By now, this interview has to be updated, in light with recent development i.e. Now that the Pope has responded ; although, this interview is still somewhat relevant.
Well we don't know the response, so it can't be updated and besides the main points still stand. Thanks a lot Rorate for posting this! It's been very helpful and enlightening!
No deal without the conversion of Rome!
Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said:"No deal without the conversion of Rome!"Just out of curiosity, since the Pope is the highest authority on earth, and "Rome" is his responsibility, then who has the authority to declare when "Rome" has "converted"?
It is also relevant to upload perhaps the Sermon given by His Excellency Bishop Tissier de Mallerais in Winona on the Feast of the Sacred Heart for the Ordinations. One can find it on youtube.Sedes Sapientiae, ora pro nobis!
One detail of Fr. Rostand's interview I found particularly interesting: He insisted very emphatically that the power to decide whether to accept or to reject the accord belonged to the SUPERIOR GENERAL ALONE, and that the Superior General would make the decision for the whole organization.This has been a point of controversy on internet forums, where "anti-accordists" (accordionists?) argued that only the GENERAL CHAPTER of SSPX, due to convene in early July, would have this power. Some have cited provisions of the '83 Code (631.1, which also has parallels in the pre-Vatican II legislation) on the authority of General Chapters.The idea is that whatever affects everyone in a religious institute (as an accord would) should be approved by everyone (or at least, virtually everyone).Normally, this would be true in a religious institute, which SSPX claims to be.But the statutes of SSPX (at least the version I recall) and the management style of its superiors (Abp. Lefebvre, Fr. Schmidberger, Bp. Fellay) are "top down" in terms of authority (the Superior General rules all) and about as far from democratic as you can get.So on this point, Fr. Rostand seems to be entirely correct. The decision on the accord is ultimately only Bp. Fellay's to make.This would also be consistent with Mgr. Lefebvre's method of proceeding. He certainly didn't consult any of us lower-downs regarding his negotiations with Rome, and we would have never expected him to ask a General Chapter to vote on an accord.Mgr. L., moreover, committed SSPX to the 1988 accord without reference to obtaining any approval from the General Chapter or anyone else.So Bp. Fellay would have the precedent of Mgr. L on his side.
Look, this "we are going to be poisoned if we're recognized by Rome" bit is complete nonsense and yet the viewpoint is continuously tossed around. If the SSPX is so weak, so helpless, so futile that in the presence of heretics they worry their knees will buckle then they simply need to man up and become real Catholic Priests. Fortunately most of the SSPX Priests do not espouse this lunacy - it's mostly a view of the laity who frequent SSPX Chapels. Us Catholic laity work and live elbow to elbow day in and day out amongst pagans, heretics, Jews, and schismatics w/o fear of being 'infected.' Is this the Jansenism Fr. Rostand warned us about recently that erroneously asserts that only Saints are members of the Church?The wheat must grow with the cockle - salt of the earth does not mean you go into a salt shaker with other salt, isolated from non-salt. Let the light shine, salt be spread to season, preserve, and strengthen, and let the wheat stand tall among the weeds and let's give up this defeatist attitude of becoming 'infected'. The Bride of Christ is spotless and pure, not some infectious, diseased, leper.
Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said:"No deal without the conversion of Rome!"Our own conversions and sanctity is never, and has never been, contingent upon someone else converting first. Nor should unity w/ the Holy Father be contingent upon him converting first let alone all of Rome (when has the Vatican ever been completely filled w/ saints?). There have been horribly worse Popes (including the cowardice of the First Pope) and it would never enter into the mind of a faithful Catholic (until now) that submission be refused until one converts. The drunkard father still has full authority by virtue of his office and should be completely obeyed and respected in all things that do not contradict Divine Law.
Brother Anthony,There is no "deal" being proposed to the Society for acceptance.Rather a recognition by Rome of the Society canonically, something they have not had since 1976.It is good for ones earthly father to recognize his son.There is no possible way this recognition will harm the Faith at all.If the Holy See trys any tricks [which I do not think they will] the FSSPX can always step back into their non-canonical state as they are in now.Having said that, I do not believe the Society will be recognized for many years if ever.
Father Anthony Cekada said... "...He insisted very emphatically that the power to decide whether to accept or to reject the accord belonged to the SUPERIOR GENERAL ALONE, and that the Superior General would make the decision for the whole organization."MutinyOfThyBountyThe lion roarsThe storm hits shoresA Bishop stands aloneHis blood he poursFor scores and scoresTo bring them to His ThroneBut witless whoresSeduce through doorsWith moans and groans their toneWhile Christ deploresALL mutinous boresWho make His Church their own!
@Cruise the groove If the SSPX isn't recognised soon, it never will be. Also there will be some serious problems with rebellious priests, laity and at least +Williamson who have all acted in a scandalous way whether online or in real life. I think that if there is going to be a recognition, it will happen soon, +Fellay has risked a lot on this recognition, so has the pope and both could do with a good house cleaning. Let us pray, that Gods will be done!
A converted Rome in the future could very well said to Br. Anthony: "No deal without a conversion and full sanctity of Br. Anthony!"
Brother Anthony,From an emotional point of view your statement would be attractive. However, history and reality tell a different story, don't they?Since the Church is made up of sinful men She will never be totally pure and there always will be disputes, unfaithfulness and the like.Yes, the Popes, bishops, clergy and also the laity are obligated to be (become) holy and believe and preach only the pure Gospel Truth in total concord and unity. This will be the work and goal till the end of time.Only after our Lord's return will Rome be totally pure and converted.Pax Christi.
@ Br. Anthony - It is not we who save the Church, rather, it is the Church who saves us.@ Ceolfrid - right on. :)
Appreciate your comments, Red. Let's assume for the sake of discussion that the proposal is a "trap." Well, a trap is only a trap if you have no way out. And the Society does. If it maintains control of its property and other assets, in a worst-case scenario, it can simply revert back to the "status quo ante" if circumstances genuinely demand such a course of action.I have no doubt whatsoever that Bishop Fellay will ensure that such a possibility of exit exists. The agreement does not have to refer to this explicitly, but if the conditions surrounding property and assets permit such a course of action, the Society's freedom in a worst-case "trap" scenario is maintained.Really, I have no idea what the naysayers are so frightened of.
I should amend what I said slightly - I should have said that it is the Church through which we are saved; we do not save the Church.
I understand Br. Anthony's position after reading the Angelus magazine on the 60 anniversary of Archbishop Lefrevbre (sp).Br. Anthony's blunt and seemingly trite posting does not do that position justice. I would say it even hurts since many of the readers on this blog are not familiar with the underpinnings of such a statement. The underpinnings make from a good argument imho. Too bad there isn't more explanation from Br. Anthony. I don't feel it is my place to explain what he may or may not mean.JR
@Ceolfrid: Cannot previous papal magisteria determine "when 'Rome' has 'converted'?"
Br. Anthony, when you start occupying the big chair at Menzingen you can make such a public proclamation, but in the meantime you need to stop that.Ceolfrid, publicly praying the Catholic Mass instead of the Masonic-approved Worship Service would be a darn good indicator. Ceasing to worship the Council god would be another. Public apologies for the injustice to Catholics over the past forty years, public tears over souls lost due to the heresies promoted, official condemnation of those heresies (which would be a repeat of condemnation of pious popes before him), excommunications of public apostates, taking the Crown off of the god of Man and putting it back on Christ, retracting the promotion of a one world government, economic system, the UN, the religion of Environmentalism, etc etc etc and on and on and so on. You can keep a loving and civil relationship with an unrepentent parent living a life of public sin but you do not let them near your children. You love them, pray for them, respectfully correct them in the hope of turning them back, and never follow them in their errors because you are obliged to protect those whom God put in your own care.Bishop Fellay and indeed the entire Society of Saint Pius X has responded in exemplary Catholic form to the request of the pope. Beseeching Heaven to do God's Will first is but one example. They are once again left Chaste and Just regardless of what happens on Rome's end. We should all love our popes. Even the bad ones. I still keep JPII in my prayers even though I could not bear to have an image of him anywhere in my home. Loving a parent...or a pope...does NOT mean you turn a blind eye to their failings. Where is the charity in that?! Just like any other wayward parent, you love them, pray for them, respectfully correct them in the hope of turning them back, and never follow them in their errors because you are obliged to protect those whom God put in your own care. And that is exactly what, how and why the SSPX has kept their relationship with their popes. Unlike most of the rest of the Church heirarchy.And Fr. Cekada, I find your tone to be always tinged with personal issues and just a touch of green. Maybe if you waited a week or so and re-read your comments you might notice it yourself and pray to fix what ails you.
Red, NIANTIC et others:You are not fair and/or not right in your counter-examples re Br. Anthony.It´s not a question of "conversion" in moral issues.There you are right - we (incl Br. Anthony) must convert every day and we can not and are not allowed to wait till a Pope is really holy to submit to him.But that is a "straw-man", Br. Anthony and others who are against a deal clearly do not mean this kind of "conversion".They - as also the pro-deal-fraction admits - see that the Pope holds still some theological at best: problematic but rather: real heretical or erroneous views (as just said, even Bf. Fellay or Fr. Pfluger or other pro-deal-priests admit that the Pope does not think and act really Catholic).So here is a real problem and Br. Anthony or others have a point:It is not unnormal to say that the Pope must first convert i.t.s. that he should confess the whole Catholic faith and doctrine in an unambiguous way before you can submit and cooperate.(But as I think - it is a question of prudence --- but I admit, perhaps not only prudence. It is also a question of principle in some sense)
Fr. Cekada:The problem is that Bishop Fellay himself agreed in 2006 (or so I've seen) that, in any such agreement, there must be consultation with various others in the Society. That is what I've read on fora somewhere or other. I've no idea. I'm not an expert on the S.S.P.X constitution. But is what is being claimed now.P.K.T.P.
I wonder what will be the main topic of discussion at the General Chapter.No prizes for guessing !
What I want to know is... will Bp Williamson be at the chapter? That could be very interesting.
Peter:The main topic? They will discuss how to integrate their activity with the office of the New Evangelisation! The Society has its own contribution, a special office of the New Proselytisation. The first mission? The Proselytisation of Russia, 2013. On to Greece in 2014! The funny thing is that, at least on one level, the Greeks and Russians would prefer this. They would scream their heads off but, deep down, they'd say: Thank God! Rome is back! This is a Rome we at least understand. This is a Rome we recognise. At least now we know how to respond.P.K.T.P.
I have received a very bizarre e-mail this morning from a reliable source, someone I can trust. It is from google translator and the original language is German. I don't have the original German text and don't read German anyway. So I have no way to know if it is a hoax perpetrated on my contact or not.The claim is that, in an unofficial transmission of the German Episcopal Conference, the German bishops are being asked to rebel against Benedict XVI should he recognise the S.S.P.X. The translation is defective and I can't figure out how they plan to do this. It mentions closing all S.S.P.X sites but they would not have the legal authority to do that. I'm *assuming* that it refers to the power of the local bishops should a p.p. be granted but this makes no sense either, as they would affect only future sites.I'm not sure what to make of this. Does anyone know more?P.K.T.P.
No deal without the conversion of Rome? It should read: "We won't obey unless Rome adopts our theological opinions". You can have your own theological opinions, but imposing them to the Pope is quite another matter. Of course, you'll say that these are not "opinions" but the Faith itself... then you'll have to prove that (a) what you uphold is actually non-reformable doctrine (e.g. it has been object of an ex cathedra definition, it belongs to the universal and ordinary magisterium, it has been defined as a "de fide tenenda" doctrine, etc)., and that (b) what you uphold and what the Pope upholds are in strict logical contradiction. Only then you could lawfully say that Rome needs to convert. In that case, a new problem would arise: allegedly, the whole Magisterium has been in heresy for the last 50 years. Is such scenario ecclesiologically possible? How come that none of the conciliar fathers noticed that they were promulgating heresy? Many bishops didn't agree 100% with the documents of the CVII, but I have never heard of heresy accusations, not even from Lefebvre (actually, even after the third session he seemed somewhat optimistic, as this article shows, although it is true that DH had not been promulgated at that moment).On the other hand, if the Pope isn't asking anything contrary to Faith, then you are bound to submit to his authority. We all know that the Church is a monarchy: there is no power or authority within her that doesn't come through her Visible Head. This includes the right to teach, sanctify and govern the faithful. Nobody has an inherent right to take part in the "cura animarum" of the Universal Church, as such task has been entrusted to the Pope, and only to him. No matter how saintly and orthodox you are, if you want to guide the faithful to Christ, you must do it in submission to his Vicar. The possession of the Faith doesn't confer any power or authority within the Church; if it did, she would no longer be a monarchy. Therefore, if the SSPX wants to continue working for the salvation of souls, they must do it in submission to the Pope.It is true that Rome recognized that there could be a "state of necessity" and that due to it, jurisdiction could be supplied for those Sacraments which require it for validity. But the scope of supplied jurisdiction ends there: sacraments conferred by the SSPX priests maybe valid, but they have no authority to teach, sanctify or govern anybody, as such authority can only be conferred by the Pope.The perplexity of the "SSPXers" is understandable: from night to day, they could no longer recognize the Faith within the Church. The liturgy changed, the customs changed, the language changed, etc. It is undeniable that the SSPX has made a valuable service to the Church by both serving these persons and preserving tradition. BUT, sooner or later, the SSPX and their adherents have to understand that their perplexity arises from misconceptions. They have to understand that the Novus Ordo is valid and legitimate. They need to understand that the documents of the CVII may contain errors but that they don't contain heresies (if they are read according to the mens of the conciliar fathers). They need to understand that the Pope can make mistakes in his pastoral and governmental decisions, and even incur in scandalous actions such as the Assisi meetings, but that these errors and mistakes in no way diminish his authority or "transfer" it to those who are "right". To uphold such thing would be falling into an erroneous ecclesiology which in some way resembles the donatist heresy but applied to authority instead of sacramental validity.I think that anybody reading the imminent doctrinal agreement in good Faith and with the proper dispositions will overcome the difficulties. But if they keep giving their obsequium religiosum (or even assent of Faith) to Williamson's "eleyson comments" then...
There are, apparently, two aspects to this question: (1) recognition of the Society as Catholic by the Pope, and (2) "regularization" of the Society at Canon Law.If the Society can achieve (1), then I think the (unjustified by nonetheless prevailing) stigma associated with the Society (heretics, schismatics, & c.) will be removed to a great extent; and that can only be a good thing for the Church as a whole.Personally, I am less concerned about (2), since the Society is probably going to do what it is going to do anyway. (1) is the key, in my opinion......Which is exactly why I think that it is not going to happen.
lucas:Bishop Williamson might show up in disguise as Bishop Fellay! You never know.Have you seen his Sermon from Korea? He prepares the Society chapel there for civil war. He will lead the Cavaliers; Fellay will rouse the Roundheads.As for Tissier, I rather enjoyed his ordination Sermon at Winona last Friday, in which he declares that Vatican II was not a legitimate œcumenical council and, therefore, we can all ignore it. I wish he were right but then I would be dreaming. Instead, we have this nightmare.P.K.T.P.
Alan Aversa said:"Ceolfrid: Cannot previous papal magisteria determine "when 'Rome' has 'converted'?"And who decides *that*?
@ Palmer,The OF is an approved Mass. I do not prefer nor do I like it myself, but it is the Mass (when done correctly).I think it very unwise to make the comparison that Rome is like an "unrepentent parent living a life of public sin". Yes, things have happened which are unfortunate, but it is not as though the Church is in a state of material heresy. If you believe this to be the case, then you believe that Christ is a liar and the gates of Hell have prevailed.As I have said before, the SSPX is not the "final remnant", the SSPX is not the only group that is still composed of "good faithful Catholics" clinging to Tradition and the Extraordinary Form Sacraments.The SSPX *need* to be reconciled with the Church. I find it amazing that so many think a reconciliation or any sort of association with the hierarchy will somehow "taint" the Society. This to me is a very schismatic way of thinking.
Ceolfrid:The well-formed conscience ultimately 'decides' what one believes, which is not a Protestant mere opinion. If you take any question of the faith far enough, you take it to the internal forum: we do what we honestly believe to be correct having availed ourselves of all means of determining an answer, and having relied on prayer. You could apply this to any question, including asking yourself how you know that you are not dreaming at this very moment. It eventually becomes a question in internal morality. Who had the authority to correct St. Peter? St. Paul? Who had the authority to correct Pope Liberius? St. Athanasius?P.K.T.P.
Cekada's point is valid, but he's wrong to say the matter has been exclusively top-down. SSPX leadership has been exemplary - and this interview is evidence of this - in keeping those under them informed to the extent possible. They have been exemplary in responding to questions and transparently communicating their basic operating principles, even if they are understandably silent on many matters of detail. They are listening to those under them and responding intelligently and openly.I am not a member of the Society, but I can only express my admiration for how the leadership of the Society has conducted itself, not democratically, but with consultation and a high degree of very open communication.
P.K.T.P.,Okay. I'll grant you all of that, just for the sake of getting down to brass tacks......What I would like to know, and what no one seems to be able to answer clearly and unambiguously, is "Who has the authority to speak on behalf of all traditionalist Catholics and declare that "Rome" has finally "converted" back to Tradition?"If we take your analogy as a template (and I'm not even saying that it is the only template), then who is today's St. Paul? Who is today's St. Athanasius?It damned sure isnt Abp. Lefebvre... He's pushing up daisies.
I would like to add that anyone familiar with the little situations and dramas of SGG in Fairfield OH knows well that Cekada and Dolan do not themselves exhibit the spirit of transparency and open communication that have been so obvious among SSPX leadership. Cekada's own administrative leadership style is EXTREMELY "top-down." I invite him to dispute this if he likes, but I very much doubt that he will. Indeed, in his comments, I'm not sure I detect a criticism of what he perceives to be the top-down leadership style of the Society. Rather, it seems he is (true to his long-established form) trying to stir the pot and sew division in the Society. I believe (again I invite him to deny it) he is hoping to pick off SSPX hardliners to join and submit to him. I cannot read his heart, but this is what his words and actions seem to suggest. To his credit, I think Cekada is honest to a fault and I he will probably admit that this is EXACTLY what he's trying to do, if he addresses he matter at all (which he probably won't).Those of us who have been around the Traditionalism movement long enough cannot help but notice these disturbing trends in his behavior.
Picard said...It is not unnormal to say that the Pope must first convert i.t.s. that he should confess the whole Catholic faith and doctrine in an unambiguous way before you can submit and cooperate.Picard, you're making a distinction where there is none. When submission to the Pope is mentioned it doesn't mean you become one in thought with him nor do you assume his theological opinions. Those under Pope John XXII or Pope Honorius did not wait for them to repent of their error before being subject to him. They merely maintained the faith *while* being a faithful subject. Read the saints and you'll find them being loyal and submissive in all things except for direct affronts to the faith and when those occur *only* those particulars are to be refused.Pope Benedict XVI, from what is known, is being very gracious in this situation and as we know there is no Divine precept against personal prelatures and what is being proposed is within the realm of legitimate authority. I don't see how this could be rejected without grave cause for concern on the part of the SSPX.
Ceolfrid:It could be Bishop Fellay but only if he could (for this soul writing this and for most of us) explain clearly where the Pope has gone wrong in his own theology or practice and then give the Pope ample opportunity to respond. It is not good enough to whine that the local priest dressed up like a clown again on Sunday, made up his own Canon off the top of his head, and left the sanctuary on a motorcycle while the servers held balloons. When the Pope fails to remove a 'priest' who was a former male prostitute and who argues in favour of abortion and inverted marriage on television, leaving the Catholic Faith on these matters to be defended by an imam, you might guess that something is amiss--unless you are either a dunce or spiritually depraved. That tells you that something is wrong esp. when it's not an isolated incident, when there are 'nuns' acting as abortuary escorts and abortions taking place in 'Catholic' hospitals, and when a so-called Catholic priest simulates marriage between two men in Toronto and then is not dismissed for it. When such things happen and a clear and comprehensive position is issued by a prelate, you know that something is there for you to attend to. What did our Lord say about seeing the lightning on the horizon? But Bishop Fellay, for instance, has never put the case for material heresy before the Pope clearly and then demanded that he respond or be declared deposed; and he doesn't have the credibility to do that in current circumstances. Ours is a difficult situation, like the Arian crisis, in which most of the episcopate is in the same state as the Pope. Is there about a St. Athanasius to lead the opposition? If not, we must lead it in our own hearts and pray for a correction from on high. I happen to have known a saint, a real saint (not declared, although there was a group who wanted to proceed for an application and this had very wide support). That's one reason I'm involved in all of this. Having known one, I can see through the imperfect piety of even very respectable-looking priests. I'm not saying that such priests are not good men, and they may be better than I; but I can see that they are not as saintly as they strive to be or pretend to be. How do I 'know' a saint? How can anyone know this? The power to know it comes from above. It certainly doesn't come from me.P.K.T.P.
(I'm also lucas just can't be bothered to sign in every time I post lol)PKTP, I know that would be funny, my local chapel is the place he stays in, so I see more of him than most and yes I do respect him and have a healthy degree of piety but really... the things he says I heard about the korea sermon but decided that it would be too scandalising. Also, though God forbid I want to get into the debate again, have you seen 'Opus deis' 1950 and 1982 statutes? the latter show just how much latitude the SSPX would have as a personal prelature. Though the pope would have to clarify canon 297.
As the Pope has not pertinaciously adhered to a heresy as defined by the C.D.F., I think that we can put to bed this business of the Church converting in the sense of admitting to a wilful adherence to error.More to the point would be a willingness of the Pope to address the Society's concerns point-by-point and to issue clarifications and/or corrections. I see no evidence that Rome has refused to do this. The Pope merely wants the Society to have standing to put the questions. +Tissier is right that the process could be a long one. In order to answer all the qq. without causing rebellion from the Marxists and subjectivists who dominate many episcopal conferences will be difficult. The Pope prefers to wait out the liberals and convert them slowly, so as to keep the Barque of Peter united. After all, the purpose is to save souls, not to send them to Hell. On the other side, some could be losing the faith if the present situation is not addressed. So this is a difficult problem and a balancing act.Our world is moving inexorably away from religion. The process is constant but cannot ever reach completion, as current philosophy will unmake itself. The devil's work is always ultimately self-destructive, as he is trapped in a self-referential mobius strip, trying to replace the Perfect God with his imperfect self, and always finding that the problem leads back to itself/himself and can never be resolved. People today think that technology can solve their problems and free them from insecurity, want and need. But men need to be challenged in order to be men: take away the challenge and they decline and make themselves susceptible to conquest or self-destruction. It is where all empires lead. Only the rule of Christ the King can stand above it. Western society is now headed for its own decline, fall and rebirth as something else, and the continuity in the process is divine. So the defeat of secularism is inevitable, but we don't know the when, just as nobody guessed when he stock markets would fall in 1929 or when communism would fall in 1990.P.K.T.P.
Dear Carl,While you may have heard that SSPX leadership, Oprah-like, has been urging underlings to share their REAL feelings about the potential accord, this is certainly not the impression one gets from listening to SSPX clergy who actually object to the accord or reading the comments of their parishioners. But whatever...(As for cheap shots at my own management style, Carl, I suggest you make your own the theological positions your siblings hold, instead of their scuttlebutt.)If what PKTP heard is indeed accurate, it may well be that Bp. Fellay has done what he felt he was obliged to do, but that SSPX Statutes and the precedent of Abp. Lefebvre give him and him alone the power to be "The Decider."I don't believe that the right to comment about the SSPX/Rome affair belongs only to insiders or those who will be most directly affected by it. However it turns out, it will be a watershed moment in the history of the traditionalist movement, and things will not go on as before.And no, I certainly don't expect a repentant Bp. Williamson to show up at MY door!
Last fall, Bishop Fellay excluded Bishop Williamson from the Albano conference to discuss the Preamble. He was excluded because he would not sign a confidentiality agreement with Bishop Fellay insuring that what was discussed would not end up on Williamson's website. Of course Williamson would not sign and was excluded. That exact scenario will happen again and Williamson will not sign. The offer to the SSPX is only for Bishop Fellay and not the other Bishops. The Vatican said they "will deal with them separately." So I suspect Fellay could get away with making a decision on his own. The hostility from them toward Fellay is so terrible he should skip discussions with them altogether.
P.T.K.P.,You wrote:"But Bishop Fellay, for instance, has never put the case for material heresy before the Pope clearly and then demanded that he respond or be declared deposed; and he doesn't have the credibility to do that in current circumstances."That is well put (both statements), but I wonder if there is a precedent for this? I.e., let's say that Bp. Fellay *did* do exactly as you described... who could declare the Pope deposed? A council? The College of Cardinals?I know this is going down the rabbit hole a little, but such things interest me.
"I still keep JPII in my prayers even though I could not bear to have an image of him anywhere in my home."I love Blessed Pope John Paul II.I believe that he conducted his earthly life in holy and peaceful fashion.I believe him to be a devout man of God.His image is more than welcome in my humble home.My image is not worthy to be in his home.Tom
Blog owners/moderators: I needed to say that, I can no longer read all those hyprocrite statements in other traditional forums.To all those against the "canonical regularization" of the FSSPX:You are all cowards. You are running away from your duties. You want to keep your confort life of misunderstood rebels. You don't want to fight. Who is going to bother you when you are not regular? But if you get regular, then you will have to deal with the "herectical" hierarchy. But you don't want that. You don't want really defy the system. You want to spread the word in your little world and not in the wild world that needs Christian Civilization again. You are afraid of people who cannot do anything against you, because you are (really) right. Right and temerous. If you were old, sick in bed, insane because the age, then it would be acceptable you stay at home. But you are strong, and most of you, very young. But you prefer stay in your room, preaching for your owns, keeping others apart from your wisdom. You think we are dogs, and you are afraid of these dogs. What is the value of being right, having the guns, and not going to the battle?May God have mercy on us.
The wise and capable see that an accord with Rome is essential. Bishop Fellay, not Galaretta, not Tissier de Mallerais, not Williamson, was elected superior because of his superior wisdom and capability. The wise and capable see that an accord with Rome is essential.
P.K.T.P.,"The problem is that Bishop Fellay himself agreed in 2006 (or so I've seen) that, in any such agreement, there must be consultation with various others in the Society. That is what I've read on fora somewhere or other. I've no idea. I'm not an expert on the S.S.P.X constitution. But is what is being claimed now."Mr. Perkins,I am somewhat confused. This is not the first time (or even the second or third) that you have raised this argument, that "Bishop Fellay agreed not to negotiate without the other bishops." To prove that statement, you have offered nothing.You even admit this in your statement "I've no idea." Given that many of those opposed to Bishop Fellay are being stirred on by such statements, don't you think it at least imprudent to make such assertions without some proof?Then later you say a source sent you a Google translation, without documentation, about a letter from the German Bishops that you cannot confirm. This isn't a prudent thing to post either. I think at this point, there is no point in speculation, and certainly no grounds for making assertions which we cannot back up. Now is clearly a time for prayer and penance, not for every blog commenter to air their personal opinions and thoughts. While I have loved your insightful posts in the past, I'm somewhat turned off by the fact that every Rorate combox has become the P.K.T.P. hour.
"As for Tissier, I rather enjoyed his ordination Sermon at Winona last Friday, in which he declares that Vatican II was not a legitimate œcumenical council and, therefore, we can all ignore it."Interesting that he says it was not a legitimate ecumenical council, yet Archbishop Lefebvre signed all the council documents. Hmm.It's unfortunate that this was the topic of Bp. Tissier's ordination sermon. I wish he had just let it alone for awhile and talked about something truly relevant to the young men being ordained. Then again, it doesn't surprise me much because rarely have I heard a sermon of an SSPX priest that did not mention Vatican II. Sigh. It gets real old real fast.
PKTP:Re German bishops and their plan of boykotting:I am German and read the German so I can tell and affirm you:They are (according to a unknown source) preparing for both possibilities that they envision:If the society will be regularised as an ordinariate then they want to advice their priests in no way to cooperate with the sspx and not to give any churches or rooms etc. to itIf the sspx should be errected as a p.p. then they will forbid the sspx to expand to new dioceses but also they will not at all recognize and allow their chapels and priories but throw them out of all German dioceses. - And me thinks that would be possible under a p.p. (even you´ve held an other opinion so far, I know)- and you are of course right: therefore a p.p. is so bad (or even worse than you claimed so far)!Remember: the status quo is irregular. If the sspx is regularised, then I think all of their houses must first be admitted and recognized in every diocese under a p.p. to operate in this diocese.
JMJ, neither was the preamble known to us, or the content of the negotiations. Nonetheless, the U.S. District Superior (who has permission, I believe from the Superior General) was allowed to have this interview, concerning the-then present views of the Society towards an inclined approval of the Holy See. Everything has now changed, given the present Communique posted by DICI. It is of course possible to make another interview. Whether it would be wise, is of course different question.
RogerThat (et al.):It is still neither fair nor accurate (and also not very charitable) to call the "anti-dealers" "cowards" that do not want to fight and want to sit in their rooms.Let me say that I am NOT part of that deal-braker-fraction and (although cautious) am still for a "deal".But to call the motiv of the more cautious than me cowardice is really laughable, absurde and evidently inappropriate.There are real reasons - as I said before - that make the cautiousness very understandable.And it is very brave this days inside the sspx to speak against a deal because you risk to get expelled.And when I think of Bff. Tisier, Galareta or Williamson I do not see coward men but brave ones that fight for their convictions, even though I do not share all of them.The motives of them are clear - you just have to read their words:They fear compromises in the faith and the fight for the faith.Michael Matt or others on The Remnant - surely no hardliners - did find also some respectfull words, full of understanding re this "deal-cautiousness".Why should we not at least take the concerns of the "deal-critics" serious and try to understand what´s their point?
PKTP and others:Well, Bf. Fellay has not officially accused the Pope beeing a heretic.But a) Bf. Tissier said that the Pope at least in the past held heretical opinions - or at very least nearly heretical ones (as did Archbf. Lef. say of the recent Popes) (Ratzinger f.e. re the incarnation of God or re ressurection of the flesh/body or re other articles of the Creed in his book "Einführung in das Christentum")b) all the society priests and bishops (including Fellay, so far I see) accuse the current as the recent Pope(s) of an real error (error in fides eccl. seu catholica): to hold the erroneous, condemned concept of rel. liberty.
@The postmodernist, I mean rather we don't know what the society will decide, so theres little to update. I think the interviews admirably address all that needs to be addressed, all we need now is details from the general chapter etc...
I agree with RogerThat. The comments box on these posts have become increasingly hostile to the Holy Father and the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Any Catholic interested in traditional Catholicism would rightly find them repugnant. The owners of this blog do no favors for the Church by allowing the publication of all this bile from those who have no interest in being united under the Holy Father. Rome does not need the Society and has been generous in offering a solution.
@ Picard,I don't take anyone seriously that speaks of the need for Rome to 'convert'.
Did Bishop Tissier really say that Vatican II was not a valid Council?Objectively, the only way for him to be correct is if the Pope who called it, and the Pope who approved and promulgated its decrees, were not Popes at all.I don't believe Archbishop Lefebvre himself ever made such a statment.With all due respect to His Excellency, if this is what he believes, he's gone off the deep end. It's no wonder that the Vatican will deal with the other bishops "separately." The BEST that can be said about him and Williamson is that they are loose cannons who have no regard for the way their comments will be interpreted (or misinterpreted, as the case may be).Personally, I need to take a break from all this. It's depressing. What could have been a great moment, heralding the return of Tradition to the Church and the correction of injustices to which the Society has been subject, has now devloved into childish bickering and name-calling.Best wishes and regards to you all. In the meantime, I'll continue to pray for the successful completion of the reconciliation.
"Just out of curiosity, since the Pope is the highest authority on earth, and "Rome" is his responsibility, then who has the authority to declare when "Rome" has "converted"?"The evidence will be objective for everybody to see. For example, Rome will say that the Council taught erroneously regarding religious liberty, ecumenism, etc.
"There is no "deal" being proposed to the Society for acceptance.Rather a recognition by Rome of the Society canonically, something they have not had since 1976."Semantics.
P.K.T.P. said... I have received a very bizarre e-mail this morning from a reliable source, someone I can trust. It is from google translator and the original language is German. I don't have the original German text and don't read German anyway. So I have no way to know if it is a hoax perpetrated on my contact or not. The claim is that, in an unofficial transmission of the German Episcopal Conference, the German bishops are being asked to rebel against Benedict XVI should he recognise the S.S.P.X. The translation is defective and I can't figure out how they plan to do this. It mentions closing all S.S.P.X sites but they would not have the legal authority to do that. I'm *assuming* that it refers to the power of the local bishops should a p.p. be granted but this makes no sense either, as they would affect only future sites. I'm not sure what to make of this. Does anyone know more? P.K.T.P. 19 June, 2012 17:45Yes it is a written response of cardinal MEISNER himself who is extremely violent - assimilating SSPX to non-Catholic Communities -, saying he will not move before a full recognition and even then, he is ready to wait ... 20 years (!) before any cooperation with the future P.P. comparing it with the animosity between Eastern and Western Germans.This Meisner statement has been posted with a fac simile on the internet. I bet GermChurch is directly connected to last week June 13 Roman events with Bp Fellay being trapped with a new draft he was not waiting for. Never forget how cardinal Koch was lashing at the pope's move in Vienna and so with the blessing of cardinal von Schönborn, clearly the neo-modernist GermChurch, SwiChurch and the Austrian Febronian schismatics are fighting against the reconciliation. Alsaticus
The rumor regarding the German Episcopal Conference, if true (and who can doubt it), is as deplorable as it is predictable. Cardinal Meisner recently said that there is still a long way to go in terms collaboration between the Society and the rest of the Church. You can say that again. I don't think I would call those opposed to a rapprochement cowardly, and I cannot say their arguments are wholly without merit, but I cannot help but detect in their words a pharisaical tone: "O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men."
Rev. Cekada - I appreciate and commend your response but I do not detect anything resembling a denial of what I suggested. In sharing my perceptions of your leadership style, I neither intended nor threw any cheap shot (and, as you know, many cheap shots are to be found among those you call "scuttlebutters"). I find "traditionalists" who lament top-down leadership styles to be very odd creatures. My problem with you, with all due respect, is NOT your "managerial style," which by the same token I don't regard as highly as Bishop Fellay's. Please regard this not as an insult to yourself but as a profound compliment to Bishop Fellay. To say one prefers Patton to MacArthur is no "cheap shot" to the latter. I would be disturbed, however, to see the latter criticize the former on grounds of acting too imperiously. In your criticism of Bishop Fellay, I detect a pot calling the kettle "top-down."You also don't seem to deny my second suggestion that you are here to pick off SSPX hardliners. You aren't here to convince Bishop Williamson to come to your door, but to convince some less well-known reader who might happen on your comments and, in their frustration, look you up. Again, I credit you with such honesty as to prevent you from denying this. You may yet post another message doubling down on your last equivocation, but you won't deny it, will you? Again, without irony, I credit you for your honesty. Finally, I thank you for warmly inviting me to making your theological positions my own (as my siblings have), but this is difficult for me because your many, many positions are variously false, erroneous, schismatic and I suspect them of implicitly denying the Church's visibility (read: heretical). Of course I don't claim to render (or be capable of rendering) authoritative judgment of you or your positions, but this opinion of mine, you can certainly admit, would make accepting your generous offer quite impossible. With good will equal to your own, I suggest that you abandon your theological positions and return repentently to the Society's door, renouncing sedevacantism forever.
Rev. Cekada - I think you should either retract the "Oprah-like" comment or else stop complaining about supposed "cheap shots" being thrown your way. You can't have it both ways. The Society of St. Pius X may be a lot of things, but "Oprah-like" is not one of them. You may prefer colorfulness to accuracy in making analogies and similes, but surely you recognize comparing Bishop Fellay to Oprah Winfrey (!) is beneath you. Yes? You remain in my prayers.
mary jane said..." rarely have I heard a sermon of an SSPX priest that did not mention Vatican II. Sigh. It gets real old real fast."Is that the "authentic faith"? Constant propaganda to push and justify the Society's position? Constantly reminding the faithful of how bad it is in the Church? Unapproved messages of LaSalette? Nonsense. They feel a constant need to justify their position because they are insecure in it. Those homilies are designed to lull so the faithful don't wake up and realize that their at an illicit mass and they could be going to an approved one within the Church. If they are the true staunch defenders of the faith they claim to be, they will abandon the antisocial charade and actually help the Church in her time of need.
@Pilgirim Yeah, no, I've attended more than a few SSPX sermons and Vatican 2 doesn't come up that often, even if it did warning the faithful about heresy is not propoganda so your conclusion does not follow. Do not be so quick to judge the society based on misinformation and rumours, even a few bad personal experiences wouldnt justify you writing off the whole society.
Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said:"The evidence will be objective for everybody to see. For example, Rome will say that the Council taught erroneously regarding religious liberty, ecumenism, etc."So, is "everybody" your answer? I.e., "everybody" will declare that "Rome" has "converted"?
mary jane and Pilgrim:do you go to Mass every Sunday at an sspx chapel and in different chaples? - If not then you can not judge appropriately.I have the experince of many Sunday sermons of many different sspx chaples and priests and very seldom I heard sth. re Vat. II - most of the time it were sermons about the gospel, the commandments, the catechism.And if there were things against Vat.II and modern heresies they were very thoughtfull and helpfull.
ceolfrid:Well, everybody who knows the faith and the problems of modernism.So if you know the faith and the problem of modernism then you will know that the Church has f.e. condemned rel. liberty (as well as the liberty of press, of word and of conscience).So if the Pope also condemns this liberties and retracts his ongoing admiration for those condemned teachings everybody in the above mentioned category will recognize that big change.
Carl,The SSPX is not the Catholic Church. Why should ANYONE have to return to it? Your mentality, sir, is certainly schismatic.
Phoenix:Not to return or convert to the sspx - but to return/convert to the (full) Catholic faith and doctrine.This doctrine entails the condemnation of rel. liberty and all the modern lieberties and the pronouncement of the duty of the state re the true and re false religions.To that faith/doctrine all those that defected from it have to return/convert - may that be lay-persons, priests, bishops or the Pope.That´s the problem, you see?!
Phoenix - I have never been a part of or associated with the Society in any way. In suggesting that Cekada return to the Society, it is because 1) I consider the Society to be Catholic, and 2) Cekada was ordained by the hand of Archbishop Lefebvre and exited the Society ignominiously, bringing his traditionalist fathers and brothers into a secular court to dispute property rights. I am of the opinion that it would be best for his soul to return to and seek forgiveness from the Society, which suffered grievously from his actions. If he would rather like to resign his claim to ministry, become a manager at the local Walgreens, and start going to confession and attending Mass at St. Ann in Hamilton OH (a fine Catholic parish), I would commend his decision. In any case, neither I nor my "mentality" is remotely schismatic. No schism has been declared, and I am therefore under no obligation, sir, to believe one exists. I do not at all see membership in the society as the ONLY legitimate way to be a member of the Church. I don't think anyone believes that. I view the Society in a similar way to how I view the Suppression of the Jesuits. The Society of Jesus remained Catholic all through suffering their "suppression" just as the Society of St. Pius X today remains Catholic. My opinion is certainly not one wit less Catholic than your own. I do not refuse but happily give my full submission to the Roman Pontiff (as well as to my bishop and pastor). Moreover I am in cheerful communion with the members of the Church subject to him (presumably including yourself). This communion requires of me CHARITY, fraternal charity in such wise that I do not hastily and without justification accuse my brothers (or their "mentalities") of very grave sins. If you respect this communion, I ask you, brother, to withdraw this horrible and painful accusation immediately.
Phoenix - My suggestion was not that Rev. Cekada MUST return to the Society, but that I think he SHOULD because 1) the Society is Catholic and 2) Cekada received ordination from Archbishop Lefebvre as a member of the Society. If he wanted to return to the Catholic Church in another way, I certainly wouldn't object (as I myself have never been a member of the Society). Had Cekada received ordination from the Salesians before becoming sedevacantist, I would advise returning to the Salesians. Nothing in this is "certainly schismatic." I have neither withdrawn submission from the Holy Father nor withdrawn communion from those subject to him (see Canon 751). I am not schismatic "in mentality." I wish to see all sedevacantists come back to the Church.
At this point in the comments, the inspired words of the Holy Father and then Rev. Fr. Schmidberger should be reinterated to end the painful banter:"We ask Christ, to reign in our hearts, making them pure, docile, filled with hope and courageous in humility." Pope Benedict XVI - March 25, 2012 AND“. . . we ask for the fervent, persistent and supplicating prayer of all our faithful and of all Catholics, so that God, through the redemptive suffering of His only begotten Son, will lead his Church out of her current crisis to give her new life, strength, and prosperity in the holy Resurrection of Jesus.”Stuttgart, March 22, 2012Father Franz Schmidberger, District Superior
My former SSPX pastor called the local bishop on his arrival here, and again when he was recently transferred. And we always pray for the Holy Father. As for sermons, I've heard occasional comments about V2, but mostly they're homilies on the day's readings or about spirituality. And I've been an exclusive SSPX Mass attendant for over 30 years. So I suspect the critics have seen or heard only about the unusual.
JMJ,You know nothing of my experience. I know that it is a common subject and Society members often paint the darkest picture possible of the "modernist Church" as a means of keeping their faithful. Not all of us follow the SSPX magisterium, so that heresy talk is irrelevant to me. I don't write off the entire Society. I pray ardently for a resolution to their situation. Mary Kay, Its not unusual. Search your superiors, bishops, and priest on the web to find a wide variety of such material.
Palmer, when you use capitals with 'Modernist Church' you are clearly identifying a 'church' that is not Catholic - that much is obvious - but are you saying that the Pope is the head of the Modernist Church? Is the Pope the head of a false church? Do not forget where the Pope (Bishop) is there is the Church. Catholics acknowledge the Pope as head of the Church on Earth. If the Pope is not the head of the Church then consequently you're not in the Catholic Church despite the fact you may be carrying the externals of Catholicism with you.When people start using the terms 'Modernist Rome' or 'Modernist Church' red flags should start going up. I think these terms originated from those who knew what they were talking about and were using them as hyperbole but the less educated took them literally and have internalized them to the point that when they speak with those terms they're saying something that is at face value schismatic. For surely there are modernists in Rome but not a 'Modernist Rome' (capitalized)(unless there is a town called 'Modernist' in Rome) and surely there are modernists in the Church but there is no 'Modernist Church' and if somewhere there is a Modernist Church surely the Pope is not head of it otherwise he would not be in the Catholic Church and sedevacantism is the order of the day.
There is a lot of information and a number of documents (many of them not very known) on personal prelatures and ordinariates at www.prelaturaspersonales.org . I think that can be useful in the debate.
Fr.Rostrand supports Bishop.Fellay.. But lets hope they support the true faith first and later on come to their superiors support...Bishop.Fellay wants to go ahead with Rome even if its society members and other Bishops are reluctant, he is too selfish and is not worried about the lay faithful, they leave us to the streets, to make relations with Rome after a fight for 40years, the stand for faith has been lost, Bishop Fellay and his supporters have got tired of fighting for tradition they already beleive they lost....Bishop Tisseir is very right on the statement that this isnt the right time for reconciling with Rome. Faith is important before Legality.
Dear Bonaventure, the problem is that you are standing not for the faith, but rather for the present status quo. Bishop Felay expressed true Catholic faith and spirit, both in his earlier reply to all three bishops, and in his recent interview. One might grasp that you claim that our pope Benedict XVI lacks the faith and only you and those opposing bishop Felay have it. It is really of great necessity to explore the conscience.
Bonaventure - For Rome to recognize the Society is merely an "act of justice" (as Fr. Rostrand accurately states it). It is merely a recognition that the Society has always been and is today Catholic. It is not an end of the fight for tradition or a reason to change the Society in any way. In reality, the Society has NEVER been separated from Rome.When you say "this isn't the right time for reconciling with Rome," you are saying EXACTLY the same thing as, "now isn't the right time to stop being in schism." If Bishop Tissier and you think you aren't already reconciled with Rome, you two better get on your knees and repent. Your souls are in deep trouble. Run, don't walk, run to the nearest confessional.Bishop Fellay and Fr. Rostrand (and I myself) believe there is no need to "reconcile" with Rome because there has never been any real separation. Rather there is only a matter of the "recognition" of a unity that has always existed.I actually agree that this isn't the right time for the "recognition": It is more than 30 years past due. Recognition should never have been withdrawn in the first place. Certain members of the Society must put away theatrical exaggerations and intemperate language (as we all should), but this isn't the Society, and we must all press forward in our fight for tradition, decrying modernism, respectfully criticizing the problems in the texts of Vatican II, clinging to Tradition and traditions no matter what. In other words, the recognition in itself should have no impact on the Society's positions and mission. And if the Vatican wants to call it a "pious union" or a "religious order" or a "personal prelature" or an "international ordinariate" or something else entirely, so what? As you rightly said, "faith is important before legality."
Why are so many of you uninformed? This is an agreement-- even though Bp Fellay and co are trying to make everyone think that Benedict, out of thin air, dreamed up the idea to recognize the SSPX. They say, therefore, since this would be justice, they should accept. Why then all the secret preambles? Why then all the secret meetings? Why then hasn't a full video and analysis of Rome's and the Society's positions during the Doctrinal Discussions been released-- as promised over two years ago ?www.sossaveoursspx.com
Post a Comment