Rorate Caeli

Rome-SSPX: "We cannot be 88ers"

From the May 2012 issue of Le Seignadou - a text written by Father Michel Simoulin, FSSPX, chaplain of the schools of the Traditional Dominican Sisters of Fanjeaux (France) and former  (1988-1996) director of the International Seminary of St. Pius X in Écône, Switzerland:

Following our Jubilee [pilgrimage] in the year 2000, Rome took the initiative of establishing new relations. Today, the same Cardinal, having become Pope, has told us that the Tridentine Mass has never been abrogated (July 7, 2007: "It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated"); he rehabilitated our four Bishops (January 21, 2009); he accepted that we pursue doctrinal discussions for two years... all things that Abp.Lefebvre did not demand in 1988. It is not an exaggeration to say that Bp. Fellay achieved more than what Abp. Lefebvre asked for, without having the latter's prestige or moral authority. Should we then be even more demanding than Abp. Lefebvre or Bp. Fellay?

Whatever the state of Rome may be, of all that still remains that is disturbing in Rome, plain common sense and honesty should lead us to consider the current situation with different eyes than those of 1988! Recalling the saying of one of our bishops, we cannot be "eighty-eighters"! We are neither in 1975 with Paul VI nor in 1988 with John Paul II, but in 2012 with Benedict XVI. It can be said as much as one may wish to that the state of the Church is still of great concern, that our Pope has a theology that is at times strange, etc... we have said it enough, it seems to me; but let it not be said that the state of things is the same as in 1988, or worse. This is contrary to the reality and to the truth, and it cannot but be the effect of a more or less secret refusal of any reconciliation with Rome, perhaps of a lack of faith in the holiness of the Church, composed of poor sinners but always governed by her head, Jesus Christ, and sanctified by the Holy Ghost. The Society of Saint Pius X is not the Church, and it can only "respect its founder's heritage" by preserving his spirit, his love for the Church and his desire of serving her as a loving son, with faithfulness to her founding blessings.

...

Nobody still knows the conclusion that Benedict XVI will wish to give to these twelve years of slow work, of seeking a better understanding, of amassed prayers and rosaries. The time is come for prayer, as Bp. Fellay has called us to do, and for trust in the Church. The Immaculate Virgin, whom we will particularly honor in this month of May, will find out how to obtain for us all graces necessary, if we wish for nothing else than the victory of her Son and of the Church.

[Excerpts; tip and source: Fecit Forum]

54 comments:

Cruise the Groove. said...

I went to confession to an SSPX priest yesterday in the belief that the Holy Father has already recognized the Society.
This piece gives much hope for that.
Thank you.

someone said...

Yes, now is time for SSPX to work canonically regulated.

We must pray. Please join http://www.facebook.com/events/223537107745829/

and receive Holy Communion on the next Sunday 6th May for a good canonical status for SSPX and solutions good for the whole Church and salvation of souls. Invite also your friends!

"Jesus replied, “No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9, 69)

Matt said...

Beautiful!! Humility with conviction. No liberal could write in such a manner.

Let us give all to our Blessed Mother this May and every day for the SSPX and the Church and for conversions. Our Blessed Mother always works miracles. Haven't we noticed?

Matt

Connie said...

Oh Father Michel Simoulin, SSPX, thank you! I have said this exact phrase, "it is NOT 1988" only to be called a "modernist" by some and an "ostrich with head in the sand" by others!

I have never claimed to have a monopoloy on sanity or even a stronghold on that front, but I know I am not crazy when I look around and see before me that it is indeed NOT 1988, either in the Church and especially in the world.

Matt said...

Dear Cruise:

Please look into matter but as I understand it, the faculties of the SSPX are valid but not licit. This is why Rome has said Sunday's Obligation is satisfied at a SSPX Mass but not to receive Communion or the Sacraments from them until they are regularized. It may be wise to rethink your Confession and turn to a (conversative) fully incardinated Diocesan or Order priest to re-confess.

I say this in charity only, not judgementally or to be unkind.

God bless.

Matt

Francis said...

When this agreement and "reunion" are finally made official by the Pope hopefully in May it will be interesting to see the contents of the "doctrinal preamble". The way I see it the burden is more on Rome than the SSPX. Why? Because the only SSPX goal is to uphold the two-thousand years of traditional teachings and dogmas of Holy Mother Church, while Rome has to balance the traditional teachings of the Church with the "world" which they "married" so to speak at Vatican II and afterward. Rome's dillema is that you can't uphold traditional Catholicism (Ie the traditional definition of the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, the one true Mass which is the TLM, getting rid of the Vatican II and masonic invented relativism and indifferentism called ecumenism, collegiality and the masonic definition of "religious liberty" found in Dignitatis Humanae) without pissing off the "world" (Ie the talmudists, protestants, Muslims, freemasons, the progressivists etc) which they became apart of fifty years ago. The way Rome words that preamble must be just as ambiguous as the documents of Vatican II as Bishop Fellay seems to already know since he's read it and we haven't.

Cruise the Groove. said...

Thank you for your Christian concern Matt.
As I have always understood it from the PCED and the Holy See, the SSPX is Catholic and as such they are in communion with the rest of the Church and recieving communion from SSPX priests is a reflection of this Catholic communion.

I refrained from going to confession to SSPX priests for years, for obvious reasons, but I firmly believe they are recognized by the Holy See, now, and also at this point we have no other physical option of going to any priest for confession.

I am not Spartacus said...

The New Theologians annulled the marriage twixt Church and Tradition and those New Theologians have been whoring around with the world since the 1960s and they have spawned bastard ecumenical monsters and infected the Body of Christ with the debilitating virus of liberal indifferentism.

The New Theologians desired to raze the bastions - a flat out evil desire - and they did and as they stand amidst the carnage of Catholic Civilisation, they dare demand the First Responders agree that what they have done was what The Holy Ghost desired or they will not let the SSPX First Responders in to save The Holy City of Rome.

This is time of testing in an execrable ecclesiastical epoch and I think Bishop Fellay will only make the deal if it is the right deal for The Catholic Church.

W.C. Hoag said...

Cruise,

Being "recognised" by the competent Roman authorities is not enough to bestow faculties for a valid confession. These faculties must come from a diocesan ordinary or one equal to an ordinary in law for the local church. Your confession was probably valid to the SSPX priest because you assumed that he was now capable of hearing your confession. He is not. He needs faculties from the bishop of the diocese in which he is ministering. Avoid the SSPX priest's for confession until all is complete and faculties have been issued by the local bishop or, if the Society gets an autonomous ecclesiastical structure, their future proper ordinary.

Ora et Labora said...

To me this is a very true and important statement from Father Michel Simoulin and I totally agree with him.

"but let it not be said that the state of things is the same as in 1988, or worse. This is contrary to the reality and to the truth, and it cannot but be the effect of a more or less secret refusal of any reconciliation with Rome, perhaps of a lack of faith in the holiness of the Church, composed of poor sinners but always governed by her head, Jesus Christ, and sanctified by the Holy Ghost. The Society of Saint Pius X is not the Church, and it can only "respect its founder's heritage" by preserving his spirit, his love for the Church and his desire of serving her as a loving son, with faithfulness to her founding blessings."

I keep on praying.

Peter said...

I have a legitimate question for those more knowledgeable than myself. What is required other than 'faculties' for a valid confession on the part of the priest? Would the absolution of an openly heretical priest be valid? The reason I ask is because I went to confession at two different parishes recently and learned

1. Confession is not really about forgiveness of sins, but God's love.
2. Truth can change and I must update my theology to reflect the new teachings of the Church
3. I should receive communion in mortal sin if I intend to go to confession soon.

Cruise the Groove. said...

Mr Hoag
Thank you for your help.

Unfortunately there are honestly those of us who, for various physical reasons, only have access to SSPX confessions.

Malta said...

Lol @ Spartacus!

You have a tongue almost as sharp as my own; but why not call a spade a spade?

My entire extended family, both on my side and my wife's (who also converted) are mostly protestants (many extremely fundamentalist)--with the exception of my father's side, who are Masons going back generations (I have a friend--who is like a Monk--pray with me for generational healing over that issue).

So, you can imagine the sorts of conversations we have! We are doctors, lawyers, PHDs in (protestant) theology, etc. Well, the gloves came off when I was told that Mary was "just another woman; God could have used any woman to bear Christ." Then it was game-on! We are mostly civil; you can't convert someone by being rude to them. But, sad to tell, I am sometimes rude (I had to apologize recently for my bad behavior).

Still, and this being my point, sometimes Christ was quite rude. I think we've gotten into the lazy belief that if we are nice, as Catholics, others will see us, and, maybe, convert. That is not true. The force between free-will and Grace is a mystery. I've read St. Aquinas on the play between free-will and predestination, and it made my head spin (yes, Catholics do believe in predestination, but not as protestants--mostly Calvinists--do). But to try not to actively convert souls, as people like Lefebvre did, before the council, and which the Church is no longer doing, is a shame. Actually, it's a scandal. Because Christ called us to do it, and it was the charge of the first Apostles (the ascendants of our bishops); why did we lose the missionary spirit?

St. Peter our first pope died a horrific inverse crucifixion after being shipwrecked and jailed many times for trying to convert souls. Now, it's all about "love, love, love". Well, true love is not to always be verbally nice, but sometimes to tell our fellow pilgrim the truth of the faith.

MKT said...

"The Immaculate Virgin, whom we will particularly honor in this month of May, will find out how to obtain for us all graces necessary, if we wish for nothing else than the victory of her Son and of the Church."

Excuse me ... this fellow is "not fully in communion" with the Holy Father but the clown conducting a "Mass" dressed as an Easter Bunny hopping all over the Holy of Holies is in "full communion"?

A truly Catholic call to serving Christ and His Holy Church like the quote I reproduce above I have not heard in many a year.

God Bless Him and may all honest Catholics on both sides of the Vatican-SSPX debate pray for the same spirit that this cleric has called for.

May it happen soon. This way, Anti-Christ will have to persecute the elect as truly one body of one mind and can no more delight in dividing that Cedar of God that is indivisible in its unity.

Thomas said...

Cruise,

Be of good cheer. Even if - according to a certain reading of Canon Law - the priest has no faculties nevertheless your Confession was valid owing to 'common error'.

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear Malta. It'd be great to hear your, um, discussions :)

All men are created to be warriors but since the 1960s Catholic men have been brainwashed into being "nice" by The New Theological Churchmen who themselves willingly submitted to the flailings of feminism and the harangues by the hideous harridans of homosexualism and so they have been shedding or sloughing-off that Divinely created attribute of masculinity and insisting that we laymen mimic their temerarious example.

OK, let me think about it; NO.

As a rebarbative Irish-Injun Traditionalist lay man, I am just doing my level best to be helpful; and, besides, I can not help it: i was born this way.

Experienced Political Observer said...

This is called "laying the groundwork 101". Yes, this time a lasting deal is to be inked.

misplaced mediaeval said...

@ Peter:
The orthodoxy and holiness of the ministers of the sacraments is irrelevant to their validity. He must intend "to do what the Church does." Whether he properly understands what the Church does is an entirely separate question. Thus, a Muslim, a heretic, a Jew, etc. can validly baptize.

Peterman said...

"All men are created to be warriors but since the 1960s Catholic men have been brainwashed into being nice"

Ain't that the truth, back in the day Catholic boys were taught to box, wrestle, and play football by the priests. Lord help you if you messed with one of those priests, they'd knock your lights out.

Hugh said...

True The Society cannot but they also must not become compromised by those who force acceptance of liberal liturgy. 88 ers not but 69 ers certainly never!

Athelstane said...

Should we then be even more demanding than Abp. Lefebvre or Bp. Fellay?

Of course not. But to listen to some (a few) people in the Society...

As an "indult" traditionalist, I am finding it harder to deny the proposition that, even while I cannot condone the 1988 break, the SSPX has probably exercised pressure to produce some of the desirable events of late that might not have existed otherwise.

But we have reached a point where it is hard to justify (if it was ever justifiable) staying in an irregular status. It is not reasonable to demand that the "cure" - a full return to Tradition - precede rather than follow the Society's return to regular status, and indeed,that cure is more likely to happen (and happen sooner) with such a return.

We should all remember that Rome was infected with modernism in 1988, in 1976, in 1970, and, for that matter, in 1958! Rome wasn't burned in a day, and it won't be rebuilt in one, either. But things are moving in the right direction, as the Sisters' newsletter rightly notes. The time is propitious for a deal, if the terms are reasonable.

W.C. Hoag said...

Cruise,

Sure enough! Know that if you are truly physically impeded from confessing to a priest with faculties, then ecclesia supplet applies. You could confess to a priest of the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, PNCC, Eastern Orthodox Churches, or even one of the non-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox.

Matt said...

Hi, Peter:

Hopefully, I can answer your question in short as I know it, As long as a priest has been lawfully and duly granted faculties (full right and permission to administer the Sacraments) and has no Canonical impediment (e.g., he has not been told by his bishop or Rome not to hear confessions or dispense any of the Sacraments, or that he is outside the sphere of the Latin Rite--being that sacramental confession is not part of their liturgical/sacramental foundation, and/or was not illicitly ordained) you are free to go to that priest for Confession. In the Church's mercy, even a laicized priest may hear a confession or give Unction if death is immenant of the repentant person.

As long as any of these conditions are in place, it does not matter how horrid the priest himself is.

Matt

Jeffrey said...

"our Pope has a theology that is at times strange, etc..."

Typical SSPX arrogance...

Matthew Rose said...

Jeffrey,

Your response is the arrogant one. Simply stating that the currently-reigning Holy Father's theology appears strange at times is not arrogant, it is a respectful way of saying that one at least does not understand, and at most disagrees with certain theological perspectives of Benedict XVI/Joseph Ratzinger.

Or am I arrogant if I do not appreciate Tielhard de Chardin in sermons and work with Karl Rahner and Hans Kung?

For goodness' sake, he did not call the Pope a heretic or a fool or even say he is wrong or mistaken or anything of the sort. Simply "strange." He probably could have said much more without being arrogant; rather, strange sounds as though he is tip-toeing.

Timothy Mulligan said...

To those who would criticize Bishop Fellay in advance for entering into an agreement with the Holy See, I would recommend meditating on Our Lord's parable of the wheat and the cockle at Matthew 13:24-30. There is a certain kind of separatism for purity's sake that Our Lord opposes. One can go too far. Our Lord is telling us that He tolerates a certain degree of messiness and that we should, too, lest we root up the good as well in our zeal.

Caveat, Williamsonistas.

Brian said...

Peter, I am no theologian, but understand and have always understood that to be in a state of 'mortal sin' precludes us from receiving Holy Communion until we have first confessed this sin in Confession, and have received absolution. This is my understanding of the situation, but there may be something that I do not know.

Knight of Malta said...

Sorry, that was Paul, not Peter who was shipwrecked. Peter was inversely crucified, but we don't know, definitively, how Paul died.

But those two were firebrands in the early Church, often confronting each other! So, you know, cut Fellay and our Pope some slack!

Long-Skirts said...

Hugh said:

"88 ers not but 69 ers certainly never!"


OH MY DARLING
TRIDENTINE

(“Oh my Darling Clementine”)

In a cavern, in a canyon
Excavating a Gold mine
Econe Minors, sixty-niners
And the True Mass – Tridentine

Oh my Darling,
Oh my Darling,
Oh my Darling Tridentine
Thou eternal but infernal
To “hip” Orders in decline

In a graveyard, near the canyon
Where the myrtle doth entwine
Souls in rowses, I supposes
Fertilized by Tridentine

Oh my Darling,
Oh my Darling,
Oh my Darling Tridentine
Thou wert lost but not forever
Oh my Darling Tidentine!

Marty Jude said...

Jeffrey said...
"our Pope has a theology that is at times strange, etc..."

Typical SSPX arrogance...

.........

Dear Jeffrey, please could you say you feel this is an arrogant expression? While I have respect for the Holy Father, unlike any other in my lifetime thus far, I find him to be ambigious in actions and words - admittedly, not as much as JPII though !!!

Brian said...

I believe that these words of Father Michel Simoulin, SSPX, echo the sentiments of many in the SSPX; but, as exemplified by Bishop Williamson's recent Eleison Comment, there are also influential voices in the SSPX who oppose canonical regularization. Regularization at this time may well result in a split in the SSPX comparable to what happened in 1988.

I therefore pray, based on Bishop Fellay's response to the preamble, that our Holy Father will declare that the SSPX is fully Catholic and that all their sacraments are valid and licit; and that the canonical issues be left alone for the time being.

misplaced mediaeval said...

@ w.c Hoag, re: " if you are truly physically impeded from confessing to a priest with faculties, then ecclesia supplet applies":
Citation? Ecclesia supplet applies to cases of "common error." The law also extends jurisdiction to priests hearing the confession of a person in danger of death. When does the law extend faculties to a priest because of a physical impediment to finding a priest with faculties?

Thomas Putnam said...

"[they insist] that we laymen mimic their temerarious example. . . ."

Dear non-Spartacus: You meant to write "timorous," didn't you? Wouldn't you say that the New Theological Churchmen you write of seem far more comfortable cowering than blustering?

Forgive me if I've misread you and thereby missed your actual point.

A. M. D. G. said...

The time is come for prayer, as Bp. Fellay has called us to do, and for trust in the Church.

Has come? Where have these people been for the past fifty years?

Jordanes551 said...

Sorry, that was Paul, not Peter who was shipwrecked. Peter was inversely crucified, but we don't know, definitively, how Paul died.

The tradition that St. Peter was crucified upside-down is just as ancient as the tradition that St. Paul was beheaded. The usual explanation I've heard is that St. Paul, as a Roman citizen, would have been beheaded, whereas non-citizens like St. Peter were more usually crucified. Citizens, so I understand, were not to be crucified if sentenced to death.

Andrew W said...

Jeffrey said:

Typical SSPX arrogance...


Actually, I would say their description of his theology as "strange" is rather charitable. I would find it difficult to use such a limp word.

fugerunt said...

"Citizens, so I understand, were not to be crucified if sentenced to death."

How nice.

Prof. Basto said...

A Roman Citizen could only be crucified for the gravest delicts, considered highly offensive to public order (crimina publica), such as perduellium (high treason against Rome); the parricidium (the killing of a Pater familias, the head of the Roman family, etc).

The comission of those crimes deprived one of all privileges of citizenship.

For lesser crimes (crimina privata), including the killing of a man who was not the head of a Roman family (homicide), it was not possible to crucify a Roman Citizen.

Non citizens could be crucified way more easily. That explains why blessed Peter was crucified, whereas St. Paul, who had already claimed the possession of Roman citizenship, was beheaded.

W.C. Hoag said...

@ misplaced mediaeval:

I reread canons 976 and 144.1. My interpretation above is faulty--too broad as ecclesia supplet would only apply in articulo mortis.

Neil Obstat said...

Peter said...

I have a legitimate question for those more knowledgeable than myself. What is required other than 'faculties' for a valid confession on the part of the priest? Would the absolution of an openly heretical priest be valid? The reason I ask is because I went to confession at two different parishes recently and learned

1. Confession is not really about forgiveness of sins, but God's love.
2. Truth can change and I must update my theology to reflect the new teachings of the Church
3. I should receive communion in mortal sin if I intend to go to confession soon.

30 April, 2012 16:06


Dear Peter,
Your quandry is a good example of the consequences of our postconciliar situation. I would venture to guess you went to 2 different Novus Ordo parishes to learn these things. For you would NEVER learn those things at an SSPX parish or at a CTLM parish or even at a sedevacantist parish.

1. Confession is about God's love, but that doesn't mean it's not about forgiveness of sins. No priest who has learned what he's obliged to know would tell you otherwise, but Modernism has infected Novus Ordo seminaries, and there's the rub. The "synthesis of heresies" is synthesizing a false notion of the sacrament of Penance.

2. Truth cannot change. To say otherwise is a flat-out lie. You have been lied to. Don't fall for the devil's bait. Get yourself a copy of the Oath Against Modernism, and see that we are required to believe the perennial dogmas of the Church in the same way they have always been believed through the ages.
"The doctrine of Faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same explanation (eodem sensu eademque sententia)." Source: http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page26/hermeneutic_of_continuity.html

3. Anyone who receives Holy Communion in the state of mortal sin commits another mortal sin, since it is a grave sacrilege. No SSPX priest will ever tell you otherwise. Ditto CTLM or sedevacantist (CMRI).

These things are rooted in a true understanding of the doctrines of the Church. The problem with Modernist seminaries is they don't teach the fundamentals any more, so how can the students learn the truth? This is a HUGE topic.

Do yourself a favor and find the nearest Traditional Catholic priest to your location and seek him out to ask about these 3 things. You are obligated to find the truth, and as you can see, going to the 2 parishes you already went to will not help. They have lied to you.

As for jurisdiction or "valid confession," that is how the guys who are feeding you lies can excuse themselves from telling you the truth, in their own minds. Their words are full of error, and therefore they are not to be trusted. And like any cult leader, they try to keep you dependent on their lies by forbidding you from talking to someone who can set you straight. It is because of diabolical disorientation that the truth is being obscured, and it is so easy these days to find confusion and heresy at your local parish. The fact that you are confused and are being misguided by priests with local jurisdiction is proof itself that there is a state of emergency afoot, and therefore jurisdiction is supplied to priests who teach the truth, because of this state of emergency. You could even go to an Orthodox priest or an Old Catholic priest, if you can't find a reliable Roman Rite priest to hear your confession!

Kyrie eleison!

It is noteworthy to see that even "88ers" would be well-founded in these questions. The Catholic Faith is one. It unites the faithful with the truth. The questions you ask have a correct answer, but you have been told incorrect answers. Don't believe lies!

Neil Obstat said...

Matt said...

As long as any of these conditions are in place, it does not matter how horrid the priest himself is.


It's ironic how horrid error is rampant these days. Imagine a priest telling a penitent that confession isn't about forgiveness of sins, that truth can change and that it's okay to receive Communion in the state of mortal sin!

How horrid can you get?

Even so, it wouldn't make your confession invalid to be absolved from such a priest. You would receive forgiveness of your sins, but you would be getting deadly error for advice!

Hugh said...

Thank you Long-Skirts - that was the melody that had crossed my mind when I first saw the posted headline!

Tim said...

"Regularization at this time may well result in a split in the SSPX comparable to what happened in 1988."

If that happened, what would "regularized" SSPX members say in regard to Society members who weren't regularized?

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

There is a very details article on the SSPX and supplied jurisdiction here http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/supplied_jurisdiction/validity_of_confessions_1.htm

It is NOT as some have said restricted to 'in danger of death' as any good canon law commentary or book on moral theology will tell you but nor is it broad enough to encompass schismatics except in danger of death.

Sixupman said...

The 'Faculties' issue is a veritable 'Catch 22' situation. We are faced with dissident bishops and clergy who, probably, do not even believe in Confession, with 'Faculties' - who would you rather have give ear to your troubles? 'Faculties' is the scam which the diocesan mafia use to put the frighteners on honest Catholics.

SSPX are needed, allied to the other Traditional societies and diocesan clergy, to claw back sense to the liturgy and sacraments of Mother Church.

Neil Obstat said...

Sixupman said...

The 'Faculties' issue is a veritable 'Catch 22' situation. We are faced with dissident bishops and clergy who, probably, do not even believe in Confession, with 'Faculties' - who would you rather have give ear to your troubles? 'Faculties' is the scam which the diocesan mafia use to put the frighteners on honest Catholics.


Yes, yes, yes.


A charming Eleison Comments Bonus Issue begins thusly today:

Bonus issue

30 April 2012
DRAMATIC STICHOMYTHIA.

Stichomythia comes from the Greek dramatists, where it is a sharp dispute conducted in a dialogue of alternate lines. Now there is not much real drama left in a world where the truth is almost extinguished, but the lies have not yet quite taken over in the Catholic Church, as they will virtually do at world’s end, so where there is still some truth, there is still some occasion for stichomythia. We listen in on an SSPX soft-liner (SL) trying to give a hard time to an SSPX hard-liner (HL):–

[follows with 45 pairs of lines]

© 2012 Richard N. Williamson. All Rights Reserved.

A non-exclusive license to print out, forward by email, and/or post this article to the Internet is granted to users who wish to do so provided that no changes are made to the content so reproduced or distributed, to include the retention of this notice with any and all reproductions of content as authorized hereby. Aside from this limited, non-exclusive license, no portion of this article may be reproduced in any other form or by any other electronic or mechanical means without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review, or except in cases where rights to content reproduced herein are retained by its original author(s) or other rights holder(s), and further reproduction is subject to permission otherwise granted thereby.

[I'd like to post the rest but would prefer to have an "okay" from a mod - a lot of readers here probably already get EC as it is.]

Gregorian Mass said...

My continued prayers, Faith in the Holy Father, and Holy Mother Church. It would be fitting to see this Pope reconcile the church with herself fully.

Marty Jude said...

Dear Moderator, I wasn't sure where to add this, so please present it, or not [!], as you will!!!

I feel the explanations from the US SSPX Website, helps to set the current 'official' mode of the congregation in a clear light. Perhaps others won't agree? Or have already checked this out. I just felt it may be helpful to some.

The link is:
http://www.sspx.org/theological_commission/whats_going_on_with_sspx_and_rome_4-18-2012.htm

St Joseph pray for our Holy Father, Bishop Fellay, and all involved in the negotiations

Neil Obstat said...


These things are rooted in a true understanding of the doctrines of the Church. The problem with Modernist seminaries is they don't teach the fundamentals any more, so how can the students learn the truth? This is a HUGE topic.


Example, from Fr. John Laux, M.A. Chief Truths of the Faith, Tan Books, p. 55:
Chapter VII, Necessities and Qualities of Faith; Faith Necessary to Salvation (Heb 11:6)

...3 By faith is not meant any faith, otherwise it would not have been necessary for Christ to teach a definite faith, nor could He have threatened with eternal punishment those who do not receive this faith. Hence the faith necessary to salvation can mean only the faith that Christ, the Son of God, taught mankind. By this faith alone, and by no other, we are made partakers of Christ, and without Christ there is no salvation. "For there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). It is therefore a grievous sin to say, or even to think, knowingly and willingly, that it does not matter what faith we profess.

[Now take a second look at Assisi I, II and III, (or for that matter, Vat II) and tell me how well they match up with this doctrine. BTW grievous sin means you can't receive Holy Communion until you first are sorry for committing it, resolve to never commit it again, and receive absolution for this sin. How many practitioners of Vat II believe that??]

Hidden One said...

"The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself." - St. Peter of Alcántara

Mary Jane said...

@ Sixupman (and the others who agreed) who said: "'Faculties' is the scam which the diocesan mafia use to put the frighteners on honest Catholics."

Excuse me?

'Faculties' is the authority given to priests so they can do what they need to do. Are you saying this isn't important? No matter that the Church says it's important (required, actually) - it's just not important?

Supplied Jurisdiction, as the SSPX "explain" it, is part of the way they 'scam' honest Catholics into believing they have faculties. If faculties were not important, perhaps you can explain to me why the SSPX go to such great lengths (stretches) to explain how and why they have faculties.

From the SSPX's perspective, we are unable to attend a good diocesan mass or make a good confession to a diocesan priest. For that matter, from the SSPX's perspective, we are also unable to attend FSSP masses or make a good confession to an FSSP priest. There's something very wrong with that mentality.

The SSPX is not the Church.

JMR said...

I am reading Ronald Knox's book "Soft Garments" and in Chapter IX Living Witness he says that the true Church can be known by three things. 1) it is Catholic i.e universal;
2)it is Apostolic;
3)"And lastly there must be continuity of faith;if it can be proved that any body of Christians however devoted they may be,has abandoned the teachings of the first Christians,or has so watered it down that it is no longer recognizable, then that body of Christians however good and devoted they may be,is something other than the true Church."
In my understanding that applies to the main body of the Church is no longer the true Church and the SPXX is.

Neil Obstat said...

Mary Jane said...

...From the SSPX's perspective, we are unable to attend a good diocesan mass or make a good confession to a diocesan priest.

For that matter, from the SSPX's perspective, we are also unable to attend FSSP masses or make a good confession to an FSSP priest. There's something very wrong with that mentality.

The SSPX is not the Church.


While SSPX priests encourage the faithful to avoid Novus Ordo liturgies and to seek out Canonized Traditional Latin Mass and sacraments, they do not in my experience claim we are unable to attend a good one or make a good confession, as you state. You're getting your facts mixed up.

Things are not always black or else white. It isn't that simple. Shades of grey obscure the issues and therefore leading a Catholic life becomes quite difficult, if not impossible. Salvation of souls is the highest law of the Church, but this high priority has been eclipsed in our postconciliar age.

You say "the SSPX is not the Church." That insinuates the erroneous accusation that they claim to be a parallel Church, or that they deny the authority of Rome. They do not. But to say that the SSPX is not Catholic is equally wrong.

Regarding Sixupman's reference to 'Faculties,' he wasn't making a definition of the term, as you presumptuously assume. He was stating in curt language how the concept of faculties (a legitimate and important thing) has been ABUSED by those in authority, and such an abuse of authority is a very serious sin, for it affects the salvation of souls, the highest law of the Church.

The Antichrist himself would be hard pressed to do more damage than to abuse faculties in order to deceive the faithful.

The enemy that sowed the cockle is the devil -Mt. 13:39.

Roderick Alvernaz said...

Peter said...
I have a legitimate question for those more knowledgeable than myself. What is required other than 'faculties' for a valid confession on the part of the priest? Would the absolution of an openly heretical priest be valid? The reason I ask is because I went to confession at two different parishes recently and learned

1. Confession is not really about forgiveness of sins, but God's love.
2. Truth can change and I must update my theology to reflect the new teachings of the Church
3. I should receive communion in mortal sin if I intend to go to confession soon.

-Peter, I am deeply sorry and hurt when I read and hear questions/comments/statements such as yours. They exemplify the failings of some priests and parishes of post V.II. And I don't doubt that you were told these things. The Lord knows these aren't isolated incidents, and there are many of us who have heard or experienced such things first hand.

I say some because thanks to the prayers of so many I've seen the "conversion" of many priests who've come around the embrace the traditions of our Church, and some who've have sought, and have received, permission of their Ordinary (including in my own parish) to celebrate the Tridentine Mass!

It pained me when Archbishop Lefebvre carried through with the Consecrations of the bishops -against Rome's wishes. I had for myself, in good conscious, to separate myself from the SSPX -but their core ideals remained very much in my prayers.

I was pleased by the founding of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter as I hoped this would meet the needs of those strongly attached to the traditional Mass and Sacraments (I by no means mean to suggest that the concerns of the SSPX -and the rest of us- are confined only to that, as we are well aware).

In 1985 I was singing with the choir of St. Margaret Mary's in Oakland, CA for the Novus Ordo Mass -said in Latin. With John Paul II's Motu Proprio of 1988, our choir, and parishioners, petitioned the bishop for permission to celebrate the Tridentine Mass.

After a great many prayers, rosaries, and petitions, permission was granted.

Peter, I guess what I want to say, and assure you of (while trying to avoid the polemics), is this; There are many here, who chose to stay, pray ...and even suffer, and are willing to do more. Just as there are those in the SSPX who have stayed, prayed ...and even suffered, and are also willing to do more.

We are a Church of saints and sinners. Flawed human beings to be sure. But we are assured the Holy Spirit to with us, the Church, to the end of time.

I praise and thank God for his Holiness, Benedict XVI, and his Excellency, Bishop Fellay.

It sounds as though the real work will soon begin. We must redouble our prayers, and continue the good fight.

Our Lady of Fatima, Pray for us.