Rorate Caeli

Rome-SSPX - Important: Interview with SSPX Superior General Bp. Fellay on current affairs

From the news agency of the Society of Saint Pius X, DICI, an interview with its Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay, on the current status of relations with the Holy See, and internal matters within the Society. Many of these questions are those in the minds of traditional Catholics worldwide - the precise questions we in Rorate have have asked authorities, so it is good to see them answered here.

__________________________________________



DICI: Are you concerned about the delay in the response from Rome, which could enable those who are against a canonical recognition to alienate some priests and faithful from the Society of Saint Pius X?
Bishop Fellay: Everything is in God’s hands.  I place my trust in the Good Lord and in His Divine Providence;  He knows how to manage everything, even delays, for the good of those who love Him.
DICI: Was the pope’s decision adjourned, as some magazines have said?  Did the Holy See tell you to expect a delay?
Bishop Fellay: No, I have had no information about any calendar whatsoever.  There are even some who say that the pope will deal with this matter at Castel Gandolfo in July.
A canonical solution before a doctrinal solution?
DICI: Most of those who are opposed to the Society’s acceptance of a possible canonical recognition allege that the doctrinal discussions could have led to this acceptance only if they had concluded with a doctrinal solution, in other words, a “conversion” by Rome.  Has your position on this point changed?
Bishop Fellay: It must be acknowledged that these discussions have allowed us to present clearly the various problems that we experience with regard to Vatican II.  What has changed is the fact that Rome no longer makes total acceptance of Vatican II a prerequisite for the canonical solution.  Today, in Rome, some people regard a different understanding of the Council as something that is not decisive for the future of the Church, since the Church is more than the Council.  Indeed, the Church cannot be reduced to the Council;  she is much larger.  Therefore we must strive to resolve more far-reaching problems.  This new awareness can help us to understanding what is really happening:  we are called to help bring to others the treasure of Tradition that we have been able to preserve.
So the attitude of the official Church is what changed;  we did not.  We were not the ones who asked for an agreement;  the pope is the one who wants to recognize us.  You may ask:  why this change?  We are still not in agreement doctrinally, and yet the pope wants to recognize us!  Why?  The answer is right in front of us:  there are terribly important problems in the Church today.  These problems must be addressed.  We must set aside the secondary problems and deal with the major problems.  This is the answer of one or another Roman prelate, although they will never say so openly;  you have to read between the lines to understand.
The official authorities do not want to acknowledge the errors of the Council.  They will never say so explicitly.  Nevertheless, if you read between the lines, you can see that they hope to remedy some of these errors.  Here is an interesting example on the subject of the priesthood.  You know that starting with the Council there was a new concept of the priesthood and that it demolished the role of the priest.  Today we see very clearly that the Roman authorities are trying to rehabilitate the true concept of the priest.  We observed this already during the Year of the Priest that took place in 2010-2011.  Now, the Feast of the Sacred Heart is becoming the day consecrated to the sanctification of priests.  For this occasion, a letter was published and an examination of conscience for priests was composed.  One might think that they went to Ecône to find this examination of conscience, it is so much along the lines of pre-conciliar spirituality.  This examination presents the traditional image of the priest, and also of his role in the Church.  This role is what Archbishop Lefebvre affirms when he describes the Society’s mission:  to restore the Church by restoring the priest.
The letter says:  “The Church and the world can be sanctified only through the sanctification of the priest.”  It really places the priest at the center.  The examination of conscience begins with this question:  “Is the first concern of the priest his own sanctification?”  The second question:  “Is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass”—and that is the expression that they use, not the Eucharist, the Synaxis, or I don’t know what else—“the center of the life of the priest?”  Then it recalls the ends of the Mass:  the praise of God, prayer, reparation for sins….  It says it all.  The priest must immolate himself—the word “immolate” is not used, but rather “give himself”, sacrifice himself to save souls.  It does say that.  Then comes a reminder about the last things:  “Does the priest think often about the last things?  Does he think to ask for the grace of final perseverance?  Does he remind his faithful to do so?  Does he visit the dying so as to give them the last rites?”  You see how, in a clever way, this Roman document clearly recalls the traditional idea of the priest.
Of course, that does not do away with all the problems, and there are still serious difficulties in the Church:  ecumenism, Assisi, religious liberty…, but the context is changing, and not just the context, but the situation itself….  I would distinguish between the external relations and the internal situation.  The relations with the outside have not have changed, but as for what goes on within the Church, the Roman authorities are trying to change it little by little.  Obviously, a major disaster still remains today, one must be aware of that, and we do not deny it, but one must also look at what is starting to happen.  This examination of conscience for priests is a significant example.
What should be our attitude toward the doctrinal problems?
DICI: You acknowledge that some serious difficulties remain with ecumenism, religious liberty….  If a canonical recognition came about, what would be your attitude with regard to these difficulties?  Would you not feel obliged to be somewhat reserved?
Bishop Fellay: Allow me to answer your question with three inquiries:  Did the novelties that were introduced during the Council start a trend of growth in the Church and an increase of vocations and religious practice?  Do we not observe, to the contrary, a form of “silent apostasy” in all the countries of Christendom?  Can we be silent when faced with these problems?
If we want to make the treasure of Tradition fruitful for the good of souls, we must speak and act.  We need this twofold freedom of speech and action.  But I would mistrust a purely verbal denunciation of doctrinal errors—a denunciation that would be all the more polemical because it was only verbal.
With his characteristic realism, Archbishop Lefebvre recognized that the Roman and diocesan authorities would be more responsive to numbers and facts presented by the Society of Saint Pius X than to theological arguments.  And so I would not hesitate to say that, if a canonical recognition were to come about, the doctrinal difficulties would still be emphasized by us, but together with a lesson taught by the facts themselves, tangible signs of the vitality of Tradition.  And for that to happen, as I already told you in 2006, concerning the stages in our dialogue with Rome, we must have “faith in the Traditional Mass, the Mass that demands in and of itself integrity of doctrine and of the sacraments, the assurance of all spiritual fruitfulness in the service of souls”.
DICI: The year 2012 is not 1988, the year of your episcopal consecration.  In 2009 the excommunications were lifted, in 2007 it was officially acknowledged that the Tridentine Mass had “never been abrogated”, but now some members of the Society lament the fact that the Church has not yet converted.  Is their a priori refusal of a canonical recognition due to forty years of an exceptional situation, resulting in a certain inability to understand submission to authority?
Bishop Fellay: What is happening these days clearly shows some of our weaknesses with regard to the dangers that are created by the situation in which we find ourselves.  One of the great dangers is to end up inventing an idea of the Church that appears ideal, but is in fact not found in the real history of the Church.  Some claim that in order to work “safely” in the Church, she must first be cleansed of all error.  This is what they say when they declare that Rome must convert before any agreement, or that its errors must first be suppressed so that we can work.  But that is not the reality.  It is enough to look at the Church’s past:  often, and almost always, we see that there are widespread errors in the Church.  Now the reforming saints did not leave the Church in order to combat these errors.  Our Lord taught us that there would always be weeds until the end of time.  Not just the good crop, not only the wheat.
At the time of the Arians, the bishops labored in the midst of errors to convince those who were mistaken about the truth.  They did not say that they wanted to be outside, as some say now.  Of course, we must always be very careful about these expressions, “inside”, “outside”, because we are of the Church and we are Catholic.  But can we for that reason refuse to convince those who are in the Church, on the pretext that they are full of errors?  Look at what the saints did!  If the Good Lord allows us to be in a new situation, in close combat in the service of the truth….  This is the reality that Church history presents to us.  The Gospel compares Christians to yeast;  and do we want the dough to rise without us being in the dough?
In this situation, which some currently depict as an impossible situation, we are being asked to come and work just as all the reforming saints of all times did.  Certainly that does not do away with the danger.  But if we have sufficient freedom to act, to live and to grow, this must be done.  I really think that this must be done, on the condition that we have sufficient protection.
DICI: Do you think that there are members of the Society who, consciously or not, espouse sedevacantist ideas?  Are you afraid of their influence?
Bishop Fellay: Some may indeed be influenced by such ideas;  that is nothing new.  I do not think that there are that many of them, but they can do harm, especially by spreading false rumors.  But I really think that the main concern among us is rather the question of trust in the Roman authorities, with the fear that what might happen would be a trap.  Personally, I am convinced that that is not the case.  In our Society we distrust Rome because we have experienced too many disappointments;  that is why some think that this could be a trap.  It is true that our enemies may plan to use this offer as a trap, but the pope, who really wants this canonical recognition, is not proposing it to us as a trap.
Finding out what the Roman proposal will allow de jure and de facto
DICI: Several times you have said that the pope personally wants the canonical recognition of the Society.  Do you have a recent personal assurance from the pope himself that this is truly his intention?
Bishop Fellay: Yes, the pope is the one who wants it, and I have said it repeatedly.  I have enough precise information in my possession to declare that what I say is true, although I have not had any direct dealings with the pope—rather, with his close collaborators.
DICI: The April 14 letter signed by the three other bishops of the Society was unfortunately circulated on the Internet;  does the analysis that it presents correspond to the situation in the Church?
Bishop Fellay: I do not rule out the possibility of a development in their position.  The first question for us who were consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre was the question of the survival of Tradition.  I think that if my confreres see and understand that de jure and de facto the Roman proposal contains a genuine opportunity for the Society to “restore all things in Christ”, despite all the troubles that continue to exist in the Church today, then they will be able to readjust their judgment—that is to say, with the canonical status in hand and the facts on the table.  Yes, I think so, I hope so.  And we must pray for that intention.
DICI: Some people throughout the world, including members of the Society, have made use of passages from an interview that you granted to Catholic News Service;  these passages seem to indicate that in your view Dignitatis humanae no longer poses a difficulty.
Did the way in which this interview was edited change the meaning of what you wanted to say?  What is your position on this subject in relation to what Archbishop Lefebvre taught?
Bishop Fellay: My position is that of the Society and of Archbishop Lefebvre.  As usual, in such a delicate matter, we must make distinctions, and a good part of these distinctions disappeared in the televised interview that had been reduced to less than six minutes.  But the written report that CNS made of my remarks recovers what I said that was not included in the broadcast version:  “Although [Bishop Fellay] stopped short of endorsing Pope Benedict’s interpretation [of religious liberty] as essentially in continuity with the Church’s Tradition—a position which many in the Society have vocally disputed—Bishop Fellay spoke about the idea in strikingly sympathetic terms.”  In fact, I simply recalled that there is already a traditional solution to the problem posed by religious liberty, which is called tolerance.  As for the Council, when they asked me the question, “Does Vatican II belong to Tradition?”, I answered, “I would like to hope that that is the case” (which a faulty French translation transformed into:  “I hope so.”)  This is quite along the lines of the distinctions made by Archbishop Lefebvre to read the Council in the light of Tradition:  what agrees with Tradition, we accept;  what is doubtful, we understand as Tradition has always taught it;  what is opposed, we reject.
Relations of the Society of Saint Pius X with diocesan bishops
DICI: A personal prelature is the canonical structure that you mentioned in recent statements.  Now, in the Code of Canon Law, canon 297 requires not only informing diocesan bishops but obtaining their permission in order to found a work on their territory.  Although it is clear that any canonical recognition will preserve our apostolate in its present state, are you inclined to accept the eventuality that future works may be possible only with the permission of the bishop in dioceses where the Society of Saint Pius X is not present today?
Bishop Fellay: There is a lot of confusion about this question, and it is caused mainly by a misunderstanding of the nature of a personal prelature, as well as by a misreading of the normal relation between the local ordinary and the prelature.  Add to that the fact that the only example available today of a personal prelature is Opus Dei.  However, and let us say this clearly, if a personal prelature were granted to us, our situation would not be the same.  In order to understand better what would happen, we must reflect that our status would be much more similar to that of a military ordinariate, because we would have ordinary jurisdiction over the faithful.  Thus we would be like a sort of diocese, the jurisdiction of which extends to all its faithful regardless of their territorial situation.
All the chapels, churches, priories, schools, and works of the Society and of the affiliated religious Congregations would be recognized with a real autonomy for their ministry.
It is still true—since it is Church law—that in order to open a new chapel or to found a work, it would be necessary to have the permission of the local ordinary.  We have quite obviously reported to Rome how difficult our present situation was in the dioceses, and Rome is still working on it.  Here or there, this difficulty will be real, but since when is life without difficulties?  Very probably we will also have the contrary problem, in other words, we will not be able to respond to the requests that will come from the bishops who are friendly to us.  I am thinking of one bishop who could ask us to take charge of the formation of future priests in his diocese.
In no way would our relations be like those of a religious congregation with a bishop;  rather they would be those of one bishop with another bishop, just like with the Ukrainians and the Armenians in the diaspora.  And therefore if a difficulty is not resolved, it would go to Rome, and there would then be a Roman intervention to settle the problem.
Let it be said in passing that what was reported on the Internet concerning my remarks on this subject in Austria last month is entirely false.
DICI: If there is a canonical recognition, what would happen to the chapels affiliated with the Society and independent of the diocese?  Would the bishops of the Society continue to administer Confirmation and provide the Holy Oils?
Bishop Fellay: If they work with us, there will be no problem:  it will be exactly as it is now.  If not, everything will depend on what these chapels mean by independence.
DICI: Will there be a difference in your relations with the Ecclesia Dei communities?
Bishop Fellay: The first difference will be that they will be obliged to stop treating us as schismatics.  As for future development, it is clear that some will draw closer to us, since they already approve of us discreetly;  some others, no.  Time will tell how Tradition will develop in this new situation.  We have great expectations for the traditional apostolate, just as some important personages in Rome do, and the Holy Father himself.  We have great hopes that Tradition will develop with our arrival.
DICI: Again, if there is a canonical recognition, will you give some cardinals in the Curia or some bishops the opportunity to visit our chapels, to celebrate Mass, to administer Confirmation, perhaps even to ordain priests at your seminaries?
Bishop Fellay: The bishops who are in favor of Tradition and the conservative cardinals will come closer.  One can foresee a whole development, without knowing the particular details.  And certainly there will be difficulties, too, which is altogether normal.  There is no doubt that people will come to visit us, but as for a more precise collaboration, such as the celebration of Mass or ordinations, that will depend on the circumstances.  Just as we hope that Tradition will develop, we hope to see Tradition develop among the bishops and the cardinals.  One day everything will be harmoniously traditional, but how much time that will take, only God knows.
DICI: While awaiting the Roman decision, what are your interior dispositions?  What dispositions would you wish for the priests and the faithful who are devoted to Tradition?
Bishop Fellay: In 1988, when Archbishop Lefebvre announced that he would consecrate four bishops, some encouraged him to do it and others tried to dissuade him from it.  But our founder kept the peace, since he had nothing in view but the will of God and the good of the Church.  Today these are the same interior dispositions that we should have.  Like its holy Patron, the Society of Saint Pius X has the desire to “restore all things in Christ”.  Some say that now is not the time, while others on the contrary say that this is the opportune moment.  For my part, I know only one thing:  it is always the moment to do God’s will, and He makes it known to us at an opportune time, provided that we are receptive to His inspirations.  For this reason, I asked the priests to renew the consecration of the Society of Saint Pius X to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, on His feast day, June 15, and to prepare for it by a novena, during which the litanies of the Sacred Heart will be recited in all our houses.  Everyone can join in asking for the grace to become docile instruments of the restoration of all things in Jesus Christ.   (DICI no. 256 dated June 8, 2012)
__________________________________________

Comments policy for this post: Considering the relevance of this interview and its contents, we welcome all your comments, in any language.

249 comments:

1 – 200 of 249   Newer›   Newest»
God never fails said...

Very good interview, although it saddens me to see that there is still the idea that Ecclesia Dei groups consider SSPX as schismatic. I haven't seen that around all that much and I have only been to Traditional Mass with the ED groups. Of course there are tensions between the different judgments made, but everyone I've talked to who are committed traditionalists in the ED groups are not so strong on the "schismatic" language regarding the Society. Difference of judgment, yes. Schism, no.

Tim said...

Deo Gratias, it seems that everything is definitely on the right track!!!

Let us increase our prayers for the "reconciliation", as the champagne is put on ice...

Malta said...

Today, in Rome, some people regard a different understanding of the Council as something that is not decisive for the future of the Church, since the Church is more than the Council. Indeed, the Church cannot be reduced to the Council; she is much larger.

Brilliant!

I'm glad +Fellay seems to be taking the stance that Rome and Econe can coexist without one or the other bending the will of the other over that botched Council, valid though it is!

Brian said...

What has changed is the fact that Rome no longer makes total acceptance of Vatican II a prerequisite for the canonical solution

That is a crucial development

Mystico said...

"What has changed is the fact that Rome no longer makes total acceptance of Vatican II a prerequisite for the canonical solution"

Which is why Sodano, Silvestrini, Re, Cottier, Sandri, and all those other grieving "widows of Paul VI" will stop at NOTHING to derail an agreement...

For God and King said...

I read this DICI article earlier and it was good to see in print, by His Excellency's own words, what we should all have known had we not listened to the whining and opining on the internet. Now, maybe we can have less stirring-of-the-pot and more keeping and pondering of words in our hearts.

We are Catholics and we have a powerful role to play in what is arguably the most critical time in the history of The Church. Time to suit up for battle if we haven't already, and using all the Heavenly tools at our disposal we go to a new battle in the war, and this one should hope to conclude with the proper Consecration of Russia. Personal penances, the Holy Rosary and the Holy Mass offered by uncompromised clergy. If we stop and look at what we are and what we have in being members of the Society, we will see that we have all weapons, all tools, all Power, leaders mightier than has any earthly military army, and all the promises of Heaven. We enlisted with our Confirmations and now in this year that we honor the Catholic warrior Ste. Joan of Arc, we are being called to muster.

New Catholic said...

Comments policy for this post: Considering the relevance of this interview and its contents, we welcome all your comments, in any language.

Maricruz said...

Please, trust Christ at His Church. I´m sure that there will be difficulties but not larger than the ones right now are having the SSPX in this situation.
And, please, be sure that more bishops than you suspect will gladly have you in their diocesis.
I tell you this as a catholic woman living in a far away place in the theird world who has been following events and praying for your recognition.

Maricruz said...

Confíen en Cristo presente en su Iglesia. Estoy segura que habrá dificultades pero no mayores que las que existen actualmente sin el reconocimiento de la SSPX.
Y, por favor, estén seguros de que más obispos de los que sospechan estarán complacidos de recibirlos en sus diócesis.
Esto se los digo como mujer católica que vive en un lugar remoto del tercer mundo siguiendo los eventos y rezando por su reconocimiento.

Anonymous said...

Excelente entrevista! Mis oraciones por el Superior General, los obispos y sacerdotes de la querida FSSPX.

Mons. Fellay demuestra un prístino sentido de Iglesia, sobrenatural y natural a la vez.

En unión de oraciones

Luis María (Buenos Aires

beng said...

THE FONT IS TOO SMALL! I'm going blind!

Jan B. said...

Close combat. Oh yeah.

Font: Ctrl and the + plus sign will enlarge.

beng said...

This interview is wonderful. It gives more hope, abundant hope.

I might be able to see a restored Church before I die. Deo gratias.

Ora et Labora said...

Beautiful...

Bishop Fellay asks:

"The Gospel compares Christians to yeast; and do we want the dough to rise without us being in the dough?"

I say absolutely not!!!

These are some of Bishop Fellay's comments that I thought are good to meditate on:

"Indeed, the Church cannot be reduced to the Council; she is much larger. Therefore we must strive to resolve more far-reaching problems."


And this other one:

Bishop Fellays says:

"Bishop Fellay: What is happening these days clearly shows some of our weaknesses with regard to the dangers that are created by the situation in which we find ourselves. One of the great dangers is to end up INVENTING AN IDEA OF THE CHURCH THAT APPEARS IDEAL, but is in fact not found in the real history of the Church. Some claim that in order to work “safely” in the Church, she must first be cleansed of all error. This is what they say when they declare that Rome must convert before any agreement, or that its errors must first be suppressed so that we can work. But that is not the reality. It is enough to look at the Church’s past: often, and almost always, we see that there are widespread errors in the Church. NOW THE REFORMING SAINTS DID NOT LEAVE THE CHURCH IN ORDER TO COMBAT THESE ERRORS. Our Lord taught us that there would always be weeds until the end of time. Not just the good crop, not only the wheat."

This is exactly how I feel!!!

Some might not agree with me, and I don't ever expect anyone to agree with me ever, but I always thought of St. Francis when he finally realized that Christ was asking him to rebuild his Church.
Imagine St. Francis would have left the Church, and have gone to do his own thing, we would not have a St. Francis today.

Thank God St. Francis stayed and persevered!!!


Well all I can say is what a great interview. I feel optimistic!!!


Our Lady Help of Christians pray for us!!!

Fr. Pancras Raja said...

Fr. Pancras Raja says
Bishop Felley's "trust" in the providence of the good God is appreciable. But something more is expected from heaven from the SSPX. The practice and official celebration of the "devotion of Reparation" to the Immaculate Heart of Mary - The First Saturday devotion in all the Mass centers of the SSPX. This was requested by Our Lord as a necessary condition for the triumph of the Immaculate Heart.
pancrasraja@rediffmail.com

PHILOTHEA said...

"It is still true—since it is Church law—that in order to open a new chapel or to found a work, it would be necessary to have the permission of the local ordinary".

This might make it difficult to expand the societys work into hostile areas.

Am I wrong to be concerned about this?

dcs said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter said...

I would say to Philothea :

Co-operation with diocesan bishops may well be the price SSPX will have to pay for canonical regularization.

In some dioceses, SSPX would be more than welcome. In other dioceses SSPX would encounter grave dfficulty.

I would say there is no point in worrying about it.

Pray !

jeff said...

Would it be possible to post copy of the "Examination of Conscience for Priests" that was mentioned above?

thanks

IM said...

While most of the interview is very encouraging, the small part about the other three Bishops of the SSPX is very sad. Please, all, do pray for them that they might do what our Lord wants them to do!

Matt said...

What an inspiring and insightful interview. +Fellay is so down to earth, so practial. He addresses so many issues and questions I believe many of us have had for a quite a while now, and +Fellay pretty much clears it up.

For one, I am relieved +Fellay clarified the jurisdictional question as like unto a "military ordinariate." As far as a "prlature," Opus Dei's is one thing whereas the SSPX is an entirely different operation and +Fellay points this out to my satisfaction.

From the interview, I took as things are pretty much lined up and ready to go with just a few loose ends to tie up. Is this perhaps the case, or are they up against that brick wall once again?

Prayers to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

Matt

Matt said...

It's a little disappointing about this part.

"Very probably we will also have the contrary problem, in other words, we will not be able to respond to the requests which will come from the bishops who are friendly to us. I am thinking of one bishop who could ask us to take charge of the formation of future priests in his diocese."

He's referring to +Ranjith, BTW, and how awesome that would be for the SSPX to run his seminary. Obviously +Ranjith believes in who the SSPX is. :)

Matt

NIANTIC said...

Again I am deeply impressed by the profound faith of H.E.Bernard Fellay. The entire interview is a clear witness of that fact. He is serene and wishes to follow and do only God's Will for the good of the Church,the Society and of Souls. Yet, he has his feet firmly planted on the ground and uses reason and common sense to analyse the pros and cons of each particular subject.

So, we continue to await the Holy Father's decision. Let us not cease our prayers for this intention. God is firmly in charge of His Church. Pax et bonum.

New Catholic said...

The Letter to Priests and examination of conscience for priests mentioned in the interview are available here - please, do not post any other link in comments. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Fr. Pancras Raja,
I have been attending FSSPX masses regularly for three years and First Friday and First Saturday devotions have always been observed.

JR

Brian said...

DICI: Do you think that there are members of the Society who, consciously or not, espouse sedevacantist ideas? Are you afraid of their influence?

Bishop Fellay: Some may indeed be influenced by such ideas; that is nothing new. I do not think that there are that many of them, but they can do harm, especially by spreading false rumors. But I really think that the main concern among us is rather the question of trust in the Roman authorities, with the fear that what might happen would be a trap. Personally, I am convinced that that is not the case. In our Society we distrust Rome because we have experienced too many disappointments; that is why some think that this could be a trap. It is true that our enemies may plan to use this offer as a trap, but the pope, who really wants this canonical recognition, is not proposing it to us as a trap.


I am glad to see Bishop Fellay acknowledge that most who may oppose this are not sedevacantist or schismatic or disobedient, but rather exhibit (understandable) problems with trust.

If Bishop Fellay leads a large group of the SSPX into an agreement, it will be important to avoid damaging infighting and name calling against those who do not accept that agreement at this time. Why burn bridges with emotionally-laden vindictive accusations?

Perhaps in time, if things work out well, those who do not accept the agreement at this time will be able to see that it is working out well and can join with the rest.

(I suppose the opposite could also be true: if, in spite of our Holy Father's intentions, "enemy" cardinals and bishops are able to spring some sort of "trap," there would be a place to go back to for those who do accept the agreement at this time.)

Either way, I hope that people avoid destructive, self-righteous accusations and condemnations.

Carl said...

In the interview here and in CNS, Bishop Fellay seems to be saying that the language of "rights" in DH and CCC with reference to religious liberty is misleading. That the traditional language of "tolerance" is more accurate. He seems to acknowledge that the "within due limits" clause enables the document to mean practically anything. A "duly limited right to religious liberty" (DH 2) isn't the "unrestrained religious liberty" condemned by Pius IX and Leo XIII.

On a practical note, I think the modern state has grown so powerful, so capable of arbitrary and unjust invasion, that we need clearer principles than ever in limiting the State's right to suppress error. The traditional doctrine was very often abused to suppress or tolerate error based on villainous political considerations (see the Vallois Dynasty, 1328-1589). I think Vatican II TRIED to do this, but did not succeed. It's new doctrine has proven twice as vague and twice as capable of being lent to abuse. I hope this underlying theme - needing the state to tolerate or suppress based on just principles rather than caprice - isn't lost on those (myself included) who criticize Dignitatis Humanae. From the subtlety of his comments, which have been criticized in recent weeks, it doesn't seem to be lost on Bishop Fellay.

Ecclesia Militans said...

God bless Mons. Fellay!

Anonymous said...

This is a wonderful interview. Sadly I doubt that it will appease the pitchfork wielding rabble that have already condemned Bishop Fellay for "selling out."

Philip Glass II said...

The Society will be in great danger should this union be accepted.

Look how the Institute of the Good Shepherd, the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer and the Fraternity of Saint Peter have been pushed around, ignored or marginalised over the years.

The Society is in for the same.

There has already been talk of slowly weaning them off the traditional liturgy. And of course should Fellay+ accept, the Society will splinter with only a minority joining the champaign party in Rome judging by online reactions.

Barbara said...

What a great interview! I trust Bishop Fellay more and more. The Holy Father wants this reconciliation, therefore, Our Lord wants it and so it is inevitable! Let the ones who are not for it have their hissy fit - they'll hopefully understand later on why we need the Old Mass fully established in the Church again.
There is so much in that interview that is so encouraging and clarifies: the fact that he repeatedly says the Pope wants the reconciliation. This - on the priesthood "The Church and the world can be sanctified only through the sanctification of the priest.”

I beleive it - the most important "job" in the world is the priesthood!

And this:
"What is happening these days clearly shows some of our weaknesses with regard to the dangers that are created by the situation in which we find ourselves. One of the great dangers is to end up inventing an idea of the Church that appears ideal, but is in fact not found in the real history of the Church. Some claim that in order to work “safely” in the Church, she must first be cleansed of all error. This is what they say when they declare that Rome must convert before any agreement, or that its errors must first be suppressed so that we can work. But that is not the reality."

Oh yes, I beleive the Society will do more to restore Tradition to the Church being fully incorporated - and once and for all, that idea of them being in a schismatic ghetto will be destroyed.

Modernists! Take heed - your days at the top are numbered! Tradition will win! (SMILE!) You ain't got what it takes to restore the Church and the world to Christ!

And: "We have great hopes that Tradition will develop with our arrival."

In my opinion, Bishop Fellay shows that he has the vision of a man who deeply loves the Church and with the graces of his office and his luminous faith has grasped fully the complete scenario of the present situation.

I have been praying for this reconcilation daily - and will now add the Litany to the Sacred Heart to my other prayers.

Barbara

Tradical said...

@Philip,

"... talk of slowly weaning them off the traditional liturgy... "

Where, who, when, what context.

Without this information your statement is merely spreading FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt).

Cruise the Groove. said...

Philip

You are dead wrong.

The Society will not be required to change one iota in their battle against modernism.

Fr Levi said...

Thank you for the 'Examination of Conscience for Priests' text ... a beautiful document.

Mercy's mendicant said...

To Philip Glass II:

The "Alpha and Omega" Who established His Church is OMNIPOTENT. Despite the drama that the Holy Trinity enjoy to employ, docility to Their Will leads to Eternal Triumph while infusing the docile servants with supportive celestial peace.

May the Holy Spirit grant unto you an increase of His Fruits through the outpouring of His Most Sacred Heart before His Eternal Father.

rodrigo said...

Phillip,

You say "judging by online reactions", but you cannot judge by online reactions. The people taking to the discussion boards seem frequently to be angry SSPX supporters who are failing to find a constituency to rant at in their local chapels... it is also striking how the same names crop up across various boards. Yet could all the discussion forum naysayers fill a single Society chapel? I doubt it. That they have even resorted to spreading false rumours - as +Fellay notes in this excellent interview - says a lot about their desperation.

If a solution is found for the Society, I am pretty sure that the overwhelming majority (and I'd be willing to bet that includes at least half the bishops) of those involved with the Society will accept it.

...and that, dear friends, is when the fight will start in earnest!

rodrigo said...

That last comment was to Philip Glass II - apologies for any ambiguity.

MKT said...

Dear NC,

I am concerned about the good Bishop's synopsis that new chapels and for the Society will need Ordinary approval. We know this will stall the SSPX almost indefinitely in many cases.

How can the SSPX agree to this kind of arrangement? Is PKTP or anyone informed able to explain if there would be loopholes available in such a situation?

Otherwise, I am quite edified and comforted by Bishop Fellay. And I am praying a novena to St Anthony for his feast on July 13 so that this normalization will - supernaturally no doubt- take place without a single faction or splinter within the SSPX.

That as one group they will be normalized with the Holy Father and those faithful to him and Holy tradition, and together be the fighting force against modernism.

St Anthony of Padua, Hammer of Heretics, please grant us this indivisible unity in the SSPX as they normalize relations with the Holy See.

Ecclesia Militans said...

"May the Holy Spirit grant unto you an increase of His Fruits through the outpouring of His Most Sacred Heart before His Eternal Father."

I have noticed that you like to write esoterically.
Do not mix and confuse the Divine persons.
The Holy Ghost does not have a heart because He does not have a human body.
Also, God the Father is the Father of the Son, but to my knowledge He has ever been called the Father of the Holy Ghost, since the Holy Ghost proceeds together from the Father and the Son.

New Catholic said...

Rodrigo, 16:49 - You are right.

MKT - it is a complex matter, whose details will be clear only when most things are in place. I am very interested in this detail, but choose to defer my judgment on it till more details of it are made available. In the case of the Anglican Ordinariates, for instance, the permission is one of hearing the opinion of the diocesan bishop, which is not binding. So it seems wise to me to defer judgment of the matter for the appropriate moment.

Oliver said...

Divine Providence must be the name of a Swiss insurance corporation for all the special graces Bp. Felay is going to receive for his reckless behaviour. He has trapped himself in a corner; Rome is toying with him and hardline trads know he personally can never backtrack. The best think that will emerge from this soap opera is that a remnant SSPX will at least reject conciliar Rome de jure as well as de facto.

Ecclesia Militans said...

(Correction for my last comment: *ever = never)

Oliver, you speak as if you wish the SSPX to be schismatic like the sedevacantists.
Many things may yet happen but this will certainly not be one of them, because the Society is a true child of the Church, and so was its Venerable Founder.
If some poor disoriented souls indeed leave the Society to become schismatic, they will have our pity.

Tradical said...

"...a remnant SSPX will at least reject conciliar Rome de jure as well as de facto..."

Oliver,
I agree with EM and you should recall the following:

extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

Philip Glass said...

Cruise the Groove said:

You are dead wrong...The Society will not be required to change one iota in their battle against modernism."

Where did you get your crystal ball?

I think it might need a clean. All evidence suggests the contrary - the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, for instance, 'reconciled' in 2008. What has become of them? They have been left out in the cold waiting.

Mercy's mendicant said...

To Ecclesia Militans:

With sorrow for your pain, I pray that may Divine Wisdom clarify through an increase of Their Understanding. If the fingers They employ have caused you agony, then the same further explain. God is One and yet Three in the Holy Trinity:

The water outpouring from "His" Most Sacred Heart - Our Lord Jesus Christ's Heart - upon the Cross is a symbol of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit as the Only Begotten Son expired for the honor and glory of "His" Eternal Father.

The Divine Mystery is more appropriately adored in silence than written of. May you and all attached to your soul enjoy the ineffable privilege. . .Eternally. AND May the Vicar of Christ and H.E. Bishop Fellay receive the outpouring of the Sacred Heart's Mercy through all of our intercession.

Long-Skirts said...

Bishop Fellay said:

"I know only one thing: it is always the moment to do God’s will, and He makes it known to us at an opportune time, provided that we are receptive to His inspirations."

Like Blessed Jose Sanchez who at the moment of being stabbed in the back shouted, "Viva Cristo Rey!"

BLESSED
JOSE

Your eyes dark pools
Of tarnished tears -
Little boy
Of little years

Adult men scorned
With sneers and jeers -
Little boy
Of little years

Carved and chopped
Before your peers -
Little boy
Of little years

The Holy Ghost
Assuaged your fears -
Little boy
Of little years

And your eyes dark pools
Of tarnished tears -
Now Cristero-sterling
Of Heaven not years!

Viva, Bishop Fellay! Bl. Jose ora pro nobis!!

Anonymous said...

This development, if it is understood correctly is disturbing. If it is acknowledged that SSPX can be 'incorporated' (the correct word escapes me) back into the Church while still expressing, either explicitly or implicitly it's refusal to accept the Second Vatican Council, then what is to prevent any other group or individual adopting the same stance? Ironically, it would appear that the SSPX are now the quintessential "Cafeteria Catholics."
An American Seminarian

New Catholic said...

Dear seminarian, you are simply not competent to deliver that judgment. Neither am I. There is one man who is competent, and the matter is in his hands at this exact moment.

Cruise the Groove. said...

'Philip Glass said...
Cruise the Groove said:

You are dead wrong...The Society will not be required to change one iota in their battle against modernism."

Where did you get your crystal ball?

I think it might need a clean. All evidence suggests the contrary - the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, for instance, 'reconciled' in 2008. What has become of them? They have been left out in the cold waiting."

Philip

My uncle is an SSPX priest in Menzingen and my SSPX pastor is close to HE Fellay and they both have told me that the Holy Father i requesting no change in the Societys battle against modernism, and this recognition is absolutely nothing likr the Orhans of the Holy Redeemer have.

Doc said...

American Seminarian,

The difference is, as far as I understand it (take with a grain of salt), the SSPX only have qualms with things that do not require absolute and unconditional assent--they do accept unconditionally all things that are de fide (dogmas of faith) and sententia definitiva tenenda (doctrines to be definitively held). The religious submission due to a lower level of teaching (of which the disputed texts of Vatican II are) requires a good faith effort to assimilate the teaching and a presumption of truth towards the teaching authority, but this effort may fail. If it does, assent may be withheld and criticism levied in a manner consonant with one's rank and competence. If the SSPX are reconciled, Rome must have been satisfied suring the doctrinal talks that the SSPX have made such a good faith effort, and that they do not reject those things which must be unconditionally accepted.

The SSPX are different than "cafeteria Catholics" who do reject things that are de fide or sententia definitiva tenenda.

Check out the CDF instruction Donum Veritatis, paragraphs 23 to 31, which explains this with reference to theologians.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

Barbara said...

It would seem to me Philip, that The FSSPX are not the same as the other Traditional orders. You don't hear a lot of attacks against them (as you say they are mainly ignored) - they are not as well known as Mons. Lefevbre's Fraternity and have a totally different history in their origins - correct me if I'm wrong. From the what I understand the Fraternity of Saint Pius X is the strongest contingent of Tradition that exists in the Church and there has been more hullabaloo about them than any other traditional group. I really beleive it will be different with them.

Matthew M said...

After reading this I am more impressed with the wisdom and Holiness Bishop Fellay exhibits. He and Pope Benedict XVI probably get along famously. I am not SSPX nor am I Roman Rite so I have no dog in this hunt but as a Byzantine Catholic I have always preferred the SSPX to the post Vatican II Church usually.
The Holy Spirit will guide the Pope and Bishop Fellay down the correct path for the whole Church.

Hidden One said...

This is wonderful news.

NIANTIC said...

"The examination of conscience for priests" is really a beautiful and traditional document and is worth reading by all of us, whether priests or laity. If Rome is capable of this type of teaching and guidance, than to me it is a sign that Our Lord still has not given up on her altogether. Pax et bonum.

sam said...

The interview with SSPX Bishop Fellay answers many questions that have been thrown around and I hope that the SSPX is regularised and that other Catholics in the same situation are regularised as well. Let's pray for the Holy Father in these tough times.

But analysing this situation and in light of this interview I'll throw the following ideas out there:
-The way that the SSPX will be regularised will be similar to that of a "Metropolitan Churche Sui Iuris", with conditions set upon it by the local dioceses (i.e.up to the limits set forth up by the Pope.)
-It's metropolitan will report directly to Rome and the election of the metropolitan will be internal to it.
-It will not have an influential voice within the Catholic Church, as it will be treated as a "Sui Iuris" by the local dioceses.
-The only way for it to have influence, will be if individual Catholics decide to become members of it.
-The only problem, if Catholics want to become part of it, is that they'll require permission from their local Bishop to join this "Sui Iuris".
-So in the end this will be treated Ecumenically rather than as a regularisation.

http://www.jgray.org/codes/cceo90eng.html
Canon: Canon 155 ->

P.K.T.P. said...

Excuse me, but the discussion on the canonical solution, which is central in this interview, shows that Bishop Fellay is a very confused man. First of all, he openly admits that, should he accept a personal prelature, he might indeed have problems getting approval for new apostolates from the local bishops. He even remarks that life is full of problems. You can say that again! He ain't seen nothing yet! He then goes on to suggest that what he needs is more like a universal diocese. He even uses the word "diocese", and yet it never seems to occur to him that a personal diocese or archdiocse and not a personal prelature is a possibility under §2 of Canon 372. Ever heard of the Campos, stupid?

Then he is asked about the Holy oils for Confirmation, and so forth. What he says in reply is inconceivable. He says that, in the p.p. for the S.S.P.X, lay supporters would be the subjects of the p.p. THAT IS TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Has this man not read Canon 294? A p.p. consists of ONLY priests and deacons because it is NOT a particular church (cf. Canon 369), so the lay supporters would NOT be his subjects. They would remain subjects of the local bishops. What does this mean? It means that every time one of them wants to be Baptized, Confirmed, married or buried, he needs permission from the local bishop for this. Just imagine with what glee a Gueneley or a Mahony would deny that permission! It's like handing a shotgun to your worst enemy.

+Fellay thinks that Rome can resolve any disputes. Is he crazy? Consider S.P. There are now over 500 outstanding petitions in France for Latin Masses and Rome has not dealt with ANY of them. Rome does not have the staff or the means to set up a negotiation every time some traditionalist couple wants a Society marriage and the local De Roo or Mahony says 'no way, José'.

Where has this man been? Good grief! I've been screaming about this on-line for ages and he keeps on banging his head against the same old wall. Fr. Schmidgerger, help! Help to get through to him. He is being tricked by the P.C.E.D., the same organisation, under Levada, that cheated the Institute of the Good Shepherd, the Sons of the Holy Redeemer, and the Traditional Anglican Communion.

There is a canonical solution! Damn it, READ Section 2 of Canon 372: the Campos has it! WE HAVE A PRECEDENT! Will you fellows get LESS than the Campos? Are you nuts? All you need is a Campos writ large, an international Campos. I suggest an international Archdiocese of St. Gregory the Great "distinguished by the rite of the faithful or by some other similar quality" (§2, Canon 372). If concordats make this impossible in two or three countries, so be it. Better to be under the local bishops in those two or three alone instead of everywhere, but that is not necessary either, as the Pope could erect a personal ordinariate for each of those countries and then entrust each to a Society priest as p.o. Duh!

USE YOUR BRAINS! Do not get sucked into a personal prelature. An international archdiocese under 372.2 would mean that your lay supporters become your subjects by registering in your chapels, your religious become your subjects, and you don't have to get permission from the local Bolshevik Bishop every time you want to relieve yourself on his turf.

I give up. This man is suicidal.

P.K.T.P.

New Catholic said...

PKTP, your points are all valid, but please be respectful of persons, otherwise all your future comments will be deleted.

Timothy Mulligan said...

They're all coming out of the woodwork.

PKTP, Bishop Fellay probably knows more about these things than you do. Would you please forgo the intemperate and uncharitable language? This is our future Prelate.

Thanks.

P.K.T.P. said...

N.C.:

Pardon the rhetoric but I'm in a state of panic after reading his interview. I want the best for the S.S.P.X and for the entire movement. He has been somehow tricked by Levada and company into considering a p.p. This would be extrememly detrimental to our cause; it will also convince many Society priest to go not with Fellay but with Tissier and the others. That cannot be a good thing. What is needed is unity in a SAFE structure.

P.K.T.P.

Ecclesia Militans said...

NC,

Please remind P.K.T.P. of the personal pineapple whatchamacallit...

P.K.T.P.,
Hasn't it ever occurred to you that the Pope could hsve told Mons. Fellay that he wants it to be a p.p. and nothing else?

Do you really think you're more intelligent and wise than Mons. Bernard Fellay, who you rudely insulted?

Do you really think the things of which you speak haven't crossed his mind?

Although I hate saying this, perhaps you should be reminded of a particular virtue...

Carl said...

American Seminarian - The position of the SSPX is essentially that in three areas (religious liberty, collegiality, dialogue with non-Catholics) the Council is so vague as to lend itself very easily to erroneous interpretation on a practical level. As Fr. Jenkins introduced President Obama's commencement speech and justified giving him an honorary degree, he quoted some Gaudium et Spes vacuous swill on the value of "dialogue." Well, the text he quoted doesn't say, "give honorary degrees and public forums to enemies of the faith," but this is what it has often come to mean in the practical life of the Church. The conciliar text works like a blank sheet of paper upon which anyone can write anything. It was designed to serve as a "carte blanche" for cafeteria Catholicism and this is precisely what has happened.

Now, if the Vatican is serious about closing down the cafeteria and truly demanding interpretations in continuity with tradition, this means putting away the impossibly vague statements of Vatican II and restoring former precision. It means telling Fr. Jenkins, "no, you cannot interpret Gaudium et Spes in such a way."

SSPX's refusal to accept aspects of Vatican II is synonymous with the refusal to accept the cafeteria's blank order menu.

P.K.T.P. said...

Dear Mr. Mulligan:

Bishop Fellay's comments show that he does not, in fact, know more about these things than I do. I do presume, however, that he is getting some good advice from canonists, but then why does he make such dangerous and frightening remarks? His supporters would be subjects of a personal prelature? A p.p. cannot have subjects, as it is not a particular church at law (cf. Canon 369). No, they would remain subjects of the local bishops, as a p.p. is comprised only of priests and deacons (cf. Canon 294).

He openly admits that he would need the permission of the local bishop to establish a new apostolate in his see. Why, I ask, would he assume that every local bishop would be agreeable? Has he learned nothing over the last forty years? Does he really think that a Bishop De Roo, for example, would actually agree to that? Good grief! I note that Opus Dei has p.p., and did you know that almost all of the bishops of the U.S.A. have refused it entry into their dioceses? The problem here, Mr. Mulligan, is that we need Society Masses most especially where the local bishops have obstructed them! And one of the worst offenders at this, when he was Archbishop of San Francisco was ... [drumroll] Cardinal Levada, the very man who is suggesting this 'solution'.

I make my remarks because I love Bishop Fellay, the Church, the S.S.P.X and the Traditionalist movement. What effect does he think he will have on his own priests when he openly admits that the Society will need the permission of the local bishops to open apostolates in their dioceses? This will help to drive his own priests to the rebels in the Society. Is that good? If that's good, I'd hate to see what a disaster might look like.

This must be a nightmare. This cannot be real. Am I still asleep? What day is it?

P.K.T.P.

Joseph said...

Stop spreading lies about the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer. Their local ordinary visited them in April and a canonical solution is expected in due time. They just recently, with the permission of the local ordinary, celebrated the Sacrament of Confirmation for a woman. Their case is moving forward and they have not been 'left out in the cold' as some people here falsely assert. They, unlike the comment box popes, have exhibited Christian virtue and patience.

St. Helen, pray for us said...

P.K.T.P., I admire your persistence in insisting on a structure that would provide the most safety and freedom for the Society.

Timothy Mulligan said...

PKTP, Bishop Fellay specifically says that the SSPX will differ from Opus Dei with regard to ordinary jurisdiction over its faithful. Is he "confused"? Is he lying? I doubt it. Perhaps what we see here is a feature of the Apostolic Pineapple.

And Bishop Fellay does not expect every diocesan bishop to welcome the SSPX. He says so, as you acknowledge in your first comment. I agree with you that it is those dioceses where the SSPX is not welcomed that probably need it the most.

However, as Ecclesia Militans points out, it is entirely possible that the Holy Father has decided on a personal prelature. Do you think that Bishop Fellay should refuse it, even as modified in favor of SSPX by the Holy Father?

You want perfection. Don't forget that there is another party to this negotiation. He is Peter.

P.K.T.P. said...

Ecclesia Militans:

After having read these latest comments of Bishop Fellay, yes, I do think that I'm wiser than he and, no, it is not pride. It is honest assessment. Were it pride, I would have thought that all along, for the past twenty years. It is only now that I realise it. I find it hard to believe that he could be this dense.

He says that, once the other bishops see how wonderful this canonical solution is, they might change their minds. No, they will become all the more convinced that they have been right all along. Did they come this far to put themselves and their supporters under the local bishops, many of whom are the very worst enemies of the Catholic Faith and total haters of Catholic Tradition?

He is openly admitting that, under a p.p., he will need their permission. Why don't you critics try honesty on for size instead of accusing others of pride? Do you honestly think that the communist French bishops of the north-east will give their permission for new Society apostolates in their dioceses? They have so far told the Pope to 'get lost' by refusing his "Summorum Pontificum", and they've won. Now why would they invite the S.S.P.X to set up shop in Reims, Langres, Cambrai. Think of all the liberal bishops around the world who will be popping champagne corks over a deal like this. And please keep in mind before you comment without thinking that it is precisely these leftist sees which most need the Latin Mass. It is traditionalists in THOSE dioceses who are most deprived! Where is your concern for them?

The Pope only wants a p.p.? Then how come the Campos got what amounts to a FULL DIOCESE. That doesn't make ANY sense. The Campos is a precedent, thanks be to John Paul II. Surely to God this Pope will not offer them less than what his predecessor has granted, and even less than what the incoming Anglicans have been granted. In the Anglican ordinariates, the p.o. only has to *inform* the local bishop of a new Anglican Use apostolate: he doesn't need his permission!

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...

Dear Mr. Mulligan:

There is no perfection under the moon, but there is that which is reasonable. It is possible that the Pope plans to subject a p.p. to a larger umbrella structure but then why would the p.p. need permission from the local bishops? That does not add up, for the umbrella pineapple would then provide the needed jurisdiction.

This does not look good. I will try to find a way to get through to various parties. I tried before and got results. Can you guess where and when?

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...

Dear Joseph:

In due course? Patience? They have waited more than three years. Did Msgr. Pozzo lose his glasses or his copy of the Code of Canons? It took only a few weeks to grant a structure to the Institute of the Good Shepherd. What could possibly take THREE YEARS to resolve?

I'm not spreading lies, just asking reasonable questions, or do you deny the three year number?

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...

One more thing, Joseph. I wonder if you have ever heard of the legal maxim, "Justice delayed is justice denied". Incredibly, it's true! Suppose the C.D.F. were to wait, say 300 years to grant the Sons their structure. I guess you'd counsel patience. In due course, at the appropriate juncture, in the fullness of time, when conditions are right, they will be refused. That's how Sir Humprhey Appleby of "Yes, Minister" would put it.

There are actually people on this blog who think that it is reasonable to wait three years for an office in the Vatican to find the right legal structure for them. Tell me another one. If these people were working in private industry, they'd have been fired for incompetence years ago.

P.K.T.P.

rodrigo said...

The only things certain in life are death, taxes, and PKTP getting excited about personal prelatures.

Brian said...

I wonder what would become of the planned SSPX seminary in Virginia? They have already purchased the land, obtained local permission, and drawn up plans. If the Bishop there says "no deal," is it back to the drawing board?

Drew said...

I don't know about you but I'm throwing my lot with the tag team of Bishop Fellay and Pope Benedict XVI than with PKTP The Wiser!!!

Dear boys and girls - let's all calm down and take a deep breath. Let us all pray in kneeling supplications to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus that His Holy Will be done.

Oremus!

Beefy Levinson said...

The more I've studied these doctrinal issues between Rome and the SSPX, the more impressed I've become with Bishop Fellay. He is truly a man of God who cares about the salvation of souls. I pray that he is fully reconciled with the Church, and that the entire Society follows him.

Chrysogone said...

Mgr Fellay paraît excessivement optimiste sur les garanties qui seraient accordées à la FSSPX par Benoît XVI.
En cas d'accord avec Rome, si l'apostolat de la Fraternité se trouvait paralysé par les évêques, j'espère que Mgr Fellay saurait reconnaître ses erreurs et entamer le bras de fer nécessaire pour continuer à défendre la vraie Foi.
Merci Rorate de nous permettre de nous exprimer.
I'm sorry, I can't speak English.

Our Divine Judge's petitioner said...

To P.K.T.P.:

Please re-read your words with St. Michael the Archangel beside you: "After having read these latest comments of Bishop Fellay, yes, I do think that I'm wiser than he and, no, it is not pride. It is honest assessment. Were it pride, I would have thought that all along, for the past twenty years. It is only now that I realise it. I find it hard to believe that he could be this dense."

Now, what do you think passed through Lucifer's intellect just before he definitively willed NOT to serve Eternal Wisdom?

What was the scorn within his enraged intellect for a Supreme God Who would humble Himself to become obedient unto the death of the Cross?

Truly Just Anger is in perfect conformity with the Will of God and directed by Prudence. Any soul experiencing such articulable anger should seek the protection of Prudence and the proper chanel to humbly render their illuminations for ratification or clarification.

If you want to offer a well trained intellect for the service of Almighty God, do such but not through the means you have recently imployed. Let us make every effort not to offend Christ, Our King through our communication. Words of scorn and name calling are not signs of Eternal Wisdom holding an instrument for Their use.

Begging your intense prayers for all who touch your soul.

P.K.T.P. said...

Rodrigo:

You forgot to include idiotic remarks made by people on blogs: that is also a certainty.

I hope that the moderators will close this down now. I am not aganist Fellay. Nothing could be futher from the truth. I think that he looks much better alive and than he would look in personal prelature hell. I care about the S.S.P.X and tradition. I will try to convince him somehow. Levada is behind this, and Levada will try to saddle them with a canonical disaster. Levada is not a brilliant man; but he is not a complete idiot either. The one thing ++Lefebvre attained was FREEDOM from the local Marxist bishops. This freedom must not be surrendered.

P.K.T.P.

JMR said...

P.K.T.P.
Thank you for your very lucid arguments about this article.I fully support you. God be with you.

Carl said...

Joseph - In insulting people by calling them "comment box popes," are you "exhibit[ing] Christian virtue and patience"?

PKTP - It seems at this point that the thing is on the pope's desk. The time is past for loudly petitioning Fr. Schmidberger or Bishop Fellay in internet forums. Now is a time to petition God in silence. We must place ourselves in his hands as sheep.

Look, I don't think the Society will be fooled here by some clever canonical trick. Bishop Fellay is determined to continue operating as they always have. If another bishop gets in the way of that, he will be ignored, just as in the past. If the pope has a problem with that, he knows it going in, and he will have wasted a great deal of his own and everyone else's time just to go back to square one. Whatever canonical structure is agreed upon, I am convinced that it will not affect the way the Society operates. I mean, call it a "pious union," call it a "personal prelature," call it an "international archdiocese," call it a potato-peeling fish, SSPX is going to keep on training as many traditional priests and offering as many traditional Masses as she can. Never you fear about that. I mean, canonically, the SSPX is currently a suppressed pious union, that does "not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church." If that doesn't stop the Society from acting, you think recognizing it as a personal prelature will?!? yeah, that'll get 'em!

Couldn't you just see this secret den of modernists? "If excommunicating them doesn't cause them to fall apart, we'll give them more liberty than the Jesuits ever had! Mmmmwwuuuaah-haa-haaa-haaa! Hey Steve, why aren't you laughing maniacally?"

SSPX is like a hitter who has spent 30 years fouling off blistering 98 mph fastballs on the corner of the plate, and you're worrying that the thigh-high hanging curve on the horizon isn't as good of a pitch to hit as an underhanded softball.

Ecclesia Militans said...

P.K.T.P.,

I agree that those with hostile bishops are the ones who need the Mass the most, and I agree that asking for permission from the local bishops does not sound well, but neither does insulting Mons. Fellay.

If you have a way to reach him and to express your concerns, then by all means do it, and do it fast. But don't take him for a fool. He has been around for far too long not to know what he is doing. This is not the first offer from Rome.

Let us be wise like he is, and wait to see what exactly the Pope is offering.

someone said...

Don't worry! We still don't have Pope's decision, we still don't have a canonical proposal on paper. Let us pray and wait! May God lead bishop Fellay! He has a grace of his state. The Society will flowerish in the diocesies where they have a chapel and than the other dioceses will see that catholic indentity and catholic life and bishops, who have empty churches, will say "yes". It is possible. Trust in God!

Ecclesia Militans said...

Carl,

For those of us non-Americans, you might as well be speaking Chinese :)

Our Divine Judge's Petitioner said...

To New Catholic and P.K.T.P:

P.K.T.P. last said: "I hope that the moderators will close this down now."

Please consider honoring his request. As his words in print before us are even now being spread without his ability to adequately withdraw them himself, he will answer for their rippling impact before Our Divine Judge. Please have mercy on him as he has requested.

You could erase and begin taking comments anew. That mercy is within your grace of state too.

Hidden One said...

Whatever Bishop Fellay is, dense he is not.

Carl said...

PKTP - Campos is "in a given territory" (Can. 372.1). SSPX is "spread throughtout the world." The analogy and appeal to this canon is weak. Besides, I'm not sure being a sideshow like Campos - a new rite or independent particular church - is in the best interests of the society's mission to restore tradition to the entire church.

The pope - as supreme lawgiver - is free to set the terms of a personal prelature however he wishes. Those terms - not the canons you cite - will determine the relationship of the prelature to the local bishops and the way in which the faithful may be subject to the prelature. Bishop Fellay is indicating that the canonical solution is something new, something like a cross between a personal prelature and a military ordinariate.

As such, it will be able to go into parishes and help dioceses like Opus Dei, but not be subject to as many restrictions.

Martin Blackshaw said...

P.K.T.P.,

I should point out to you that "Levada" is Cardinal Levada and he should be referred to as such. You may not respect the man but you are bound to respect the office he holds. It does no one credit to treat of Church prelates as though they were Joe Bloggs next door. We cannot allow ourselves to descend into this kind of disdain for the Church's authorities, that's not the example of the saints.

Carl said...

Ecclesia Militans - Let me check my coffee-and-donut to tea-and-crumpet conversion chart. Ah yes, here it is:

SSPX is like a batsman who has spent 30 years defending his wicket against 158 kph yorkers, and PKTP is complaining that the upcoming donkey drop isn't a dibbly-dobbly.

How'd I do?

Anonymous said...

P.K.T.P - I fully understand your concerns concerning an argreement but don't you think it's a tad arrogant to consider yourself more knowledgeable than H.E. Fellay in these matters?

There comes a time when mere intelligence or fact doesn't suffice in this situation -instead what is needed is complete faith and trust in the will of God. In addition, you're logic appears to completely deny the fact that H.E. is directed by the Holy Ghost.

Aneas said...

It is important to realize that we are only getting one side of the story. Fellay says "what has changed is the fact that Rome no longer makes total acceptance of Vatican II a prerequisite for the canonical solution," but has Rome every officially stated this as its position?

I think it is more than a little ironic that Fellay wants his bishops to follow him to Rome when this entire mess was caused by the disobedience of Lefevbre. Disobedience begets disobedience. No matter how you slice it, they committed a schismatic act. I think it is predictable that the other 3 bishops might split.

I am extremely sympathetic to the SSPX, and I will start attended the Chapel in St. Paul, MN when they are receive canonical status with Rome. However, it is important to see the situation clearly, warts and all.

Lamentably Sane said...

P.K.T.P.,
Bishop Fellay is a highly intelligent man; it is unthinkable that he has not considered all the potential problems you list. Has it occurred to you that he is so intelligent that he may be holding back a few little snippets? His talk of personal prelatures will be lulling the bishops of the world into a false sense of security. When the particular terms of this PP come out some time this year, they may be in for a shock, but it will be a fait accompli and too late to mount any kind of campaign.

Prof. Basto said...

The analogy with the Campos Personal Apostolic Administration of St. John Vianney, with Anglican Ordinariates, or with Military Ordinariates, does not work, because all of the above have LIMITED territories.

In the case of an Anglicanorum coetibus Personal Ordinariate, it is the territory of a given country; in the case of a Military Personal Ordinariate, it is also the territory of a given country. In the case of the Campos Personal Apostolic Administration, it is the same territory of the Diocese of Campos.

What would be the territory of the SSPX, if it were to be erected as a Personal Diocese or Ordinariate? The territory of the entire world?

An universal Diocese to rival, at least in territorial reach, the universality of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff himself?

Surely, the Holy See would not agree to that.

The Opus Dei Prelate controls the Opus Dei Personal Prelature internationally, in the whole world, but such an universal control by a Bishop was allowed precisely because of the restrictions to the power of that Bishop. The Personal Prelature of the Opus Dei does not have ordinary jurisdiction over the laymen who are members of Opus Dei. They remain the subjects of their Ordinary, and only answer to Opus Dei regarding the object of the "contract". The only people who are subjects of the Opus Dei Personal Prelate are the Priests and Deacons incardinated in the clergy of the Personal Prelature.

So, even in "personal" canonical structures, you either get an universal territory with little power over the faithful, or you get the full powers of an Ordinary, but over a limited territory.

On the other hand, all those structures above mentioned are way more sophisticated and are all endowed with more freedom than the canonical structures under which the SSPX laboured in the 1970's until their canonical suppression confirmed by Paul VI.

Only after that did they start to work in total freedom, but without a regular canonical situation. So, if the regularization happens by means of the erection of a Personal Prelature, it would still be more than the initial canonical status under which the Society was founded (regardless of the pious union/society of common life debate).

Paul M said...

Dear PKTP
I totally understand your concerns. I too am deeply concerned that requiring the local ordinary's permission for future expansion is a BIG problem. But, in that specific problem, nothing changes, we will be no worse off than we now are.
It looks as though the pending 'agreement' along with the 'personal pinapple' will give the SSPX more freedom to work in many other areas where we now have no 'freedom'. In the case of the BIG problem which you highlight, the status quo will remain. THe SSPX priests who wish to open a new chapel, or the couple who wish to marry, etc... will still have the argument of 'supplied jurisdiction' if the local Ordinary refuses them. A bit of healthy disobedience has been the instrument of the preservation of the Faith thus far, and it will continue to be so (if we maintain the courage to continue employing it.)I am even comforted to know that we will not be relinquishing the opportunity for a good fight with 'Bolshevik Bishops'... The priests of the SSPX must continue to stand up to bishops, both liberal and over zealous conservative (it won't just be liberals that will refuse us), who refuse the 'legitamate desires' of the laity... no compromise (and no 'economy of St Basil' please Fr Iscara... we need be in a much stronger and secure position for that or else it will be the modernists who will successfully use St Basil's economy on us!)


That said, keep trying to get your concerns through to Bp Fellay & Co. They need to know that these concerns fill our hearts. A better solution by far would be one which required no contingency on the local ordinarys who are all in varying degrees (some wholly, some not so wholly), infected with modernism, And we should use what ever pressure, arguments, and most of all prayer, we can muster to obtain it.

Bartholomew said...

Mr. Perkins,

I share your concerns about the type of structure that the SSPX will eventually possess.

Is my memory playing tricks on me when I say that I recall that Bishop Fellay has said in the past that there has been a proposed structure that was sent to the Commission for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts (this would have been circa 2006)? He opined at the time that he assumed that the structure was novel and that's why it had to be sent to the Commission in order to ensure that it was in conformity with Canon Law (or at least contained nothing contradictory).

My point: the term "Personal Prelature" may be used, but it could be in key canonical areas much different from that of Opus Dei's PP (in other words, it could give to the SSPX a far greater latitude in terms of governance and expansion).

Just a thought.

Tradical said...

Quite the discussion, I was wondering when PKTP would chime in when I say the phrase 'Personal Prelature'.

How about looking at this from a Strategic point of view instead of a Tactical one.

From a Strategic point of view, every time a Bishop balks at Summorum Pontificum the laity can either appeal to ED or call the SSPX.

Either way, the Bishop has to talk to Rome and the laity has more options.

Also, I think us 'trads' should be working with the 'conservative' Catholic laity in order to 'market' the TLM as the thin edge of the wedge for the renewal of the Church.


Happy Feast Day!

Ecclesia Militans said...

Carl,

Strike two! You've now lost me completely.

I'm not English either, mate :)

Carl said...

Ecclesia Militans - Does your country of origin have a sport or game that involves swinging some sort of stick at some sort of small projectile? If so, imagine SSPX has done well spoiling many well-thrown projectiles and it is finally getting an easy one to hit, even if not as easy to hit as the one PKTP would like.

I've killed the idiom, long live the idiom.

Pilgrim said...

P.K.T.P.,

Are you a deist? Does God have no hand in anything?

Father Schmidberger has excellent advice.. for you:

"The Society has experienced many crises and has emerged from them all more strengthened than weakened. Furthermore, together with all its members and houses, it consecrated and dedicated itself to the Mother of God on December 8, 1984. I scarcely believe that God will let one of His Mother’s works slip away."

Carl said...

Take a closer look at what Bishop Fellay is saying. He isn't confused. He knows there is no direct analogy for the structure that has been agreed to. He is saying that, unlike Opus Dei, SSPX would have jurisdiction over the faithful. If this is what's in the agreement, it isn't undone by a canon. It represents a new kind of personal prelature.

"There is a lot of confusion about this question, and it is caused mainly by a misunderstanding of the nature of a personal prelature, as well as by a misreading of the normal relation between the local ordinary and the prelature. Add to that the fact that the only example available today of a personal prelature is Opus Dei. However, and let us say this clearly, if a personal prelature were granted to us, our situation would not be the same. In order to understand better what would happen, we must reflect that our status would be much more similar to that of a military ordinariate, because we would have ordinary jurisdiction over the faithful. Thus we would be like a sort of diocese, the jurisdiction of which extends to all its faithful regardless of their territorial situation."

Marty Jude said...

P.K.T.P.

At times, you make some valid and interesting observations on here, and go to much effort to put a point across. However, you appear to struggle with criticism and now you make insulting comments.

Is that truly necessary? While I appreciate and share some concerns, it is necessary to state them in a polite and charitable manner.

Why don't you formally write to H.E. Bishop Fellay and Fr Schmidberger? Explain your concerns and, respectfully, offer your thoughts and possible solutions?

May Our Blessed Mother, place you under Her Protecting Veil and comfort you.

Blessed St Jude, please use thy powerful intercession before God to protect the Holy Father, Bishop Fellay, the other 3 Bishops, and all the Society's Superiors, Priests Brothers and Sisters, and the cause of Holy Tradition and Our Holy Faith. Amen.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Carl. It seems pretty clear to me.

Holy Rosary said...

Phillip Glass, The Fraternity of St Peter and the Sons of the Holy Redeemer have had their problems because they haven't had their own Bishop to look after their interests. This is why the furious backlash against the SSPX, when Canonists have declared that A'bishop Lefebvre did no wrong in Consecrating the 4. He knew we HAD TO have our own Bishops,as he drew closer to death, and in future it will be shown this courageous action saved not only our situation in the SSPX, but saved Tradition for the whole Church.

Anonymous said...

It's so obvious that the ones crucified here are Pope Benedict XVI from the left and Bishop Fellay on the right. Clear as day!

Ecclesia Militans said...

Aaah, now I've got it.

Thanks, Carl.

By the way, I'm from the good ole' continent. The only sport with sticks we have involves football (what you'd call soccer) and a bunch of angry fans.
It's simple - the ones without the bats usually lose.

Dr. Timothy J. Williams said...

Reading this interview, three thoughts come to mind:
1) the astonishing distance between Bishop Fellay's humble, wise and devout words, and the hateful screed of the LCWR;
2) the absurdity of calling the SSPX "outside the Church" with all the heretical nuns "inside the Church;" and
3) a certain sense of hopelessness that the regularization of the SSPX will change anything for the vast majority of Catholics. Here in the moribund diocese of Steubenville, OH, the SSPX will NEVER be permitted to enter and the TLM will never be celebrated on a regular basis.

Long-Skirts said...

Dr. Timothy J. Williams said:

"...the astonishing distance between Bishop Fellay's humble, wise and devout words, and the hateful screed of the LCWR;"

THE
GOLDEN
BISHOP

February’s
Freezing dark
Wrapped gray chapel
In a foggy-cold.

But warm inside
Yellow candles spark
In the brilliance
Of the Monstrance bold.

A distinctive nature
Knelt in prayer
A Bishop cast
In Our Lord’s own mold.

He’d never admit –
Would never dare –
“Just pray for me.”
He’d scold.

But this is a man
A true Catholic Shepherd
An Alter Christus
To behold.

And he will not hunt you
Like a devouring leopard -
But lure
With his Fisherman’s Gold!

reader said...

Dr. Williams, I thought the Franciscans in Steubenville were very orthodox?

and pptk, please note Carl's quote about Bp. Felley's remarks. A different kind of p.p.

Magdalena said...

Dear Anonymous,
The Holy Ghost attempts to direct every one of us, you, me and Bishop Fellay. For none of us is it the case that our choices are necessarily what grace combined with intellect should produce.

magdalena said...

Another term frequently bandied about to support the assumption that the Pope or Bishop Fellay will automatically perform the will of God is "grace of state."

Every soul, whether pope, bishop, priest, husband, wife, spinster, etc. has a state and the graces necessary to properly accomplish the duties of that state. One might as well assert that every husband and wife must be making correct choices according to the will of God because they have the grace of state. The point is patently absurd.

Malta said...

Long Skirts:

Very beautiful!

OutsideObserver said...

"This is our future Prelate."

Timothy,

We don't know that yet.

Brian said...

According to Bishop Fellay's comments, it would appear that Pope Benedict XVI is ready to say that it is not necessary for Catholics to accept everything that was proclaimed by Vatican II. That is a big deal.

Now, I know that it almost certainly will not happen, but given all the controversy over the canonical structure and the likelihood that it will result in a split in the SSPX, my prayer is that at this time, our Holy Father will simply declare that the SSPX bishops and priests are fully Catholic and that their sacraments are valid and licit; and that he will then give the matter some time before deciding on a canonical structure.

dcs said...

I strongly agree with the poster who wrote that Mr. Perkins should share his canonical expertise with Bp. Fellay and Fr. Schmidberger.

JTLiuzza said...

Brian said: "...my prayer is that at this time, our Holy Father will simply declare that the SSPX bishops and priests are fully Catholic and that their sacraments are valid and licit; and that he will then give the matter some time before deciding on a canonical structure."

If I had a nickel for every time I heard that one... :)

The Queen of Peace's supplicant said...

To Magdalena who said in error: "Another term frequently bandied about to support the assumption that the Pope or Bishop Fellay will automatically perform the will of God is "grace of state...One might as well assert that every husband and wife must be making correct choices according to the will of God because they have the grace of state. The point is patently absurd."

There is a confusion in your comment. The specific graces provided for an individual in order that they may perform their duty of state for the honor and glory of the Holy Trinity are guaranteed to be available YET the individual soul may thwart them. Almighty God NEVER asks of us what is impossible and we can do NO good action without His grace.

What is often humbly acknowledged by comments is that the Mediatrix of All Graces has in the Treasury of Graces given to her by Her Crucified Divine Son, specific graces for the Sovereign Pontiff and H.E. Bishop Fellay which others are NOT privy to. That humble acknowledgement protects souls from thinking that they could precisely discern the Will of the Holy Trinity for them.

Blessed is the perfect Justice of God which makes available to all the specific graces necessary to do His Will YET renders to us the PRIVILEGE to freely CHOOSE to cooperate with the graces. This free will choice is either our act, however humble, of adoring gratitude OR with a free will denial of the graces and refusal to do the Will of God, our steps away from Beatitude.

May the Holy Spirit grant unto us all an increase of His Gifts through the intercession of the Queen of Peace.

Barbara said...

Magdelena said:
"Another term frequently bandied about to support the assumption that the Pope or Bishop Fellay will automatically perform the will of God is "grace of state." .....................................
One might as well assert that every husband and wife must be making correct choices according to the will of God because they have the grace of state. The point is patently absurd."

What expression would you bandy about then to define the graces that Catholic people can receive when faced with important decisions? These not being made in a vacuum or projections of the desires of their own ego. I don't think your comment is so very smart.

As for the rest of the debate on this thread, while I kind of understand and appreciate Mr. P.K.T.P's worries- they quite jolted me (he knows so much more about the situation than I do)I am concerned about the FSSPX NOT being regularised now when it is so patently clear that the Holy Father wants it.

Some Traditional Catholics can really be so unattractive in their negativity and lack of faith. What happened? Too many disappointments and hurts have made them hard and DISTRUSTING towards everyone? Is that what it is? (No reference whatsoever to Mr. P.K.T.P. whose comments are very lively and intelligent and even his criticisms are not dull and certainly worth considering. Sometimes he may be a provocateur - a devil's advocate or a just a little teasing - all fine by me in a good discussion.


Barbara

The Paraclete's petitioner said...

"Veni Sancte Spiritus". . .The Holy Spirit manifests to the children of God the sign of His guidance upon His servant H.E. Bishop Fellay through the following words:

"For my part, I know only one thing: it is always the moment to do God’s will, and He makes it known to us at an opportune time, provided that we are receptive to His inspirations."

The humble servant then utilizes his position to exhort us all to prayer: "For this reason, I asked the priests to renew the consecration of the Society of Saint Pius X to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, on His feast day, June 15, and to prepare for it by a novena, during which the litanies of the Sacred Heart will be recited in all our houses. Everyone can join in asking for the grace to become docile instruments of the restoration of all things in Jesus Christ."

"Veni Sancte Spiritus" through the generosity of the Sacred Heart - Christ, Our King! Oremus. . .

sam said...

Just a bit of humour!

If SSPX Bishop Fellay can't get the recognition and jurisdiction that he wants from Pope Benedict XVI, then there's always (p)ope Michael the First. I'm sure that he'll accept them without preamble, on account that his flock will finally exceed the single digit. :D

OutsideObserver said...

The Superior General said:

"One might think that they went to Ecône to find this examination of conscience, it is so much along the lines of pre-conciliar spirituality. This examination presents the traditional image of the priest, and also of his role in the Church."

A more likely source of this examination of conscience is Opus Dei. Cardinal Piacenza is very close to them, and the style of the examination is the same as the "examinations of conscience" to be found in pious books coming from the Opus Dei milieu.

Vincent said...

"One might think that they went to Ecône to find this examination of conscience, it is so much along the lines of pre-conciliar spirituality."

Actually, it sounds a lot like the exams used by Opus Dei. I'd say they went to Navarra rather than Econe.

Martinus said...

Dear PKTP and others,

I think +Fellay has a good grasp on the situation and will probably know quite well how to steer his Society away from the Bolsjevik Bishops. Their unjust exile has made them -justly so- mistrustful of the Roman autorities. Have trust in the bisshop who has led our Society for 18 years now. He is wise enough to avoid pitfalls, even if he doesn't share all the information he has with us. Have a little faith.

Gratias said...

None of us can be more Catholic than the Pope. We have an excellent one, let him and +Fellay iron the details out. Ad Maiorem Gloria.

Uncle Claibourne said...

Mr. Perkins,

I've complimented you on your posts previously. But now, you've crossed the line. Why in the world should I prefer your repeated-ad-nauseam opinion (and that's exactly what it is) to Bishop Fellay's? Are you a Canonist? Show us your credentials.

Bishop Fellay is "delusional"? Who are you to make such pronouncements, and why should I, or anyone else, accept (or even care about) what you say?

P.K.T.P. said...

Professor Basto is wrong.

There is absolutely nothing in Canon Section 2 of Canon 372 requiring that a personal particular church (whether an apostolic administration or [arch]diocese) be limited in territory. The fact that the Campos one is so limited is irrelevant. Section 2 says that it "may be established in a given territory" but this could be the entire earth, as the entire earth is a given territory. Moreover, the clause in Sect. 2 of 372 requiring consultation with the episcopal conferences concerned has an exact parallel for personal prelatures in Canon 294. In the case of Opus Dei's p.p., because the scope was to be international, that clause was waived. For exactly the same reason, the parallel clause in Sect. 2 of C.I.C. 372 could be waived. Prof. Basto needs to do some more research.

In addition, the provision for ritual or 'personal' dioceses, whether in a large territory or a very small one, is, ironically, a response to a Vatican II document, namely "Presbyterorum Ordinis", Section 3, No. 10, para. 2: a call for "special personal dioceses".

Personal ordinariates are relevant here because a very small number of them may be needed for the three or four countries in which an international ritual archdiocese might be obstructed by the terms of concordats joined by the Holy See.

My point was that the Anglican ordinariates and the Campos structure both enable the proper ordinary to establish apostolates in the territory of any diocese in which his structure exits. The S.S.P.X need not accept less because C.I.C. 372, Sect. 2, does indeed allow for an international ritual (de facto personal) archdiocese.

Q.E.D.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...

Paul M.

No, the argument of supplied jurisdiction will not work once there is an accord with direct and recognised jurisdiction.

I am concentrating on writing a very careful explanation for Bishop Fellay. This will be a professional, not a polemical work.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Uncle Claibourne said...

I can't help but chuckle. Mr. Perkins is now writing a treatise to instruct and correct Bishop Fellay. :)

P.K.T.P. said...

Carl,

I don't understand your baseball references. You'll have to switch to hockey.

Bishop Fellay is a man of his word, I should hope. Therefore, if he signs an agreement, he will keep to his terms. That is what we must assume. This is not the wild west. It is imperative that he not agree to a structure which shuts out his own people. Moreover, a p.p. is bad for other reasons. Yes, laics can work co-operatively in it to perform pastoral works, BUT THEY REMAIN SUBJECTS OF THE LOCAL ORDINARY. Anyone who has even the smallest understanding of the Canon Law will know that only a particular church has subjects. When it comes to the infrequent Sacraments and burial, you need the permission of the lcoal ordinary. Just imagine with what glee a De Roo or a Gueneley or a Mahony would deny that to their own subjects. This needs to be fixed and fairly soon.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...

Carl:

Your second comment, in which you quote Bishop Fellay, suggests a lack of knowldege about canonical structures and how they operate. Look, every time the Church needed a special provision, she sought to create or use an appropriate one, not to twist something into a structure which violates its definition. To remove the two main clauses of Canons 294 (on membership in the p.p.) and 297 (on episcopal permission),and then a third clause on consulting episcopal conferences, you'd have to twist the p.p. into something it isn't. That is not how the Church has ever done things, and for good reason: honesty and the appearance of honesty is important. The law does not serve a computer program; it serves faithful people.

This is why we have the following specially-designed structures today. Please consider these carefully: the territorial ordinariate for mixed Eastern-rite Catholics who do not have their own ordinary in a country; the military ordinariate which, uniquely, is territorial on military bases but personal elsewhere; the personal ordinariates for incoming Anglicans; the Campos 'ritual apostolic administration'; the territorial apostolic administration, such as the one for Estonia; the vicariate apostolic; the prefecture apostolic (e.g. Galapagos Is.); the territorial prelature (typically entrusted to a particular religious society); the personal prelature; the mission sui juris; the abbacy nullius; the prelature nullius.

Now it so happens that the p.p. DOES NOT FIT for the serious reasons I've given. But a ritual (arch)diocese under Section 2 of Canon 372--the Campos writ large--does fit, and it fits like a glove. Contrary to Prof. Basto's assumption, Section 2 of 372 does allow the territory in question to be international--even universal.

Let's look at this positively. Such an international ritual diocese, directly subject to the Holy See, would include in it the clerics and non-clerical ecclesiastics of the S.S.P.X and all its affiliates; it would include the lay supporters of the Society as full subjects; it would be 100% independent of the local liberal bishops. Think of a diocese as a family. This family is distinguished the rites and traditions of its members. A p.p. is not a family but an association of priests and deacons "to promote an appropriate distribution of priests" or to serve "social groups" (Canon 294).

There is an answer and the Campos is the precedent, not Opus Dei. The Campos is unique in the Church and it works like a charm. The only essential difference here is that this proposed Campos would be a lot bigger. It might include most of the world, but not including the Vatican City State!

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...

Prof. Basto:

Your p.p. for Opus Dei has the same reach as the Pope's universal authority too. Moreover, an international diocese would not rival the Pope's See. The Pope's see is Rome, and H.H. has no territorially universal diocese to rule. Rather, the Pope's universal jurisdiction is not diocesan but meta-diocesan and patriarchal, no, papal. His jurisdiction is not that of a universal see but one of universal authority as the father of all, who rules immediately, supremely, universally, and fully. This proposed international diocese would be SUBJECT to the Pope and directly so, so it rivals him not a whit. Oh, but if you must object, we could leave out Rome and the Vatican City State. You are now reaching for arguments.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...

Tradical writes:

"From a Strategic point of view, every time a Bishop balks at Summorum Pontificum the laity can either appeal to ED or call the SSPX."

No, they cannot 'call up' the S.S.P.X. The issue of admitting a religious society and the issue of getting access to the T.L.M. are separate. The local bishop could indeed provide a Latin Mass just to keep the S.S.P.X out. He could then do a 'Verdun' on the locals. French bloggers will know what I mean by that. At Verdun, you get the T.L.M. with the New Lectionary--once a month. My favourite nasty is the Bishop of La Rochelle, though. He has the T.L.M. on fourth Sundays at two *alternating* sites. All you need to get to his Masses is a helicopter. Notice, by the way, that the P.C.E.D. has done NOTHING to enforce Summorum Pontificum in France--or just about anywhere else. Oh, there might be an exception here or there. Let's not talk about that, though. Heaven forbid that we should face reality.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...

Prof. Basto writes about restrictions on the power of the Opus Dei Prelate, and then includes this:

"So, even in "personal" canonical structures, you either get an universal territory with little power over the faithful, or you get the full powers of an Ordinary, but over a limited territory."

Well, this is a nice fancy but there is no evidence for it. There was absolutely no historical precedent for the Campos structure but now we have one. Same with the military ordinariate.

Diocesan bishops always have 'restricted power' in relatiion to the Pope because their power is local or proper only, and not exercised over all faithful; it is ordinary but not supreme; it is subordinate to that of the Pope. Moreover, as I have explained, the structure I propose would probably not be able to function in 'concordat countries', where it would need to be paralleld by national territorial ordinariates (just in Argentina, Poland, Austria, and maybe Brazil).

Diocesan territories can be remarkable large, Professor Basto. The Armenian Catholic have an apostolic exarchate (like our apostolic administration) extending throughout more than thirty countries from Chile to Mexico and the Caribbean. That's quite large, no?

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...

Dear Professor Basto:

I will also let you exclude the proposed new ritual archdiocese from Antarctica. In fact, this is a place where Cardinal Levada might be sent upon retirement. To my recollection, there is an unrented cabin on South Georgia waiting for him, and the place has no jurisdiction. Let's see: the mission sui juris of Antarctica.

On a more serious note, there actually could be a mission sui juris for Antarctica, to serve Catholics in the research stations on the continent. It is possible. There's one in Afghanistan (actually an apostolic administration, believe it or not) just for the Catholic embassy staffs. I believe that it operates an embassy chapel in the French or Italian embassy.

My point is serious: the Church has flexible structures for even the most unusual situations. Why bend the p.p. into something it's not when there is available ready and waiting the right structure?

But my real concern is that Fellay openly admits that he will need the permission of the local bishops to open apostolates in their bailiwicks: he says so directly and then comments on how we don't live in a perfect world. Well, we knew that but there is something wrong with this picture.

P.K.T.P.

Paul M said...

Dear PKTP
I don't know where you get the time!
Good luck & my prayers for the letter to BP Fellay.

P.K.T.P. said...

Anon. wrote:

"It's so obvious that the ones crucified here are Pope Benedict XVI from the left and Bishop Fellay on the right. Clear as day!"

No, it is clear that those who are persecuted are faithful Catholics who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition but are prevented by their own bishops from benefitting spiritually from the Mass they know and love. And that is why we must not have a personal prelature in which the local bishop can continue this persecution by forbidding entry to the S.S.P.X.

If the Pope or Bishop Fellay want to benefit from the spiritual graces of the ancient Latin Mass, they need only don their vestments. Not so for Joe Pew in the Archdiocese of Mobile, when Archbishop Rodi moves Heaven and earth to keep out the Latin Mass. Not so for the Mary Smith in the Diocese of Las Vegas or Jean Drouin in the Archdiocese of Cambrai or thousands upon thousands in Peru and the Philippines. They are the people who are persecuted. I know. I've been there. We were exiled to the Ukrainian Byzantine Church for more than a decade. Thank God for those wonderful Ukrainian people. But not everyone has that as an option to the never-ending clown Masses which have destroyed all sense of reverence in the Holy Catholic Church.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...

Uncle Claiborne:

I never wrote that Bishop Fellay is "delusional". You're confusing me with someone else.

As for ad nauseum repetition, there are times when the truth must be repeated to get past the ad nauseum errors, like the constant parrotting of this 'personal prelature' term. Where is this coming from: Ocariz of Opus Dei? It's the wrong structure. You avoid the issue. Do you or do you not think it a good idea to give the local bishops a veto on where the S.S.P.X can open a chapel. Before you answer, consider that Fellay ADMITS that this will be a restriction. For all those here who blather about 'a different kind of p.p.', my response is the same: surely not the kind, though, which requires the likes of a Danneels or a Mahony to give permission.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...

Uncle Clairborne:

You seem to assume that Bishop Fellay must be an august canonist. He has training but not in the 1983 Code, and its likely not his interest at all. He does have canonical advisors, but we don't know what Levada's men have told them. It cannot hurt to make a well-reasoned proposal. If I'm wrong on it, so be it. I just want to do what I can to fix this mess. It worked the last time! If you want to know what I mean by that, contact the moderators, and I'll be glad to answer.

P.K.T.P.

Benedict Carter said...

Bishop Fellay for Pope!

Roger Buck said...

@PTKP

Re you saying:


Anthony James:

Thank you so much for your support on this. It is really helping me.

I would like to add that although I - being far less clued up about this than you are - have no idea whether or not your fears will prove completely justified ...

Clearly there are factors here only the Holy Father knows ...

Clearly you are analysing all this with unusual acuity ...

I really just want to say whatever verdict the future passes on your concerns, I am truly grateful for your acuity and analysis here on this forum both on this topic and others.

For example your bulletins here about the spread (or not) of the TLM globally ...

This additional analysis - alongside the very fine work done by NC et al - has long meant a lot to me.

Thank you deeply.

Ceolfrid said...

Does anyone here really think that all our agonizing will affect anything?

Lots of smart and well-intended folks here spending a lot of effort "What If"ing this situation to death.

Thing is, none of us can influence this thing one iota. We're spectators in a blood-sport rooting for whatever team we identify with.

But, none of us decides anything. This decision will be made by the Holy Father and by him alone. Bp. Fellay made it for the F.S.S.P.X, like it or not. Throwing intellectual tantrums isn't helping anything.

Pray and watch, says I. Trust Bp. Fellay and the Holy Father, and realize that the Holy Ghost is at work and God's will, will be done whatever the outcome.

I can imagine that there is a lot of effort from the enemies of Catholic tradition being exerted in order to derail this rapproachment. If it happens, no one will be able to question the status of the F.S.S.P.X anymore, and Tradition will return to the Church with a vengeance.

Those enemies know that.

Pray and watch.

1917 said...

So much of interest to read, although I don't grasp all of it. As a simpleton, I go a lot with feeling. Lack of clarity in all the words spoken on interviews leaves me still wondering just exactly what is planned, what will we be left with, what will be the SSPX within Rome or without Rome?

My question is, why is it we must 'trust' B Felly and the Holy Father (without question) and that the Holy Ghost is 'definitely' working here? Does the Holy Ghost not work for any others? What if I feel the Holy Ghost is guiding me away from this 'reconciliation'? Would you say I am not following the Holy Ghost? I feel uneasy is the best way to describe it. I was brought up with the New Order and would never go back. Why is it everyone is jumping for joy and exclaiming only certain persons full of Grace? What if we lose our Mass centres? Some places don't have anything and I am truly sorry for them but here we are with the possibility of losing so much. It is not negativity, rather I wish to know the reality.

I am not tied up in emotions. There just seems to be little plain speaking. Why is it we must not question but just trust? My questions will no doubt bring trouble... However through catechism and teaching my children we are taught to always question everything - at whatever level we are able to. Our Lord asks for blind faith but to be cautious who we follow. This isn't meant to be negative as I do pray for SSPX unity and a good outcome.

I am grateful for those who comment and question respectfully.

May Our Lady Bless you always x

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

I have to say PKTP, I think most of what you have posted is simply nonsense. Bishop Fellay has made it clear that what is being considered is a NEW TYPE of personal prelature that is more like an ordinariate than a prelature, perhaps you forgot to read that bit before repeating your comments ad absurdam? Please trust +Fellay and at the very least read things properly BEFORE commenting.

ST said...

There's a time to examine one's conscience and there's a time to have one's head examined...

P.S. What is the difference between "New Catholic" and "New Order Catholic" or is there one?

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

see this pktp 'There is a lot of confusion about this question, and it is caused mainly by a misunderstanding of the nature of a personal prelature, as well as by a misreading of the normal relation between the local ordinary and the prelature. Add to that the fact that the only example available today of a personal prelature is Opus Dei. However, and let us say this clearly, if a personal prelature were granted to us, our situation would not be the same. In order to understand better what would happen, we must reflect that our status would be much more similar to that of a military ordinariate, because we would have ordinary jurisdiction over the faithful. Thus we would be like a sort of diocese, the jurisdiction of which extends to all its faithful regardless of their territorial situation.
All the chapels, churches, priories, schools, and works of the Society and of the affiliated religious Congregations would be recognized with a real autonomy for their ministry.
It is still true—since it is Church law—that in order to open a new chapel or to found a work, it would be necessary to have the permission of the local ordinary. We have quite obviously reported to Rome how difficult our present situation was in the dioceses, and Rome is still working on it. Here or there, this difficulty will be real, but since when is life without difficulties? Very probably we will also have the contrary problem, in other words, we will not be able to respond to the requests that will come from the bishops who are friendly to us. I am thinking of one bishop who could ask us to take charge of the formation of future priests in his diocese.
In no way would our relations be like those of a religious congregation with a bishop; rather they would be those of one bishop with another bishop, just like with the Ukrainians and the Armenians in the diaspora. And therefore if a difficulty is not resolved, it would go to Rome, and there would then be a Roman intervention to settle the problem.
Let it be said in passing that what was reported on the Internet concerning my remarks on this subject in Austria last month is entirely false.'

Now if you read it properly you will see:
a) there will be a new type of personal prelature
b)if disputes arise it will be like disputes between one bishop and another, that is why it will go to Rome, it WILL NOT be like the normal eclessia dei disputes, so you're comments in that regard are entirely invalid.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

As for +Fellays training, so far as I know SSPX priests are trained extensively in the 1983 code and also in the 1917 code, perhaps less in the latter than the former. After all they accept the 1983 code, albeit not in its entirity. Moreover he would presumably have taken advice on the matter from relevant priests, some of whom are doctors of law i.e have a phd in law

RedGoat said...

P.K.T.P.:

Put your concerns in writing and send a letter to Bishop Fellay or his secretary. You can't expect that Bishop Fellay sits around reading internet blogs all day and happens to stumble upon your opinions in a comment section.

Write a letter then be at peace.

Carl said...

PKTP- frivolities first. Cross-referencing my handy coffee-and-donuts to beer-and-more-beer-eh chart: SSPX is like a goaltender standing on his head all night, and as the final seconds tick off, you're complaining that he's facing blue line dump ins rather than his boys keeping it at the other end. Didja gettit eh? Mercy, Rorate really makes you work for a sports analogy. Can you offer a workshop or something, New Catholic?

What is clearly being suggested here by Bishop Fellay is that the canonical structure being proposed is a kind of hybrid of a personal prelature and a military ordinariate. He is expressly claiming that SSPX would be unlike Opus Dei: SSPX would have ordinary jurisdiction over the faithful. It is also claimed - and this is troubling - that SSPX would be like Opus Dei in that it would have to obtain permission of a local ordinary in order to expand in a diocese. This is a problem and Fellay knows it. But it's a problem he's willing to live with because 1) Rome is working on it and progress is being made and 2) he thinks SSPX will be so overwhelmed responding to invitations from friendly bishops that it won't have the ability or need to expand in unfriendly territories. I believe that if push comes to shove, Rome will either fix it or SSPX will ignore the local bishop causing the problem.

I'm not sure whether this is the best canonical solution, whether what you propose is "the right structure" (you may be right), but I disagree that this structure is a bad one or that this new kind of Personal Prelature being proposed here is somehow "dishonest." What you are suggesting, "an international, virtually universal archdiocese," would be far more unprecedented than a tinkering of the personal prelature model.

Jack O'Malley said...

JMJ quoted Bishop Fellay: It is still true—since it is Church law—that in order to open a new chapel or to found a work, it would be necessary to have the permission of the local ordinary.

I think you misunderstand PKTP's concern. It is precisely that statement. It is not so easy to dismiss it, which you did. This is, on the face of it, less autonomy than an Anglican Ordinary has.

That said, I think that Bishop Fellay is astute enough not to be hoodwinked by the foxes in the Vatican, which are probably nearly as numerous as the wolves.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

Jack, I understand his concern, but the statement must be viewed as a whole, which is why I had to quote it all. Yes, they may need permission for new works, but what form that permission will take and how disputes will be sorted out is not at all like religious orders or even Opus Dei. Its much more akin to that required, if any, by particular churches etc... So I think we need to have a little more tust in God and +Fellay.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

One must also remember that the SSPX if it was regularised would be here to stay, not just now but God willing for a very very long time, thus any structure it has must be sustainable. I cannot see how a universal diocese would be sustainable, the last thing we need is another novel model that turns the traditional structure of the church upside down and undermines bishops. After all Orthodox bishops are a good thing and if our intention is to return the entire church to orthodoxy we cannot simply ignore them or cut them out of the loop.

Carl said...

Dr. Timothy Williams - pray for your new bishop, and when he's appointed, don't waste any time seeking him out and getting a friendly word in his ear. Has a new pastor been appointed to replace the late Msgr. Yontz at St. Peter? Have you spoken to him?

Reader - The University and the Diocese of Steubenville are two very different things. Even still, the orthodoxy of the Francisans is a matter for some debate. They are obedient to ecclesiastical authority and generally faithful to Catholic doctrine. Among the trainwreck of the American Catholic Universities, they are on the tracks. But this is really low praise. The campus is pervaded by a tenuous hybrid of beautiful Eucharistic and Marian devotion and an extremely affective Protestant spirituality of "praise and worship." Meanwhile, the university itself has gone from charismatic beginnings to a more and more worldly pragmatism. They continue to build the nave at the expense of the sanctuary: building all kinds of new facilities while leaving their chapel stuck in the 1960s. The orthodoxy of the University is magnificent among "Catholic universities" but in itself rather shallow.

Jack O'Malley said...

JMJ - I completely agree about trust in God and Bp. Fellay. But I do worry that if the FSSPX were to yield up the autonomy it presently has, which autonomy has allowed it to flourish despite the odds against it, that it might face obstacles to expansion once inside the Church. Relegation to Rome of disputes with the local ordinary might, in fact probably will, result in protracted wheel-spinning by the fainéants in the curial bureaucracy.

The Church Militant of the FSSPX must remain free to march into any diocese in the world and plant the True Cross of uncorrupted Tradition.

Dr. Timothy J. Williams said...

Carl, you have generally described Franciscan University rather well. However, as for the Diocese, I gave up on that long ago. Many of us attend Divine Liturgy at a Byzantine parish. It is beautiful, but foreign.

LeonG said...

"One must also remember that the SSPX if it was regularised would be here to stay........"

Without regularisation the SSPX is here to stay. If Bishop Fellay is not careful it will be subsumed into the NO and subjected to liberal modernist whim. In this interview Fellay does everything to justify his position but he cannot be as naive as he portrays himself: he has always wanted an agreement at least since the beginning of this decade. His major fault is to make assumptions about his liberal modernist conterparts which his great predecessor did not. It is apparent too that he has been insufficient in consultations with the other bishops. Given the fraternal nature of The Confraternity this is a major faux pas which may cost him very dear in the final analysis.

Mi-Ka-El said...

Bishop Fellay's position is very realistic. He recognizes the error and the solution in a very true process. It might not seem the most ideal way but tell you what it is a way that makes Tradition go further and deeper in the church again. He is correct in acknowledging that the mainstream church would have mixed positions in this matter, some will accept, some will not. But being back into the mold and having jurisdiction over the churches that the mainstream holds will make a difference. Catholics who are aloof with the situation and not aware, will eventually see and experience tradition even if they are not interested. These are good baby steps my dear faithful, GOD is working my friends he is not leaving us in the dark. Now, if only the consecration of Russia would be done. We would see a true miracle happen.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

Jack, maybe, maybe not but thats certainly no reason not to sign up. I do not think +Fellay would sign up to an agreement that handicaps them in a way you and others fear. Gods will be done and we can do nothing but pray about it.

Anthony James said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

Leon, please do not twist my words, my meaning is obvious from the context. As for your judgments on +Fellay, Fr Schmidberger his predecessor supports the deal, though I suspect you are referring to Archbishop Lefebvre. He too did things much the way +Fellay did. If the deal requires no compromise to reject it would be schismatic. Such has been the position of +Fellay and others.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

An amusing post Anthony James, but frankly an entirely worthless one. All it contains is snide comments, bile and venom, much as most people who oppose +Fellay are full of. For the avoidance of doubt I attend an SSPX chapel, help out at their masses, avoid the NO altogether, my SD is affiliated to them etc... And yet I trust +Fellay, so please paint your absurd caricatures elsewhere, perhaps cathinfo would be more to your liking?

Tradical said...

PKTP:

I'm curious. Do you have credentials to support your assertions.

This is not saying that your opinion (even if self-taught) is not valuable.

As for someone saying 'all this talk is useless - it is a done deal'.

If you know something that will help counsel Bishop Fellay and the General Council, then by all means go to it!

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear Mr. Perkins. COME. STOP IT.

As The Chairman of COME. STOP IT. (Committee Of Men Even Smarter Than Ol' Perkins; It's True) it is my duty to write that your prideful claims undermine all that you write.

If you can identify even one Saint who has done what you are doing, then, by all means, continue.

Otherwise - Come on. Stop it.

Tradical said...

@Anthony James,

I echo JMJ's comments.

You're just giving the 'anti-regularization / anti-Fellay league' a bad name.

There are some among us who support the SSPX who, although not opposed to a regularization, have questions and concerns. But we are exercising patience, praying and asking questions respectfully.

We are not giving inflammatory sermons, setting up support groups for priests who don't agree with +Fellay, inquiring with lawyers about lawsuits to obtain title to SSPX property etc.

Someone commented (way back)that in all these discussions there are two 'spirits' in evidence.

On the one hand there are those who (like yourself and others posting on Cathinfo) objectively fall under one heading of Fr. Couture's letter regarding the discernment of spirits.

On the other, there are those that are quietly increasing their prayers, making sacrifices etc that God's will be done.

In this context before we write another word in the combox, we need to consider which Spirit is motivating us and whose side are we on?

jjr said...

Dr. Timothy Williams and Carl: The new pastor, Fr. Timothy Huffman, is now at St. Peter's. The TLM will begin again, once a month, on the first Sunday of October. Fr. Huffman has also changed some things in the sanctuary. Six candles and a crucifix are on the altar. The chairs in the sanctuary have been turned sideways, not facing the people. Fr. is also using the chalice veil. The weekend schedule has changed a bit: Sung Mass at 4:00 on Sat., Sung Mass at 8:00 Sun.,Solemn Mass at 10:00 Sun., and Low Mass at 1:00 Sun., with the TLM at the 1:00 time on Ist Sun. On July 1st the newly ordained Fr. Jonas Shell will come to St. Peter's as the associate. I attended his First Mass. He celebrated the Mass in English, but all the music was in Latin, Gregorian Chant by the Schola from the Josephinium. St. Peter's has been an oasis in the diocese. Thanks be to God for these new developments!

I am not Spartacus said...

The Church Militant of the FSSPX must remain free to march into any diocese in the world and plant the True Cross of uncorrupted Tradition.

Dear Mr. O'Malley. That reads like the statement of an American Officer made during the Vietnam War - "We must destroy this village to save it."

Here is Pastor Aeternus:

Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord the Roman Church possesses a sovereignty of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate to which ail, of whatsoever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world; so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor through the preservation of unity, both of communion and of profession of the same faith, with the Roman pontiff."

If Napalming Tradition is your way of preserving uncorrupted Tradition, then consider throwing-in with the Sedevacanatists - they do less damage.

Hidden One said...

PKTP,

Until fairly recently, Canada had both the Montreal Expos and the Toronto Blue Jays (the Expos are now gone).

Judy said...

"It is enough to look at the Church’s past: often, and almost always, we see that there are widespread errors in the Church."

Up until reading this I have been very sympathetic toward the SSPX.
I still sincerely hope and pray for the salvation of its subscribers and priests. But, I no longer hope for or believe in the desirability for any sort of reconciliaton between the Church and the SSPX. Clearly they are not one and the same, and trying to bring them together will only cause more confusion and dissention. I pray the Holy Spirit will enlighten them and make them more receptive to His inspirations.

Knight of Malta said...

Now just where does SSPX feel free to openly disagree with Vatican II?

Because Vatican II was not infallible, and in a few areas taught error.

Quaeritur: was Lateran IV infallible in teaching that Jews and Muslims must wear special dress.

People, get over Vatican II, and start focussing on Trent again!

Allator said...

Dear Mr. non-Spartacus: I think you have taken the wrong message from my comment. I would advise that a second reading may make the point clearer to you.

And your incendiary riposte about napalm and "throwing-in with the sedevacantists" is not only rebarbative but contumelious in the extreme. I pass over it as the galled ejaculation of a peevish curmudgeon and unworthy of a rational rebuttal.

Jack O'Malley said...

The comment from Allator was mine.

I am not Spartacus said...

AD APOSTOLORUM PRINCIPIS

40. And when We later addressed to you the letter Ad Sinarum gentem, We again referred to this teaching in these words: "The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the successor of Peter, to whom not only the faithful but also all bishops are bound to be constantly subject and to adhere both by the reverence of obedience and by the bond of unity.

41. Acts requiring the power of Holy Orders which are performed by ecclesiastics of this kind, though they are valid as long as the consecration conferred on them was valid, are yet gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious

Dear Mr. O'Malley While I readily agree that your response was not rational - I pass over it as the galled ejaculation of a peevish curmudgeon and unworthy of a rational rebuttal. - I must disagree that my understanding of what you wrote was unclear; that being so, the fault lies not with my misunderstanding what you wrote but the fault lies with you and your inability to make your own self clearly understood.

Doc said...

American Seminarian,

The key issue here is the definition of "religious submission" which Ott's Fundamentals defines as follows:

"an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See. The so-called 'silentium obsequiosum,' that is 'reverent silence,' does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error."

From other old manuals, etc. I've read this form of assent requires a spirit of docility that gives a presumption of truth to the teaching and a good faith effort to assimilate the teaching. If that effort fails, then assent can be suspended, but criticism must be given in a manner consonant with one's rank and competence and with due reverence for the Magisterial organ doing the teaching.

The SSPX does not reject anything that the Magisteirum (in its solemn definitions or ordinary and universal teaching) has proposed to the faithful as "of faith" or "to be definitively held"--these other groups do. If (and big if), the SSPX is given the approbation of Rome, it means the Pope has been satisfied that they are giving the appopriate religious submission, and that their objections (even if wrong)are in good faith.

On the other hand, doctrines proposed in a definitive way can never be rejected by a Catholic--they bind unconditionally in conscience.

P.K.T.P. said...

Dear Ceolfrid and others:

There was a certain amount of debate like this over the Campos structure in 2001. Someone or other on this blog was, believe it or not, consulted about the best canonical form. Shortly thereafter, a form very similar to that (not identical) was granted. The result has been glorious: the Campos Apostolic Administration of St. John-Mary Vianney has the automony it needed. It was a triumph and a precedent for the present case, because Section 2 of Canon 372 allows this sort of PARTICULAR CHURCH (diocese or equivalent) to be international in scope.

I reject the notion that the 'experts' all know what they are doing. They may be competent but that does not mean that they have all given the matter due attention. They must beware of the C.D.F. and its excuses for granting the wrong structure.

When the Brazilian bishops were consulted about the Campos structure, they went into a panic, and they managed to confine its territory to that of only one tiny diocese out of 262 in Brazil, when it had been designed to cover the entire country. The Priestly Union was allowed by special permission to keep its three or four chapels outside that territory (like the one in the Diocese of Volta Redondo), but it cannot expand beyond those few exceptions--without the permission of the local bishop.

So this is our present problem. The solution is the Campos structure, elevated to the rank of archdioces--a ritual archdiocese under 372.2--and compbined with universal or at least international scope. It can be done, so I shall concentrate on that for now. Some dioceses cover several countries, like one in the Latin Church for Arabia.

P.K.T.P.

Knight of Malta said...

You folks need to understand the difference between doctrine and dogma.

The first is not binding, the latter is. You can't be declared a heretic for questioning general doctrine, though you should strive to subscribe to it.

To become a heretic, you have to deny a dogma; these terms become very confusing to some.

Paul stood Peter to his face; we allowed discussion and dialogue! The Church has done it for centuries! Let SSPX fully back in, and allowed their say!

I am not Spartacus said...

AD APOSTOLORUM PRINCIPIS

(ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII)

We are aware that those who thus belittle obedience in order to justify themselves with regard to those functions which they have unrighteously assumed.... In no sense do they excuse their way of acting by appealing to another custom, and they indisputably prove that they follow this line deliberately in order to escape from the discipline which now prevails and which they ought to be obeying.

44. We mean that discipline.. a discipline which takes its sanction from that universal and supreme power of caring for, ruling, and governing which our Lord granted to the successors in the office of St. Peter the Apostle.

45. Well known are the terms of Vatican Council's solemn definition: "Relying on the open testimony of the Scriptures and abiding by the wise and clear decrees both of our predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs, and the general Councils, We renew the definition of the Ecumenical Council of Florence, by virtue of which all the faithful must believe that 'the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and the Roman Pontiff himself is the Successor of the blessed Peter and continues to be the true Vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church, the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him is the blessed Peter our Lord Jesus Christ committed the full power of caring for, ruling and governing the Universal Church....'

46. "We teach, . . . We declare that the Roman Church by the Providence of God holds the primacy of ordinary power over all others, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate. Toward it, the pastors and the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both individually and collectively, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in matters which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the whole world, in such a way that once the unity of communion and the profession of the same Faith has been preserved with the Roman Pontiff, there is one flock of the Church of Christ under one supreme shepherd. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth from which no one can depart without loss of faith and salvation."

47. From what We have said, it follows that no authority whatsoever, save that which is proper to the Supreme Pastor, can render void the canonical appointment granted to any bishop; that no person or group, whether of priests or of laymen, can claim the right of nominating bishops; that no one can lawfully confer episcopal consecration unless he has received the mandate of the Apostolic See.

48. Consequently, if consecration of this kind is being done contrary to all right and law, and by this crime the unity of the Church is being seriously attacked, an excommunication reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See has been established which is automatically incurred by the consecrator and by anyone who has received consecration irresponsibly conferred.

Dear Knight of Malta. Not a few of the write-backers in here understand the distinction twixt Dogma and Discipline and, although you cite Paul withstanding Peter, who had the last word on that matter?

In addition, had Paul arrogated to his own self ultimate authority and decided to obey Peter only insofar as he agreed with him and then Paul had run oft and started a petit ecclesia (as what was clearly done by the SSPX) do you think Peter would have been duty bound to act against Paul?

JTLiuzza said...

Bp. Fellay: "It is enough to look at the Church’s past: often, and almost always, we see that there are widespread errors in the Church."

Judy said: "Up until reading this I have been very sympathetic toward the SSPX."

What is incorrect about that statement from Bishop Fellay?

JMR said...

The fact that ordinary Catholics were too obedient to the Pope and Bishops is how the changes to the Mass as a result of Vatican II were adopted with so little opposition in the first place.
I was an adolescent at the time but I don't remember any discussions about the changes in my Irish working class family. These were people who had being going to Mass for years but they were simple trusting people,they were not theologians and they assumed that if these were changes approved by theologians,Popes and Bishops they were correct.
The result of this "obedience"to the Pope has been that in my generation of cousins few go to Mass regularly and their children below are indistinguishable from atheists in their behaviour. This is the result of"obedience" to the Pope.
I can't believe that half the people that comment on here don't dare to go to the Latin Mass.
I spent 40 years wandering in the N.O. desert,instinctively knowing in my heart( no theological training at the time)that the Mass was wrong.When I found an Latin Mass at an SSPPX monastery I was like someone dying of thirst.I had no idea of the history of the SSPXX or its problems with the Vatican. I didn't care because I knew I had once again found the truth. And my daughters and husband who had never attended anything but the NO Mass had the same reaction. My husband would only go to NO Mass under duress now and again. Now he goes every Sunday. It is a 40 minute drive and then another 20 minutes on a mud track which has wrecked our cars but we don't miss. How people cannot attend the real Mass because of some notions of obedience is beyond me.

Carl said...

American Seminarian - Defects in the conciliar text have been at least tacitly acknowledged. Lumen Gentium's teaching on collegiality was so open to erroneous interpretation that it necessitated the Nota Previa. Dignitatis Humanae's description of the restraint on religious liberty was so open to error as to necessitate the correction in CCC 2109. If LG is interpreted by the Nota Previa and DH by CCC 2109, the insidiousness mostly disappears (not completely, but mostly).

Part of that "religious submission of intellect and will" is telling the truth, not concealing your beliefs behind a facade of false obedience. When unacceptable compromises of clarity are being made for the sake of some perceived pastoral expediency, it means continuing to cling to the Church's perennial teaching. This is what SSPX has done: "We hold to what was said and done before." To condemn such a position is to condemn the Church's own past, history, foundation and tradition, to rupture the generations. The Holy Father seems to recognize this, he has written and said many things to this effect.

How does one "submit" to a blank sheet of paper? How does one "adhere" to statements so vague as to be able to mean anything at all? "Man has an unequivocal right to religious liberty, except when he doesn't, but we're not telling what the circumstances might be that make for the difference." What does that even mean? How can one accept OR reject such a meaningless statement? It says nothing, absolutely nothing at all. All it does is invite private and contradictory interprations.

"The college of bishops should be acknowledged as having more authority without impugning on that of the Apostolic See or individual bishops." Nothing. It means absolutely nothing.

"We encourage dialogue with non-Catholics so long as it is not tainted with false irenicism." This can be interpreted to mean anything. The problem is that for forty to fifty years, these blank checks have been cashed for ridiculous sums that the Church cannot afford. The SSPX simply calls it for what it is and has never stopped suffering for it, being accused of disobedience and schism. You compare SSPX to the LCWR! We called it a chalice, then we called it a cup and got mad at SSPX for calling it a chalice, now we call it a chalice again. All the while, Bishop Fellay smiles with gracious amusement and says, "It is not very complicated. We just do what we have always done. You can call us good names or call us bad names, but it is all the same. We are going to do what we've always done. We invite you to join us."

Carl said...

jjr- it is wonderful to hear those things about Fr. Huffman and St. Peter. Having a traditional Mass once a month is not enough though. This makes the extraordinary form seem like little more than a curious visit to a museum, rather than a valued part of the Church's life.

I will pray that it is increased to at least once a week.

jjr said...

Carl - Fr. Huffman has just been with us since June 1. When Mons.Yontz died we wondered if we would ever have a TLM again. So, we are very thankful for such a good start. Please pray for us.

I am not Spartacus said...

Council of Trent Session 7

No bishop is permitted under any pretext or privilege whatsoever to exercise episcopal functions in the diocese of another bishop, without the permission of the Ordinary of the place and with regard to persons subordinate to the same Ordinary.

Dear JMR Even though there are many who agree with you re the Real Mass and The Lil' Licit Liturgy. it is simply not defensible to destroy Tradition in order to "save" Tradition as the SSPX has been doing lo these many years.

It would be quite a coup for The Devil to successfully use the Traditional Mass as a tool to get Catholics lose their Faith and to sever at least one of the Bonds of Unity (Worship. Doctrine.Authority) which is the sine qua non of real Catholicism.

Following the previous Council, Satan also used "Tradition" to establish a counter-church; the Old Catholics

The SSPX, in addition to all of their praiseworthy acts, have cultivated in the minds of those who succor them a protestant attitude towards obedience and discipline.

The SSPX, and those who succor it, will obey the Vicar of Christ only insofar as the decisions he takes are decisions they agree with;those decisions he takes they disagree with they refuse to obey thereby clearly revealing their protestant orientation - THEY are the ultimate authority. not Our Sweet Jesus on Earth.

I know such an observation will cause those who succor the SSPX to become apoplectic but, following the Flannery O'Connor principle - to the nearly deaf you yell and to the nearly blind you paint with big bright letters - it must be written for that is the plain and simple truth.

Satan has been successfully using the SSPX to entice those who succor it to sever one of the Bonds of Unity while, at the same time, citing Tradition as justification for that severing action.

One has to give Satan his due. He always tries to sift Peter and destroy Holy Mother Church; and with the Traditional Mass as a weapon, and appeals to Tradition as justification for disobeying Peter, Satan has been succoring a schism within the Church.

Satan has been having one Hell of a blast lately.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

PKTP the apostolic administation far from 'being glorious' was a disaster, Bishop Rifan insists on concelebrating the NO and says if one doesn't one risks schism, hardly a good example for the SSPX...

I am spartacus, your comments vis a vis the SSPX are half true and half false. It is true that many crypto sedes and schismatics hide within the ranks of the SSPX, but your criticisms of their position in general are false and morever based on false theological premises. One follows the Pope only insofar as he does not command something against the faith, against the truth of the sacraments etc.. then one not only can but is obliged to resist him, such has always been the Catholic faith.

Carl said...

jjr - God rest his soul, I will always remember little Msgr. Yontz taking a moment after distributing communion to simply kneel before the tabernacle. I will certainly pray for St. Peter and I'm confident Msgr. Yontz will as well. I'm sure he'll work it in as he's telling God about something he once saw on television.

JMR said...

I am not Spartacus.
I think people like you are working for the devil. Obey! obey! I will lead you to perdition.How many Catholics have lost their souls because of Vatican II?
How can obedience be the be all and end all when Our Lady and the Popes have predicted apostacy amongst the higher members of the Church including Pope Leo XIII. Pope Leo XIII composed the prayer to Saint Michael which he ordered to be said at the end of Mass and which significantly has been omitted in the NO mass;some obedience that.Why hasn't the saying of the Last Gospel been retained in the NO mass. Wasn't that instituted to root out heretics.
For me, as someone totally untrained in theology , the main church has become Protestant. It is you who are schismatics. The SSPX aren't the schismatics they are the remnant of the true Church. If someone had died in 1950 and somehow came back now,he would recognise SSPX as representing the eternal Church the Vatican II chuch would be totally incomprehensible to him.
I am a simple person, untrained in theology, but I always have the words of Christ to guide me "You can tell a tree by its fruits".
For me your notions of obedience are highly selective. The SSPX obeys thousands of years of Church teachings the Vatican II church does not.

Carl said...

You are not Spartacus - I can think of more effective ways to "cultivate a protestant attitude towards obedience and authority" than by coordinating a prayer campaign of one million rosaries for the Holy Father. O Lord, send us a hundredfold more such so-called "protestants"!

Satan has no "due" that anyone "has to give" him, and the traditional Mass is NOT "his weapon." Do these words you write not strike you as sacrilegious? When you speak about the traditional Mass in such a way, can you imagine that Pope Benedict XVI agrees with YOU? Do you imagine that you are "obeying Peter," who saw fit to exclusively adorn his See with this liturgical form for so many unbroken centuries? Give God HIS due. The traditional Mass is HIS weapon.

I am not a member of SSPX. I've never once attended a Mass at an SSPX church or chapel. I have absolutely no association to the Society. But how can anyone fail to recognize that the traditional Mass would have been obliterated if not for their so-called "disobedience." The wave of ultra-montanist fideism ushered in after Vatican I was hauling tradition into oblivion. Tradition is not the exclusive property of the pope, he is the guardian, the shepherd, not the capricious master. Had Archbishop Lefebvre done as he was told, none of us would have any access to the traditional Mass today. Had he not broken canon law and incardinated priests into his pious union (or whatever), it would be dead and forgotten. There would have been no indult, no Summorum Pontificum.

In doing what was necessary to preserve this priceless treasure of our Roman tradition, do you think he sinned? In objecting to the lamentable ambiguity of certain conciliar texts (i.e. telling the incontrovertible truth), do you imagine he was being insubordinate? Look, you are free to believe that if you want on that. You don't stop being Catholic or automatically go to hell for being inexplicably irrational understanding of Archbishop Lefebvre or adopting an attitude of shallow, superficial servility toward the pope's every caprice. But please don't pretend that our disagreement with YOU is disobedience of the Church. The pope was wrong to not eat with the Antiochene gentiles; he was wrong to give license to the monothelites; he was wrong to make a mockery of the corpse of Formosus; he was wrong to execute Savonarola; he was wrong to suppress the Jesuits. And yes, he was wrong to treat Marcel Lefebvre and his Society as he did. Fortunately - Deus exaudi orationem meam - this wrong (like so many others before it) appears on the verge of being made right.

Tradical said...

@Spartacus,

In the context of ++Lefebvre's decisions from 1970 to 1988.

What would you have done?

What, given that context, do you think would have happened?

Jack O'Malley said...

Dear Mr. non-Spartacus: I am impressed with your solicitude and indeed obsession vis-à-vis my comment, but I would request that, in the future, if you have some objection to something I say, to refrain from rebutting it. My comment did not deserve the impertinent salvo that you fired off especially where you twice contorted my words and my meaning. Your soul will be the more tranquil as will mine.

For the record, I am in no wise a sedevacantist; I have never been in an FSSPX chapel or church (not that I would refuse to go to one); I attend a diocesan Solemn High TLM (one that was established at the time of the Pastoral Provision). But I consider Archbishop Lefebvre the saintly preserver of the Church's liturgical inheritance, without whom, the Mass that I grew up with would have been consigned to oblivion. And Bishop Fellay is guiding the Fraternity in the right direction. May God protect him and Pope Benedict XVI.

EJM said...

I have been following all this for some weeks, and I have to say I agree with "1917". I feel uneasy and uncomfortable about this agreement as the Bishops are not united - 3 against one. I think that many of you are wrong to insinuate a lack of spititually because I feel this caution. I do not think I know enough yet to be jumping at it with glee like some here - this is prudence. What I see happening in the persual of this agreement is division, the SSPX must remain whole or we become useless. I wonder what Father of a family would persue with a decision that was going to split apart his family perhaps forever. Some would suggest that the loss is necessary. Personally, I will weep for every SSPX Priest or Bishop who leaves over this deal, I do not want to see this happen. I have grave reservations, and some of you here also think that it is only a few "dissenters" This is not true, many SSPX faithful feel this way but are too afraid to say as they are being labelled with all sorts of names by the very "charitable" condescending people on these blogs. Funny that those who are not convinced yet that this is going to be the great things we are told, are getting labelled with the same names as our dear founder Arch. B. Lefebvre; "disobedient", "uncharitable" "rebel". I think the likes of PKPT and Fr. J. Pfeiffer in the Philipines have got too excited to soon, ie we simply don't know enough, but I have to say that I think many sympathise with them, but naturally not many on this blog.
Dominus Vobiscum

EJM said...

Just to clarify, I was agreeing with 1917's first comments way back. Thank you

Unknown said...

Regarding the possibility that there will be dioceses which reject the presence of SSPX: it is impossible to defend the role of the bishop against collegiality (one of the big Three doctrinal issues)and at the same time by pass it structurally. They must be the final say (excepting existing chapels and apostolates). It means, while suffering some intransigents, the freeing of others to real, true pursuit of holiness. That's the deal. If power is not given back to individual bishops from the collective, we don't get the outliers on the top, we don't get the saints, there is no hope of a miracle, no electrifying personage. And that's what we need. The Mahoneys don't count near as much as them, not enough to queer the deal. Do you live in Mahoneys neighborhood? Then fight! Fight on your own. The field will be different now than before, when you could not be heard. Bishop Fellay suggests that successes in other dioceses will be persuasive. That will be true!

Also, we must realize, SSPX is stagnant, tradition is stagnant. Mr. Perkins' figures for the last three years have shown the same: no growth. The Church inside has even less, but we must still conclude that while it seems 'safer' to many to stay 'outside' with our peaceful life outside, our children receiving first communion outside, our children marrying outside--we are still shrinking! We do not, we cannot, advertise. Our schools are dwindling, but we cannot advertise. Mr. Perkins does not count the number of SSPX schools which have closed, nor does he have a numerical count of parishioners. It would be very revealing, and not really surprising. Where SSPX is strong, FSSP comes in, and divides it by half again. We cannot, under present circumstances, steal sheep from NO parishes, and we do not try. To be exonerated and included 'inside' again means we could actively build our parishes. We would not seem sede to do so. That stops us now, and it has to! We are not sede! We are loyal Catholics! I know it seems contradictory, to accept what seems like a lesser deal, to get a greater, but it is true. I know two SSPX parishes, in two countries. Neither recruits from outside, and neither are growing, and one is shrinking, and maybe the other is shrinking too, since FSSP has come in. It's part of Bishop Fellay's same thought, that we are continually knocking on the door (the Candlemas sermon). You can't be in that position and be at the same time stealing members. And we don't. But this could free us! To reject the possibility over those dioceses that say no? I don't think so. Prepare to fight, that's all. Don't expect a structure that makes it easy, automatic. There will be blood, and it could be yours. Mine.

Hidden One said...

I am not Sparticus, you have courage. And I think that you are generally right.

Prof. Basto said...

Mr. Perkins,

I do hope you are right.

If a worldwide Traditional particular Church is erected (a Personal Ordinariate or Diocese), it would be great, and I for one, would apply to become a subject of that particular Church.

I still think, however, that a worldwide Traditional Personal Diocese or Ordinariate is not in the cards.

And Bp. Fellay himself only speaks of Personal Prelature.

Which you may think is a terrible structure, but that fact of the matter is that a Personal Prelature is a better structure than what the SSPX has ever had.

The SSPX claims to be a "society of common life without vows". Given that societies of common life are no longer a category in canon law, the fact of the matter (avoiding the pious union and canonical suppression questions) is that, what was in the past a society of common life without vows is today a society of apostolic life.

Societies of apostolic life are comparable to institutes of consacrated life (c. 731) but they differ from institutes of consacrated life precisely due to the lack of religious vows.

What would the SSPX rather be, a society of apostolic life of Pontifical Right or a Personal Prelature?

Also, there is the question of the unity of the SSPX.

If today one worldwide Traditional Diocese is created ad personam, and if tomorrow normal, territorial, Diocesan Bishops start to think that they do not need to provide care for tradtionalists becuase they already have their own Diocese. Then, the day ater tomorrow, traditionalists frustrated with the lack of implementation of Summorum Pontificum flock to the SSPX Personal Diocese en masse. Well: wouldn't there be a point in which it would then make sense to erect a second Diocese out of the first, dividing the territory of the world among the two; and then, given the hoped for spread of tradition, we would soon have four, eight, sixteen dioceses, and counting. By that time, however, the unity of the SSPX as a society would have been broken. In fact, the Society will either be a Society or a Particular Church. Is the Fraternity ready for such a transformation, from a quasi religious order to a particular Church?

Again, in expressing this opinion I'm not in any way opposing the erection of an Ordinariate. I don't think it will happen, but I would very much like to be proven wrong.

Steve said...

Is there not some balance between the SSPX being protestant and stalwart defenders of tradition?

I tend to agree with I am Spartacus because we must not fall away from that which His Holiness declares. Let us not just see the trees in the forest. At one point the SSPX bishops were excommunicated. Perhaps they practiced their faith correctly but were wrong in their disobedience. It is not black and white. Good people make bad decisions.

On the other hand they were true to the Catholic faith in that they were the only remaining group keeping the traditional Mass, teachings, and training alive. For that they would be saved eventually. It is inevitable.

My opinion is that the SSPX existed to fulfill this destiny. To lead the Church back to a PRACTICAL means of defending the faith and keeping it alive. That doesn't mean they were always right. It doesn't mean the previous Popes were wrong.

His Holiness Benedict XVI is simply now correcting what was previously incorrect. And it was always going to end up this way one way or the other because the Church .. is the Church. The Pope is the Pope. And Tradition is Tradition.

These are facts. Neither the SSPX nor the leader of the church at a given time could stop these things from happening forever.

Gratias said...

Bp. Fellay must be a very holy man to elicit a discussion such as this one. Our Holy Father is to be gratefully obeyed for seeking this reunion among the flock under his care.

Deo gratias.

JMR said...

Isn't there parallels now with what happened after the Viking invasion of the British Isles? After the invasions the Church in Britain was reduced to a few isolated monasteries on remote islands. I am sure they had little contact with the main body of the Church but the monks faithfully kept the teachings that had been handed down to them.
When the time was ripe they were able to re-evangelise the whole of Britain. It is the truth that matters not the organisation.

JMR said...

I'm sorry to write in brief notes but I write down my thoughts as they come to me. I live in Brazil and when I used to go from parish to parish looking for a reverent Mass I discovered that at least half the priests were homosexuals. I don't know if they were practicing or not but when these priests used to say the words of the Consecration it inspired a feeling of revulsion in me that Our Lords words were being repeated by such people.
My daughters had the notion that all priests were homosexual!When we started frequenting the SSPX monastery,one observed that there monks were definitely "men and not gay"
Secondly,the CNBB is communist. All the sermons and writings on the pamphlets were about "rights".Rights to land, "rights to water" etc."Climate Change"was the subject of one Lent! No wonder all the Catholics are leaving the Church and joining Evangelical religions.
Once the choir at the local Church all wore T-shirts saying " Vote Lula!" because it was voting day and they were motivating the congregation to vote for one of the most corrupt, socialist presidents in Brazil's history. Don't believe anything that has been written about him in the foreign press.
Most of the Masses in Brazil are like aerobics classes with hand waving and clapping.
I attended one Confirmation service where the candidates were dressed in jeans and red T-shirts and they virtually came dancing into the Church where the Bishop was with a mike acting like an M.C. with dreadful almost fairground music playing in the background.
Don't tell me I am wrong to prefer the SSPX and I don't want the SSPX to join the Church in its present state.

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear JMR It gives me no pleasure to identify your post as proof of my claims that The SSPX cultivates protestant orientation in the minds of those who succor it

P.K.T.P. said...

Prof. Basto:

First of all, Bishop Fellay has said even recently that the p.p. is not a done deal but that the canonical structure is "negotiable". That is a direct quotation.

Secondly, when you refer to what the S.S.P.X "has ever had" you are referring to its brief five years of existence before it was suppressed in 1975. It only had a dozen members then. What it has had since then is the freedom to establish apostolates where it pleasesm, and for 550 concerned priests, not a dozen. This must be maintained. If it is not, many may defect with the refusers.

There is no conflict between a personal Archdiocese and a society of apostolic life of pontifical right. My proposal is that it would be erected as the latter and that this would then be incorporated into the former, along with its affiliated religious orders. The office of superior-general and personal archbishop would be joined, just as the two parallel offices are for Opus Dei (he is also head of the Priestly Society of the Holy Cross as well as the Prelature). No problemo. I am drawing up a very complete proposal for this, with all the citations, so I will not write much more for now. The situation must be saved. Levada is trying to dump a p.p. on them to save the day for the local Marxist bishops, just as the same rotters tried to dump a p.p. on the Campos in 2001. These leftist 'unintegrist' bishops will then flat-out refuse to allow Society apostolates in their sees. We must not permit this. I will do what I can to help. That is my duty before God and our Lady. If I am ignored, I can't be blamed.

P.K.T.P.

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear Tradical Were I Mons Lefebvre back in the day I would have done what he did - only I would have honored the deal I signed rather than repudiate the deal as he did.

He signed a deal with the authorities in the Holy City of Rome and then reneged.

In the hills of Vermont such an action was never considered defensible and it would have ruint a man's reputation if he did not honor his word

P.K.T.P. said...

Prof. Basto:

On your closing point, I would not worry. I have reported on the numbers here before. We all have an exaggerated sense of the importance of our movement, myself included. It is not reflected in the numbers. There is little chance that the local bishops will react as you think. The S.S.P.X will, in fact, add not that much in the shorter term: it is mostly already grossly outnumbered by S.P. Masses. The importance of gaining freedom for the S.S.P.X lies in the longer-term, as I've written before. The bishops don't think long term. They only care about their reputations and saving face in the next ten years. Beyond that, they will be retired.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...

J.M.J. Ora pro nobis

Bishop Rifan chose to concelebrate the N.O. in order to ingratiate himself with the local Brazilian bishops and to gain access to their sees. That was his choice: he was not constrained in any way, shape or form by law to do it. His structure his glorious and protects his priests, however inglorious his own policies may (or may not) be.

Frankly, if he wants to offer the N.O. from time to time, let him, as long as none of his priests are REQUIRED to do so--and they are not. True, some local bishops may make this a condition of entering their sees to offer Mass (cf. Protocol 1411-99 for the F.S.S.P.), but they are always free to refuse to do there. By making the Campos international for the S.S.P.X, the problem would be entirely solved. You should have been able to predict this answer from me. I would rather concentrate, for now, on finishing my proposal. Thanks.

P.K.T.P.

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear JMJ What I have written about The SSPX is factual. I am at my MIL's house for the weekend and do I have to respond by IPhone but, come Monday, I will be back home and using my computer.

Until very recently I was in favor of a reconciliation but I have reconsidered and the trigger for that reconsideration was a recent post I read in here by a SSPXer that claimed that Mons Lefebvre did not sign the V2 documents he later repudiated when it has been proven he did sign those documents

Now, the posted article by the SSPX had not a whit to do with that matter but it did cause me to realize that the SSPX still retains such arrogance and pride that they are willing to introduce a bold propagandistic lie gratuitously and that shows bad faith especially when a deal is trying to be completed.

The SSPX could be a force for good inside the Church but I do not see them as exhibiting the humility necessary for a reconciliation.

Elizabeth said...

To JMR: That made me so sad to read your words about our Church in Brazil. I'll keep them and you in my prayers.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 249   Newer› Newest»