Rorate Caeli

Fellay speaks on the SSPX General Chapter

The Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), Bishop Bernard Fellay, has granted an interview to his Society's news agency (DICI) on the General Chapter.

Doctrinal mutism is not the answer to the “silent apostasy”

DICI : How did the General Chapter go? How was the mood of the meeting?
Bishop Fellay : It took place in a rather hot atmosphere, since July is a particularly hot month in the Valais! But in a very busy schedule, where the members of the Chapter were able to freely exchange ideas, as it befits such a working meeting.
DICI : Were you able to discuss the relations with Rome? Were there any forbidden questions? The dissensions manifested within the SSPX these last moths, have they calm down?
Bishop Fellay : That makes for quite a few questions! Regarding Rome, we went to the very heart of the issues, and all the capitularies were able to study the complete file. Nothing was left aside and there were no taboos among us. It was my duty to exhibit with detail all the documentation exchanged with the Vatican, something which was rendered difficult by the obnoxious climate of recent months. This made it possible for us to conduct direct discussions which have cleared out the doubts and dissipated any misunderstandings, resulting in peace and unity of hearts, which of course is something to rejoice about.
DICI : How do you foresee the relations with Rome after this Chapter?
Bishop Fellay : All ambiguity has now been resolved among us. Very soon we will convey to Rome the position of the Chapter, which has been the occasion to specify our road map insisting upon the conservation of our identity, the only efficacious means to help the Church to restore Christendom. As I told you recently, “if we want to make fruitful the treasure of Tradition for the benefit of souls, we must both speak and act”. We cannot keep silent when facing the rampant loss of faith, the staggering fall of the number of vocations, and the decrease of religious practice. We cannot refrain from speaking when confronted with the “silent apostasy” and its causes. Doctrinal mutism is not the answer to this “silent apostasy” which even John Paul II denounced already in 2003.
Our approach is inspired not only by the doctrinal firmness of Archbishop Lefebvre but also by his pastoral charity. The Church has always considered that the best testimony to the truth is to be found in the early Christians’ unity built in prayer and charity. They had “but one heart and one soul,” as we read in the Acts of the Apostles (cf. Acts 4, 32). Such a common ideal is also our watchword, Cor Unum being the name of the internal bulletin of the SSPX. Hence we distance ourselves resolutely from all those who have tried to take advantage of the situation in order to drive a wedge turning Society members against each other. Such a spirit does not come from God.
DICI : What are your thoughts on the appointment of Archbishop Mueller as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?
Bishop Fellay : It is nobody’s secret that the former bishop of Regensburg, where our seminary of Zaitzkofen is located, does not like us. After the courageous action of Benedict XVI on our behalf, in 2009, he refused to cooperate and treated us like if we were lepers! He is the one who stated that our seminary should be closed and that our students should go to the seminaries of their dioceses of origin, adding bluntly that “the four bishops of the SSPX should resign”! (cf. interview with Zeit Online, 8 May 2009).
For us what is more important and more alarming is his leading role at the head of the Congregation for the Faith, which must defend the Faith with the proper mission of fighting doctrinal errors and heresy. Numerous writings of Bishop Mueller on the real transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, on the dogma of Our Lady’s virginity, on the need of conversion of non-Catholics to the Catholic Church… are questionable, to say the least! There is no doubt that these texts would have been in the past the object of an intervention of the Holy Office, which now is the very Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith presided by him.
DICI : How do you see the future of the SSPX? In the midst of its fight for the Church’s Tradition, will the SSPX keep to the same knife’s edge?
Bishop Fellay : More than ever we must maintain the knife’s edge traced by our venerated founder. It is not easy to keep, yet absolutely vital for the Church and the treasure of its Tradition. We are Catholic, we recognise the pope and the bishops, but above all else we must keep intact the Faith, source of God’s grace. Therefore we must avoid all that may endanger the Faith, without trying to become a replacement for the Church, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman. Far from us the idea of establishing a parallel Church, of exercising a parallel magisterium!
This was well explained by Archbishop Lefebvre more than thirty years ago: he did not wish to hand down anything else but what he himself had received from the Church of two millennia. This is what we want also, following his lead, so that we may effectively help “to restore all things in Christ.” It is not us who will break with Rome, the Eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth. Nevertheless, it would be unrealistic to deny that there is a modernist and liberal influence in the Church since the Second Vatican Council and its subsequent reforms. In a word, we maintain the faith in the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and in the Church founded upon Peter, but we refuse all which contributes to the “self-demolition of the Church” acknowledged by Paul VI himself since 1968. May Our Lady, Mother of the Church, hasten the day of its authentic restoration!


(Source)

81 comments:

Dr. Timothy J. Williams said...

Fellay makes an important point: no agreement is possible that restricts the society's ability to combat the major problems in the Church, because that is the only way the Society can be of use to the Church. Without such freedom, an agreement is pointless.

David said...

Where does juridical submission to the actual Pope in Rome come into this stated loyalty to Eternal Rome? Do these two things have no real relationship to each other?

Dr. Timothy J. Williams said...

David, a more difficult question to answer is one alluded to in Fellay's comments: How does one explain the Pope's appointment to the CDF of a man whose stated views would clearly have been condemned previously by the very congregation he now heads?

Whats Up! said...

David,
Bishop Fellay has made it very clear through the years that he is in submission to Benedict XVI.

Rather there are high ranking members of the Curia that block Bishop Fellays humble obedient intentions in action, towards the Holy Father, since those same Curial officials are not submissive to him themselves.

Big Daddy said...

Well, it looks like the General Chapter went well afterall.

David said...

Juridically speaking, +Fellay's statements of loyalty mean nothing. Juridical submission requires a concrete act.

Some are shooing away the importance of juridical submission too easily. I do not really know +Fellay's thoughts in this specific topic. Do any of you?

David said...

Dr. Williams, all of that is very disturbing, but it has nothing to do with my question.

Lady Marchmain said...

Thank you, Rorate Caeli for posting this in English!

Pontificatorex said...

David,

We are to submit to proper authorities, but submission to God comes first. Where they clash, God wins. Bishop Fellay clearly believes there's a conflict here, and that God gets priority.

New Catholic said...

Lady Marchmain, thank you for your kindness, but this is actually DICI's own translation.

NC

Hilltop said...

+Fellay does not obfuscate regarding Mueller! It seems that in speaking with such frankness about Mueller, +Felley is talking his way beyond him, certainly to the Priests of the SSPX, but perhaps also either to His Holiness or to ++di Noia?

Dr. Timothy J. Williams said...

David, there is juridical submission and spiritual submission. How many bishops in the world are truly submitted to the Holy Father? The great John Senior used to say that if the United States were ever taken over by communists and our Catholic bishops put on trial for their faith, most would be acquitted!

Alsaticus said...

Bp Fellay sounds like he wants to stay in the status quo, one foot inside the Church, another one outside.
He confirms that the appointment of Bp Mueller is a worrying choice.
Significantly Abp di Noia is not mentioned at all ...

That being said, cardinal Levada et alii said in Fall 2011, the status quo cannot continue forever, the Society will have to say "yes" or "no".

Maybe Rome and the pope will make a step back and provide a new span of time ? Maybe not and the initial statement by Bp Mueller was more on the "no time left".

Côme de Prévigny is offering a very optimistic insight, Bp Mueller a very pessimistic one. Future will tell soon who was right.

Alsaticus

David said...

We are to submit to proper authorities, but submission to God comes first. Where they clash, God wins. Bishop Fellay clearly believes there's a conflict here, and that God gets priority.

I'd like to see the conflict spelled out more clearly.

David said...

David, there is juridical submission and spiritual submission. How many bishops in the world are truly submitted to the Holy Father?

This isn't about them. It's about the FSSPX and their situation.

David said...

I get the fact that the FSSPX is more loyal to the Pope than most bishops and cardinals. I'd like to see +Fellay seal that loyalty in a very real and binding sense.

Our Lady of Mt. Carmel's child said...

"Veni Sancte Spiritus". . .H.E. Bishop Fellay speaks with inspired clarity manifesting the Divine Gift of Wisdom coming forth from a soul infused with the first four fruits of the Holy Spirit of charity, joy, peace and patience.

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel and St. Joseph, Patron of the Universal Church before the Holy Trinity obtain the Merciful Gifts and Graces for the Sovereign Pontiff and H.E. Bishop Fellay to behold and accomplish the Will of the Holy Trinity.

"May the most just, most high and most adorable Will of God be in all things done, praised and magnified forever and ever. Amen."

Grandma Anne said...

Why isn't anyone answering David's question? This is my first comment but I have faithfully read all comments through out these negotiations. I have two children and 10 grandchildren loyal to the SSPX. Rome has suspended the priests, "they have no faculties". This is a huge concern for a mother/grandmother. Are my children married? Are their confessions valid? Juridical submission is of key importance. Where is the emergency? All sacraments and TLM are available in many traditional communities in union with Rome, also eastern rites. Can someone please clarify this and stop skirting the issue! With deepest respect for all contributors, I have learned much. Thank you.

Syl said...

Cor unum? If you look at the logo of SSPX, there are 2 hearts. It's not clear whether these are 2 hearts coming together or 2 hearts moving apart. They are portrayed in the same red color which would tend to make me think they represent the same kind of hearts coming together or moving apart. The hearts don't intersect in a shape I recognize; they don't make a third heart (which could be trinitarian for example) or a vesica pisces (which could be Marian, given how she is often portrayed in art).

It looks to me like 2 hearts held together, uncomfortably, by the Lordship of Christ. I pray that it will indeed be Cor Unum.

Whats Up! said...

Grandma Anne,

You raise several intellectually honest questions.

I can only speak for my part in aswering you and Davids question.

I, am many like me, live in areas where frequently the only reverent and decently manageable Mass is offered by the SSPX.

It is quite often the only TLM and solid orthodox preaching we have access to and this certainly seems to fit the "emergency" state that is so often the norm in dioceses.

We do not have access to regularized Traditional Latin Mass and the SSPX are our only recourse for that.

Believe you me if the FSSP or ICRSS where allowed in the diocese many of us would repair there.

Picard said...

David -
"...but it has nothing to do with my question."
"
"I'd like to see the conflict spelled out more clearly."


The conflict can be spelled clearly out - and has been yet, because what Dr. Willimas said had to do with the question, showing this conflict exactly to the point:

a) There is a man appointed to the head of the CDF, that "would clearly have been condemned previously by the very congregation he now heads" - and in fact his points re virg. in partu had been by the CDF in some monitions, as P. Gaudron reported.

And - but - the teachings of Müller are not only temerarious and male sonans - and in one instance really heretial, so re virg in partu [but for the sake of arguement let us not discuss this and call it at very least also , temerarious or male sonans (or haeresim sapiens or captiousus, scandalosus)] -
- - - but the deeper problem (and reasons for his heresies resp. temeraritas) is that his whole work (I read the original of his dogmatics in German, btw.) is nouvelle theology, full of German Kantian-Rahnerian transcendentalism and other modern philosophical systems, not compatible with Catholicism (as Pius XII in Humani Generis lucidly explaines - we should read it more often!).

The language and mode of thinking and expressing is modernistical, re-interprating the content of the old terms in a way not in continuity with tradition.

b) This man with this modernistical concepts was appointed by the Pope.
(The very Pope that speaks of hermeneutic of reform in continuitiy - but if you see what kind of "reform" his new CDF-head stands for, then you see that this is not in continuity with tradtion but in contrast, rupture.
That´s the problem and shows the clash and split between "Eternal Rome" [that what the oridnary mag. tought all the centuries] and modern Rome [what the modern Chruch-men say and promote this days, privately but also sometimes as authentic mag.])

Henry said...

I am a defender of the SSPX on another blog where--in response to a reference to "the disobedience of the SSPX to the person of the Holy Father"--I wrote

"An odd statement, this. In their discussions to determine what is the authentic content of Vatican II that must be accepted, I sense no such disobedience, rather, a profound respect for both the papacy as an office and for the person of the present Holy Father. One that, frankly, in today's Church is quite refreshing. Would that the pope enjoyed the same support from the much more prevalent Church groups represented (even in many chanceries) by some of your favorite blogsters."

However, I too wonder what the obedience a faithful Catholic owes to the Vicar of Christ on Earth implies regarding juridical submission if and when the Holy Father asks it. (So far as I know, he hasn't yet.)

New Catholic said...

Syl, they represent the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

NC

David said...

Is it not a question of discerning what truly must be rendered to God? Let us say that the Pope asks Bishop Fellay to formally submit to the teaching of Dignitatis Humanae as a binding dogma. Who among us would not recognize Bishop Fellay's duty to God in declining obedience to a papal command that so violates his Catholic conscience?

On the other hand, what if the Pope asked Bishop Fellay to agree to CDF oversight of all FSSPX seminaries? Would Bishop Fellay be justified before Our Lord Jesus Christ if he withheld juridical submission to the Pope based simply on the horror of that serpentine stipulation?

David said...

Picard,

All of that pertains to the Pope's wisdom (or lack thereof) as a man, not what the FSSPX owes to the Pope as the Vicar of Christ.

Simple Folk said...

You can tout your loyalty and obedience all you want but if you ordain priests and offer the Holy Sacrifice and Sacraments without permission, it is still disobedience.

Smart people become so sophisticated and proud they miss the entire point.

David, Your question is spot on and many defending disobedience are simply unable to answer it.

Simple Folk

Picard said...

No, because to deal with people that are heterodox and modernists or at least are promoting modernism is dangerous and a quetions of prudence/wisdom itselfe. You can not just "submit" and cooperate as if there were no problem.

Wilson Meléndez said...

Good day to all.

Smart people become so sophisticated and proud they miss the entire point. Very well said Simple Folk.

Disobedience is justified by those who want their way only. Like i have said in other places, Satan disobeyed God. He did not want to serve God made man. Man is a creature inferior to an angel.

We all know the rest of the story. What i will like to get to to is that the devil wanted to justify his disobedience to the point that he wanted to be god.

I am not saying that the brothers of SSPX are doing that, NEVER. Yet it shows that instead of fighting these things from within the church, where it is more effective, you prefer to stay outside.

More so, the disciples questioned Jesus on many of his decisions, but never went against him. Judas Iscariote will be the excemption of this and even he followed the masters orders and desicions.

We can discussed and give many examples, but the bottom line is that SSPX continues to be out of order in the Catholic Church. Not a Church of ones likings, there are many, but the attitude of SSPX is shaping to be one on protestantism where it is better to be outside of the Church because I have the faith, the "REAL" teachings and WE ARE THE CHURCH attitude.

Brothers and sisters, +Fellay does not have that attitude of a protestant but i can imagine he feels trapped between to fire.

I pray for unity and always will. God Bless you all!

Bartholomew said...

David asked:

"[W]hat if the Pope asked Bishop Fellay to agree to CDF oversight of all FSSPX seminaries? Would Bishop Fellay be justified before Our Lord Jesus Christ if he withheld juridical submission to the Pope based simply on the horror of that serpentine stipulation?"

Yes. Until Archbishop Muller either explained or retracted his now infamous remarks.

Remember as well, that as a member of the CDF, Cardinal Wuerl (who removed the faculties of a priest protecting the Blessed Sacrament) against blasphemy would also be in on the governing.

The Pope HAD to know what these appointments would have consequences. There was significant opposition to Muller within the Curia, but the same influences who forced Ranjith out brought sufficient pressure to bring about Muller's ascendency. The man campaigned for the job as well.

sam said...

The majority of these issues can get resolve if the Pope does the following:

1) Orders that the statements of the documents of Vatican II be giving definitive wording that does not oppose Tradition.
2) That Biblical Criticism be subject to Tradition.
3) That Theology be subject to Tradition.
4) That Christology be subject to Tradition.
5) That the Liturgy and Rites be subject to Tradition.
6) That the Bishops, Priests, and Religious Orders be subject to Tradition.
7) There are others, but these are a good start.

PS: I'm using capital "T" for "Tradition" on purpose.

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

The entire tone of Bishop Fellay's comments is exactly right: WE ARE CATHOLIC. Notice that nearly everything he says points to that assertion. And that is exactly what Rome needs to acknowledge if this road map to the future is to be followed and continued. It is what I have been saying repeatedly: let recognition comes before regularisation.

The reference to a road map, to a plan for future negotiations, suggests this very much as well: he prays for a process to continue. So he is not calling for a halt in relations but nor is he suggesting an end point in view.

That's about all I can extract from these comments. We must now wait for more text.

P.K.T.P.

Pontificatorex said...

Simple Folk,

The point isn't being missed. Yes, obedience is important. But it is not most important. It is an adjunct to the cardinal/moral virtures. That's subordinate to the theological virtues, which includes faith.

By the way, while we're on the subject, can you explain why JPII publicly excoriated SSPX in 1988 over episcopal consecrations without papal approval, while at the same time being cozy with the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox and saying nothing about their episcopal consecrations, which have been far more numerous, both before and after 1988?

If they didn't have papal approval for this conduct, why didn't JPII give them a public tongue lashing? If they somehow did have some form of permission, why were eastern material schismatics and material heretics more deserving of permission than traditionalist Catholics?

David said...

Picard,

By that reasoning, none of us should mantain any formal or juridical relationship with the official Church in these days of trial and tribulation.

Mike B. said...

Is this a 'Siri moment'? Was this a planned 'flip-flop' by Pope and allies? Or was a strange blackmail scenario engaged?
Did the Pope really want an agreement and return of the SSPX? The reported wording change coupled with the appointment of Bishop Mueller was beyond possibility 5 weeks ago.

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

David is wrong because he fails to take into account the hierarchy of laws. The salvation of souls is the highest law, and the final judge of actions in the individual is an INFORMED conscience (not a free conscience like that of a Protestant), informed, that is in the faith. The matter ultimately becomes one of the internal forum.

So, if someone asks you to submit your Society to one whom, after careful reflection in an informed conscience, you believe to be a dangerous heretic, you would be obliged to refuse in order to protect Holy Church and save souls.

Really, this is old territory. It was all hashed out about two decades ago on fora such as this, back in the list pre-blog days.

P.K.T.P.

Martyjo said...

That a situation continues to exist whereby Catholics are divided in matters of faith and in what constitutes loyalty and obedience to the Pope is evidence enough that there remains a state of emergency in the Church.

I have been attending the SSPX for Mass these past 25 years. At no time has my conscience been troubled in respect to loyalty and obedience.

Like Archbishop Lefebvre and those who have come to succeed him, I am fiercely loyal to the Holy Father and I would rather die than disobey a lawful command of his that is in line with Sacred Tradition. I am not, However, bound to obey in the matter of strange doctrines which not only do not have any foundation in the Traditional Magisterial teaching of the Church, but are actually condemned by it as Modernist errors.

As Catholics we are obliged to obey only in those things which are consistent with the perennial teaching of the Church and which are not harmful to the Faith. I challenge anyone to prove that the conciliar doctrines which the SSPX is being commanded to accept (ecumenism, religious liberty, Collegiality, inter-faith relations, etc.) are consistent with that perennial teaching and have not been, and do not continue to be, dangerous to the integrity of the Faith.

When it comes to such a dilema we are bound to a higher obedience than men. We are bound to obey God.

The law of the Church is there to safeguard the intergity of the faith, not to force Catholics against the Traditional Magisterium and against their conscience to accept things which are clearly destroying the institutions of the Church. People would do well to consider more the spirit of the law of the Church rather than fixate on a spurious interpretation of its letter.

We should also remember that we are free children of the Church, not slaves to the individual whims of Churchmen, no matter how high their office may be.

If, as the Curial authorities in Rome maintain, the aforementioned strange doctrines are consistent with Traditional Magisterial teaching, then let them issue an historical record of such instead of issuing brute threats based on a false interpretation of obedience to the Magisterium. Let them also declare against those in the Church who do genuinely disobey the Holy Father and who publicly dissent from the infallible teaching of the ages. At least then we can argue that these are Churchmen of some consistency in the administration of justice.

Whenever people tell me that they have scruples about supporting the SSPX, I just tell them to go to their local parish church the following Sunday and witness what goes on there in the name of Vatican II. For me, that experience should answer all doubts about the tragedy that is unfolding in the Church and where our duty truly lies despite the threats.

I still hope and pray that the CDF will not continue to insist that the SSPX embrace the errors obviously present in some of the documents of Vatican II. If it does, then it will say more about those in charge of the CDF than the SSPX. Our Lady of Mt. Carmel, pray for us!

thewhitelilyblog said...

David, you said,
'I'd like to see the conflict spelled out more clearly. '

Some people thought that meant the Muller/Fellay conflict, but I would like to direct you to the conflicts with the Council itself. Just yesterday I tried to direct you, but I didn't put the whole link. I will this time, if the moderators permit. It is to a debate between an SSPX theologian and a theologian on the Curia side on the issues on the table in the discussions. Gleize, who teaches at Econe, spells out the places in the constitutions where the novelties may be found, and the sources of the traditional teaching which they contradict. The DICI piece is from last December and is incredibly instructive. And I also recommend Lefebvre's They Have Uncrowned Him regarding the new teaching of religious liberty.

The thing is, very many people simply gloss over these real issues and continue to parrot the mantra of 'there's nothing wrong with the council, it's the spirit that was wrong.' If we kill that 'wayward spirit,' the renewed Church will get on fine, with lots of vocations, and two forms of the mass, and an end to the abuses. That's the story. I think if you read Gleize, you will see that such a wish is impossible. But many people will not study the issue. I don't know why. Perhaps they don't want to know the truth, which is heart-breaking.

And yet--when their ox is gored! When the Church drops the ball yet again and cooperates with abortionists and euthanasists, or (one person's particular hot button around these parts) fails to even begin to begin to address the homosexual agenda, then they actually call for SSPX to rise up and--Do Something!!! They simply fail to recognize the theological undersupport, which is doctrinal, and which is most definitely in the actual wording of the Council, and which SSPX is trying to get all of us to see, and rise up against wherever we can. Could SSPX do it alone? We Americans have particular trouble with religious liberty, because we tend to believe in it like our mother's milk. But it is still wrong, and is unjust, and is the source of all the 'thirst' for every imaginable liberty we are suffering and dying from, as a society, now. Christ must be at the center, and His commandments must be part of our morality, and the Church's protection of private property yet advocacy for the poor must be part of our economics, or we won't make it. That's what Quas Primas taught about modern times, and what the Council gave up.

Here is the link: http://www.dici.org/en/news/debate-about-vatican-ii-fr-gleize-responds-to-msgr-ocariz/ and please try to find They Have Uncrowned Him.

You must work a little to understand this. Stop demanding instant clarifications, and begin to investigate yourself. It's tougher than instant. It takes space to communicate. We can't write books in comboxes.

jbd said...

David wrote: "Is it not a question of discerning what truly must be rendered to God? Let us say that the Pope asks Bishop Fellay to formally submit to the teaching of Dignitatis Humanae as a binding dogma. Who among us would not recognize Bishop Fellay's duty to God in declining obedience to a papal command that so violates his Catholic conscience?

On the other hand, what if the Pope asked Bishop Fellay to agree to CDF oversight of all FSSPX seminaries? Would Bishop Fellay be justified before Our Lord Jesus Christ if he withheld juridical submission to the Pope based simply on the horror of that serpentine stipulation?"

I would submit your question has within it the seeds of its answer.

Most among us would recognize Bishop Fellay's duty to decline formal submission to Dignitatis Humanae because such an action on Bishop Fellay's part would be a violation of the Faith.

As the superior general of one of the few remaining groups that maintains the Faith fully, Bishop Fellay would also have a duty to decline a proposal to put SSPX seminaries under the CDF because such an action would completely undermine the SSPX's ability to maintain that Faith.

In other words, as superior general of the SSPX, Bishop Fellay has a duty to disobey requests from legitimate authority within the Church that would result in the formal or practical undermining of the Faith.

David said...

PKTP intones:
So, if someone asks you to submit your Society to one whom, after careful reflection in an informed conscience, you believe to be a dangerous heretic, you would be obliged to refuse in order to protect Holy Church and save souls.

If the Superior of said Society already enjoyed both spiritual and juridical unity with the Vicar of Christ (the latter setting a binding seal to the former), such conscientious disobedience might have its place. However, when the pearl of unity with the Pope is itself at stake, one must consider the affect that obstinance in disunity will have on the salvation of souls.

Tradical said...

David,

You may also want to read the following link with a focus on the paper by Dr. Lamont:

http://www.sspx.org/theological_commission/is_recognizing_sspx_questioning_the_council_4-19-2012.htm

Jean Francois said...

”Saint Paul commands us to obey all superiors, even those who are bad. Our Blessed Saviour, His Virgin Mother, and Saint Joseph have taught us this kind of obedience in the journey they took from Nazareth to Bethlehem, when Caesar published an edict that his subjects should repair to the place of their nativity to be enrolled. They complied with this order with the most affectionate obedience, though the Emperor was a pagan and an idolator, so desirous was Our Lord of showing us that we should never regard the persons of those who command, provided they be invested with sufficient authority.”
--Saint Francis of Sales, Doctor of the Church

David said...

Thanks for the links. I'm just asking questions (and floating a few opinions), I don't pretend to have all the answers.

Finally, let us not forget that the lifting of the excommunications did not of itself heal the wound of disunity that was inflicted by the illicit episcopal consecrations. That wound still exists, as the Holy Father himself made very clear. Are we to believe that the wound was self-inflicted by Rome? Hmmm. There is a good question for the internal forum.

Tradical said...

Jean Francois,

"... Saint Paul commands us to obey all superiors, even those who are bad..."

I'm afraid you've missed the point. If a bad (or good) superior orders you to do something sinful/against the faith, then you have an obligation to not obey.

Ricardo said...

Pontificatorex,
The Eastern Orthodox do not recognize the juridical Papal Primacy, nor the Primacy of the Pope in matters of Faith & Morals, so the Pope doesn't chastise them for ordaining priests without his permission because they don't claim to be in union with him in the first place, and their schism has been going on for centuries. His meetings with them are meant to build ties of trust & friendship, with the view of restoring them into the fold. But the FSSPX does claim to be in union and submission to the Pope; yet at the same time they refuse to submit to the Pope's authority in anything (it seems). Even denying the canonization of some Saints and issuing decrees of annulment. The fact that Bishop Williamson conditionally reordained priests who had been ordained in the Novus Ordo is, in practical terms, a schizmatic act. I wish Bishop Fellay would address that issue. What is the point of entering into an agreement if your own Bishops do not have faith in the Church's Apostolic Succession because of the Novus Ordo? This sedevacantist mentality needs to be condemned again, as Archbishop Lefebvre did when he ousted the founders of the SSPV. I have great admiration for Bishop Fellay; however, if this state of affairs continues, if they continue to be afraid of making an act of Faith in the office of the Holy Father, they are simply going to morph into a church of their own. Ironically, it comes down to a lack of Faith in Divine Providence to operate independently of the Holy See. They are defending the faith well is so many areas, but at the same time are weakening their own faith in the doctrine of the Papal Primacy. Who within their ranks would be willing to make an act of Faith in Divine Providence after being told to stay away from the Pope for so many years? It seems hopeless to resolve this without this act of Faith on their part.

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

David,

I think that you mean effect, not affect.

No, the principle is the same. The Pope is infallible under certain prescribed conditions. His juridical authority is plenary, supreme, universal and immedidate, but it is not absolute (cf. Pastor Æternus). If the pearl of the Church, Alexander VI, ordered you to commit murder, you would be obliged to refuse. If he were to order you to endanger souls by submitting to heretics, you would be obliged to refuse. The soul is more valuable than even the body. Fear not the one who has power over the body but the one who can cast both soul and body into Eternal fire.

Of course, this is not some free right to refuse papal authority. It could only be done in a clean conscience with an HONEST conviction that you would be endangering or attacking or abandoning innocent souls. God will judge you. If you say that you act in an informed and upright conscience and you lie, may God's judgement be upon you. If you do so honestly but are honestly mistaken, others might arrive at a different conclusion but you will not be guilty of sin.

P.K.T.P.

P.S. My own position is not necessarily that of Bishop Fellay but I point out the facts. I think that he acts honestly. Does he also act rightly in the objective order? I think so but others are free to disagree.

PKTP is not Spartacus said...

Jean Francois:

True enough. But St. Alphonsus, Doctor of the Church as well, stated that we must obey our spiritual leaders in all things (which is a teaching from scripture too), "except when they tell us to do things that are evidently sinful". Ergo, obedience is not an absolute.

One could also argue thusly: Murder is wrong by divine law - except in self defence....now what if you are "defending yourself and your children" so that the modernists, who still hold nearly exclusive sway, do not "murder" your children's souls? Did not Cardinal Burke say that those who attend a regular Catholic parish risk losing their faith? (words to that effect)???

I am not SSPX, and, under the current situation, do not agree with their decision to remain canonically irregular. But the issue is more nuanced than is being suggested....and they are not protestants, not by a long shot.

Janet said...

There are many of us who have been in the Church fighting against liberalism since Vatican II. The liberals have been able to take over the Church because SSPX have stayed outside and so the numbers of those fighting against liberalism have been sadly depleted. I don't think the Church would have become so liberal if the split with the SSPX had not occurred. Unfortunately, the devil achieved many of his goals through that split. I and others don't accept the Second Vatican Council either, but because we chose to stay and fight from within we are not being forced by the liberals to sign any document in support of Vatican II. The lack of reconciliation is stopping many from going to the SSPX masses and numbers are falling in our area. We prefer to travel long disances to a Latin Mass where there is unity with the Church. I don't want to die in a state of uncertainty. The Keys to the Kingdom have been given to the Holy Father and to no one else, so SSPX for all their good intentions have no binding authority and as a Grandmother post here there is no certainty with confession or valid marriage. Let's face the possibility that one of the liberal bishops could decide because of the situation under Benedict XVI that he wants to preserve modernism and so he could declare a state of emergency and takes it upon himself to ordain bishops and priests. In his mind and in his conscience it is an emergency situation but all he has is a group of men illicitly ordained and with no authority to bind anything on earth or in heaven. Regrettably, such is the state of the SSPX today, and they are becoming tools in the hands of the liberals who will work to keep them out of the Church at all costs. If I were Bishop Fellay I would forge an agreement with the Holy Father sooner rather than later.

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

PKTP is not Spartacus:

Except for your use of the barbarism "thusly" for thus, you are 100% correct.

But let us take it a step further. If Bugnini removed all reference to propitatory Sacrifice from some Masses (viz. those using E.P. No. 2), a form of Sacrifice there by infallible declaration in the XXIInd Counciil of Trent (with an anathema attached to its denial), and if Bugnini replaced this dogma of propitiatory Sacrifice with the Protestant notion of a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving only, who then are the Protestants? Does this not make the New Mass Protestant by inmplication? In answering this, remember that the New Mass is always open to a Catholic interpretation. However, the meaning of its prayers cannot be separated from their liturgical and historical context. When you take away an essential, nay, the essential meaning, do you have a Protestant rite by implication?

P.K.T.P.

John McFarland said...

Dear David,

You say:

"If the Superior of said Society already enjoyed both spiritual and juridical unity with the Vicar of Christ (the latter setting a binding seal to the former), such conscientious disobedience might have its place. However, when the pearl of unity with the Pope is itself at stake, one must consider the affect that obstinance in disunity will have on the salvation of souls."

Bp. Fellay and the SSPX are under the authority of the Pope.

They believe what the Church teaches and accept the authority of the Pope.

They are therefore in communion with the Pope. Even assuming that their (rather few) acts of disobedience are unjustified, they are still in communion with the Pope. Degrees of communion are a novelty not as old as I am, which is more than 1900 years too late to be part of the deposit of faith.

Unity is not the starting point. The Faith is the starting point. There is no unity without Faith, the whole Faith, and nothing but the Faith.

You could of course bury me six feet deep with pronouncements from the greatest Fathers and Doctors on the necessity of obedience.

But those who made those pronouncements did not have to deal with nearly fifty years of deficient and adulterated doctrine, and no end in sight.

But we do, and we can't pretend that what has been taught and don in those fifty is somehow a secondary consideration.

Have you really thought about the significance of Abp. Mueller's being the head of the CDF? And about the fact that he is the bosom friend of the Holy Father, and editor of his opera omnia?

Those who do not give precedence to the salvation of souls, and to the Faith without which no one can be saved, are lacking in a true Catholic spirit.

On Judgment Day, the King will not say, come blessed of my Father, to those who can only say, I was just following orders.

Joseph said...

I suspect that Williamson and his ilk will come up with an excuse to remain apart no matter what - e.g. a bishop said something silly or a woman didn't wear a hat last Sunday at Mass in London. I will take Bp. Fellay at his word when he says that he sincerely wants to become fully part of the Catholic Church. I suspect many others associated with the SSPX do not. Why? Because they don't think the Catholic Church (the real one - not this mythical 'eternal Rome') is what it says it is. Much like Protestants before them, they think the Catholic Church has abandoned Christ and His teachings and is apostate - in their minds, it just happened centuries later than the other Protestants claim it did.

In the end, it is their own souls they risk. The Catholic Church does not need the SSPX any more than it needs the Church of England, despite their delusions of grandeur.

Joseph said...

John McFarland said:

"You could of course bury me six feet deep with pronouncements from the greatest Fathers and Doctors on the necessity of obedience.

But those who made those pronouncements did not have to deal with nearly fifty years of deficient and adulterated doctrine, and no end in sight."

You should read more history. Our own time is far from the only period when decadence and heresy were rife in the Church. The internet has just provided a forum for more people to complain and read about it.

Jean Francois said...

I'm afraid you've missed the point. If a bad (or good) superior orders you to do something sinful/against the faith, then you have an obligation to not obey.

And just what exactly have they commanded you to do against your faith?

Whenever people tell me that they have scruples about supporting the SSPX, I just tell them to go to their local parish church the following Sunday and witness what goes on there in the name of Vatican II.

The key here is "in the name of Vatican II." Problem is Vatican II did not call for the changes made in its name. Ergo you don't get carte blanche to free lance until such time as things are restored to some mythical pristine error free period. I've been to SSPX parishes and what they have in doctrine they often equally lack in charity.

Cavaliere said...

@Janet, your comments are well said.

Lynda said...

Yes, very well explained, Janet.

John McFarland said...

Dear Janet,

Abp. Lefebvre set out to form traditional priests because no one else was willing to do the job, the Church was in free fall, and in his judgment nothing could change without good priests. That was in 1970.

Within a few years, one of every six or seven Francophone seminarians was at Econe.

When the head of the dicastery in charge of seminarians enjoined the Abp. to follow the guidelines the former had established, the Abp. replied, "Eminence, I believe that I am the only one who does."

The French episcopate responded by fighting hard, and successfully, for the suppression of the SSPX.

The Archbishop, reasoning that without true priests there could be no renewal of the Church, carried on.

I am not aware of anyone who took up the cause of forming sound priests in the years before the suppression.

Nor am I aware of anyone who took up the task after he was suspended a divinis.

Meanwhile, only one diocesan bishop refused to let the Vatican II writ run in his diocese. Virtually all of the Abp.'s allies from the Council rolled over.

The only ones prepared to continue the fight was an old African missionary in a small seminary, and the bishop of a diocese in the Brazilian boondocks.

To put it bluntly, your notions of the history of tradition are dead wrong. Everyone of consequence in the Church of a tradition tendency had at least gone quiet, and almost all of them had capitulated. If Abp. Lefebvre had not tread the winepress of priestly formation, no one would have tread it. As the "independent" priests died off, there would be virtually no properly formed priests to replace them. The NO would have conquered.

Nor has much in the way of allies risen up since then. The FSSP and the other regularized traditionalists are the Abp.'s timid sons and nephews. Their raison d'etre from Rome's perspective is to keep people away from the Society. The other priests permitted to say the TLM aren't allowed to say it often, are often marginalized and persecuted for doing no more than that, and generally have had little more than an NO priestly formation. They need the SSPX desperately; but unless and until properly formed, the SSPX doesn't need them.

No alliance of traditionalists is worth anything unless its unity is unity of the faith, and that unity in the faith cannot be compromised, The only deal worth having is a no-strings deal, and it is now perfectly clear that that isn't going to happen.

John McFarland said...

Dear Jean Francois,

You say:

"Problem is Vatican II did not call for the changes made in its name."

Beg pardon?

Virtually every document of the Council called implicitly or explicitly for the adaption of the Church to the modern world. very much including those elements of the modern world that were at odds with the Church and its doctrine.

Under the leadership of the same people who had created the agenda at the Council, starting with the Pope, that adaption was carried out very quickly. With the introduction of the New Mass in 1971, the job was 99% done.

Tradical said...

Jean Francois,

"... And just what exactly have they commanded you to do against your faith? ..."

Personally, for starters our parish priest told me that the 'contrition' prayer remits mortal sin and that I should go to communion ... this would be a sacrilege don't you agree.

Now as far as the Second Vatican Council and the SSPX, have a look at the following link:

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/12/sspx-rome-econe-theology-professor.html


"in the name of Vatican II."
The document of ecumenism has the following phrase:

"... The way and method in which the Catholic Faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue..."

This translates into (among other things): The Novus Ordo

Gratias said...

Very sad to read this. What a wasted opportunity. One cannot be Catholic and not accept the the Pope. This contradiction will neutralize most of the good the SSPX could have contributed. We will have to make do with Una Voce, and we will.

Sw. David said...

Syl: As NC said, the Hearts are those of Mary and Jesus. The symbol is not exclusive to the SSPX either.

The department Vendée in France has it as its coat of arms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vend%C3%A9e

Fr. A.M. said...

I hope and pray that a resolution to the present situation can be found that is realistic. I think that we are in danger of not seeing things in perspective. If FSSPX are not regularized, then we have missed a great opportunity in the Church. Though, God uses more than one organisation or one individual to bring about his kingdom on earth ('adveniat regnum tuum, adveniat per Mariam'). Let us keep praying.

Big Daddy said...

Joseph wrote:
"The Catholic Church does not need the SSPX any more than it needs the Church of England, despite their delusions of grandeur."

Sure. The Catholic Church is getting along just fine without the SSPX. Here's a good example:

http://pius.info/archiv-news/933-bild-der-woche/6976-bild-der-woche-der-heavy-metal-pater-von-tarragona

Supertradmum said...

Grandma Anne said...
Why isn't anyone answering David's question? This is my first comment but I have faithfully read all comments through out these negotiations. I have two children and 10 grandchildren loyal to the SSPX. Rome has suspended the priests, "they have no faculties". This is a huge concern for a mother/grandmother. Are my children married? Are their confessions valid? Juridical submission is of key importance. Where is the emergency? All sacraments and TLM are available in many traditional communities in union with Rome, also eastern rites. Can someone please clarify this and stop skirting the issue! With deepest respect for all contributors, I have learned much. Thank you.
16 July, 2012 17:31

Dear Grandma and others,

I inquired of a TLM priest in the Catholic Church whether I could get married in an SSPX chapel by an SSPX priest. He, an expert in such matters and a sound, orthodox Latin Mass priest, told me that the SSPX had no faculties for the Sacraments of Confession or Marriage, as those come from a bishop "under Rome". Now, the entire point of the discussion this week has been whether the SSPX wants to join with Rome or not. Otherwise, why these discussions in the first place?

Secondly, to have the CDF head in his position may be a shrewd political move on the part of the Pope. Muller must obey the Pope and in the Holy Spirit, respond to what is best for the entire Church, not his own personal opinion.

Long-Skirts said...

John McFarland said...

"Dear Janet,

Abp. Lefebvre set out to form traditional priests because no one else was willing to do the job, the Church was in free fall, and in his judgment nothing could change without good priests. That was in 1970."

THE
LITTLE
CATHOLIC
HEN

Who'll say Mass
Assumption Feast?
No longer done
Said parish priest.

Who will baptize
Little one?
More important
In-i-ti-a-tion.

The Catholic Faith
Please teach my child?
Not I, said nun born-
To-be-wild.

Who will help
Teach catechism?
Don't call it that
It sounds like schism.

Who will hear
My child confess?
We're all forgiven
More-or-less.

Who will give
The angels' Bread?
Extra-ministers
Sue and Fred.

Confirm my teens
Their souls they're losing?
That must be done
Of their own choosing.

So little mother
Walked away
Hating to
Look bold.

Never orphaned
Clung to Cross
Deposit of Faith
Her gold.

Then up above
On mountain top
A man in white
He stood.

Just one more Bishop
Who'll try to stop...
Disorient
What's good.

But Bishop lifted
Up her Cross
His sons helped
Bear the weight.

And Pilgrims in
Progressive lands
Continued in
Grace-state.

They handed down
What they were taught
Vocations now
They flourish

And others old
Who loved new-thought
Had only crust
To nourish.

But little mother
Saw their tears
Starving for
What's true...

Come in, come in,
We've waited years...
His Bread's, in memory,
For you!!!

David said...

"Although he should kill me, I will trust in him." (Job 13:15)

The Holy Father desires the FSSPX to seal their spiritual unity with him in the juridical and binding way that is proper to the Catholic priesthood. Instead of responding with the pure filial trust exhibited by holy Job, the FSSPX practices risk management. "Will we be autonomous? Will we have unlimited freedom to criticize the Council? Will there be material heretics in the chain of command through which we report?" The hedging and hesitation is endless.

Besides, does the FSSPX really not have the spiritual and theological mettle to deal with the likes of Mueller?

Enough already.

Syl said...

Thank yo so much, New Vatholic and Sw. David. I especially appreciate the link to the Vendee coat of arms, which, in relevant part and per Wikipedia, "two hearts voided and entwined surmounted by a crown voided and a crosslet all gules."

It's from the area St Margaret Mary Alacoque called home.

Thank you again!
Syl

Neil Addison said...

It is nobody’s secret that the former bishop of Regensburg, where our seminary of Zaitzkofen is located, does not like us. After the courageous action of Benedict XVI on our behalf, in 2009, he refused to cooperate and treated us like if we were lepers! He is the one who stated that our seminary should be closed and that our students should go to the seminaries of their dioceses of origin, adding bluntly that “the four bishops of the SSPX should resign”! (cf. interview with Zeit Online, 8 May 2009).

In reading these particular comments of Bishop Fellay it is probably worht bearing in mind that May 2009 was ony a few months after Bishop Williamson of SSPX was quoted on Swedish TV denying or at any rate minimising the Holocaust. In Germany in particular, and for obvious reasons, this was a potentially explosive issue.

In those circumstances it is hardly surprising if a German Bishop such as Bishop Mueller is less than sympathetic to SSPX.

I am not saying this in order to demonise SSPX or indeed Bishop Williamson but it is a reality which needs to be acknowledged

New Catholic said...

That is very true, Neil Addison. The 2009 words and actions of the then Bishop of Regensburg cannot be understood apart from the Williamson crisis of that same year, and the wider context of Germany itself.

Henry Edwards said...

Supertradmum: "Secondly, to have the CDF head in his position may be a shrewd political move on the part of the Pope. Muller must obey the Pope and in the Holy Spirit, respond to what is best for the entire Church, not his own personal opinion."

Let's that events will bear this out. Though I had been praying for the appointment of Cardinal Burke instead, the fact that Card. Muller has no obvious traditionalist sympathies conceivably could be an asset rather than an impediment to maneuvering an SSPX rapprochement.

As to Card. Muller theological writings, I hesitate to leap in where so much fatuous nonsense has already been written (in this thread and elsewhere}. Not having read them myself, from second-hand quotes I wonder whether (for instance) he's merely pointed out that the Catholic dogma of the Virgin Birth does not comprise its complete physiological details, nor does its doctrinal significance lie in such details.

On transubstantiation and the Real Presence, who of us--while fully accepting Aquinas and Trent--can claim to understand its full and precise meaning? When neither we nor Card. Muller or St. Thomas Aquinas nor any other finite human mind can know fully what only the infinite mind of God can comprehend. So do we not accept the dogma of transubstantiation by faith and will--believing that consecration changes the substance of bread and wine to the substance of Body and Blood--without knowing what this really means? Does what Card. Muller says amount this admission?

At any rate, while knowing too little about Card. Muller to endorse personally anything he's written, I do think it's ludicrous that so many merely self-appointed combox theologians claim insight superior to our Holy Father's, as to his competence to do the job the Holy Father wants him to do.

Robert Lockwood said...

I find it really informative, from the comments shown, how complicated Catholics want to make this situation. Bishop Fellay and the SSPX are without any doubt traditional Catholics of the tradition of the Church prior to VII. No expansion of detail needed. All one needs to do look around, read a little bit, talk to people who know something and there is no other conclusion other than VII was hijacked by the modernists and have given us what we have today for a Church. As the Pope has said "the smoke of Satin has entered the Church" it should be easily understood what is going on and why. If we believe in the teaching of Christ then we should recognize the failings of our Church today and pray for the good Bishop. What we need is true faith and not the confusion we have been given by NCCB.

Picard said...

Henry Edwards

...fatuous nonsense has already been written (in this thread and elsewhere}...

Well, as I said before, I am German and have read the works of Müller - and it is not at all nonsense what the critics of him write.

But we discussed this at length, I will not repeat it again.

But instead of discussing concrete deviations of Müller - let´s ask ourselfe some other, deeper question:

Why is there no such discussion re the orthodoxy of Burke or Ranjith?
- Because they express themselfe clearly.

Yes, the mystery of the Most Bl. Sacrament is great - but that does not at all excuse some poor phrasing.
That is part of the problem - if Müller would express himselfe in a clear, thomistic way there would be no problem.

But he is ANTI-THOMISTIC. He is sticking to a KANTIAN-RAHNERIAN TRANSCENDENTAL-PHILOSOPHY (and existentialism etc.) and so a mode of thinking and expressing according to that unsound German(-French) philosophy - that was condemned by PIUS XII in Humani Generis.

That is the very root of the problem of Modernism and modernistical theologians like Müller.

For the German-speaking readers I can only strongly recommend the new article about Müller by a German university theologian [!! - so no sspx´er], Dr. Obenauer from Bonn.
He is one of the few thomistical thinking modern theologians in Germany - and approved of the fact that the theology of Müller is more than questionable (and re virg. i. p. materialiter heretical) - and that there is a deep, deep problem of nearly all modern German theologians (and bishops and Cardinals): the modern-philosophy-styled "Hermeneutismus":

http://www.katholisches.info/2012/07/11/jungfraulichkeit-in-der-geburt-zum-konflikt-zwischen-der-fsspx-und-erzbischof-muller/

Picard said...

Btw. have you all read the best and most informative article I have ever read about the roots of nouvelle theology and the problem of contemporary neo-modernism?

It´s from SiSiNoNo in 1993 and 94, see here:
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1993_August/They_Think_Theyve_Won.htm

matamoros said...

Janet said...
"There are many of us who have been in the Church fighting against liberalism since Vatican II. The liberals have been able to take over the Church because SSPX have stayed outside and so the numbers of those fighting against liberalism have been sadly depleted. I don't think the Church would have become so liberal if the split with the SSPX had not occurred."
I don't agree. Those who rejected the NO and VatII (Received Interpretation) along with Archbishop Lefebvre were outnumbered 20 to 1 by those who "stayed in". Excuse me, but "staying in" and fighting, whatever that means ( I think it means going to the NO and not criticising VatII much at all), didn't achieve anything like as much for the Church as the acts of "rebellion" did.

Everybody knows why the use of the Old Mass has been allowed to grow - it's been forced on the Church by the reality of traditionalists who are nobody's fool. I think those who suffered in silence and kept the faith all this time are wonderdul. I also know that they couln't prevent many of their loved ones from losing that faith because of the warm fuzzy conciliar environment resulting from "full" communion with the Church hierarchy. But full communion does not mean following the whims of bishops or even Popes with stupid ideas.

History does show the Church's long periods of crisis in the past. And it also show numerous instances of heretical bishops being run out of town or worse, by angry catholics, and it's this that the Vatican of today wants to take from us at all costs. Nothing else. Making an almighty ruckus when needed is very Catholic - don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise

Mar said...

David said: "Although he should kill me, I will trust in him." (Job 13:15)

David, I wonder if you yourself have the proverbial patience of Job which you are quoting? You make it sound so easy. In fact your "Enough already" answers the
question and points to how things really are with you.

As to "spiritual and theological mettle" a more pertinent question would be: Does the "likes of Mueller" have the spiritual and theological mettle to deal with the Catholic Faith in its fullness and integrity?

Kathleen Brady said...

Thank God for Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and society of sspx. They have true faith, true sacaments, true priests, Thank God.
granny kate.

Sancrucensis said...

The article by Obeauer linked by Picard is excellent. Obenauer shows that while Müller doesn’t formally deny the dogma of the virginitas in partu, his interpretation amounts to a material denial.

Janet said...

John McFarland, in my country we have had a priest who has faithfully said the Tridentine Mass for over 40 years without recourse to the SSPX, and he has more parishioners than the SSPX who have three priests here. The reason? He has remained in the Church - and has never accepted Vatican II. But the truth is many will not attend SSPX chapels until their is reconciliation. We have a Tridentine Mass once a week in my diocese, which we have had for a year. More people attend than attend the local SSPX chapel which has been here for more than 10 years. We have three young priests who say the Tridentine Mass - none of them formed by the SSPX. In 40 years there has been one vocation to the SSPX and one vocation to the FSSP. We are a small country, but our situation may be similar to other countries. Certainly here love of the traditional Mass is slowly growing, but it is outside of the SSPX and that will continue unless reconciliation occurs.

Matamoros said...

Nobody in the SSPX is concerned about big numbers going to the Old Mass in other places - all the better, that's why it was started. The parish priest mentioned here is an exception.

Without the SSPX and Castro Mayer, no doubt Providence would have found other ways to have the Church begin to put itself on the right track. The problem is - nobody can see these ways now - history is history. Until challenged by traditionalists, the Popes from Paul VI to the present were not making any big changes. Now a train of events has set in that will go way beyond the SSPX but also beyond the ideas and intentions of the Pope.

Janet said...

Matamoros, you forget Una Voce formed in 1964 to promote the Tridentine Mass. My point is that inside the Church there have been many fighting against the liberals in the Church, but without the support of those who left to join the SSPX because as it stands the society has no voice within the Church. Look on some of the other blogs and you will see others saying the same thing. Why do you think the liberals want to keep the SSPX out? Why do you think the Pope wants reconciliation? Why do you think we are all praying that the SSPX will reconcile?

Matamoros said...

The SSPX and Achbishop Lefebvre never altogether agreed with Una Voce, because that organisation focuses on the Mass, not VatII (Received Interpretation). The Church of the future will decide what to do with the texts of the Council, but the Council as a historical event led straight to the New Mass and everything else.

"I accuse the Council!" wrote Archbishop Lefebvre. Una Voce doesn't, and therefore it's nice to have their prayers and sympathy but it doesn't really need the SSPX cheek by jowl any more than the Church needs another Society of St. Peter. Most of the Mass locations advertised by Una Voce would never have existed had it not been for traditionalists of the "disobediant" kind.

Have you seen the conditions the Pope wanted Bishop Fellay to sign just now? Unfortunately, he doesn't want a REAL SSPX "in" the Church yet, it seems.

Janet said...

Matamoros, I am sure you are aware that Achbishop Lefebvre signed all the Council documents, including the contentious ones. But it appears that he did not state that Vatican II was openly and explicitly heretical, but simply that it contained dangerous errors that favoured heresy. He was willing to accept Vatican II "interpreted in the light of Tradition" - which means excluding those errors that are contrary to the Church's magisterial teaching. I have not explicitly seen what the SSPX has been requested to sign because it remains confidential, but if you can point me to a site where it is disclosed I will certainly read it. From what I understand SSPX has been offered a personal prelature and it is the SSPX who are holding out because they don't accept Vatican II, which seems to be a step away from Archbishop LeFebvre. Una Voce is a lay group that promotes the Tridentine Mass and has always pointed out that the Council never abrogated the Latin Mass. Although I cannot speak for Una Voce I understand that Una Voce accepts the Council in the same manner that Archbishop LeFebvre did, where documents were interpreted in the light of tradition.

Matamoros said...

It's true Janet, Archbishop Lefevbre always said he would accept the Council interpreted in the light of Tradition. However since the interpretation the current Pope still wants the SSPX to accept is not one which they can identify with Tradition, we are still at the same point we were all those years ago.

Whether or not he signed all the Council documents is not the important point as far as the Vatican is conerned - though he always said he had not signed the worst two -. What the Vastican and present Pope wish to put a stop to is declarations like that one of Archbishop Lefebvre where he stated the Council came from heresy and led to heresy etc. Of course everybody is happy with the formula "in the light of Tradition". We still don't agree on what that is yet. We lay people, even bishops, cannot attach the interpretation they please to Council documents. This has to be done by the competent Church authority. We are waiting.

Unfortunately, if you look around I'm sure you'll see the leaked info about the Vat. proposals. It would have been a miracle indeed if these people had ever "approved" the SSPX with no ideological stings - the mark of the liberal is intolerance of "intolerance".