Rorate Caeli

You report: Are the SSPX and the Vatican going around in circles?

[Original posting time - 0326 GMT] Rorate would like to emphasize that the following conference is based upon the notes taken down by our correspondent. There are no audio or video recordings yet available of the conference. Furthermore, the talk was apparently given without notes, and it should be kept in mind that Bishop Fellay may have chosen to speak in a certain fashion on this occasion. Caveat lector.

A report on the conference given by H.E. Bernard Fellay SSPX in Our Lady of Victories Church, Cubao, Quezon City, Metro Manila on October 16, 2011



I attended Pontifical Mass from the throne (two assistant deacons and all) in the SSPX church in Metro Manila on the morning of October 16. The Mass was offered by Bishop Fellay and he was assisted by the District Superiors for Asia and for France. The church was packed to overflowing thanks to the presence of delegates from the SSPX-guided Praesidia of the Legion of Mary from all over the Philippines. (This is not to say that the church is not full on ordinary Sundays.)



During his sermon for the Mass, Bishop Fellay focused mostly on the need to trust in God, and the fact that the Lord who performed the miracle described in the gospel for that Sunday (the forgiving of sins and healing of the man sick with palsy) is the same Lord who is in the tabernacle. He has lost none of His power, and therefore we must have recourse to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament with complete trust. He also related the following story from Lourdes, which according to the bishop took place a few years back: there was this little girl who was very ill, and who had gone to Lourdes in the hope of being healed. She stood in line to be blessed with the Blessed Sacrament, as is the practice in that shrine. However, when the priest blessed her with the Blessed Sacrament, nothing happened to her. She then pointed to the Blessed Sacrament (which by then had been brought over to another person) and said, "I'll tell this to Your Mother!". At that instant, she was healed! The bishop did not neglect to speak about the need to pray the rosary and to have trusting recourse to the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. In the course of this he remarked that the crisis in the Church was so great that, humanly speaking, it can't be raised up, and only divine intervention can do so.




After the Pontifical Mass, the bishop gave an hour-long conference (open to the public) on the state of the relationship between the Vatican and the SSPX.



The bishop had no notes, but his talk was remarkably well-organized.



(I report here only those parts of the talk that are not merely about SSPX history pre-Benedict XVI and other relatively unimportant matters already repeated elsewhere by the bishop. The talk was an hour long, packed with information, and inevitably this report cannot reproduce everything that he said in detail.)



Almost at the beginning of the talk he described the situation in the Church today as not being better, but only as "something that looks better"; there may be New Movements, he said, but these New Movements are "strange", and the Neo-Catechumenal Way in particular is "Protestant".



He narrated the entire story of the relationship between the SSPX and the Vatican from 1987 to the present. Most of the incidents he recounted have been told before, but some stories seemed to me to be new. For instance, he recounted that when he read the Pope's December 22, 2005 discourse on the hermeneutic of continuity, he said that "I thought we were being condemned" because the SSPX also believes that Vatican II IS a rupture with the past.



He also recounted (as he had in previous occasions) the 2005 meeting where Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos said that there is no problem with the SSPX and that it can be given canonical recognition. The Pope told him that the SSPX has no right to invoke the State of Necessity because he -- the Pope -- is trying to solve the problems. According to Fellay, he inwardly but not externally said, "Thank you, Holy Father", because the Pope, in saying that he is trying to solve the problems in the Church, had just admitted that he is doing something about the problems in the Church, that there are problems in the Church, and that these problems are not yet over, because the Pope is still "solving" them. The Pope also said that "perhaps" there is a state of necessity in France and Germany. According to Fellay, he wanted to ask, "but how about in other countries? In Switzerland, Belgium, and everywhere else?"



Fellay then said that the problem with the Vatican is that it doesn't see the problem with Vatican II: the Pope, in particular, wants to keep the things that came from the Council. The main problem with the hermeneutic of continuity, according to Fellay, is that for the Vatican the Church can do no wrong, and therefore since the Church came out with the New Mass and the Church came out with the Conciliar teachings then these things ARE in continuity with what the Church previously did and taught. Of course the Society cannot accept this. It asks, "WHERE is the continuity?"



Fellay described Summorum Pontificum as "an interesting document" with elements that are both good and bad. For instance, it says that the New Mass and the Old Mass are two forms of the same Rite, and this -- according to Fellay -- is "absurd". What is important, though, is that it restores the Old Mass and makes it available to all priests and to all the faithful, and it admits that this Mass was never abrogated.



Fellay also described Universae Ecclesiae as being the same mixture of good and bad; among other observations, he noted that the provision of Universae Ecclesiae which says that TLM's cannot be asked by those who question the legitimacy of the New Rite (and, according to Fellay, "legitimacy" can mean a lot of things) is "an attack on all of us Traditionalists". (He must have been referring to UE # 19.)



Msgr. Fellay also recounted the now well-known story about the priest who was "excommunicated" last year by the Congregation for Religious for joining the "schism of Archbishop Lefebvre", a claim that was then derided by Msgr. Pozzo, who suggested that the decree of excommunication should be torn in two.



And so, Msgr. Fellay came to the doctrinal talks. According to him, the doctrinal talks clearly showed that Rome and the SSPX disagree on all the topics dealt with by the talks such as ecumenism, collegiality and religious liberty.



Fellay then moved on to the Doctrinal Preamble. According to Fellay, the Doctrinal Preamble contains not a single word evaluating the doctrinal talks between Rome and the SSPX. In light of this, according to the bishop, the Doctrinal Preamble means that "things are back to zero"; he described the back and forth between Rome and the SSPX as " just going around in circles".



Towards the end, Fellay said that if the Society does not accept the Preamble, Rome "may" declare us schismatic, although "Rome didn't really put it that way". Fellay then told his listeners, "So, be ready, then." According to him, "it is not the end yet" but things may become very difficult. If they must go through "another trial", then "glory to God, and glory to the Blessed Virgin"!



At the same time, Fellay said that they have "information" that the Pope may have something "even better to give us in place of what we now have". (It was not entirely clear
what was meant by that.)



Shortly after that, the public conference ended.

110 comments:

Anonymous said...

The following may be wrong to say, but the Rome-SSPX situation has become boring.

The situation is similiar to ecumenical/interfaith nonense.

Either non-Catholics wish to join the Church or not.

Enough with endless and useless discussion groups and meetings.

In regard to the SSPX, either regularize their canonical status or not.

Stop the nonsense...both sides.

Sadie Vacantist said...

This is very depressing. My own view is that the Vatican will not 'move' unless the secular World moves first. By that we are talking a reappraisal/revision of secular history of the last 60+ years. Is that really going to happen?

Fellay is delusional if he thinks that the Vatican will troubleshoot on behalf of secularists. People can get arrested for challenging the state in that regard.

Saint Michael Come To Our Defense said...

I hope His Eminence kicked the mean spirited office help to the curb long enough to consult some of the Holy Priests that have been exiled to the Philippines by the American Pharisee Whitened Sepulchers of the SSPX.

He needs to find a way out of the hole he has dug for himself.

The talks with Rome ended in complete failure.

*

Peterman said...

Sure they're going round and round in circles at this point and I'm just about past the point of caring. I was really hoping for some regularization with the SSPX but if Bishop Fellay and his fellow leaders can't make it heppen then they need to just move on into their own permanent protest and forget all these "discussions".

At this point I'll just continue to bite the bullet and attend my NO mass, overlook the abuses, and wait on the Great Monarch and Holy Pontiff to come and change everything back. We saw the commies in Rome yesterday smash the statue of our lady, how long before the prophecies of Fatima come true? Anyone believe the prophecies of dozens and dozens of Catholic saints over the last thousand years aren't happening now and soon?

It's time for the SSPX to step it up and grab the conciliar hydra by the snakes and get regularized so they can save souls. If Rome has asked to make too many compromises than they're probably better off not regularized anyway.

John McFarland said...

Dear Peterman,

How can the SSPX accept regularization if the regularizers do not profess the Faith, the whole Faith, and nothing but the Faith?

This is not politics. This is religion.

Peter said...

I heard or read Bishop Fellay say (on La Porte Latine I believe) that the Preamble was NOT a DOCTRINAL statement but a DIPLOMATIC statement meant to save face for both sides.

As long as the Pope gives freedom to Traditionalist to critique VII and the post conciliar magisterium (as the preamble does) and adhere to preconciliar Catholic teaching then I see no reason to refuse regularization which guarantees freedom to the SSPX and it's affiliates to operate unhindered from local bishops.

To refuse this would be a tragedy for all...

Gratias said...

Reading the report, it seems written by a very thoughtful reporter.

It will be a lost opportunity if all these Rosaries, including one of mine, go to waste in these internecine disputes.

Peterman said...

Dear John McFarland,

Unfortunately this situation is nearly entirely political.

Does what the "regulizers" profess even matter anymore? The SSPX leaders should know by know they won't ever change those hearts. Nonetheless, if they can get complete independence to operate they need to take it and start the counter revolution.

The only other option for those of us suffering through the Conciliar Church is just to wait until the chastisements and the inevitable reform that results from them.

beng said...

Fellay's talk on the doctrinal preamble situation should not really surprise us as we have read the new motu proprio Porta Fideis where the Pope gives much much much credit to Vatican II.

I too am losing hope that this dialogue will bring SSPX to union and a better understanding of Vatican II.

Geoffrey said...

This looks bad. Really bad.

If Fellay refuses to be fully reconciled then the Holy Father should end it. Declare them schismatic and unilaterally offer the prelature/ordinariate to those prepared to break ranks and be accepted into the bosom of Holy Mother Church.

poeta said...

I too am getting weary of trying to follow every drip of this slow leak and read anything into it. Best to continue the prayers and stop reading.

Never thought I would be quoting The Phantom Menace, but: "No need to report on that until we have something to report."

Anonymous said...

Peter said, "I heard or read Bishop Fellay say (on La Porte Latine I believe) that the Preamble was NOT a DOCTRINAL statement but a DIPLOMATIC statement meant to save face for both sides.

As long as the Pope gives freedom to Traditionalist to critique VII and the post conciliar magisterium (as the preamble does) and adhere to preconciliar Catholic teaching then I see no reason to refuse regularization which guarantees freedom to the SSPX and it's affiliates to operate unhindered from local bishops.

To refuse this would be a tragedy for all..."

Yes, I agree with you also, but we do have to be concerned how the acceptance of the Preamble is managed. Whether it's political versus doctrinal remains to be seen. I, for one, would like an Ordinariate for the Society. Like what the incoming Anglicans get in their Ordinariates, it will give the Society the same automony they need to continue what they believe and practice without the interference of disdainful bishops. Unlike Opus Dei which is a Prelature, they have many obstacles and obstructions from various bishops here and around the world who make it very difficult for them. We don't need that with the SSPX. They struggle and endure all these years and end up back in the ranks as a marginalized step-child. No, thanks. We and they don't need that kind of insulting anti-climax.

Peterman said, "Sure they're going round and round in circles at this point and I'm just about past the point of caring. I was really hoping for some regularization with the SSPX but if Bishop Fellay and his fellow leaders can't make it heppen then they need to just move on into their own permanent protest and forget all these 'discussions.'"

True, but we still need to hope and petition our Mother Mary for assitance in this regard. In many ways, the SSPX got a lot farther with Rome than other groups have save that of the Anglicans. Anglicanorum Coetibus is a momentus step forward and gives rise to the hope things can work out for the SSPX also. I agree, however, this is may be more political because if the Society were able to come in part and parcel like the Anglicans, then Rome would have to admit them in the same manner with the same open arms. The only problem is the Society would already be at disadvantage. They know what Sacred Tradition is while the Anglicans don't. To me, the rub is the Anglicans getting to hang on to their tradition, but the SSPX can't. It points to a wider gripe on Rome's part.

Prayerfully,

Matt

Anonymous said...

In the new Motu Proprio, "Porta Fideis", one can't expect the Pope to do anything but praise Vatican II. After all, he participated in it. He was one of the brightest stars among the theologians/advisors to Cardinals at Vatican II. He was there with the likes of the infamous Hans Kung, etc.
So you can't expect him to say anything negative about that disaster of a Council, because he had a very strong imput and influence in it. He would be admitting that it was all a huge mistake (which it was). But this Pope, and any Pope formed in that generation never would repudiate or condemn it.
Fortunatly, the most ardent supporters of Vatican II both in the Roman Curia and elsewhere who represent the worst interpretations of it are very much for the most part very aged men and women.
The radical dissident femminist nuns and movement in the USA just two days ago lost one of their "saints", Anita Casprey,95, who nearly 50 years ago as Mother M. Humiliata,IHM, lead her 700 California Institute of the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary into open rebellion against both her Archbishop (the late, great James Francis Cardinal McIntyre (d.1979)who hated Vatican II and everything it stood for, and also lead her community into rebellion against Rome and the Pope by being practically the first USA nuns to engage in pop psycology courses, bizarre liturgies, discard monastic disipline, the holy habit for layclothes, and traditional apostolates of teaching, nursing, and missions in favor of social work. There was a 2-3 year struggle between the Archbishop, Vatican, and the nuns. Rather than obedience to Rome which ordered the 700+ nuns back into their traditional habits and apostolates, they voluntarily disbanded. Of 700 nuns, over 300+ left the Order and formed the ecumenical "Immaculate Heart Community", while the original Order collapsed. This remnant IHM Order of nuns likewise over the years became liberal, femminists and declined from about 400 in 1967 when the break with Rome began, to today being on the verge of extinction with just 9 members in Los Angeles.
Casprey's ecumenical "IHM community" pretty much are on the same road to extinction with barely 100.
The point is that those who are the most ferocious supporters of Vatican II are all very aged people with perhaps a back-up core of supporters in their 80's. 70's and 60's, but almost 0 younger.
Unfortunatly, we might go thru the remainder of this Pontificate with nothing done favorably for Catholic tradtion-then again, Benedict XVI might surprise the SSPX and the world with something wonderful for them and Catholic tradition.
What has to happen for a real change in Rome, is for all those diehard Vatican II supporters in their cubicles and offices to either die (but I don't wish tha on anyone), retire, or be banished to outer Space. Benedict XVI has
done that to afew people in the Curia, but unfortunatly has also installed afew also....like the new Secretary for the Congregation for Religious, Joseph Tobin, C.SS.R., former Redemptorist Superior General and a radical liberal who should be booted out of the Vatican to some obscure USA diocese as bishop.
The Vatican and the SSPX may seem to be going around in circles, but in the end, perhaps something very good will be coming from Rome.

Cardinal Levada (who is a known hater of Catholic tradition, the SSPX, and the Tridentine Mass), as Prefect of the Sacred Cong. for the Doctrine of the Faith created this "Doctrinal Preamble". But he is 75 and will be retired and gone soon. His whole term in Rome, the Pope was known not to be very pleased with him
So with him gone, maybe the SSPX will recieve from the Pope something much better.
Let us hope and pray.
God bless the Pope....and also Bishop Fellay and all the SSPX.

Anonymous said...

I hate to say it, but we need a major physical chastisement. Rome is busy "savoring the things of man, and not the things of God". Can anyone deny that Rome has lost the faith? Is it "uncharitalbe" to state the obvious?

The "hermeneutic of continuity in discontinuity" is nothing but an attempt to reconcile Christ will Belial - Liberalism and Modernism with Catholicism.

Brian said...

Towards the end, Fellay said that if the Society does not accept the Preamble, Rome "may" declare us schismatic.

After it is made public, what if non-SSPX Catholics do not agree with the Preamble? Shall we, too, be thrown into the outer-darkness?

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

It sounds like the "Pre-amble" will be rejected. Deo gratias.

CV said...

@ Peter,
What H.E. Bp Fellay initially said of the "Doctrinal Preamble" is "..there is no clear-cut distinction between the inviolable dogmatic sphere and the pastoral sphere that is subject to discussion. ..." IOW, by inference they would no longer be able to criticise VII, being as BXVI claims of it: "the great grace bestowed on the Church in the 20th century" (!).
It's wise for SSPX to give this preamble the toss, because their opposite numbers in the Curia are obviously dealing in very bad faith.
It's better they stay the course, as it were providing a safe harbour til the Barq of Peter gets RE-fitted with the compass that works correctly.
It seems the VII "compass" recently referred to, has a plastic needle or something, since it certainly never was "a sure compass by which to take our bearings", as history proves beyond any shadow of doubt...

@ Matt,
Perhaps P.K.T.P. will fill us in an what a raw deal the *Traditional* Anglicans have been offered thus far.

Thorin said...

Geoffrey's analysis is exactly right.

Anonymous said...

...he remarked that the crisis in the Church was so great that, humanly speaking, it can't be raised up, and only divine intervention can do so.

That describes my point of view precisely. The chasm that exists between traditional Catholicism and Modernism is so great that only Our Blessed Lord through the intercession of His Mother can set things right. Though it may be depressing, it is accurate picture of the state of affairs in the Church today.

PEH

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 11:01 said in part:

Benedict XVI has done that to a few people in the Curia, but unfortunately has also installed a few also....like the new Secretary for the Congregation for Religious, Joseph Tobin, C.SS.R., former Redemptorist Superior General and a radical liberal who should be booted out of the Vatican to some obscure USA diocese as bishop.

Anon, we have enough problems in the USA without wishing this on us.

PEH

rodrigo said...

Can anyone deny that Rome has lost the faith?

Yes, because "the infallibility of the Roman Church is much more than a mere theological opinion. The proposition that 'the Church of the city of Rome can fall into error' is one of the theses of Peter de Osma, formally condemned by Pope Sixtus IV as erroneous and as containing manifest heresy." [SOURCE]

Joe B said...

I think it's all OK. Separate "Rome" from the Holy Father. I tell you, he wants SSPX in the fold, so to say. He greatly appreciates them, as does the Mother of God. But almost all Roman players are indifferent or hostile, so the public tone is naturally going to be dire, even that tone given to Bishop Fellay.

It should work out. Give it just a little more time.

Anonymous said...

Repeat after me:

"The SSPX will never merge themselves into the Church of Rome. The SSPX will never merge themselves into the Church of Rome."

People cannot understand this because they have never been "in" the SSPX. The SSPX does not:
1) believe ( doubts) the Novus Ordo Sacraments are valid.
2) believe that the Second Vatican Council was a valid council.
3) believe the Popes since the council have been true to the Catholic faith.
4) believe that Tradition changes as "Tradition" rests in ( is embedded in) the deposit of Faith laid down by the Lord, the Apostles, the Councils of the Church ( pre Vatican II), the Infallible teachings of the Popes ( pre-Vatican II), the writings of the Saints ( pre Vatican II) , the revelations of the Blessed Virgin in approved apparations ( pre Vatican II) .
5)that John Paul II and others were/are true saints.

Tradical said...

Amongst all this chatter and noise I hold to three pillars:

Perspective: It is vitally important to keep a clear and complete perspective on this crisis and not allow distractions to obscure what is important.

Perseverance: This is definitely a trying time and the devil is just waiting to pounce on the seeds of discouragement. He'll use whatever means are at his disposal to get our minds paralyzed in the present because it is only in the present that you can gain merit.

Prayer: Without prayer, nothing, absolutely nothing will be accomplished. From your personal salvation to the end of this crisis, it all rests on prayers rising up to Heaven to implore Divine assistance to cut this Gordian knot.

Anonymous said...

I can't understand why Fellay and the SSPX heierarchy have dragged us all through these years of tortuous negotiation with Rome if their bottom line had always been that Rome itself must reject Vatican II as a precondition for reconciliation. Were they completely delusional or just trying to string us along? The latter is looking more and more likely.

New Templar said...

Geoffrey's analysis is exactly wrong. It has in fact been tried before with the FSSP. It would solve nothing. It is entirely probable that the preamble will be sent back to Rome for clarification with a written response by Bishop Fellay. The Curial theologians need to be pinned down but this will be like trying to nail jelly. God is good. Maybe if we pray and keep praying this crisis will end.

Cruise the Groove. said...

If the SSPX rejects regularization than its thousands of faithful adherents will continue to have invalid absolutions and this I believe is the main problem.

Hopefully if the Bishop Fellay rejects the Preamble the Holy Father will at least grant faculties to SSPX priests to hear the poor peoples confessions validly.

Cruise the Groove. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
M. A. said...

"The Curial theologians need to be pinned down but this will be like trying to nail jelly.
____________________

Exactly! When Bishop Fellay expounds on the Faith, I understand him clearly, just as I did the Abbe de Nantes. I recognize and love the immutable Faith once delivered to all the saints.

It's a totally different story with official post-conciliar documents. We all know that.

Our official leaders are either disoriented, completely blind or afraid to speak out.

Regardless of their situation in the Church, a soul will find that the infallible dogma of the Faith is being kept within the SSPX. I wouldn't take my chances in any NO parish.

Anonymous said...

It seems to me, given these words and others, that the preamble is very general, much like the profesio fidei produced by the CDF under Ratzinger, requirig the appropriate assent for each level of teaching and permitting charitable dissent consonant with one's rank and competence to non-definitive pronouncements (not to mention disagreement with the personal actions of individuals).

This should be acceptable to the SSPX since the prounouncments of Vatican II would not require unconditional consent for approbation.

The SSPX seem to be erring by refusing the approbation of Rome until the Roman authorities give definitive assent to the SSPX position on the debated, non-definitive issues.

Being canonically subject to Rome does not traditionally require unconditional assent to these things (but only those definitive pronouncements)--therefore for the SSPX to refuse the Pope's approbation on these grounds, I don't see how it could be anything but schism.

Tom S. said...

It becomes so hard to not just give up. To not just throw up my hands and admit that Abp. Lefebvre was exactly right, and walk away from the modern Church altogether.

Every time I even think of or read the name of the Neo-Cats, for instance, I shudder at the depths to which the Church has fallen.

Pray God that the Holy Father simply recognizes publicly the faculties of the SSPX. Even if he does no more than that - before long that will be all that is left of the Church. The SSPX, and maybe the FSSP, etc. The rest will be compost before long.

I just pray that I live long enough to see it.

Anonymous said...

What can you expect? Schism begets more separation. The SSPX will fall into heresy if history is our guide. It may have fallen into heresy!

Bp Fellay et al. Submit unconditionally to the Bishop of Rome!

Enoch said...

There is nothing in this communication regarding Bp. Fellay's comments which would indicate that the SSPX has any interest whatsoever in reconciling with Rome. None at all.

As anonymous said today at 13:04:

"The SSPX will never merge themselves into the Church of Rome."

I absolutely agree. It has been said before that the SSPX would only be happy if the Pope were to go into St. Peter's square wearing a sackcloth and publically burn all of the documents of Vatican ll. But no, not even that, I believe, would cause them to want to be a part of the visible Church.

All of this posturing is pointless. There are many good and holy priests in the SSPX who just want to work for the salvation of souls, and who are not really interested in engaging in polemics. I hope that some of them will eventually leave the SSPX (which will never regularize) so that they can do God's work in the visible Church.

Anonymous said...

This is what the end of the article states:
At the same time, Fellay said that they have "information" that the Pope may have something "even better to give us in place of what we now have". (It was not entirely clear
what was meant by that.)
------------------------------------
What this means is that Fellay will keep the talks on the burner. He has been doing this for years now. Telling his faithful that the talks are off while telling Rome that they are still on. He obviously enjoys hanging about in the Vatican on an almost weekly basis, swishing around in his episcopal robes which he got from the back door.
This political creature is loathed both inside and out of the SSPX.

dcs said...

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it odd that Bp. Fellay would pontificate from the throne? Since he has no jurisdiction he ought to be pontificating from the faldstool (unless he asked for and obtained permission from the local Ordinary).

JDF said...

"The SSPX, and maybe the FSSP, etc. The rest will be compost before long."

Uhmm, yeah. Nearly 400,000 priests and more than 100,000 parishes that use the Novus Ordo exclusively will magically wither and die so that only the SSPX (550 priests) and FSSP (a little more than 200 priests) and the other Trad congregations (not more than 200 priests) will remain... and all within a lifetime.

The obtuseness and wishful thinking of some so-called Trads never ceases to amaze.

Anonymous said...

Look.

These "talks" have been going on since the year 200 that I know of. I know this because we were told back in 2000 that Bishop Fellay was talking with the Vatican.

I get the impression that +Fellay is just jerking his faithful around. One step backward, two steps forward.

DCS, you are correct. Bishop Fellay has no authority whatsoever.

Anonymous said...

The Saints, living through similar times, have always said if the Church will not let us in the front doors, we shall crawl through a window or come up through the basement. This is a different attitude than we are now witnessing from our leaders in the SSPX. Our current leader acts as if he doesn't really want to enter and give drink to the thirsty. Afterall, it stinks in there, people inside are sick, we might get contamininated and die. Sure I am grateful for their masses and sacraments, but I can do without their example of charity towards the sick and dieing.

dcs said...

Fellay then moved on to the Doctrinal Preamble. According to Fellay, the Doctrinal Preamble contains not a single word evaluating the doctrinal talks between Rome and the SSPX.

If the doctrinal talks were chiefly concerned with the teaching of the Church on ecumenism, religious liberty, and collegiality, then it ought to be a cause for rejoicing that there is nothing in the doctrinal preamble regarding those talks.

Cruise the Groove. said...

JDF

With God all things are possible.

CV said...

"....that use the Novus Ordo exclusively will magically wither and die ... The obtuseness and wishful thinking of some so-called Trads..."

Well, actually he didn't say die, but rather "compost". We of course have a parallel reference in this regard, to wit, the Church of England which by and large have used the Novus Ordo for 400+ years. So wither yes, die no. We can see the future of the NO-Mass and it metaphorically resembles Davros (Wiki has some good images for those not familiar with this character).

To be precise, of course, the Roman Novus Ordo isn't usually exactly identical to the Anglican Rite, but it's externals might become almost as good with the forthcoming new translations.

John McFarland said...

"[Bishop Fellay]remarked that the crisis in the Church was so great that, humanly speaking, it can't be raised up, and only divine intervention can do so."

In the SSPX's judgment, expressed every day of the week and twice on Sundays and holy days, this crisis is a crisis of faith. Rome is no longer teaching the Faith. Its strategy is compromise with (if not capitulation to) the world for which Our Lord would not pray. Its theology is the rationalization of that compromise/capitulation. None of the Fathers and Doctors would spit on the best part of Dignitatis humanae or Nostra aetate or Redemptor hominis or Salvi spe.

The crisis indeed can only be solved by God. But it is not God's way to leave us twiddling our thumbs while he works his will. It is the SSPX's belief that it must do what it can to effect God's will.

That is why it is dealing with Rome.

But those dealings can go nowhere until Rome again professes the Faith, the whole Faith and nothing but the Faith, and ceases the cowardly, absurd and fruitless exercise of appeasing the enemies of the Cross of Christ.

Everybody who opposes this view effectively believes either (1) that there is something more important than the Faith, or (2)that the conciliar revolutionaries will give the SSPX free rein to pursue the destruction of the conciliar revolution.

The proper reaction to (1) is horror.

The proper reaction to (2) is derisive laughter.

Anonymous said...

There is, Mr. McFarland, always Option (3): Rome holds and teaches the Catholic Faith in its entirety while the SSPX does not.

The SSPX needs Rome; Rome does not need the Society.

Jitpring said...

My goodness. Look at all this "I'm so weary" talk, along with this kind of blathering: "I'll just continue at my NO Mass and overlook the abuses." It all reeks of steaming feces.

A pack of pathetic pansies you are. Get a grip, sissies. This is war. Quit your stinking whining, put your armor back on, and jump back into the trenches.

Watch this immediately:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3J9hmCLmvg&feature=related

I am not Spartacus said...

This is a thought that will be fighting the tide of expressed opinion which is focused on other matters but given this statement -

The Pope told him that the SSPX has no right to invoke the State of Necessity because he -- the Pope -- is trying to solve the problems

I wonder if some canonist can comment on this because I have heard or read (Cant remember which exactly) an opinion expressed about this by Mr Salza that identified particulars in Canon Law which supports Mon Lefevbre's claim of necessity.

Anonymous said...

If SSPX do not accept what the Holy See is offering - especially if further concessions are given to them - then it is a disaster for the whole Church, and the society. I, for one, will be profoundly sad. There is also the danger, evident from the history of the Church, that if SSPX don't fully accept the authority of the Vicar of Christ on earth, then they may end up in Schism and, worse - absit Deus - heresy. Loyalty to the Holy See must be made visible. I will continue to pray for the society.They have the potential to do so much more good for the Church.
A Religious

Peter said...

Aujourd'hui, mardi 18 octobre 2011

"N’oublions jamais que l’Eglise romaine est notre Mère et notre Maîtresse, suivant l’adage : « Rome a parlé, la cause est terminée ».

La Porte Latine Msg. Lefebvre quote of the day.

Anonymous said...

There are only two visible signs of unity available to the Church militant -- one is The Mass -- what the SSPX would refer to as the Roman Catholic Faith. The other is the Holy Father, Vicar of Christ, Supreme Pontiff, Servant of the Servants of God, Sweet Christ on Earth!! The longer the SSPX unnecessarily contends to be acting on behalf of one without the other, the more scandal they bring to The Cross of Christ. There was a time that many of us we had no Mass under the false pretense of obedience. That time has passed because the SSPX witnessed to the Mass of all time, to tradition, to the faith of our Fathers and to the contradiction of what was good for saints was no longer good for us. Now let them follow the saints in treating the Holy Father with the respect and dignity his office deserves.

Anonymous said...

Good Jitpring! I'm with you! This is not the time for shilly-shally!

This is hilarious:

"A pack of pathetic pansies you are. Get a grip, sissies. This is war. Quit your stinking whining, put your armor back on, and jump back into the trenches."

Rightaway sir, on me knees, in the trenches!

This reconcilation HAS TO happen! How can it not be other than the Divine Will? Really all this politcal stuff talk, is well, just so boringly human! It's Our Lord's Church, for heaven's sake - and nothing is impossible with Him and His marvellous Mother!

His Will be done!

Barbara

Anonymous said...

I would suggest that Benedict may be concerned with his time left here and that this Preamble was his best shot to grab these guys before its too late. MB

Crouchback said...

"If it were done, when 'tis done, then twere well/It were done quickly.

Strike now Bishop Fellay, call for order, them that won't fall in...then out the door with the lot of'em.

No half measures.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Jitpring, my sentiments exactly. No one still knows exactly what is contained/offered in the Preamble. Now is not the time to be weak kneed. Pray, Pray, Pray! If it is God's will I have a great deal of confidence that it will work out, if not now then at the time that God deems appropriate.Pray for the leadership of the SSPX and for the Pope that they both do the will of God.

SkinnyBaldGuy said...

People here are either new to the fight or never knew what it was about. The battle has never been about getting canonical recognition. As Bishop Fellay once said they could've had the Rolls-Royce canonical structure long ago. This fight isn't about that at all - It's about the Faith, the Mass, fighting the modern heresies of our day and the errors (real or apparent) of the 2nd Vatican Council or those errors stemming from either the council itself of the interpretation thereof.

Either there is a state of necessity or there isn't. I think the answer is obvious.

"The Pope told him that the SSPX has no right to invoke the State of Necessity because he -- the Pope -- is trying to solve the problems"

This quote is telling if accurate. The Pope acknowledges a state of necessity. The fact that the Pope is trying to 'solve the problems' doesn't make the state of necessity go away - it's there - and if it's there the SSPX is justified and will continue to be until the state of necessity doesn't exist.

Jack said...

\\"The SSPX, and maybe the FSSP, etc. The rest will be compost before long."\\

And how do the Eastern Catholic Churches fit into this cheerful scenario?

Most holy Theotokos, save usl.

Jordanes551 said...

SkinnyBaldGuy, if the quote is accurate, then it means the opposite of what you says it means -- it means the Pope told him the "state of necessity" argument doesn't fly. In that case, this would be another instance in which the arguments and conclusions of Mr. Peter Karl T. Perkins have been borne out.

Adfero said...

Jitpring, you're my hero. I'm with you brother!

Anonymous said...

J.D.F. has a valid point. However, it is a fact that NewChurch is dying. It is too big to die quickly, so we shall continue to witness its slow and painful demise.

P.K.T.P.

Joe B said...

Considering that the fruits of SSPX are for the most part excellent while most orders today are deteriorating into uselessness or worse, the Holy Father may well feel he needs SSPX. He seems to recognize the good of their fruits and seems compelled to credential them amidst so much failure. So for the good of the church I expect the offer will likely soon be acceptable and it will all work out.

And then the fun will begin! Which wolves in sheep's clothing will be the first out the door? Will it be named the German Catholic Church or the American Catholic Church? And when they are gone, will there be enough bishops left to fill the vacated red and purple hats or will Rome need to draft some SSPX and FSSP bishops for the positions? Oh, slow down, beating heart!

Anonymous said...

"from the throne"
By what authority does he do this?
Is he claiming universal jurisdiction now?

Paulus said...

Shame on both parts. This is going too long and as someone else it has become a political issue. The lack of charity is apparent on both, which saddens our hearts.
But brothers, our faith is in Christ and no one else. He will not betray neither politicize. Let's place our hope in Him and not in Men who deceive us.
Pax,
Paulus

Peterman said...

Well said Jippring and thank you for that, you make me smile and I wished last night I could take back that off the cuff whining but once thoughts are posted, c'est la vie.

Regardless, we've got no choice but to wait it out. To be honest I don't have a choice for daily mass BUT the NO so it's a bit of greediness on my part because the control freak liberal bishop here has locked out the TLM except for one 12 noon Sunday bone throw mass. I want/need a independent SSPX to come in to this densely populated, liberal run Florida diocese and set up shop. the closest FSSP is an hour away and SSPX is further.

It gets frustrating indeed but I really believe the end (of our current world situation AND Vat2) is coming soon. These communist protests, the global economy built of straw, Putin coming back, France nearly majority Muslim, all these are indicators to me. I trust well in the prophets/saints who said these chastisements are coming and that everything will be restored.

I have my own inspirational vid which I bring out for times like this:

Vive Le Roi Catholique!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZHIl5MX7Bc

Anonymous said...

God Bless the SSPX. The Faith is the most important thing. What are the "fruits" of the Second Vatican Council? The sacred thrown out and replaced with garbage. What has dialogue for the past 40 plus years achieved? Absolutely nothing!
Churches empty, seminaries empty, monasteries and convents empty.

Anonymous said...

I will stand with the vicar of Christ. No matter what happen!

Someone from Cubao said...

"I attended Pontifical Mass from the throne (two assistant deacons and all) in the SSPX church in Metro Manila"

The significance of this gesture is best understood when it is kept in mind that the Cathedral of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Cubao is just a few minutes' walk from the SSPX church in Metro Manila.

Richard H. said...

"By their fruits you shall know them." If the SSPX is producing non-liberal, conservative, Traditional-minded Catholics, why is Rome so animate on breaking it away from itself? What evil is the SSPX doing? They are baptizing children, (and adult converts,) they are giving the true body of Christ to those that made their first holy communion, they are teaching against sin, they are forgiving those that are sorry for their sins in a real confessional, they are confirming those that love Our Lord Jesus Christ and his Blessed Mother, they are marrying those that wish to be married and denying those that wish to divorce, they are producing priests as fast as Rome is losing them, they are setting an example of how true Roman Catholics should live. The situation is truly that of biblical proportions: David vs Goliath. No matter how small you "think" the SSPX is, they ARE doing what Christ wants His Church to do. No, they are not the "church", but neither is the Church! Let's pray that Rome sees the SSPX with a humble heart and changes back to tradition. If Vatican II is like an eye that causes one to sin, pluck it from thy head.

Gratias said...

Let us not fight amongst ourselves. Count me in in the jumping back to the trenches.

The most important thing we can do as lay people is to attend the TLM as often as possible. A one-hour drive, or more, is a privilege. Many countries lack a Latin Mass.

Anonymous said...

This situation is a waste of space. Every time I think of the SSPX I have a vision of a two year old stamping his feet!

As a traditional Catholic I don't care anymore whether the SSPX comes home or not. The rest of the Church has some real issues to deal with. They have managed just fine on their own and I say leave them alone.

Tradster said...

Anon. 11:01,

I don't agree. I can expect the pope to criticize Second Vatican. I have every right to expect the Supreme Pontiff to fully, sincerely, and credibly witness to the fullness of truth without compromise or failure. That includes speaking fully and truthfully about this lousy little council, no matter what light it casts upon his earlier work as a theologian and priest.

Jack said...

\\they are forgiving those that are sorry for their sins in a real confessional, ... they are marrying those that wish to be married\\

It seems to be debatable whether the SSPX indeed has the necessary jurisdiction for valid marriages or confessions.

I've seen that question asked here often enough.

Most holy Theotokos, save us!

Jack said...

\\"from the throne"
By what authority does he do this?
Is he claiming universal jurisdiction now?\\

To answer your question, my understanding is that in the Extraordinary Form, there are two ways of celebrating a pontifical liturgy.

One is "from the throne" in the north.

The other is "from the faldstool", which is usually in the south.

Sorry, but I don't know the difference in ceremonial. I'm sure there must be.

Most holy Theotokos, save us.

Anonymous said...

Let us heed and trust the prophetic words of His Excellency, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and I quote,
"So likewise in several years - I do not know how many, only the Good Lord knows how many years it will take for Tradition to find - its rights in Rome - we will be embraced by the Roman authorities, who will thank us for having maintained the Faith in our seminaries, in our families, in civil societies, in our countries, and in our monasteries and our religious houses, for the greater glory of God and the salvation of souls."

RBP

Anonymous said...

"...Anonymous said...

"from the throne"
By what authority does he do this?
Is he claiming universal jurisdiction now?

19 October, 2011 01:44..."
-----------------------------------
Sure! Doesn't he act like he is? And besides, all the American and French priests of SSPX Asia, where Fellay pontificated, also have Extraordinary Universal Jurisdiction.

Very late in 2010, when the SSPX was causing annoyance at the Mumbai parish of St Peter's, the distraught Asst.PP, Fr Juan sj, went and saw the Archbishop of Bombay, Cardinal Oswald Gracias, and requested him to do something.
"LEAVE THEM ALONE, THEY ARE TOO SMALL AND TOO INSIGNIFICANT" said the Cardinal. He was right. The annoyance soon ceased, and the two American priests had to leave the country. They are now in the Philippines. Perhaps the Pope should follow the wise words of Cardinal Gracias.

The contact for St Peter's, Bandra is:

stpetersbandra@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

This is what the Catholic Encyclopedia from c. 1910 on New Advent states:

The full ceremonial is carried out when the bishop celebrates the Mass at the throne in his own cathedral church, or with permission at the throne in another diocese.

...
I seriously doubt he asked or received permission.

Anonymous said...

This is NOT the end of the WORLD.
There are greater crisis in the Church.
The SSPX are not the be all and end all.
God is in charge, I dont think he gave everything to the SSPX and left the rest of us waiting for their decision.
Trust in God, pray for HIS WILL.
Whatever happens is meant to be.

Anonymous said...

This is a crisis for the Church. Why do some imagine that the Society is obliged to refuse canonical recognition so long as there is a crisis? Did not Archbishop Lefebvre originally found Econe with canonical recognition precisely to oppose the crisis? Why do we act like having canonical recognition is an obstacle to fighting the crisis? Is it not more likely that a community such as the SSPX receiving canonical recognition would have a very powerful effect in bringing regular Catholics, including diocesan priest, to traditional doctrine?

John McFarland said...

I see that the Confraternity of Strainers Out of Fleas and Swallowers of Camels is out in full cry over Bishop Fellay and the throne.

The Confraternity should send a letter to the appropriate Roman official and request a ruling on the matter. The way things are going, he could probably use a good laugh.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes551 said in part:
SkinnyBaldGuy, if the quote is accurate, then it means the opposite of what you says it means -- it means the Pope told him the "state of necessity" argument doesn't fly. In that case, this would be another instance in which the arguments and conclusions of Mr. Peter Karl T. Perkins have been borne out.

P.K.T.P. later said:
J.D.F. has a valid point. However, it is a fact that NewChurch is dying. It is too big to die quickly, so we shall continue to witness its slow and painful demise.

If "the NewChurch is dying", doesn't this mean we have a state of necessity even if it is only perceived as such per canon 1324, para(5) of the 1983 Code? I realize the Pope has said it doesn't exist except, if memory serves me correctly, perhaps in France and Germany. But how does that square with the Canon just mentioned and the devastated vineyard that we see in many places today? I mean no disrespect but there appears to be a disconnect here.

Spartacus said: "I wonder if some canonist can comment on this because I have heard or read (Cant remember which exactly) an opinion expressed about this by Mr Salza that identified particulars in Canon Law which supports Mon Lefevbre's claim of necessity."
I second that request and I realize as well that the reply could also be that the Pope has said it so the case is closed, regardless of what an esteemed canonist might say. But is something which is purported to be said by the pope in a private conversation - is that definitive and binding on the Church at large? Just asking.

PEH

Cruise the Groove. said...

If Pope Benedict XVI says there is no state of necessity than there is none.
We have not the authority to say there is.
Only the Juridical part of the Church does.

M. A. said...

"If Pope Benedict XVI says there is no state of necessity than there is none.
We have not the authority to say there is."
___________________________

???? Are we supposed to laugh?

Cruise, you are joking, right?

Anonymous said...

I have attended meetings where Bishop Fellay "fills in" the "faithful" of what is going on in Rome and to a degree the "goings on" in terms of the SSPX dialogue with Rome. I can tell you this: Fellay sits there and gives the inside scoop to the "faithful" about what is happening and passes plenty of scarcasims and judgments against the proceedings carefully tiptoing around the Pope and some of the Bishops and Cardinals in Rome as it applies to the SSPX/Rome dialogue. His people sit there laughing, feeling cozy, that their Bishop thinks enough of them to come and visit them and tell them about just how "bad" Rome is, so naughty and undisciplined Rome, while "my dear people, we must keep the faith, the faith that has been handed down to us." How comfortable they are and that this Bishop should speak this way to people is so trite and I think not good for these people's souls because the devil is standing there listening telling them they are "right," they must stay as they are, separated until Eternal Rome comes back to its senses. No, neither Fellay not the attendees at SSPX have any intention to be united with Rome. They will stay as they are until the current Pontiff or another can no longer allow the hand of mercy to remain extended. At that time the hand of judgement may drop and they will be cut off the Branch. This is no way to manage a process of reconciliation. If the Holy Father knew just how Fellay speaks to his people about Rome and the proceedings he would weep.

Anonymous said...

To put this discussion in proper context, allow me to print out the relevant canon always with the desire to inform rather than inflame:

Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:

1/ a person who has not yet completed the sixteenth year of age;

2/ a person who without negligence was ignorant that he or she violated a law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance;

3/ a person who acted due to physical force or a chance occurrence which the person could not foresee or, if foreseen, avoid;

4/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;

5/ a person who acted with due moderation against an unjust aggressor for the sake of legitimate self defense or defense of another;

6/ a person who lacked the use of reason, without prejudice to the prescripts of cann. ⇒ 1324, §1, n. 2 and ⇒ 1325;

7/ a person who without negligence thought that one of the circumstances mentioned in nn. 4 or 5 was present.

Can you see why there is so much debate about this matter?

PEH

Cruise the Groove. said...

"???? Are we supposed to laugh?

Cruise, you are joking, right?"

M.A.

No I am not.
Pope Benedict XVI has the right and authority to state that priests who are illicitly ordained do not have the right to go into dioceses without the dioceses Ordinary permission and set up shop and administer illicit and invalid sacraments, under the pretext of their "State of Necessity" proclamation.
No I am not joking as much as I fully realise the gigantic crisis of Faith the world is in.

Cruise the Groove. said...

last Anonymous, 17:18

I now agree, unfortunately, with what you say and I want to worship at a regularised TLM, but the only TLM that I have access too, most of the time, is an SSPX Mass.

We need more regularised TLM's

Jordanes551 said...

PEH, the arguments of Mr. Perkins to which I referred in my above comment were specifically those in which he expressed his opinion that the "state of necessity" cannot now be be invoked. I don't know if that is currently Mr. Perkins' opinion, and I don't want to unintentionlly misstate his argument, so I'll leave it to him to explain.

Anonymous said...

PEH, the arguments of Mr. Perkins to which I referred in my above comment were specifically those in which he expressed his opinion that the "state of necessity" cannot now be be invoked. I don't know if that is currently Mr. Perkins' opinion, and I don't want to unintentionlly misstate his argument, so I'll leave it to him to explain.

Thanks, Jordanes551, I'll await the response from Mr. Perkins if he chooses to do so. My own personal opinion is that the perceived state of necessity in the mind of the alleged offender is what is being referenced in canon 1324 and that is independent of and not subject to outside opinion. But, I readily admit that I'm no expert on canon law. It would be nice if someone of the stature of Count Neri Capponi could weigh in on this.

In the final analysis though the Supreme Legislator's opinion is what counts and I have not seen him make a definitive and binding statement de jure on the case. Of course, the "case", so to speak, has not been adjuicated offically in the Church court system. Maybe that is what still remains to be done.

PEH

Anonymous said...

Cruise the Groove,

You are correct. And I would add that Bishop Fellay, for whom I have great respect, has a moral duty to lead his sheep in the direction of the Holy See. I do not think that the 'state of emergency' can really be argued, when the Holy See is actively trying to provide remedies. Obedience is the safest path. Let us all keep praying. Fr. A.M.

Anonymous said...

>>At the same time, Fellay said that they have "information" that the Pope may have something "even better to give us in place of what we now have". (It was not entirely clear what was meant by that.)<<

The biggest thing I hate about these discussions is that they're almost entirely based on limited information, so what we get is a bunch of guessing.

It doesn't help that the reports we get are often presented to us in such a way that sends mixed messages. For example, the first half of this Report makes it sound like things are hopelessly back at ZERO...yet the Report ends by saying Fellay says the Pope possibly has something better to offer.

This is just bi-polar schizophrenia: on one hand the talks collapsed into nothing, on the other hand an even better offer is possible.

The biggest deception here is that if the talks truly collapsed into nothing, then that should have ended it all right there. The idea that Fellay would be utterly convinced Rome is beyond repair yet holds out hope of better things is insanity.

The only options are these: Either the Report is inaccurate, or misrepresented the facts, or the SSPX is truly and hopelessly lost and corrupt and charlatan for continuing a discussion with a Rome they believe is hoplessly lost and delusional.

You cannot claim the higher ground of sanity if you continue to take seriously the claims of someone you consider insane.

Anonymous said...

@John McFarland is sophmoric sarcasm your best response?

This is a liturgical oriented blog, after all. Presiding at the throne is an important symbolic act. Anyone who cares about Tradition would tell you that.

The fact that Fellay does so means he is intentionally declaring something. Unfortunately, he seems to be usurping authority.

Anonymous said...

@Cruise

The existence or non-existence of a state of necessity is a question of fact, not law. While the judgement of the Pope as regards questions of law is most assuredly final and not to be doubted, the same in not true in questions of fact. The Pope can err in judgements regarding questions of fact (aside from those of dogmatic fact, of course).

Thus, the Pope's assessment that there is no state of neccesity is not beyond doubt. It should not be doubted frivolously - out of respect for the office, if for no other reason - but it can be doubted in light of significant evidence to the contrary. The SSPX believe they have cause to doubt it (and they are not alone in this).

Picard said...

"No I am not joking as much as I fully realise the gigantic crisis of Faith the world is in."

So "realising the gigantic [!!] crisis of faith" but at the same time denying there is a state of necessity/emergency?!

And it is no help the Pope says that he is goin to manage it - because it seems that it will at least take decades (if it will go on with this "speed") - - and meantime?!? - Meantime the sheep shall be starving, shall be beeing killed (spiritually) by the modernists (by theire modernist shepherds and preachers....)

- oh, there is no need for help, no emergency-excuse, we are not allowed to help them, let them (spiritually) die...?!?

That´s not a catholice stance!

And on the other hand if the Pope denies or minimizes the sate of emergency, then that is exactly part of our state of emergency... and at least it was exatcly a grave part of this emergency-state for the last 40 years:

the gigantic crisis not admitted as such by the hierachie!

Picard said...

"Pope Benedict XVI has the right and authority to state that priests who are illicitly ordained do not have the right to go into dioceses without the dioceses Ordinary permission and set up shop and administer illicit and invalid sacraments, under the pretext of their "State of Necessity" proclamation."

- true only on the abstract level.

BUT seeing the concrete circumstaces ("gigantic crisis" and so real emergency-state):

NO, the Pope has not the right to do so - or put it that way: the sheep have the right to authentic Catholic teaching and sacraments etc.

If their own pastors do not feed them with it, then of course we have a real state of emergency and therefore not to go into the dioceses to help the sheep even without permission would be a(n) (act of) failer to render assitance (of persons in danger and need)!

NO, a Pope has no right to hinder such an act but normally has to help it.

If he hinders it or just does not admit the state of necessity he is only aggravating this state of necessity!!

Lhd said...

State of necessity of Mgr Lefebvre consisted in the lack of a Bishop to pursue Tradition. The four traditional Bishops of the SSPX are validly ordained but they don' t exercises in a regular form. If the preamble allows the four Bishops to pursue Tradition (liturgical and doctrinal) then it must be accepted because it pertains to the power of government of the Pontiff.

Anonymous said...

"If their own pastors do not feed them with it, then of course we have a real state of emergency."


We as a Traditionalist family tried "co-existing" within the NO. But our pastor very bluntly told us that his efforts would be expended on rallying the parish around ONE Mass - the NO. How's that for feeding the sheep who approached him for nourishment? But then in the same breathe, he also admitted that he could not refuse us what the Holy Father wanted to give us. He removed no obstacle,gave us no help, set up a few hurdles, and then wiped his hands clean. His lips said, "yes", but his actions betrayed his lying heart.

Please, don't tell me there is no state of necessity! We've been traveling for nearly twenty YEARS to get to the nearest TLM!

dolorosa said...

The church is still in a crisis. Our Lady of Fatima has still NOT been obeyed. The world is heading for WWIII. Our Lady warned us Communism would spread and it has and continues to do so. Why is it that the majority of catholics have no clue as to what Poncin's wrote in his book about Freemason's and the Vatican. How about Bella Dodd and those communists that have infiltrated into the seminaries and are in high places. Yes, it's that bad and only by the Pope obeying Our Lady will it end.
http://www.consecrationnow.com

Jack said...

\\The SSPX needs Rome; Rome does not need the Society.\\

I will disagree with Anonymous here. (My, there are so many with this name!)

The SSPX needs the larger Church, and the Church needs the SSPX.

For one to say the other is not needed is for one part of the body to say to another, "I have no need of you."

This is something that the Apostle Paul condemned in one of his epistles.

Most holy Theotokos, save us!

Jack said...

\\4/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;\\

Is not the setting up of a free-lance independent hierachy of episcopi vagantes that cannot even agree among themselves now (as we see happening) intrinsically evil?

\\5/ a person who acted with due moderation against an unjust aggressor for the sake of legitimate self defense or defense of another;\\

Is it the SSPX's contention that Pope Benedict XVI is an unjust agressor?

Most holy Theotokos, save us!

Anonymous said...

I have trouble believing that a group that so firmly disagrees with the beatification of John Paul II can ever be included in the fold of the Church. I just don't see how we can tolerate a group like that.

Geoffrey said...

I think we can infer from Fellay's statements that there are no "deal breakers" in the Preamble. In that sense I agree with Anon 20:32.

In the interview we all watched with Msgr. Guido Pozzo he says that he would be very surprised indeed if their were any insurmountable obstacles to thier reunion. Some slight modifications in wording, perhaps, but dead-end deal breakers? No.

This guy was present at the doctrinal discussions. We weren't.

Anonymous said...

Jack,

Is not the setting up of a free-lance independent hierachy of episcopi vagantes that cannot even agree among themselves now (as we see happening) intrinsically evil?

What hierarchy? The FSSPX was established by ABL to provide for the administration of the sacraments by bishops and priests fully committed to Tradition. The do not claim any jurisdiction outside of their own Fraternity, established, by the way, with the approval of Church authorities at the time.

Is it the SSPX's contention that Pope Benedict XVI is an unjust agressor?

I'm not associated with the FSSPX except that I believe what they believe in terms of the Faith and the Sacraments- i.e., what Holy Mother Church has always held, taught and professed to be true from apostolic times. And, IMO this is what they are trying to provide - the Sacraments in the traditional rite. As to whether they believe Pope Benedict XVI to be an unjust aggressor, you'll have to pose that question to them.

PEH

Janet Baker said...

Forgive this long quote. My comment comes after it. "It seems to me, given these words and others, that the preamble is very general, much like the profesio fidei produced by the CDF under Ratzinger, requirig the appropriate assent for each level of teaching and permitting charitable dissent consonant with one's rank and competence to non-definitive pronouncements (not to mention disagreement with the personal actions of individuals).

This should be acceptable to the SSPX since the prounouncments of Vatican II would not require unconditional consent for approbation.

The SSPX seem to be erring by refusing the approbation of Rome until the Roman authorities give definitive assent to the SSPX position on the debated, non-definitive issues."

If this each of the points made by the Anonymous poster is correct, then the last shark in the water is the question of the novus ordo itself, which rises and disappears from the narrative, but is the concrete manifestation of all the doctrinal errors of Vatican II. Benedict has already said that those who question either its legitimacy or its validity are separated (UE, #19); and SSPX has from the beginning up to this moment questioned its legitimacy. The mass is not open to 'question'at the vatican as are the other issues raised, even if the points of the Anonymous poster are correct on doctrinal issues.

But listen! People, even the Holy Father, are not cleanly rational! Were you not living when Halie Salassie, whom the people worshipped as a god, whose feet had literally never touched the ground, was driven out of Ethopia in a Volkswagon? How many other examples of complete reversals, and in the Church itself, must be illuminated in the darkness, to make the point? And then, besides our capability to completely reverse outselves in the natural realm, there are miracles. Real miracles! For which we must not stop praying. (Aside: it is unbelievable that some are becoming 'bored' with the unfolding of this piece of history, when souls are being lost daily, untaught, unloved, because of the issues at play in it. It is frozen, rock hard-hearted that anyone would say that. Pray for charity!)

Henry said...

"I have trouble believing that a group that so firmly disagrees with the beatification of John Paul II can ever be included in the fold of the Church. I just don't see how we can tolerate a group like that."

No problem. There are countless faithful Catholics "included in the fold of the Church" who had and have doubts about the beatification of John Paul II.

Anyone who thinks unity of opinion on significant matters (like most of those at issue in the present discussion) has always existed in the Church, simply has no clue about the historical reality .... Which is that at every time and place the Church has always been characterized by division.

Indeed, the reason the Church needs the SSPX within the fold--and vice versa--is precisely because of the present divisions, which in fact are the raison d'etre of the SSPX itself.

SkinnyBaldGuy said...

State of Necessity Analogy:
For those having a hard time with this.


If a ship is taking in water the captain may well be dealing with the situation. The fact that he's acknowledged a problem and is dealing with it doesn't mean there is no longer an emergency. The emergency remains until it has been rectified.

Anonymous said...

canon 6 of the 1983 code of canon law states that with the promulgation of the code, the code of canon law of 1917 is abrogated.
since that is a fact. one only need to read encyclical pascendi domini gregis" issued by saint pius x, which rules were incorporated into the 1917 code to realize that those involved with the changes wrought by vat 11 were excommunicated "salvis poenis" in another words excommunicate themselves by their actions. this now is running the church. have a good year. (ali)

Anonymous said...

"I have trouble believing that a group that so firmly disagrees with the beatification of John Paul II can ever be included in the fold of the Church. I just don't see how we can tolerate a group like that."
No problem. There are countless faithful Catholics "included in the fold of the Church" who had and have doubts about the beatification of John Paul II.

I am one of them. Sorry if some might be offended but I just don't see what was saintly about the man and reported "miracle" by the French nun is a very sketchy. You generally don't need to search for miracles tied to saints, there are literally dozens usually, not one or two hazy accounts.

Charles Deschenes said...

« Aucune de nos attaches les plus chères
à Dieu, au Christ, à l’Eucharistie,
à l’Évangile, à Marie, à la Tradition,
ne peut justifier une mise volontaire
en dehors de l’Église. » from Mgr Jean-François Guérin

Its time for the SSPX to take the attitude of the prodigal son and to throw itself into the Holy Fathers arms, then and then ONLY will fruits start to blossom for the greater glory of God... if no return from some or the whole then God who is infinite mercy, by His infinite Wisdom will serve His Divine Justice to the SSPX. My little heart & my poor bedridden body are turned to Our Most Beloved Mother, the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, Her humility and Her LOVE was worth to give Fruit in Her womb to the Love Himself Jesus! Fiat... !!

Long-Skirts said...

Anonymous 20 October, 2011 03:14
said...

"I have trouble believing that a group that so firmly disagrees with the beatification of John Paul II can ever be included in the fold of the Church. I just don't see how we can tolerate a group like that."

"There are none so blind..."

LEAP
SHEEP

Litto froggy cross da pond
Hope some fairy's got a wand
Hit you hard up-side yo head
Shed some light...yo brains is bread.
You ain't got sense, no nuffin'
Brains is made of bran-flake muffin.
Wolfy-sheep done called you near
Ups you hopped, ran like a deer.
Him brother froggies followed too
And jumped right in wolf-sheepy's stew.
Then there you be all puffed with pride
And one by one them froggies died.
Then froggy Pop, he called,"My sons?"
And wolfy-sheep, his meal all dones,
Says, "Litto frog get outa' hea'.
Tomorrow bring yo sistas dea'."
And litto frog, he hop away
'Cause litto frog, he do obey.
And litto froggy hopped, hopped, hop,
Tumbled, tripped into Frog Pop.
And froggy Pop asked, "What you say?"
Said litto frog, "I do obey,
And all my litto brothers, too,
They helped the wolf make sheepy stew.
"Then froggy Pop, him hung him head,
And took him son away and led
Him hoppin' down the woodsy lane
And put in froggy's hand his cane
All shiney white to help him see...
...nuffin'

Anonymous said...

SkinnyBaldGuy

The pope is the Vicar of Christ and supreme legislator in the Church. He is dealing with matters : let us help him. Current problems in the Church does not give us the excuse for disobedience.

Tradical said...

Thoughts on Charles Deschenes 21 October, 2011 08:28

I find it consoling that there are three constant opinions about the SSPX.

Theory A:
There's no crisis in the Church, this is all according to God's plan, the Second Vatican Council was infallible etc.
Therefore the SSPX is outside the Church and we don't want them back unless they accept the Second Vatican Council (whatever that means).

Theory B:
There's a crisis in the Church and Archbishop Lefebvre's response was misguided. Therefore the SSPX should get back in 'obedience' and contribute to the restoration of the Church.


Theory C:
There's a crisis in the Church that it came to light in the Second Vatican Council (which did not define anything infallibly), and is neo-modernism / liberalism that has found root in the Church from top to bottom. In order to work for the restoration of the Church, the SSPX , in the face of an antagonistic hierarchy/clergy, needs to ensure that it can continue to believe all that the Church has always taught and form Priests in the traditional manner.

There are other theories that come and go, but in the last 20+ years these three have been our constant companions.

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

Reader of Rorate, I direct you to this post about the recent visit of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais to Toronto and his words to someone.

No Deal

John McFarland said...

I submit that the only way to properly orient our thinking about the crisis in the Church, and what our response to it should be, is to start with the Faith.

Without the Faith, we have nothing. A traditionalist may evade or ignore this premise, but I don't think he can deny it.

The next point is not teaching the whole Faith and nothing but the Faith, much less defending it from its enemies.

Here again, this can be ignored or evaded, but it can not really be denied.

I would contend that the next step is to ask the question: how can we cleave to the Faith when those charged with the task of teaching and defending it are, by and large, not teaching and defending it.

Those who call for obedience to those who do not teach and defend the Faith, by appeal to traditional teachings and maxims that assume that those authorities ARE teaching and defending the Faith, are barking up the wrong tree.

(Actually, of course, no traditionalist is the slightest bit concerned with obedience to his local ordinary. The argument begins at the threshold of the papal apartments.)

Those who would solve the problem by claiming that the Pope is not the pope are likewise barking up the wrong tree. But at least they are not tempted to kid themselves that the Holy Father is somehow On Our Side.

Which leads to the crucial question: how is the Faith taught and defended when those charged with the responsibility of doing so are manifestly not fulfilling that responsibility?

If we agree that that is the right question, then it becomes possible for us to reason together regarding the right answer. Otherwise, we will continue going around in our own circles.