Rorate Caeli

SSPX: The founder is keeping watch

A guest-post by Côme de Prévigny


"The four Lefebvrist bishops split," Le Figaro says in its headline. And, it must be said, the division has never seemed so apparent since they were consecrated by Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, on June 30, 1988. Only apparently, because, at times, the internal differences have been pronounced, but they have not always been known to all. Likewise, whoever made the decision to bring to the public square the correspondence, took a decision that was extremely grave in its consequences, insofar as the act risked to disturb what a Cardinal had once called "a thorn for the entire Church": the Society of Saint Pius X. But risking or disturbing is not sinking. The founder is keeping watch.

1. The trap of a fratricidal war.

There is a great danger of trying to split the Society in two different parts, by gathering behind two different camps antagonized forces that were, however, raised in the same mold through forty years of energy, of efforts, and of prayers, of shared resistance to the prevailing Neo-modernism, and this despite the desertions of some and the excesses of others. Those who are now rubbing their hands thinking of a hypothetical division are already showing their true faces.

On the one hand, they are the predators coming from Sedevacantist mini-chapels that have, as their main sign of charity, the fact that they hate one another, and that double their efforts to collect the bodies of  a fratricidal war. Abp. Lefebvre was categorical concerning these sowers of despair and destruction. Those who are today their American leaders are those same ungrateful sons who, in 1983, brought the aged archbishop before the courts in order to collect, in vain, the real estate "spoils" of the Society. They answer particularly to the names of Clarence Kelly, Donald Sanborn, Daniel Dolan...

On the other hand, there are all the adversaries of the Tradition of the Church who agitate to despoil the main force of opposition to the Liberalism that destroys our societies. All their contacts in the media have unanimously presented the object of the correspondence disconnected from its private setting, wishing to transform the divergences between the bishops into public opposition. And in Paris, anticlerical forces already eye with envy the church of Saint-Nicolas du Chardonnet, this bastion of Catholic restoration, that appears as an object of prey due to what are essentially human disagreements.


2.      Who will foot the bill?

To tell the truth, the SSPX bishops themselves are not following a pattern of division. It is one thing to counsel, even firmly, one's superior to consider the consequences of his actions. It is quite another to state publicly what one thinks. And it is still something else to cause a division when one's superior has not compromised on the faith, which does not then justify disobedience. Let us take the example of Bp. Tissier de Mallerais. In 1988, after he had, on May 30, counseled Abp. Lefebvre against the consecrations, he nonetheless followed the founder and received the episcopacy from his hands. These last few days, even after the reception of his superior, he has called the faithful to unity in several different places.

But this, however, does not prevent the promoters of division from doing their work. Because, in the end, let us imagine a regularized Society: its priests will keep publishing the same weekly announcements, or pronouncing the same sermons. And its leaders will continue to criticize Assisi and the new mass. But a division for passionate motives will have as a consequence a decrease in the number of priests; the separatists will go to the large metropolitan areas, there where the greater number of faithful are found. On the other hand, in remote areas, the faithful will no longer benefit from the sacraments. And schools will close. Such will be the fruit of the division inspired by the enemy of God and by the historical enemies of the Society.

3.      A thorn for the Church.

The Society of Saint Pius X has a prophetic role in today's Church. If it were nothing more than the work of 550 priests along with their tens or hundreds of thousands of faithful, no one - and the Pope above all - would care for it. The Society is a thorn for the Church as the Society of Jesus was in its time, always condemned and regularized for its steadfast witness to the faith. The strongest souls are those that do not abandon everything under the impact of emotions, at the very gate of regularization or condemnation, that is, of the fact of a change of situation. They are those who manage to cross the ages and to withstand the circumstances with the same witness of faith. "A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand: but it shall not come nigh thee," says Psalm 90. 

This providential work lives essentially off two forces. First, the graces that God grants to it; then, the charism of its founder that remains the main opposing force to the new doctrines of the Council, whatever those who dispute the Society's legacy, on one side or the other, may say. It is not the sermon of a Father X or of a Father Y that will change that. It is not the admonition of a Prelate Z that will modify it. The Society is the bearer of a patrimony, that of the Church, that it transmits and will transmit, not only to some faithful, but to the largest number, in particular to the priests, whom Abp. Lefebvre had chosen as his preferred targets in a work that viewed itself primarily as priestly, apostolic, directed towards priests.

True, this work of the Fraternity does not possess the gift of everlastingness. But its founder recalled correctly that God did not have the cynicism of bringing souls to combat to finally abandon them, agonizing, on the battlefields: "I do not believe," he said, "that the good God could have said up to now, 'Go on, go on,' and that suddenly He says, 'Stop!' When the works are good, He wants them to go on."[1] Abp. Lefebvre accepted huge sacrifices for the unity of his work. He will keep watch, one more time, that it may be liberated from the spirit of compromise as well as from that of despair, so that it may keep on advancing on this fine line that separates the Neo-modernist heresy on one side from the Sedevacantist schism on the other. 

_______________________________
[1] Interview of Abp. Lefebvre to Pacte, 1987 [Posted at 1200 AM GMT]

41 comments:

Uncle Claibourne said...

A most timely reminder, and food for thought, for all. Thank you, New Catholic.

New Catholic said...

Non, non, thank M. de Prévigny.

NC

Uncle Claibourne said...

Merci beaucoup, M. de Prévigny!

Ἰουστινιανός said...

Oremus pro Fraternitate et episcopis ejus, et pro Ecclesia tota.

Kyrie eleison

Paul M said...

Fr Laisney sermon synopsis 13 May 2012 (as I heard it ie: unofficial)
A history of the situation
-We are created by God to serve Him and be happy with him. We must become saints.
-We serve God by Serving Christ, we serve Christ by serving the Church.
-Opposed to Christ are the world, the devil & the flesh.
-At V2 the heirachy made peace with the world (Fr L here quoted the 'proud' words of Pope Paul 6 which I paraprase: 'at V2 two forces met, the Church of the God made man and the Church of man made God and what happened? And anathema? No! There was sympathy”)
-This has lead to the problems with the Church and the liturgy.
-After the pilgramage in 2000 many in Rome wanted the SSPX to be assimulated again because they were clearly Catholic. JPII appointed Card. Hoyos to do the job but he failed to understand the gravity of the issues and offered a ridiculous agreement.
-+Fellay rejected this and set the 3 conditions; liberation of the Trad Mass, Lifting of the excomunications, and doctrinal discussions). JPII did nothing.
-Pope B XVI immediately set about working on the 3 conditions and all 3 have been achieved (I have to note here that condition 2 did not rehabilitate +Lefebvre & +De Mayer, and the 3rd is not resolved yet, but I must also conceed that from BXVIs position, he would think they have been fulfilled ). BXXVI now wants the agreement.
-THE PREAMBLE WAS NOT THE WORK OF BXVI (Fr Laisney apealled to a conversation between +Fellay and Fr Couture), it was instead the work of the 'modernist clic', and was unacceptable. +Fellay rejected it, but was then asked to correct his reply which he did without changing the substance. When he was then told his reply was not sufficient, he decided to set the preamble aside and respond in his own words. His reply ruled out any compromise on the Faith or liturgy, as well as any compromise on freedom for the SSPX. (I note that Fr L here confirms my suspicion that the CDF is not working for the Pope 100% but have their own agenda as well... what a minefield!)
-we now await the Pope's response and direction from +Fellay as to where we will go from here.
-We must give ourselves over more assiduously to prayer, and virtue. We were exhorted to attend daily Mass more frequently, and practice virtue (Charity, purity, fidelity, patience etc) in family life. God did not create us to go to purgatory, but to become saints and we must strive for sanctity with all our hearts.

Jim said...

This is the best and most balanced article I've read during this whole matter. Many thanks and God's richest blessings to M. de Prévigny and the faithful, loyal Catholics at New Catholic.

My wife and I and our five children attend Mass and receive the sacraments solely at our local SSPX chapel and fully support His Excellency Bishop Fellay and our holy priests who serve all of us so well. May God bless them all.

Santo subito, Marcel Lefebvre!

NIANTIC said...

Excellent and impressive written article. I hope ALL the Traditional faithful will have a chance to read and ponder it well.To me it is perfectly clear that this is the time in God's providential care for His Church for the "official and full return" of the Society. We must keep on praying for our Pope and bishop Fellay to know clearly in what manner and to what extend all this is to be accomplished without any loss of freedom whatsoever of the Society's apostolate.Keep the Faith!

New Catholic said...

Typos corrected.

Zak said...

We have here a veritable battalion of priests loyal to the Church's authentic tradition.

It is just one battalion...

But the only thing standing between them and a daylight drop into this ruined city is the achievement of singularity of purpose among its officers...

God, PLEASE...

We beg you... HELP US! HELP THEM!

MaxMuxings said...

An excellent article, thank you for posting it! I pray my nightly rosary for the successful return of the SSPX to Rome.

Peter said...

From the letter of Abp. Lefebvre quoted by the 3 bishops and in the May newsletter of SSPX United Kingdom: 'Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! But I do not think they are anywhere near doing so'

NOW ROME HAS made such an offer! These words of the Archbishop show that he DID NOT reject such an offer IF it were made!

Father Anthony Cekada said...

A brief "right of response," NC, if I may about M. de Prévigny's comments regarding sedevacantist "predators" in America.

Though we agree with a number of the theological points the three SSPX bishops made in their letter, I and many of my colleagues have long said that SSPX making a deal with the Vatican would be far preferable to maintaining its theologically indefensible "recognize the Pope and resist him" eccelsiology under which it has operated for forty years.

Bp. Fellay, however, is essentially right from the point of view of standard, pre-Vatican II ecclesiology: If there's a pope, you submit to him.

So I think M. de Prévigny has set up a false opposition in his article.

Two points are also in order on the matter of the American priests' conflict with Mgr Lefebvre in 1983:

(1) We did not sue Abp. Lefebvre; he sued us, and we proposed negotiating first. (If one can do it with the pope, why not with an archbishop?) Unfortunately the archbishop had an incompetent lawyer who convinced him to file suit. We eventually arrived at a negotiated settlement.

(2) The nexus of the dispute was not "sedevacantism" (some of the priests were NOT sedevacantists) but other issues, such as liturgy, the new ordination rite, etc.

I told the story several years ago in an article, "The Nine vs. Lefebvre."

May the archbishop, who deserves the gratitude of all faithful Catholics for all the good that he did, rest in peace!

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

Indefensible only if you exaggerate papal power, Fr, perhaps you should attend the Angelus Press conference on the Papacy?

New Catholic said...

Since you chose to present yourself as a representative of all the predators, Father, you certainly admit your inclusion among them. In any event, I second the idea of your attending the Angelus Press Conference on the Papacy this year. In the audience, that is.

Hugh said...

"For thy power, O Lord, is not in a multitude, nor is thy pleasure in the strength of horses, nor from the beginning have the proud been acceptable to thee: but the prayer of the humble and the meek hath always pleased thee"
Judith 9:16

Knight of Malta said...

Well balanced and well written piece!

I am good friends with a man who was good friends with Fr. Malachi Martin. Martin, like Augustine, was a grave sinner, but died a Traditionalist, this I know. But he, for the most part, denied sedevacantism, which is an easy temptation given the current praxis of the Church.

The problem, of course, is that what authority decides that the throne is empty? We have seen boy popes and Borgia popes, who have been legitimate. And wasn't our first pope rebuked as satan, and rebuked by St. Paul? Isn't the papacy itself subject to grave human error?

I say all this by way or hope that gravely flaw full humans such as +Williamson (but equally brilliant) will follow his Society into the Devestated Vineyard and help in culling and planting.

someone said...

Please, if you can, if it doesn't contrary to your duties or health, choose a one day- the next monday, tuesday or wednesday for fasting. The intention will be for a good canonical status for SSPX and for the unity of the Society with the General Superior bishop Fellay; for a wisdom and fullfilling God's will by him and for the obedience of other Society's members to him. One of these days because on wednesday(16.05.) is decisive for that matter meeting of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. Thank you!

fidusetaudax said...

Knight of Malta said..." But he, for the most part, denied sedevacantism, which is an easy temptation given the current praxis of the Church."

I've never understood the sedevacantist position nor at this point do I care to invest a minute pondering it. Sure I know a Cardinal was elected and he turned it down or some funny business went on and again another Pope died after only 33 days. All of that might be sorted out in a historical perspective years down the road. Over the 2,000 year history these things happened.

There has never been one bit of evidence that Pope Benedict was not correctly elected Pope. He is the Vicar of Christ so whatever happened in the past these seds need to get over it and move on or join the large numbers of protestants out there.

John McFarland said...

The "predator" image is the one great fault in M. Come's analysis.

There are indeed those who would be pleased -- or at least not unhappy -- to see the SSPX split.

But if there were a split, it would have nothing or nearly nothing to do with the machinations and/or encouragement of anyone outside the Society.

The differences are presented with perfect clarity in the two leaked letters. Paul M's account of Fr. Laisney's sermon adds some very helpful color regarding the facts and dynamic of the Rome-Menzingen exchanges.

As the letters indicate, there is absolutely no difference in the doctrinal diagnosis.

As regards the papal initiative, the situation seems to be that the Holy Father has somehow (and clearly not through the CDF) signaled an openness to a no-strings regularization, and so the SSPX leadership is waiting for him to follow up on that signal.

The obvious precedent is the 2007 motu proprio. One could imagine his declaring us all one Church, and the SSPX and its faithful and allies in full communion, without dealing with doctrinal issues at all, and calling for discussions to provide canonical arrangements consistent with the status of full communion.

Indeed, this imagining might be the only way it could get done. If settling the canonical status were made a condition for a declaration of full communion, the CDF et al. will have to be brought into the picture, and with them the possibility of exercises in foot-dragging and/or sabotage until kingdom come -- or at least until the death of the Holy Father.

Father Anthony Cekada said...

New Catholic said:

" I second the idea of your attending the Angelus Press Conference on the Papacy this year. In the audience, that is."

That would make the Q&A part of the program MUCH more interesting for everyone!

Best wishes!

Fr. C.

John McFarland said...

As regards the possibility of the three bishops leaving the SSPX, let me offer a little amateur SSPXology, involving no disclosure of inside information or breach of confidentiality.

I think that M. Come is quite right about Bishop Tissier. It's hard to conceive his leaving if he didn't leave in 1988. Nor does it seem likely that if he did, any more than a very small handful would follow him.

Bishop de Galarreta is virtually unknown outside Latin America, but he is clearly not a charismatic figure. Furthermore, Latin America is an immense and heterogeneous area with relatively few traditional Catholics. So his leaving would probably not involve the loss of many faithful.

And then there is Bishop Williamson. I don't see anything in his critiques of regularization that suggests that he would leave in the event of a no-strings regularization. As for what would happen if he did leave, my crystal ball is very cloudy. It is not obvious that he would try to set up his own congregation; and if he didn't, there would be less incentive for his sympathizers in the Society to leave themselves. There is also the fact that he is ten years gone from the U.S., and the regime of Fr. Rostand as District Superior and Fr. Le Roux as seminary rector has been a great success in the eyes of practically everybody in the SSPX orbit. I think that +Williamson's influence is considerably reduced, and its reduction will continue.

Franko sokolic said...

Regarding Fr Cekada's comments about the American priests' conflict with AB. Lefebvre, my understanding about this is the dishonourable action by the nine priests taking the SSPX's properties with them when they were expelled, for whatever reason, from the SSPX.
It was never the intention that the properties were not owned by SSPX. The manner of registration of the properties, was to prevent them falling into the hands of the local bishop. The only way SSPX could get back some of their properties was to allow the american priests to keep properties which, morally, were never theirs.

Floreat said...

Fr. Cekada:

"...I and many of my colleagues have long said that SSPX making a deal with the Vatican would be far preferable to maintaining its theologically indefensible "recognize the Pope and resist him" eccelsiology(...) Bp. Fellay, however, is essentially right from the point of view of standard, pre-Vatican II ecclesiology: If there's a pope, you submit to him.

So I think M. de Prévigny has set up a false opposition in his article...."


There is no false opposition, unless one accepts an argument based on false principles.

The SSPX has always recognised the Pope and has always pledged obedience to him - other than in matters where he permits the Church to deviate from matters of doctrine.

The Society was formed for the Church, not as an organisation that would become a man-made parallel church.

As Abp Lefebvre commented, "Loin de moi...loin de moi de m'eriger en Pape". He, of all people, knew well that outside the Church there is no salvation.

He was also quite clear that the one, Catholic, holy and apostolic Church can be found in Rome, with Peter at its head, and not in Menzingen, in Ohio or anywhere else.

Should Bp Fellay receive appropriate reassurances that the Society may continue - as Catholics in full Communion with the Holy See - to observe the traditional doctrines of the Church in a way that preserves their meaning and effect, then there are no longer grounds for disobedience on the permissible basis of necessity.

At that point, disobedience would become sanctionable and real schism the logical outcome.

I thank God that we have a General Superior who understands that better than anyone.

John McFarland said...

Father Cekada says:

'I and many of my colleagues have long said that SSPX making a deal with the Vatican would be far preferable to maintaining its theologically indefensible "recognize the Pope and resist him" eccelsiology under which it has operated for forty years.'

Let me offer my own interpretation of what Fr. Cekada and many of his colleagues (hereinafter "they")have been maintaining.

For some years, they have been prophesying the capitulation of the SSPX to Rome by this time next week, if not yesterday.

This is premised on their basic principle: if he's the Pope, you have to obey him.

The idea is that since the Society thinks he's the Pope, it will inevitably be drawn to capitulation.

Of course, it has been most provoking for them that their prophecies have thus far not come true.

In Fr. C.'s case, he has a particular argument of his, first rolled out some years ago, that Abp. Lefebvre's alienation from Rome was based on hostility to Paul VI, and that the Archbishop began lusting for capitulation from roughly the end of Pope Paul's funeral Mass. This contention has been looking goofier and goofier with every passing day since the rollout.

So naturally, talk of a settlement leads to still another hopeful repetition of the prophecy.

It is certainly true that SVism guarantees no sellout to Rome that doesn't involve giving up SVism.

But then blinding a man guarantees that he will not look at any woman to desire her.

Floreat said...

Fr Cekada:

(...)Two points are also in order on the matter of the American priests' conflict with Mgr Lefebvre in 1983:

(1) We did not sue Abp. Lefebvre; he sued us, and we proposed negotiating first. (If one can do it with the pope, why not with an archbishop?) Unfortunately the archbishop had an incompetent lawyer who convinced him to file suit. We eventually arrived at a negotiated settlement.

(2) The nexus of the dispute was not "sedevacantism" (some of the priests were NOT sedevacantists) but other issues, such as liturgy, the new ordination rite, etc. (...)"


It should not have been necessary for Abp Lefebvre to pursue disloyal priests for the return of property which belonged to the SSPX. Nor would 'disloyal sons' have attempted to deprive the Society of all of its property in the US and cause such dreadful pain to the Archbishop in the process.

The pretext for the exit of "The Nine" may well have been the Society's adoption of the 1962 Mass, however, all of them immediately adopted a Sedevacantist position - indeed many of them had publicly voiced this position well before deciding to leave the Society.

Their subsequent history is, perhaps, the best advertisement against sedevacantism I have yet encountered.

Should any Society clerics or laity consider following a similar course, their likely destination should, at least, be clear to them.

Franko sokolic said...

Regarding Fr Cekada's comments about the american priests' conflict with AB. Lefebvre, my understanding about this is the dishonourable action by the nine priests taking SSPX's properties with them when they were expelled, for whatever reason, from SSPX.
It was never the intention that the properties were not owned by SSPX no matter how ownership was registered. Registration was done to prevent the possibility of them falling into the hands of the local bishop.
The only way SSPX could get back some of their properties was to agree that american priests keep properties which were never theirs.

Ted Maysfield said...

FATHER CEKADA WROTE:
I and many of my colleagues have long said that SSPX making a deal with the Vatican would be far preferable to maintaining its theologically indefensible "recognize the Pope and resist him" eccelsiology under which it has operated for forty years. Bp. Fellay, however, is essentially right from the point of view of standard, pre-Vatican II ecclesiology: If there's a pope, you submit to him. (End quote).

This is a surprisingly fair assessment!

Since sedevacantists believe the popes since Paul VI were/are material heretics, they cannot give their allegiance. Everyone else who believes, with Catholic theology, that the pope is sovereign and has no judge on earth and therefore no one has competence to say he is not pope, must give him their allegiance, except where the pope's counsel leads us to sin, something sedevacantists, with their exaggerated understanding of papal authority, don’t grasp.

Floreat said...

John McFarland:

"...And then there is Bishop Williamson. I don't see anything in his critiques of regularization that suggests that he would leave in the event of a no-strings regularisation...."


I had noticed, in one of Bp Williamson's recent weekly newsletters which are published on certain Traditionalist websites the statement "I am not yet Sedevacantist, nor am I a Roman apostate, by the Grace of God, neither".

I do wonder, in the event of the Society's regularisation, whether Bp Williamson would prefer Sedevacantism to the path of "apostasy".

Barbara said...

I am relatively new to a lot of things regarding the situation with Fraternity of St. Pius X, so what I say is from a limited perspective. I know no one in a personal way who is involved with the Society.

From what I’ve gathered about Bishop Williamson from the blogsphere and setting aside his rather misogynist views and kind of “far-out” ideas, on conspiracies and “gun-powder plots” and the like, I find his talks inspiring – brilliantly Roman Catholic on matters of faith and culture. He appears to me a Real Roman Catholic man and Bishop who loves the Church. He has a most excellent sense of humour (not a prerequisite for anything but it helps!) and he’s a “shaker upper”. (maybe too much sometimes!). Quite frankly, I would be most sad if he doesn’t follow his superior, and not a little shocked and disappointed. It would be like another letdown from our leaders.

Just my 2 cents worth.

My prayers continue for this most important matter in the restoration of our Catholic Faith.

Barbara

New Catholic said...

Skeptico: farewell, my friend, please move on to other pastures...

Alsaticus said...

an interesting opinion although the skillful conclusion is maybe in danger.

Bp Fellay clearly wrote the position adopted in 1975-1976 already to stay on the thin edge of the wedge is not accepted anymore by Rome.
Bp Fellay said it again in a conference, adding he would have preferred to continue on that line a little more time.

So de Prévigny's analysis is at first an attempt of hemeneutics of continuity applied to the change of orientation of Bp Fellay.

That being said, it is correct that if the 3 other bishops stay united and break up with the Society, it will be a really negative move for the pope, for the Society, for their souls and ultimately for the Church at large in reducing the positive impact of the reconciliation.

Brian said...

it is correct that if the 3 other bishops stay united and break up with the Society, it will be a really negative move for the pope, for the Society, for their souls and ultimately for the Church at large in reducing the positive impact of the reconciliation.

Precisely; such a split would undo most of the benefit of "regularizing" of the SSPX. If these three Catholic Bishops do not accept the agreement, what benefit will there be in calling them schismatic and quasi-sedevacantist?

In order to avoid this potential worsening of the current situation, I pray that the Pope would simply announce that the SSPX is fully Catholic and that their sacraments are licit and valid.

Although the lack of a clear canonical status entails problems, trying to fit the SSPX into a canonical box at the present time, risks a split that could undermine the very unity which our Holy Father so earnestly desires.

Knight of Malta said...

Let us also not forget that even the FSSPX believes their work as a society is temporal (but for the eternal); their work is far from over.

The Dominicans have been around for aprox 1,600 years; but who carries the torch between them and the SSPX? I know a kindly old Dominican priest, and their praxis, unfortunately, is leftist, if not Marxist.

So, please SSPX, adhere, stay together with adhesive and with you more fully in the Church we will see, with your adrenaline, an advancement of Tradition.

Andrew said...

I pray there is no split. However, perhaps a split will be a good thing in the long run. As much as I respect the SSPX there are elements attached to the Society that have little to do with traditional, orthodox Christianity and more to do with right wing, conservative politics (yes, there is a a difference between the two). I also think some of the more scary elements in the Society (i.e. anti-semitism) needs to be purged. A split will bring those things to light. The orthodox elements will unite with the Church and the extreme elements will go their way.

Sidney Jude said...

I am the child of a Jewish birth mother. I am also a member of the TO/SSPX. I do not feel anti-Semitism from the SSPX.

Long-Skirts said...

Côme de Prévigny wrote:

"a thorn for the entire Church"

THORN
OF
THUNDER

And he rooted us
With an honorable people
Beneath Our Lord’s
Only steeple -

Our inheritance
Assembly filled
An abode of Saints
Bones crushed were thrilled -

When pearls of peace
Silver-sacraments plundered
From early bird song
Then the thorn of thorns thundered -

Sheep struck by lightening
Bruised by hail
Submerged in a maelstrom’s
Violent gale -

But the thorn owned thunder
From above to quell -
Raining down what was given -
And the thorn’s thunder rocked Hell!!

Hugh said...

Claims of anti-semitism from The Confraternity are purely anecdotal. In all my years connected with The Society I have never heard anyone utter anything remotely anti-semitic. The problem is, for many people who silently or vociferously disapprove of The Society, any type of Scriptural denunciation of the jews or liturgical preferences for the pre-benedictine Good Friday prayer excites ill-informed anti-SSPX accusations on such grounds. This is patently absurd.

Anonymous said...

Fr. Cekada: have you forgotten your comment to Archbishop Lefebvre when he dismissed you from the SSPX for your continued disobedience to him: "Fine, but we own the properties"?

In court, the Nine also attempted to claim that the SSPX has ceased to exist since 1976 (with its illegitimate suppression), thus the properties could not be incorporated under the SSPX!!! That didn't stop the Nine from continuing to solicit funds in the SSPX's name after 1976!

By the way, both the Archbishop and the SSPX's Bursar General had been telling the Nine to fix the incorporation issue of the properties for over 5 years - including at least one crash meeting in NY - the Nine kept saying "yes, we'll fix it - it's taking longer than expected" when in fact they were deceiving their superiors and faithful all along!

See sspx.org for some historical details:

-http://sspx.org/rcr_pdfs/2006_rcrs/july_2006_rcr.pdf
-http://sspx.org/rcr_pdfs/2009_rcrs/april_2009_rcr.pdf

BTW, the "incompetent lawyer" was very effective in countering the Nine's claims for the properties.

Hugh said...

Paul M

There was so much sympathy from the two sides meeting that eventually 32,000 priests left their sacerdotal state. The consequences are a dechristianised westerndom which is now reeling financially as it tries to grapple with its ultimate demise. The modern church has empathised so much with this so-called "church of man made God" that it has lost its divine vision for an ecumenically-oriented liturgical mess of potage.
Thus, Pope John Paul II mistook the renaissant traditional movement for sentimentalism completely unable to comprehend the significance of it. This is the fruit of anthropological phenomenology.

Andrew said...

Like I said, I have a deep respect for the SSPX and there are many holy people in the Society.

As for those who say there is no anti-semitism, I think you need to wake up.

First, let me be very clear that the SSPX itself is NOT anti-semitic however it has attracted extreme right wing people who are.

The most glaring example of this was Bishop Williamson's denial of the Holocaust for which the Superior of the SSPX severely chastised him.

Please look at the ADL's report on the anti-semitism found in the SSPX.

http://www.adl.org/main_Interfaith/Society_Saint_Pius_X.htm

Please dear editor of this wonderful blog, please post this comment. Please don't erase it because the truth will upset some.

Again, I have a deep respect for the SSPX and these are not official positions of the SSPX BUT we must also be aware of the negative elements that have latched on to the SSPX and purge those views if the SSPX is going to play the positive and prophetic role it must within the Church.

The Queen of Peace's supplicant said...

M. de Previgny reminds: "The strongest souls are those that do not abandon everything under the impact of emotions, at the very gate of regularization or condemnation, that is, of the fact of a change of situation. They are those who manage to cross the ages and to withstand the circumstances with the same witness of faith. "A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand: but it shall not come nigh thee," says Psalm 90. "

Our Lady, Queen of Peace, please intercede before the Holy Spirit for the bestowal of His fruit of celestial peace to H.E. Bishop Fellay and all of the religious of the SSPX for whom he has the privileged burden of responsibility with the corresponding extraordinary grace of state to lead to do the Will of the Holy Trinity.