Rorate Caeli

A second response from the SSPX?

Vaticanist Andrea Tornielli's source in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith provides him the following information (published in today's La Stampa - translation by Vatican Insider, corrected according to the Italian original):

The actual and proper response of the superior of the Society of Saint Pius X, Bernard Fellay, formulated according to the requests of the Holy See, arrived at the Vatican only last week. The first reply, received by the Vatican on December 21, was not considered adequate by Vatican authorities, who asked the head of the Lefebvrians [sic] to redraft it, considering the first delivery as more of a “documentation” than a reply. Thus Bishop Fellay prepared a second text, more concise, related to the doctrinal preamble that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith delivered to him last September. This second text is now being carefully examined by consultants of the Commission "Ecclesia Dei", who follow the Lefebrvian dossier, and this could require some time.

Next week, the plenary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will meet in the palace of the Holy Office. On the agenda is a possible communication regarding relations with the Society of St. Pius X, but it is unlikely that the meeting will be decisive, because Fellay’s second response - which accepts some parts of the doctrinal preamble while questioning others - requires time to be examined. It is likely that a more accurate decision on what to do will not be made now, but in February, during a “Feria IV”, as the ordinary congregations of the former Holy Office are called. [Note: Because they take place on a Wednesday, Feria Quarta...]
...


In delivering the preamble, the Vatican authorities indicated that this text was not made public because it was not yet final - that is, subject to change (though not substantive) or possible additions. From September to December, rumors of dissent within the Fraternity were spread by those who do not believe an agreement with Rome is possible. Fellay himself had spoken several times on the matter. At first, he had said that the preamble represented a great step forward. Then, after an important meeting with the heads of the districts of the Fraternity, while reiterating the importance of engaging in dialogue, he said he could not accept the preamble as it is, adding: “If Rome tells us to accept in any case, we cannot do it.” Thus Fellay sent the first response, which was not considered as such by the Vatican. And now he has sent a second one.
...

It is still too soon to speculate about what will be the final outcome of this dialogue, which, at this stage, goes on with distance and in writing. But no final word has yet been spoken: the Pope wants to do everything that is possible to heal the rift that was created with the Lefebvrians, and Fellay knows this well.
[See also our previous post: The Rumor Mill]

75 comments:

Patrick Langan said...

Send forth thy spirit oh Lord and thou shalt renew the faith of the earth
We must heal the holy body of Christ this is ultimateiy Gods will which we all must pray for.

Ora et Labora said...

"the Pope wants to do everything that is possible to heal the rift that was created with the Lefebvrians, and Fellay knows this well."

This lines are the most important.

New Catholic said...

It is good that you highlighted that, Mr. Langan, because it was one of the points we had to correct. In the original Italian text, that was its meaning - the English translation by Vatican Insider mentions, "the rift created BY the Lefebvrians". It may well have been the case, but Tornielli did not say so in his text.

Ferraiuolo said...

Sounds like the Torniellians are having a go again...

Miles Dei said...

The article sounds me very different to others of Tornelli and as we say in spanish "lower the sails". Did you?

Knight of Malta said...

My sense is that the rift was due, in large part, to the sinister Cardinal Villot. It's hard to imagine that such a vile man could be elevated as a Prince of the Church; he even tried to curb JPII's election for being too orthodox.

Icabod said...

In iialian language Tornielli us "frattura", in english version: "rift"

i significati assumono sfumature diverse da "spaccatura" (più forte) a "dissenso" (difference of opinion), "contrasto".

Comunque i progressisti amano troppo sottolineare "spaccatura" e spesso non esitano impropriamente a parlare addirittura di "scisma"... e che Dio non voglia MAI!

Knight of Malta said...

I should have added that although Villot died in 1979, and, of course, the "excommunications" occurred almost ten years later, he set-off the chain-reaction of mistrust and was instrumental (along with Paul VI) in the suspensions.

Torkay said...

"the Pope wants to do everything that is possible to heal the rift that was created with the Lefebvrians..."

To echo Ora et Labora, but in addition: in order to heal this "rift," the Pope will have to heal the "rift" with Tradition he and his fellow liberal clergy helped create at Vatican II...where Abp. Lefebvre actually objected to his presence as a peritus...

Arnie said...

The SSPX will never, never, never unite with Rome.

Woody said...

I of course join in the thoughts expressed by Patrick Langan. It is time for the Society to take the leap of faith and trust in God that things will work for the best for them when fully reconciled with Rome.

Ecclesia Militans said...

Arnie,

That simply is not true.
If you want to know when the situation of the SSPX will be regularized, I will quote the Venerable Mons. Lefebvre:

"If events would bring a change towards a return to Tradition within the Church, of course, our situation would be simplified. We would certainly be welcomed by the hierarchy as we were at our beginning and those problems of our relations with the Bishops and Rome would no longer exist."
(http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/twenty_years_of_struggle.htm)

When no one even thinks of asking them to sign "doctrinal preambles" - like they were some kind of heretics, when they are welcomed with open arms to a Rome which has returned fully and entirely to its Tradition.

Cruise the Groove. said...

"The SSPX will never, never, never unite with Rome."

Arnie, are you really God?


Did you know that the Giants would beat the Packers by 17 points, or even at all?

Tradfly said...

I cannot recall Bp. Fellay ever saying the "preamble represented a great step forward", but rather he said "back to zero". Do these guys in the Curia ever tire of their "reality adjustments"?

Long-Skirts said...

Arnie said...

"The SSPX will never, never, never unite with Rome."

Arnie, the SSPX are already united to Rome as even the Vatican has said, "This is an internal problem."

Pray for God's will, for our Pope and for Bishop Fellay and for all truly goodwilled Roman Catholics.

Anil Wang said...

Ecclesia Militans "...asking them to sign "doctrinal preambles" - like they were some kind of heretics, when they are welcomed with open arms to a Rome which has returned fully and entirely to its Tradition."

I think you misunderstand the "doctrinal preamble". Both the SSPX and Rome want it. The "doctrinal preamble" is the beginnings of a Syllabus of Errors on Vatican II and an elaboration on what the "hermeutic of continuity" means. Without a "doctrinal preamble", the SSPX would never consider rejoining Rome, because frankly the (Evil) "Spirit of Vatican II" has done a lot of damage and it will take some time to heal. The "doctrinal preamble" attempts to both affirm the the SSPX position and Rome's position (which might currently differ from the current flawed implementation of Vatican II, but over time will return to Rome's position).

But the flip side is, ordinations without Vatican approval often carry the penalty of excommunication. That action is what separated the SSPX from Rome. The excommunication was lifted as a good faith gesture and a recognition that the SSPX has been badly treated in the past, but the schism remains. Schisms have a tendency grow errors that go against Tradition such as sedavantism or the believe that both Popes and councils are fallible (Protestantism, all else follows from this assumption as a salvage operation) or the belief that divorce and non-abortifacient contraception is okay (Eastern Orthodox and Polish National Catholic Church). I do not know if the "doctrinal preamble" touches on any of these issues, and I doubt you know either, but if it does include one or more of these points it would only affirm what is true and would force any truly schismatic elements in the SSPX (if there are any) to make a choice. It would also discredit any propaganda by liberal bishops against the SSPX. Neither of this is a bad thing, IMO.

Personally I hope the SSPX accepts. It would not be a bad thing to have some SSPX cardinals being named, but since the SSPX is in schism, this can't happen. The time is right. The fruits of the (Evil) "Spirit of Vatican II" have ripened and a return to the restoration of the faith is at hand. If the SSPX joins now, it will give momentum to the movement.

Athelstane said...

I do think that Tornielli is right about one thing: had Ratzinger been Pope in the 1980s, and made all of these gestures, I think that Archbishop Lefebvre would have taken a deal.

Of course, that was then. This is now. Lefebvre himself seemed torn at times.

What were the three conditions that the SSPX urged? A freeing of the old mass, lifting of the excommunications, and doctrinal discussions. Rome has, mirabile dictu, done all three of these things. It's clear that the Holy Father wants a reconciliation. Admittedly, the discussions did not immediately convert Rome to Catholic Tradition. But the Holy Father may fairly say that he met the basic conditions that the SSPX insisted on for a reconciliation.

Of course, many in the Society will focus more on the overall objective: A return by Rome to Tradition. These other conditions are simply a means to that end, they will say. Until that happens, they can't fully reconcile with a Modernist, Conciliar Rome, no matter how tradition-friendly some of its residents happen to be. They must keep the Ark safe until the flood waters recede.

Still, if the Fraternity is offered a Preamble that allows them to make real criticisms of the Council, especially its most dubious statements on collegiality, ecumenism, religious liberty, etc., I think they would be wise to sign on, and work out the most generous canonical arrangement they can get - one that frees them from oversight of local bishops, of course. They aren't going to get a better deal for the foreseeable future, not even if the next Pope is Burke or Ranjith. And they have a better chance in helping restore Tradition to Rome in such a posture than their current one.

bernadette said...

LongSkirts, how can the SSPX be "already united to Rome" when they inform their faithful that they may NOT attend the Novus Ordo? That is not what I would call being united to Rome.

LeonG said...

The NO should be totally unacceptable to every well-informed Roman catholic. It is a source of immense division and destruction. This has been illustrtaed time and again in church surveys; well-researched books and photographically. Why The SSPX should want to accept its purported validity is only possibley understandable in their quest to have a completely regular position within the new church communion. Otherwise it is has no sense at all.

LeonG said...

Tornellian propaganda - Lefebvrians label once again. The Society is by far more Roman catholic than the NC-W and the Anglican Catholics. Such a useless and ignorant labelling from someone allegedly so well-informed and educated beggars belief.

LeonG said...

The alleged "rift" caused by The Confraternity is minimal contrasted with the appalling chaotic divisiveness of the post-conciliar liturgical and pastoral processes. The NO itself has totally destroyed any remnant semblance of the pronounced liturgical unity that existed in the pre-conciliar church. The utter hypocrisy of this criticism is astonishing beyond credibility.

Long-Skirts said...

bernadette said...

"LongSkirts, how can the SSPX be "already united to Rome""

Because the Vatican/Rome HAS said...

"This is an internal problem."

Long-Skirts said...

BTW, can anyone tell me if the Ecclesia Dei Orders who are allowed to confect the Tridentine Mass give a certain percentage of their weekly contributions to their respective Diocese?

I remember reading in the LATIN MASS MAGAZINE back in the early 90's that the INDULT Masses had to give about 8% of their weekly contributions from parishioners to their Diocese. Just wondering.

J. G. Ratkaj said...

FSSPX would be well advised to take advantage of the situation as rumors are in circulation that Ratisbon's Mueller promotion to the suprema is imminent. To find a settlement with this conceited authoritarian germanic prelate seems impossible.

bernadette said...

That's not good enough, LongSkirts..whatever happened to 'obedience'? Now traditionalists...a self-appointed name, know better than the church, and really everyone is their own little pope. I like 'tradition' as much as anyone else, but the attitude over the years has produced a host of prideful people, not in communion with the church, thinking they are the church.

Tradfly said...

@ Longskirts,
It's not so in the case of the FSSP chapel we attend, but it had previously existed as an independent chapliancy. I don't think there's an 'official' rule in this regard, and there would be absolutely nothing to stop an ordinary extorting a bit of dosh in return for his "magnanimity" toward Catholics, especially in a newly-evanglelised bit of turf. I keep an eye on this sort of thing to maintain a strict policy of non-support of anything Novus Ordo, notwithstanding whatever good it may, or may appear, to encompass. IOW, one doesn't pay for what one doesn't want, unless one is a fool.

Rick DeLano said...

I like this.

I like the fact that Bishop Fellay has responded positively to the Holy Father's request for a second reply to the preamble.

I like the way this discussion- even in its public aspects- has served to clarify in my own mind the real issues at stake.

I don't know why, but I find myself whistling a happy and cheerful tune this morning.

I shall stay determinedly happy.

Nothing shall spoil my mood.

Until at least January 20 that is..........

Cruise the Groove. said...

Bernadette,
May I kindly ask you if you have a diocesan or FSSP Mass to go to on at least a weekly basis?

Otro miles said...

Miles, "bajo las velas" tal y como lo has escrito es bajo las botavaras, velas de alumbrar se dice candles.

Long-Skirts said...

bernadette said...

"That's not good enough, LongSkirts..."

Because the Vatican/Rome HAS said...
"This is an internal problem."

Say WHAT???!!! Bern, if it's good enough for the Vatican/Rome/Pope it should be good enough for you!

Tex said...

Anil Wang,
Your otherwise good post is lost to me with your general comments about popes and councils being infallible absolutely. Also, I don't believe the FSSPX is in schism. The internal matter, justification in an emergency carries more weight with me. Your comparison to Prots, abortion, etc. does not follow for the FSSPX, imo.

Tex

Vlad said...

@Longskirts,
Parishes in my diocese pay a levy of 10% to the diocese from offerory collections.
I think that is pretty normal in E&W and in most of Europe, the rest is used by the parish. It doesn't seem "extortionate", just a way of funding the diocese.

bernadette said...

Cruise the Groove, no, I don't have the FSSP available..there is an indult on Sunday afternoon at 1 pm, always a high mass, a little distance...I have been there on occasion...I don't want to split up my family on Sundays so I go to the Novus Ordo now...the sspx is where I have been going for the last 6-7 years, but I will no longer go there as long as they remain schismatic.

Knight of Malta said...

@Anil: ...or the believe that both Popes and councils are fallible (Protestantism, all else follows from this assumption as a salvage operation)

Anil, there are only two things definitively infallible in the Church: Holy Scripture, and Holy Tradition. We can only say for certain that Holy Tradition is infallible when the Pope speaks ex cathedra ("from the chair), or when a Council defines a dogma.

Vatican II "defined no dogma at all, but kept itself on a moderate level," in the words of then Cardinal Ratzinger.

Msgr. Gherardini, a better theologian than you and I and probably every one posting here combined, has said that a Council may even fail in terms of "faith and morals," and that GS contains elements of the Heresy of Modernism.

Food for thought!

Ecclesia Militans said...

Anil Wang,

You say SSPX is in schism.
Prove it.

To consecrate bishops against the will of the Pope is not schism, but disobedience. Only giving them jurisdiction can be called schismatic, though even that is not unquestionable. Saint Athanasius consecrated bishops and gave them jurisdiction in opposition to the hierarchy and no one would ever think of calling him a schismatic (except perhaps the Arian heretical bishops of the time)

The Venerable Mons. Lefebvre did not give jurisdiction to the four bishops, he did not create a parallel church, so there is no schism. And if by schism you mean not accepting the conciliar and postconciliar novelties, since none of them require a de fide adherence, no one can be accused of schism for rejecting them.

Anything else is just ignorance of the facts or a malicious ill-will towards Tradition.

LeonG,

SSPX accepts the validity of the New Mass, but not the one commonly found now throughout the world. Today's vernacular New Masses often contain many sacrileges, profanations and invalid intentions.
What the SSPX accepts is that when the New Mass is celebrated ad orientem in Latin, possibly with the Roman Canon and with the correct intention, it is valid, i.e. the Body and Blood of Christ are present and sacrificed at the altar. This version of the New Mass is very, very different than the ones in practice today.

But regardless of all that, the SSPX does not consider any version of the New Mass either licit, or legitimate, or pleasing to God, but rather as an insult to God because of its many deficiencies, impoverishments, and the wicked intentions of its creators - removal of the notion of sacrifice, priesthood etc., in short, protestantization of the Mass.

Matt said...

We can all be happy the dialogue is still moving forward. What the developments are, as everyone has said, prayer is needed--and a little fasting.

Let's also pray both sides seek guidance from the Holy Spirit, that they overcome this built-in redundancy, that Rome does not condescend and the Society does not tell Rome what is wrong with Rome. Both know their own issues.

In prayer,

Matt

Ivan K said...

@Ecclesia Militans: 'What the SSPX accepts is that when the New Mass is celebrated ad orientem in Latin, possibly with the Roman Canon and with the correct intention, it is valid, i.e. the Body and Blood of Christ are present and sacrificed at the altar.'

Do you have a reference to support this claim? I'm not doubting what you say; I'm genuinely curious about the SSPX's views on the Novus Ordo, and what circumstances, if any, would make its celebration acceptable. I was under the impression that they believed that the NO is problematic under any circumstances, but I wouldn't be surprised to discover that their view is more nuanced.

Cruise the Groove. said...

"the NO contain many sacrileges, profanations and invalid intentions"

Ecclesia Militans,
In most cases one needs to read the mind of the priest to know his intentions.
The Church teaches that if the correct words of consecration are used, it is what the Church intends.

Anil Wang said...

Knight of Malta said "We can only say for certain that Holy Tradition is infallible when the Pope speaks ex cathedra ("from the chair), or when a Council defines a dogma." It's easy to prove from praxis. Can members of the SSPX become Cardinals? Do they submit to a hierarchy above them (even if only the Pope is above them)? Will SSPX priests accept communion in the Catholic Church? If the answer is no to all of the above, then they are not fully united with the Church, and are thus in schism. Of course, there are various degrees of schism, the further they will drift. As another person commented, it would likely have been much easier to reconcile Abp. Lefebvre if the current Pope was around in 1980 than they are now. If the schism isn't fixed within the next two decades, I'd expect that the SSPX will likely become outright sedavantist.

Knight of Malta said "We can only say for certain that Holy Tradition is infallible when the Pope speaks ex cathedra ("from the chair), or when a Council defines a dogma."
Be careful, this is exactly what modern theologians say to prove that contraception and woman's ordination is okay.

The Ordinary Magesterium and Praxis also provide proof of infallibility. It's one reason why we are certain the the Eastern Orthodox have not fallen into error wrt Transubstantiation and the Immaculate Conception of Mary even though both are often rejected by Eastern Orthodox apologists. The Eastern Orthodox prayers (inside and outside the liturgy) repeatedly affirm that Mary is the Immaculate Conception. The way the Eastern Orthodox treat the Eucharist (including the praxis that if a sick person coughs up the Eucharist the priest must eat the Eucharist and the requirement that all the Eucharist must be eaten so as not to have to deal with keeping the Lord's body around), also affirms the doctrine.

Ora et Labora said...

I think Anil Wang, and Athelstane, have it right on in their comments.

Well said guys!!!

I also would like to point to what Athelstane said here:

"I think they would be wise to sign on, and work out the most generous canonical arrangement they can get - one that frees them from oversight of local bishops, of course. They aren't going to get a better deal for the foreseeable future, not even if the next Pope is Burke or Ranjith. And they have a better chance in helping restore Tradition to Rome in such a posture than their current one."


Totally agree!

Athanasius said...

Knight of Malta said "We can only say for certain that Holy Tradition is infallible when the Pope speaks ex cathedra ("from the chair), or when a Council defines a dogma."
Be careful, this is exactly what modern theologians say to prove that contraception and woman's ordination is okay.


The other problem is that this is not accurate. When the Fathers and the Medieval schoolmen until 1750 teach unanimously in a clear consensus, that is also infallible. Moreover, there are degrees of infallibility that certain propositions maintain which require lesser degrees of assent from Catholics. To limit infallibility to the extraordinary magisterium is more narrow than any dogmatic theologian before the council would have done, to the point of being quite incorrect.

John McFarland said...

Dear Mr. Langan,

If by the "holy body of Christ" you mean the Church, it does not need healing.

Its members, on the other hand, do.

John McFarland said...

Dear Ora et Labora,

The Holy Father does not want to do everything possible to heal the rift.

As I peck out these lines, he will not abandon the compromise with the world that is the spirit and letter of Vatican II.

The whole point of this exercise from the Holy Father's perspective is to get the SSPX to accept Vatican II.

The Society can be as vague and self-contradictory in "accepting" Vatican II as Vatican II is in itself. But they must say something that the Holy Father can treat as an acceptance.

So we must pray that he does abandon it.

John McFarland said...

Knight of Malta,

Pope Paul did not need Cardinal Villot to "mistrust" the SSPX.

Vatican II was Pope Montini's baby. He pulled the wires to put it on the rails, brought it through to its conclusion once he became pope, and implemented it.

He therefore could not be other than hostile to Archbishop Lefebvre, who was the sworn enemy of the errors of Vatican II, and the society he founded to combat those errors.

Long-Skirts said...

Bernadette said:

"I like 'tradition' as much as anyone else,"

I like TRUTH!

ONCE
THERE
WAS
A
FATHER

Once there was a father
Who loved his little girl
He held her hand and walked to Mass
So she could see the Pearl.

“My darling, there is silver,
My darling, there is gold
But the greatest price is sacrifice
The world keeps that untold.

The world can give you silver,
With gold, it can entice.
Diamond, topaz, rubies,
But none can match Pearl’s price.

Sacrifice, gave birth to you.
Sacrifice, it fed.
Sacrifice, it guided you.
Sacrifice, it bled.

For every drop of blood He shed
Gave us the faith to trust
And made us rich in sacrifice
To give you Bread not crust.

And for awhile sometimes we stray
Believing not in Creeds
But when things don’t sustain our souls
Then turn to Pearl that bleeds.”

Failing father said he wished,
“For every time…a penny,”
He heard the daily words so rich,
“…be shed for you and many.”

The little girl she cried
Raining on his bed a flood
But father saw her sacrifice,
“Your tears are crystal blood.”

Once there was a father
Who loved his little girl
He held her hand for his last Mass
But left her with…the Pearl.

Knight of Malta said...

@Anil: Knight of Malta said "We can only say for certain that Holy Tradition is infallible when the Pope speaks ex cathedra ("from the chair), or when a Council defines a dogma."
Be careful, this is exactly what modern theologians say to prove that contraception and woman's ordination is okay.


That's a clever argument, but falls on its face.

Do you think overnight doctrine, such as what happened during Vatican II, amounts to dogma?

It takes centuries, even millenia, before a dogma is proclaimed, like the Immaculate Conception.

Don't confuse that with women's ordination; which has neither been festering recently, nor has ever been in the mind of the Church; Puhleeze!

Tradical said...

Hi Anil,

Ordinary and Universal has specific connotations.

Are you claiming the novelties of V2 (ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality) are infallible?

Tradical said...

Hi Anil,

"...but the schism remains..."

Again here you venture to give an unfounded opinion.

First, as noted earlier the consecration of Bishops without papal mandate constitutes an act of disobedience. Since you won't accept this, have a look at canon law and check the section that covers this offense note the heading very carefully. BTW: I know this because a Cardinal pointed it out shortly after the consecrations of 1988.

Second, Cardinal Hoyas ('scuse not using proper name etc) has stated when he was the head of the PCED that the SSPX is not in formal schism. I'm assuming that his declaration holds significantly more weight than yours.

So be obedient and listen to the hierarchy - otherwise we'll have to label you schismatic and on the verge of heresy.

Gregorian Mass said...

Let's assume when the SSPX says, if they do indeed say this, You may NOT attend the Novus Ordo, they mean well you should not or we will be mad..Boo...It would be the same double talk that comes from so many inside the Vatican as well. We say this, but mean this..And it is supposed to be accepted by all the Faithful. And since they both speak the same language, they should be on the same team. Really, it is time for the SSPX to realize how generous this Holy Father is being and how much he wants a reunion and to be done with this issue. He probably knows it will be no bed of roses once they walk the Vatican halls as well. But to help bring Rome around to Tradition, the SSPX really need to do this from inside. Remaining outside just won't cut it. Rome will not turn around one day and just change everything back. They can't and won't. And at this point I don't think they should. Move from this point forward and whatever things need to change, change them little by little. If it takes decades no matter. As long as it is moving in the right direction, and it is, however slowly, the speed can best be helped from being on the inside. The ex-comm. have been lifted, the 1962 Missal has been freed, and we see lots of good things, kneeling etc., in Pontifical ceremonies. It may not be all we want but it is moving away from the disater that happened in the wake of the last Council. God's speed, not ours..

Rick DeLano said...

God bless you Long-Skirts.

pab said...

The SSPX teaches that the NOM is evil in itself and to be treated as I understand as if a non-Catholic service.

If the Roman authorities agree that it's ok for Catholics like SSPX to refuse the NOM and to deny religious liberty then IMHO SSPX can safely trust that Rome wants SSPX help to restore the Church

If not ok then it's clear Rome doesn't want restoration and that the status quo is the best platform for the SSPX to continue it's mission

Tradical said...

Hi Gregorian Mass,

"...it is time for the SSPX to realize how generous ... "

Herein lies the problem, if the Pope provides equal 'footing' to the NeoCat Way (as an example) - what is his real motivation?

The 'inside' the Church argument is getting old. If the SSPX has to compromise principles in order to obtain a 'regular' situation inside the Church - this is nothing less than capitulation.

If the SSPX CAN obtain a regular situation WITHOUT compromising principles - that would be the TRUE sign that things are changing.

P^3 (P to the power of three)

Prayer
Penance
Patience

7/10 split said...

The SSPX stated in November (two months after receiving it), they could not accept the Preamble as written. A month later they sent 'something' to the Vatican which was not an answer, or a request for modifications or clarifications. Now a month later, and fully four months after receiving the Preamble, they finally send a response. You will note that they had some sort of action on the Preamble every month for four months, but have not actually responded for four months. Does anyone believe that SSPX is acting in good faith?

John McFarland said...

Dear Gregorian Mass,

The SSPX says that no one should attend the Novus Ordo, except passively -- as one would attend a Protestant wedding or a bar mitzvah.

No doubletalk there.

You say that "since they both speak the same language, they should be on the same team."

They don't speak the same language. The SSPX speaks the language of the gospels and the fathers and the doctors and the councils. Rome speaks a somewhat more restrained version of the modernism that St. Pius X condemned, and a not at all restrained version of the liberal Catholicism that the 19th century popes condemned.

In order to be reconciled to Rome, the SSPX would have to "accept" Vatican II.

But the SSPX says that Vatican II, and the Rome that it has spawned, it riddled with errors. If you don't believe me, buy a year's subscription to Angelus Online and start reading backwards.

But how can the SSPX be reconciled with a leadership whose beliefs it believes are riddled with errors, unless that leadership first abandon its errors?

You're a typical American, GM: you think that if we can join the club and bring it around to our way of thinking.

That hasn't worked very well in politics, has it? My grandchildren will be in their graves before a Republican president shows up in person for the March for Life; and Judgment Day may come before America stops fighting manifestly unjust wars.

So what makes you think that it will work any better if the SSPX begins the fight for its principles by betraying them?

John McFarland said...

Dear 7/10,

Have you seen the documents?

Have you confirmed the accuracy of the judgments that Tornielli presents without attribution?

No?

Don't you think that your judgment is a little, well, premature?

Sadly skeptical said...

You will note that they (the SSPX) had some sort of action on the Preamble every month for four months, but have not actually responded for four months. Does anyone believe that SSPX is acting in good faith?

In the midst of these "negotiations" Rome once again participated in an Assisi gathering. Does anyone believe that Rome is acting in good faith?

totustuusmaria said...

"But this kind is not cast out but by prayer and fasting."- Jesus our Lord

I have come to believe that there are devils that want to stand in the way of peace and concord between the SSPX and the Holy Church. It seems that Bishop Fellay is working overtime to keep concord even within the SSPX. Dissension is from the bad spirit. Only much prayer will merit peace and grace.

I'm afraid that the chances of reconciliation look dim to me, because of the Mass. The Holy See seems to hold that to refute the Novus Ordo and refuse communion in the Mass that the Pope and Bishops offer is to wound or break communion of sacrament (which together with communion of faith and governance helps form the union of the Church). The SSPX seems to hold that the New Mass is poisonous and cannot be assisted at without at least an occasion of sin. This severely limits communion of sacramental rites, and makes me pessimistic about peace and concord with the Holy See being reestablished. That's why we must pray. Not with an agenda, just with hearts on fire for God to bring His kingdom, change hearts and minds, soften what is hardened, heal what is broken. At least the SSPX, generally speaking, seems to still want submission to the Lord's vicar. In that fact, there is hope indeed.

Ora et Labora said...

John McFarland in spite of all your "Dear so and so",

You are just a condecending thickheaded traditionalist, who is so close minded to the reality that things in the Church are not going to happen like you want and exactly the way you think they should happen.

The SSPX also thank God, will not do what you think they should do.
At least I seriously hope Bishop Fellay and some of the leaders of the SSPX don't belong to your line of thinking.

If they do, then it would certainly be a tragedy.

If this is the kind of attitude the supporters of the SSPX take towards a reconcilliation with the Holy Roman Catholic Church yes still guided by Peter as Our Lord commanded him to do, then Arnie was correct the SSPX WILL NEVER,NEVER,NEVER UNITE WITH ROME.


It is unfortunate that people like with so much bitterness towards the Church exist in our world, and what is worse trying to pass as Catholics the true and only catholics accordding to you. Calling yourself defenders of the faith,in so many word of course but without the visible authority of the Church, the Pope.

I know there is a crisis going on in the Church, but I prefer to stay faithful INSIDE THE CHURCH, the Boat of Peter than fighting outside the Church calling myself Catholic but openly opposing anything that comes from the Church guided by Peter.

pab said...

Let's not forget that it was Rome, not the SSPX, that started the trouble eg by introducing the NOM. While I'm sure that in the long run all right-thinking people want to see the end of the NOM, I'm sure we'd settle for the time being for Rome to allow us just to say no to the NOM.

It's Rome's continued insistence that we all bow to It's fabricated NOM that's a key part of the problem

Malta said...

The true way to reconciliation is for Rome to tell Econe: "you may both ignore Vatican II and the NOM, and/or you may criticize them freely."

Vatican II wouldn't be the first Council best ignored.

Feeney (who I truly believe is a Saint, but sometimes it takes centuries to declare Saints such) was allowed to freely ignore/criticize the silly notions of BBB/D; why not allow SSPX to ignore similarly silly notions such as anthropocentrism over mysticism and ecumenism over Proselytism found in Vatican II?

Ecclesia Militans said...

Ivan,

No, the SSPX doesn't find any NO acceptable.
What I said is that when it is celebrated in the way it was officialy promulgated (in Latin), prefferably but not necessarily in the "most traditional" way (ad orientem, Roman Canon etc.) and, most importantly, with the correct intention, we can be certain that it is valid, i.e. transubstatiation occurs.
In some other cases, especially those related to doubtful intention, there is uncertainty regarding the validity of those Masses.
This was a clarification to LeonG, who asked how the SSPX can accept the validity of the New Mass.

Ecclesia Militans said...

Anil,

You still have not proven that the SSPX is in schism.

What you describe as evidence of praxis is what any normal Catholic would do in times of crisis, when faced with a modernist-infested hierarchy.

You need to read up on the definition of schism.

"...Not every disobedience is a schism; in order to possess this character it must include besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command."
(Catholic Encyclopedia)

The SSPX have not founded a parallel church. They do not deny the Primacy of Peter. They acknowledge and reckognize the Pope. They are merely disobedient when faced with modernist novelties and modernist bishops, which is a courageous and heroic thing to do - to defend the Faith.

Ecclesia Militans said...

Malta,

Do not claim that Fr. Feeney "was allowed to freely ignore/criticize the silly notions of BBB/D", because that is a falsity, which is easily checked by anyone who reads the August 8, 1949 Letter of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office on the matter.

The Holy Office itself solemnly states that the matter is resolved with its letter - all are bound to believe in the Baptism of Blood and the explicit and implicit Baptism of Desire.

This is what the Wikipedia article says about the matter:
"On 8 August 1949, the Holy Office sent an official declaration of the meaning of the dogma extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the church there is no salvation), which Feeney refused to accept. After repeatedly refusing summons to Rome, Feeney was excommunicated on 13 February 1953 by the Holy See for persistent disobedience to legitimate Church authority, and the decree of excommunication was later published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis."

Here is that letter of the Holy Office:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdffeeny.htm

IM said...

The German FSSPX site has posted an official news article (from the KNA) about the handing in of a second, better suited response to Rome.

In the commentary the webmasters do not elaborate on the truth of this fact (and Dici has nothing on it - remember, the official site for news from the site of the FSSPX).

However, posting this article seems to indicate that indeed a second response was handed over to the PCED.


____

P.S.: LongSkirts: lovely poem!

New Catholic said...

There was a second response, or, rather, a clarification of the (first) response, this is not in doubt, IM.

NC

Enoch said...

totustuusmaria wrote:

"At least the SSPX, generally speaking, seems to still want to submission to the Lord's vicar. In that fact, there is hope indeed."

I hope that you are right, but I can't see that there is any humility shown by the SSPX in it's rhetoric or communications concerning the preamble, or anything else. Surely humility, even just a tad bit, would be a needed requisite in this situation; yet I've not seen any at all. But then, perhaps Bp. Fellay is just trying to keep a public attitude of stubborness in order to placate the more extreme folks in the SSPX, which would, sadly, include those who advocte that he be replaced as SP of the Society.

All is not well within the SSPX. The SSPX is undergoing its own crisis; in fact, it seems that the SSPX is a microcosm of what is happening in the larger Church. Bishop Fellay cannot get rid of dissenters within the SSPX any more than the pope can get rid of liberal dissenting bishops.

Tradical said...

Hi Enoch,

"... Bishop Fellay cannot get rid of dissenters ..."

Truly your ignorance is astounding.

There is a long history of priests being expelled from the SSPX for a variety of reasons.

If it happens again, so be it.

Long-Skirts said...

Enoch said:

"All is not well within the SSPX. The SSPX is undergoing its own crisis; in fact, it seems that the SSPX is a microcosm of what is happening in the larger Church. Bishop Fellay cannot get rid of dissenters within the SSPX..."

Balderdash!!! Absolute nonsense and gossip!

Tradical said...

...to Enoch

"Truly your ignorance is astounding."

HEARD
IT
THROUGH
THE
GRAPEVINE

A word was whispered
Bright one morn
About a girl so young

And the whisper spread
Throughout the town
On woman’s wagging tongue.

The wagging tongues
Turned into snakes
With sharp-like serpent’s tooth

That slithered round
And under rocks
For she knew where to find the truth.

But slithering
Whispers under rocks
Never seem to satisfy

So the whispered word
Was boldly spoke
Out loud to passers-by --

But the woman
Knew it
All along…

“It wasn’t a surprise.” Said she.
“And I’m sure that’s why,
That carpenter Joseph

Took her away
On that old
Donkey!”

Damask Rose said...

Long-Skirts

Two brilliant poems. Thank-you.

karyn said...

why do people think that the Society is schismatic when various theologians and bishops have said that they are not?

Has the Holy Father said that they are schismatic?

If Ecclesia Dei has said that we are not forbidden to go to SSPX Masses so long as we do not do so with a schismatic mentality, why is the SSPX still labelled as such?

What an abuse of this term. What a shame.

Ecclesia Militans said...

Malta,

When you refer to Fr. Feeney's excommunication being nullified and him never having to recant his position, you know full well that this was done in 1972, at the height of the changes of the Conciliar Church.

I, for one, do not put much credence in these decisions of those who otherwise claimed men can be saved equally well in every religion. Their praising Fr. Feeney's position, which is a complete opposite to theirs, is more like a parody, or probably just one of those ecumenical principles - "all beliefs under the same tent".

If you are a traditionalist, you will not use this sad episode to attempt to exculpate the errors of feeneyism, and the disrespect for authority that they advocate.

The Holy Office has spoken with authority in 1949, upholding the opinions of a great number of doctors and theologians from the 3rd century onward, among which all the popes since Pius IX.
One of those doctors, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, said the threefold baptism was de fide.
A lot of their quotes are available online, e.g. in articles such as this:
http://www.rosarychapel.net/threefoldbaptism.php

Athanasius said...

The SSPX have not founded a parallel church. They do not deny the Primacy of Peter. They acknowledge and reckognize the Pope. They are merely disobedient when faced with modernist novelties and modernist bishops, which is a courageous and heroic thing to do - to defend the Faith.

Its more distinct than that. It is not necessary to set up a parallel Church per se. The authority of the Church can judge someone to be a schismatic who does not go to that step.

Nevertheless, the claim that the Society is schismatic based on one thing alone, the decree Ecclesia Dei Adflicta which has been superseded in every way. It is based on the fact that the late Holy Father said the 88 consecrations were a "schismatic act". He did not say that the Society was formally in schism, only that the act was schismatic. After that others picked up the ball and ran with it.
Now the "excommunications" decreed in 88 have been lifted (I don't accept that they were valid, but that is a completely moot point at the moment), which means the source of the alleged schism would also be removed likewise. Schism is a canonical penalty which resulted from the imposition of a canonical punishment (the so-called excommunications), and with those being lifted, the effects are also lifted. So assuming the excommunications were valid, they were lifted which means as a consequence the Society could not today be in schism, if at some time they were. If you don't agree with the society, the correct description would be they "disobey" the Pope, not that they are in schism.
You also have to look at instances where the Vatican and some local bishops have allowed clergy and religious to transfer into the SSPX or an order affiliated with the Society. How could the Vatican support a nun entering a "schismatic" society?

Tradical said...

Hi Athanasius,

"... Schism is a canonical penalty ..." I think you made a typo here.

Stacy Webber said...

as a long time supporter of the SSPX, the rift was caused by V2's implementation by the Bp's and priests. i love the men of the SSPX, as they truly love the Church. however, the longer this goes on, the higher probability of difficulty for those that know no other Catholicism than that of the SSPX...Pray for a speedy resolution; one way or the other..

John McFarland said...

Dear Stacy Webber,

Indeed we must all pray for a speedy resolution.

But God is parsimonious with miracles in solving the problems of his Church, and a speedy resolution would likely require a miracle.

We can't even rule out that the Last Judgment will be the only resolution.

But if the resolution doesn't come for a decade or a century or a millennium -- or never comes -- then God will give his faithful what is necessary to stay the course.

Furthermore, as long as the Pope and the rest of the hierarchy teach what they are currently teaching, it is hard to see what the faithful are missing by
"know[ing] no other Catholicism than that of the SSPX" -- as long as the faith of the SSPX continues to be the faith delivered once for all to the saints.