend to imply that Bp. Fellay is resonsible for the WHOLE Catholic faith.

You also said that they (SSPX priests) begged and prayed to free the True Mass for ALL their brethren priests. And yet, after Summorum Pontificum, the SSPX believes that the Catholic faithful cannot attend those Latin Masses that have been provided as a result from SP. This stance just isn't logical.

Also, I think it was one of the anonymous posters who wrote that some think of the SSPX clergy and bishops as being perfect, but that they, of course, are not perfect. We, as humans, have an intrinsic tendency to always want the best of everything. The best car that we can afford, or the best house, or the best of spiritual things, such as the TLM. But a problem with wanting the best is that we don't always see the reality that nothing in this world is really perfect, Long Skirts. It's not really your fault that you believe that Bp. Fellay is responsible for the whole of the Fatih. The SSPX has set themselves up as being a perfect repository of the Catholic Faith and Church. They see themselves as having reached perfection, and they can do no wrong, in their own eyes, and in the eyes of their supporters. This can become a form of idolotry if one isn't careful.

Long-Skirts said...

Enoch said:

"... We, as humans, have an intrinsic tendency to always want the best of everything. The best car that we can afford, or the best house,"

OMG!! Do you know who you're talking to? You're talking the "American Dream" - no, I have NEVER wanted the best of everything only whatever Our Lord sees as my Catholic need...

"or the best of spiritual things, such as the TLM."

Only the BEST for God, Enoch, and the WHOLE Faith, True Mass, Sacraments, etc. are what keep us Catholic mothers whose marriages are open to souls from wanting the so-called best of EVERYThing...only God is the best!

"But a problem with wanting the best is that we don't always see the reality that nothing in this world is really perfect, Long Skirts."

The True Mass is the most "beautiful Thing this side of Heaven" and perfect.


"... The SSPX has set themselves up as being a perfect repository of the Catholic Faith and Church."

They are Catholic priests merely handing on what they have received from Our Lord.

"They see themselves as having reached perfection, and they can do no wrong..."

Oh, Enoch, you're just f*rting flowers!

Anonymous said...

To Long-Skirts:
Extraordinary¡¡ Your poetic genius is unbelievable and your witty comments are remarkable.
I only know of another example of such ease to improvise poetry: the famous poet Rubén Darío in the Spanish language.
So to those bloggers posting in R.O. I give a warning: do not mess with L-S because she will respond both in verse and in prose, and I do not believe that anyone in this blog or elsewhere in the internet is capable of responding in kind.
C.M.

Ryan Bilodeau said...

Interesting times...

Anonymous said...

Attn. Enoch:

Could you please give us just one quote from the SSPX where they said they were perfect in anything? If you can't, then it is you who have perfected a hatred where it ought not to be.

A.M. LaPietra

Mar said...

(continuation)
2. Since July 2007 the Church has taught with clarity in the explicit words of the Holy Father that the TLM "was never abrogated". But up to that time IT DID NOT, as can be seen, for example, in the late Holy Pontiffs, Paul VI and John Paul II, granting "special permission" for its use. What has never been abrogated does not need special
permission. It would be disingenuous on your part to pretend that the conditions that
pertained in the Church for many years directly after the council are equivalent to the conditions that pertained in 2007. They are not, and many books could be written on the matter - and indeed have been, some very good, thank God.

3. It is not entirely clear even at this very moment that 'Rome does not require that the SSPX must accept "unconditionally all the resolutions of Vatican II" '. Certainly in the time of the Archbishop's interview it was clear that it DID require that. Once again, it would be disingenuous on your part to pretend that the two situations are equivalent. In the period after the council many FSSP and Diocesan TLM's were only "granted permission" on condition that there should be no questioning of Vatican II AT ALL - nix, nada, zero, zilch. The difficulty to set up a TLM that exists in many places even now is witness that many in the Church, including high-ranking prelates, actually do require de facto an unconditional acceptance of "all the resolutions of Vatican II".

4. It would be hard to believe that anyone conversant with the history of the SPPX and its crucial role for many long years in the developments that finally led to the Motu Proprio of July 2007 could be ignorant about what they desire from Rome. To interpret the situation as a veritable 'tabula rasa' - one where with July 2007 all that has transpired since the council up to then has somehow suddenly been eliminated - at the drop of a hat, and has therefore no bearing whatsoever on present unfolding
events, would reveal one to be either a fool or a knave.

In this situation to any of my students I would recommend more patience and less self-satisfied and self-righteous smugness. The good Lord could have redeemed the
world 'at the drop of a hat'. Instead Jesus Our Saviour undertook the tortuous Way of
the Cross and the Crucifixion before achieving Victory. It may take a very long and tortuous 'Way of the Cross' for the Church to achieve victory in the present crisis.

Anonymous said...

As far as I'm concerned Bishop Fellay IS responsible for the whole Church as he inherited the role of traditional preservationist from Abp LeFebvre.

I did not say these men eclipse the Pope of course not, but these men (and others) were specifically tasked by God to keep the unaltered, unadulterated faith alive until such time as people wake up and smell the coffee or perhaps burning embers.

Stop into a rock and roll "life teen" mass this Sunday and you'll see who the these men are fighting for. These sad souls in tank tops, shorts, and flip flops. These people don't even know what they need but need it they do.

James said...

I don't know whether the SSPX claim to be perfect in everything, but in my experience as one who attends SSPX chapels out of necessity in order to attend the TLM (we have another TLM now every other Sunday normally, said by a local priest when the SSPX is not in town), many of their priests and faithful DO see the SSPX as the sole faithful remnant.

In South Africa, we have been instructed to boycott non-SSPX TLM's - even if this means doing without Sunday Mass. Of course, some of us disregard this, but we are clearly pariahs.

Jordanes551 said...

That points to another reason a regularisation of the SSPX needs to be sooner rather than later -- not only for the inestimable aid the SSPX would bring, but also to help the SSPX escape the pitfalls of a sectarian outlook.

Mar said...

(Since you posted the SECOND part of my post but omitted the FIRST I'm submitting it again. The SECOND part without the FIRST does not make sense.)

Anonymous 04:05 and 14:18,

Yes, that is the interview to which I was referring and I forgot to provide the website which is as follows.

http://op54rosary.ning.com/forum/topics/the-suppressed-interview-with-archbishop-marcel-lefebvre

As a teacher of many years' experience I am aware that perhaps my response is to someone who is quite young, and whose world-view has been largely formed by such
ubiquitous concepts as instant gratification, and instant results at the press of a button. Yes, we do live in an age of instant coffee, instant food and in more recent times even instant friendship and instant celebrity, not to mention instant 'reality'.

But sometimes truth is not instant, and the old and wise saying that the mills of God grind slow but exceedingly fine still holds good.

One can be at times impatient to receive an instant answer, yet somewhat sloppy in 'doing one's homework'. Why do I say that? Because, having read the said interview, you have extrapolated from the words of the Archbishop things he did not say. You have also demonstrated an anachronistic approach by holding up as equivalent in time and space things that were said many years apart and in different contexts. Last but not least in your desire to simplify you have played fast and loose with precise meanings and the significance of the sequence of events.

1. To say that a certain ideology derives from Vatican II documents is not equivalent to saying that "Vatican II teaches that" or "the Church teaches that". And yet, if that ideology has overwhelmingly influenced theory and practice in the Church for a very long time then yes, in a given context, it is quite valid to say that "Vatican II teaches that" or "the Church teaches that". Considerations as to the letter and the spirit are important here. (to be continued)

Anonymous said...

"I did not say these men eclipse the Pope of course not, but these men (and others) were specifically tasked by God to keep the unaltered, unadulterated faith alive until such time as people wake up and smell the coffee or perhaps burning embers."

And I guess you received a private revelation on that???

Anonymous said...

James,

God bless you, thanks for you comment I and some others too have been pointing out the same things that you have, and we get attack for saying it.


And in regards to some of the members of the SSPX thinking they are the remnant...hmmmm I don't think so.

Joseph said...

James and Anonymous 11:42

To throw a general blanket of accusation over the SSPX because of what some of their members think is a patent injustice.

Would you like some of us to begin listing some of the nonsense embraced by a GREAT MANY of those who assist at the Novus Ordo Mass around the world?

Before talking about the splinter in your brother's eye...........

Anonymous said...

Joseph,

Some of us who dare to critized the SSPX have always said SOME, and regarless of the nonsense that goes on in the NOVUS ORDO MASSES, you cannot either say ALL OF THE NOVUS ORDO MASSES ARE A COMPLETE DISATER.

The problem with the SSPX is that it calls itself Catholic but without being under Rome.

Now let me ask you as you did to me yesterday, did you take your medication today???

Some of us have and maybe that is why we can see that it is better for us to stay with Rome, even with all the promblems we have in the Church to me I will stay faithful inside the Church the one in Rome not in Econe that is.

Enoch said...

Dear A.M. LaPietra,

I do not harbor a hatred for the SSPX. And no, I cannot provide any quote from which the SSPX says that they are perfect. It's my opinion that they believe this of themselves, due to the fact that they always lay blame on others - Rome - for everything. They never take responsibility for having made any mistakes; indeed, when is the last time you heard the SSPX Bishops do anything but blame others? It is their modus operandi, which has been handed down from the Archbishop. They must always blame others outside of the SSPX. Even in this latest communication, there is blame. Bp. Fellay complains that the document isn't clear. He has to find a way to make it look as if the problems are always on the side of Rome. Always.

Anonymous said...

"Some of us have and maybe that is why we can see that it is better for us to stay with Rome, even with all the promblems we have in the Church to me I will stay faithful inside the Church the one in Rome not in Econe that is."
Stay where you please, but do not pretend that the situation in the Roman clergy is better 'even with all the problems', than it is with the SSPX. It is definitely not: sodomy has infected the clergy and Rome looks the othe way when cardinals. bishops, priests and sisters openly advocate for homosexuallity.
To end this post let me quote Long-Skirts: "The TLM is the most beautiful thing this side of Heaven. It is perfect".

Joseph said...

Anonymous 13:01

SSPX is with Rome, much more so than many bishops who are in canonical regularization, but for all practical purposes own a schismatic modus operandi.

I won't waste a further argument on someone who won't even provide a name for me to address. If you've forgotten your name, they have meds for memory loss as well.

Anonymous said...

Attn. Enoch:

Why don't you just preface your own comments with, In your opinion, unless you have something of record? In my opinion you write as though the Church would be better off without the SSPX. I would ask, how was the Church doing before they came upon the scene? Let's be real.

A.M. LaPietra

Enoch said...

A.M. LaPietra,

You are right, I should preface my comments with, "in my opinion..."
I'll try to do that from now on.

No, I don't believe that the Church would be better off without the SSPX. There are many good priests in the SSPX, who only want to work for the salvation of souls. It's a little difficult to do that, though, when one does not have faculties to minister in the visible Church.

You asked: how was the Church doing before the SSPX came on the scene? Well, in my opinion, it was not doing well. But then, it had recently survived the ravages of World War ll, the death camps in Germany, and also the advance of atheistic communism. In my opinion, Vatican ll came out of these crises.

It has been stated recently by another traditional Catholic on the 'Sensible Bond' blog, that the course that the SSPX took was a wrong solution to a very real problem. That there was a problem is not disputed by me, but leaving the visible Church (the only Church there is) was not the answer, IMO.

Anonymous said...

Enoch,

So what was the right course of action for the FSSPX, in your opinion - do be specific, generalities and platitudes won't cut it. What was/were the alternative(s) and the logical outcome(s)?

This issue you raise has been discussed and debated and thought through by others.

Your logical conclusion, in my opinion, will be a dead founder and and a vastly minimized Society hoping/praying for a non existent champion to step up. No traditional orders, lights out.

The poison of V2 goes all the way, it permeates everything.

Jerry

Anonymous said...

Enoch wrote:


"P.K.T.P., this is a little out of context from what you were writing, but where do you get the idea that the norm for the Novus Ordo is to use balloons and guitars?"

I never wrote that it was the norm, although it is common enough. The point was that we can posit anything in regard to God's will, since it's distance from our own, in quality, is absolute. Instead, however, God asks us to use the brains He gave us. So I don't worry when someone asks, 'But what if God wants the N.O. to be adopted and the T.L.M. to be abandoned?'. So far, I have no reason to believe that. I do have reason to believe that the N.O. and the entire Freemasonic and Modernist revolution in the Church from the 1960s to the present, is noxious to the Faith. So I do pray for the eradication of this pestilence from the Mystical Body. If my prayers are misdirected or show lack of understanding, so be it: they are motivated by an honest assessment.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 13.01:

Yes, all N.O. Masses ARE a disaster because all include an Offertory that is Protestant in tone and effect, not Catholic, as regards the nature of the Sacrrifice. Also, all include other innovations which proceeded not from existing forms but from the perfervid imagination of Annibale Bugnini and his council of liberals. The Mass is not just the externals but the nature of the prayers as well. What makes the N.O. so objectionable is not only its content but even the unCathlic means by which it was concocted in committee. Catholics don't compose liturgy; they incorporate what God inspires over time.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Attn. Enoch:

When The Vatican would quarter no resistance to their reforms in the practice of Tradition but were crazy about heretical religions, the Archbishop IMO pursued the only option he had. He continued to practice the Faith that was handed down to him.

The orders sanctioned by Rome have not accomplished anything in the way of clarifying the vagueness of Vatican II. Some 23 years now and no effect in that area. They have not even one Traditional Bishop. The closest to that is Bishop Rifan in Compos Brazil. But the Campos group was started more like the SSPX by Bishop DeCastro Mayer, an SSPX colaborater, not by Rome. When he picked his successor, it was Fr. Rangel (now deceased), not Fr. Rifan. He may have believed that Fr. Rangel would never offer the Novus Ordo as Bishop Rifan has done.

Please keep in mind that The Vatican has since 1988 admited internally that the Old Mass was never abrogated. That did not stop it being allowed only by a bogus indult. The same Vatican has been culpable in the pedophile scandals around the globe. The Same Vatican tried to distort the Third Secret up until May of last year. Now it seems perhaps at last we may not be obligated to buy into the Vatican II agenda and still be good Catholics. Do you honestly believe that the Vatican would have acted in good faith with the SSPX had they not consecrated anyone? If you do, how do you explain the protocol of the FSSP coming down on them as Bishop LeFebvre predicted many years before. IMO he saw right through them.

One other point on integrity of the hierarchy. Many if not most of them in upholding the Vatican II agenda abandoned their Oath against Modernism which they swore to God at their ordinations to uphold.

The late sixties and early seventies were the bleakest years of my life. Since 1972 Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX helped me to keep the Faith. Ergo my apprectiation

A.M. LaPietra

Jay said...

"JDF said...

The problem is that the Vatican wants to please everyone: the Protestants, the Orthodox, the SSPX, the charismatics, the Neocatechumenals, etc. etc. etc.

In a situation like this, the Vatican always has to speak in the vaguest possible terms lest someone else be offended."

EXACTLY

Enoch said...

A.M. LaPietra asked, "Do you honestly believe that the Vatican would have acted in good faith with the SSPX had they not consecrated anyone?"

A.M. LaPietra, we cannot know for sure about what would have happened had the Archbishop not consecrated the four. As I recall, the Archbishop was promised one bishop, but this offer was not to his liking (or the liking of his benefactors, possibly).

Since the Archbishop was automatically excommunicated after the consecration, this may have been used as "proof" that the Vatican was against the Archbishop and the SSPX.

Regarding the FSSP 'protocol,' it has not diminished the work of the FSSP. The priests of the FSSP rarely celebrate anything but the TLM. And they do not want a bishop. I'll assume that you understand why they don't want one; but I can explain it if you would like.

If I recall correctly, Pope Paul Vl wrote a lengthy letter to the Archbishop explaining why the excommunications were to be upheld. I find this letter to be insightful as to the thinking of the pope on the matter.

Anonymous said...

Attn. Enoch:

No wonder we dont agree. You think that it is not a problem for a Traditional Priest or Bishop to offer the Novus Ordo if it is done rarely.

A.M. LaPietra

Enoch said...

A.M. LaPietra,

Regarding the celebration of the NO by a 'traditional' priest, surely you are aware about how often the NO is offered by an FSSP priest. To my knowledge, most of them have not ever celebrated it. However, if some choose to celebrate it (not being coerced) then it's allowed. But it's rare. I don't have an opinion about whether or not this is "okay." I'm just grateful that I am able to attend a daily TLM which is part of the diocese.

I think that it would be silly to refuse to attend a thoroughly traditional and holy TLM celebrated an FSSP priest simply because a couple of them have celebrated an NO once or twice. Perhaps you believe that the NO is a disease, and that the contagion will spread and infect the whole of the FSSP if one or two have celebrated the NO, but I think this is unrealistic. The FSSP preach only solid Catholic doctrine from the pulpit.