Rorate Caeli

On Abp. Müller and the SSPX

You will be on firmer ground if you base your own view of the current situation on the second part of the interview granted by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to NCRegister's Edward Pentin (and published yesterday). Nothing has really changed at the moment. 

As for Müller's words in an interview to NDR Kultur radio (tip: pius.info), he is right when he says that the Faith itself is non-negotiable, and that, in this sense, there are no negotiations with the SSPX, and does not think there will be more [doctrinal] talks, which have already taken place - it is quite likely that the SSPX superiors would say the same thing: that is, that the Faith is non-negotiable, and that the doctrinal discussions have ended.

As eager as we are to report some kind of final conclusion to this matter, we urge you to remain patient, as we are: if there is to be either an agreement or an official rupture of contacts, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, by way of the Holy See Press Office, and the SSPX's DICI will officially make the information public before any blog, and not by way of an interview to a radio station...

55 comments:

Mar said...

As someone commented on another website where Müller's words (the Faith itself is non-negotiable)are being discussed: "A lot of churchmen and theologians will be looking for work now that we’ll
be abolishing the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the
Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, the Commission of the Holy See for Religious Relations with the Jews, the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue,
Commission of the Holy See for Religious Relations with Muslims, the the U.S. Catholic-Lutheran Dialogue, etc. etc."

Mar said...

As someone commented on another website where Müller's words (the Faith itself is non-negotiable) are being discussed: "A lot of churchmen and theologians will be looking for work now that we’ll be abolishing the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, the Commission of the Holy See for Religious Relations with the Jews, the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, Commission of the Holy See for Religious Relations with Muslims, the the U.S. Catholic-Lutheran Dialogue, etc. etc."

Ferraiuolo said...

Wasn't Bishop Fellay meant to go to Rome this month on the 16th? I suspect there will be a further year of negotiation over the preamble

Trudon said...

We should pray and hope.
The Vatican is in danger of making itself look like the head office of a fundamentalist sect. I, for one one, find the concept of religious liberty very fascinating, and would love to hear Rome give a serious exposition on exactly how Vatican II's teaching on the matter fits in with 2000 years of Catholc Tradition. Instead all we get from Rome is: "the Council has spoken, it's therefore a dogma, accept it and don't ask any questions". I am not a theologian, but get the distinct impression that Rome is frightened because no-one in the Vatican has any serious argumentto offer in favour of Religious Liberty, except authority, authority, authority....are Catholics not supposed to ask questions any more?

LeonG said...

Which faith one is constrained to ask? the post-conciliar faith based on vatican Councils II is not a solid and reliable base upon which to base The Roman Catholic Faith. Its liturgy; its pastoral processes and its ecumenical and interreligious paradigms have all been admittedly novel and revolutionary, quite the antithesis of the pre-conciliar model.
What purpose did the entire "negotiating" process serve other than to waste precious time in which The Society could have been pressing forward with its important mission of evangelisation so neglected by the modern church. Furthermore, the pressures on unity have broken this imperative quality for, tyr as they may, The Confraternity cannot gloss over so easily the damage done to it recently.

Father Anthony Cekada said...

Very interesting — Abp. Muller's tone, for the most part, seems quite a bit more pacific.

In the context of "doctrinal negotiation," I think he is offering Bishop Fellay and SSPX some wiggle room on two points:

(1) "They must also accept the doctrinal pronouncements made since the Second Vatican Council, which have been authorized officially by the Pope."

How many of these have there been?

This Bp. Fellay could use as a selling point to skeptics in his base. "It's only the OFFICIALLY AUTHORIZED pronouncements we have to accept, and these have been very few..."

(2) "They also must accept that the new ordinary form of the liturgy, developed after the Council, is valid and legitimate."

SSPX has repeatedly said it accepts the NOM in its "official" Latin version as valid, so no problem there.

As regards "legitimate," Bp. Fellay should have no difficulty in saying that, "Well, despite its faults, Paul VI did, after all, legally promulgate the Novus Ordo."

Abp. Muller must surely have been very well briefed on SSPX's mode of operation and thought patterns, so it's not difficult to see his comments as another olive branch.

None of this, I hasten to add, is my cup of tea. But I think it is a plausible explanation for what seems to be going on.

Both sides know that it is, practically speaking, now or never for an SSPX/Rome deal.

Once Benedict XVI dies, appeals from Menzigen for further "dialogue" will no doubt go directly into the Pontifical Spam Folder.

Catherine of Siena said...

It seems pretty clear to me that ARCHBISHOP Mueller, the head of what is arguably the most powerful dicastery in the Church and a close, personal friend of the Vicar of Christ on Earth, believes that the SSPX is clearly operating outside of the Roman Catholic Church. Am I missing something here? The verdict is already in - and it has been in for some time, for those with eyes that want to see and ears that want to hear. There is a question of the flow of Sanctifying Grace to consider here - which is precisely why the schism caused by Archbishop Lefebvre and those who have supported, encouraged, and expanded it, will face such harsh judgement. There are few worse sins. May God be merciful.

John L said...

So the SSPX is a 'breakaway organisation', but when it comes to the LCWR - a group that has openly rejected and opposed Catholic faith and morals, and that is fundamentally and bitterly anti-Catholic and anti-Christian - Abp. Mueller says, "There is no struggle between the Holy See and this organization, but we do want to help the LCWR in its renewal of religious life".

Really, how is this to be taken seriously?

John Kearney said...

Although it is true that the discussion of doctrinal matters are now over, should we not be taking a more objective view of the obstacles the SSPX still have, and not just shout `Obey`. The manner in which the Vernacular Mass was introduced, either by Pope Paul VI, or the Congregation for the Liturgy, left much to be desired. Sacrosanctum Concilium 54 certainly envisaged a continuation of the Latin Mass. Does this make it valid or illicit, or valid and licit. I am still waiting for an answer though my instints tell me that it is still the Mass, indeed I attend the Novus Ordo, but this question haunts me. As for the documents of Vatican II, the idea of the Council being in Continuity with Councils before is way above my head. Thee are of course the doctrinal points I have no difficulty with but when it comes to Ecumenism the iedea that in so far as other Christiansd hold to Catholic beliefs they are in incomplete unity with the Catholic Church has me confused. What does `incomplete unity` mean? Can I say they are `incomplete catholics`. I think that is nonsense,and since it is not doctrinal I think I have every right to say so. I am not a member of the SSPX but I too need some clarification.

Whats Up! said...

Again,
What does "accept the Council" mean???

That is was a validly called Council?
That it was a fun Council?

That it was the best Council?

That it defined new dogma and doctrine that all must believe?


What the shmeck does the Holy See mean???

I am afraid I might not be a Catholic, because I do not understand what the above means.

Tom said...

The majority, by far, of bishops and priests in the "Latin" Church who "accept" Vatican II have simply ignored Vatican II teachings that pertain to the liturgical use of Latin and Gregorian chant.

The Society could operate by that principle.

The Society could "accept" Vatican II, then ignore certain parts of said Council that do not interest the Society.

Tom

Bernonensis said...

As far as I know, the only historical facts that Catholics are bound to acknowledge are found in the Gospels and summarized in the Creed. So if Archbishop Williamson's "unacceptable" denial of the Nazi exterminations constitutes an obstacle to communion, I have to wonder what other beliefs about the past can cut us off from salvation. Does my belief that Atlantis existed in the North Sea make me a heretic? Am I schismatic for thinking that the establishment of the Irish Free State was a betrayal of the people of Ulster? Do I open myself to censure by saying that Shakespeare was a plagiarist? Will I be called to Rome to account for my opinions about Assyrian diplomacy?

Or is it acceptable for Catholics to hold unacceptable beliefs? And if so, does this explain Archbishop Mueller's career?

Whats Up! said...

Bishop Muller calls Bishop Williamson a non-Catholic when he says:
"...of course he is not a Catholic bishop, as a bishop is only Catholic when he is in full communion with the Pope, the Successor of Peter"

Then what is Bishop Williamson?
A Methodist or a Jehovahs Witness bishop?

I am surprised that Bishop Muller is so misinformed about the facts in this whole matter.

Johnny Domer said...

I had high hopes that the Holy See would finally deal with the SSPX in a less ham-fisted way, attempting to be precise and detailed in the nature of the magisterial weight of Vatican II, the levels of assent required, and bending over backwards to accommodate the SSPX positions on non-dogmatic points. Again, if we can accommodate the Feeneyites, there's no reason we shouldn't be able to accommodate the SSPX. It seemed that the Holy See had finally, after 30+ years, had finally come around to understanding this.

Nevertheless, ever since June, Levada/Mueller have demonstrated all the subtlety of a lumberjack trying to swat a fly with a bandsaw. The SSPX will NEVER accept mandates of "Thou shalt accept the Council!" without defining what that acceptance entails.

John McFarland said...

In a very long (two hours or so) conference in Adelaide, Australia, on August 2, Bp. Fellay summarized the results of the doctrinal discussions as follows: they said, you are Protestants; we said, you are modernists.

He also described the dynamic with the Preamble. It can fairly be described as follows, The Preamble contained unexceptionable language regarding the levels of doctrinal authority, and an acceptance of Vatican II. The Society took out the acceptance of Vatican II and sent it back. The Vatican put the acceptance of Vatican II back in, and sent it back. In January, a separate line of communication was opened between the Society and people close to the Pope that seemed to open the possibility of regularization without the acceptance of Vatican II. Meanwhile, there was another take-it-out-put-it-back round that culminated on April 13 with a put it back round in which the CDF explicitly threatened excommunication if Vatican II were not accepted.

Then on June 13, Bp. Fellay and Fr. Pfluger were called to Rome and told that the Society would have to accept Vatican II. Because of the parallel discussions, Bp. Fellay asked for confirmation from the Pope himself that he agreed with this requirement. That confirmation was provided.

In the July 14 declaration of the SSPX Chapter, the Society made quite clear that it was not going to accept Vatican II.

I have no idea what will happen next. But I do know, as Bp. Fellay has said in as many words, that we are back to square one.

All of you that still hope for some sort of deal are deluding yourselves. The Vatican must have acceptance of Vatican II, and the Society cannot and will not give it.

The efforts to torture something positive out of Abp. Mueller's remarks show just how deep-seated that self-delusion is.

P.S. I would very much recommend the Adelaide conference, of which an audio can be googled up. So far it is the most detailed account of the whole business.

Long-Skirts said...

Whats Up! said...

"What does "accept the Council" mean???"

THE
BEES
SACRED PURPOSE

For centuries beeswax
In the sanctuary reigned
Our sacred purpose
From the first ordained.

Producing honeycombs
All that we handle --
Though our sacred purpose?
The Holy Mass candle.

But at the last council
Of the great Church bee
Man turned to man
Birthed sterility.

Graces for fruits
Crops and offspring
Schools, churches shut --
Can’t pollinate a thing

Until man again
On His altars lets towers --
Candles of beeswax
Sacred purpose…
…all ours!

Pray that our Holy Father regularizes & recognizes the FIRST Order to speak out & preserve the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass & all her Sacraments in the Traditional Priestly Society of the SSPX and brings back the bees "sacred purpose" for the Greater Glory of God and for the good of the WHOLE Church.

Tom said...

From the interview:

Is it possible for reconciliation with Bishop Richard Williamson within the society?

"Williamson is a separate problem to this reconciliation process.

"It is simply unacceptable that a Christian or even more a bishop — of course he is not a Catholic bishop, as a bishop is only Catholic when he is in full communion with the Pope, the Successor of Peter, which Williamson is not — denies all that the Nazis had done against the Jewish people, their exterminations."

1. Bishop Williamson is not a Catholic bishop?

2. I believe that Bishop Williamson's opinion in regard to the gas chamber issue is absurd.

But is a Catholic's standing in the Church based now upon whether he or she agrees with the, if you will, official history — whatever "official history" means —of the Auschwitz concentration camp?

I could cite, Jewish and otherwise, historians who insist that the Catholic Church's official history of Jesus Christ's death and resurrection is false.

Must Bishop Williamsom and each Catholic adhere to that version of history?

Countless historians insist that the Catholic Church's history in regard to Herself — that She is the True Church — is false.

There are Protestant historians who insist that Saint Peter was never in Rome , let alone the first Pope.

Must Catholics accept those versions of history?

Must Bishop Williamson accept the "official" version of history, pushed agressively, for example, by many historians, particularly those who are Jews, that Pope Venerable Pius XII remained silent in regard to the Nazi Germany and its program to murder millions of humans?

Tom

Dies Irae said...

it now clear that the vatican wasnt committed to regularize sspx.
there seem to be many hypocrites in the Vatican

PEH said...

Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis or the Hegelian dialectic cannot be the rule of Faith. This is the favorite tool of the modernists to undermine over 2,000 years of Tradition. The hermeneutic of continuity must equate the pronouncements of Vatican II with those of Councils that have gone before. From what I see, this is almost an impossible task yet it is the one that the FSSPX and, by extension, other independents are being asked to swallow. This why I believe Divine intervention is the only answer and our prayers must ask for that to happen.

Anil Wang said...

@What's Up,

The way out of this is for the SSPX to go through Vatican II and state, "We accept Vatican II as a valid council, however we vehemently oppose any interpretation of Vatican II that contradicts sacred Tradition, and we reserve the right to criticize the following specific pastoral sentences of the following Vatican II documents as being monumentally stupid and suicidal to the faith, and we fervently oppose any NO liturgy that does not follow the theology specified in the Pope's book 'Spirit of the Liturgy' such as 'ad populum' masses, removal of altar rails, EMHC, wreckovations, ..."

Whining like a mealy-mouthed liberal does no-one any good. We're adults here. If details are required, state the qualifications on agreement. Bp. Fellay has stated that he agrees with 95% of Vatican II so stating the qualifications should be easy without betraying the Catholic faith (i.e. denying that a Pope approved council is valid).

Juan Ramirez said...

--Cardinal Ratzinger (Letter to Lefebvre, 1982): “In the third paragraph you speak of "statements or expressions of the Council that are contrary to the Magisterium of the Church." Then you list three texts of the Council incompatible, according to you, with the Magisterium, adding even an "etc." Here your position even more radical… But you cannot assert the incompatibility of the conciliar texts - which are magisterial texts - with the Magisterium and Tradition. You can say that personally, you do not see this compatibility, and to ask explanations of the Apostolic See. But if, on the contrary, you assert the impossibility of such an explanation, you are DEEPLY DEPARTING FROM THE FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURE OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH; the of faith of the Church which you are claiming to defend at the end of your letter, the faith you were taught during your childhood and in the Eternal City.”

Beefy Levinson said...

Well, I accept the Council in the sense that it was validly convoked by a legitimate pontiff. I accept the Council in the sense that it did not formally teach heresy and error.

I also accept that the Council renewed the Church in the same sense that the atom bombs renewed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Does this make me a bad Catholic or beyond the pale in the eyes of his Eminence?

David said...

But it is important to remember that at no time in the history of the Church has a group or a movement in one country ever been successful when it has taken an attitude against Rome, when it has been “anti-Rome.” Setting oneself up against “Rome” has never brought authentic reform or renewal to the Church.

Mueller is right.

Teófilo de Jesús said...

I think what Archbishop Müller's interview indicates is that time is ticking, and that the open door to the SSPX will not last forever.

The SSPX leadership appear to be dictating to the Holy See the conditions for their normalization, not for reconciliation. Until there's a recognition by the the SSPX leadership that they are the one's returning to the Church, and not the Church to them, there will be no chance for normalization.

+JMJ,
Theo

JabbaPapa said...

John Kearney :

... when it comes to Ecumenism the idea that in so far as other Christians hold to Catholic beliefs they are in incomplete unity with the Catholic Church has me confused. What does `incomplete unity` mean? Can I say they are `incomplete catholics ?

No -- it means that their acceptance of Revelation is incomplete.

ergo, they are not Catholic.

It's fundamentally a pastoral initiative to build upon those things that we have in common with those heretics, in order to try and coax them out of their falsehoods.

Tradical said...

@anil wang
"...The way out of this is for the SSPX to go through Vatican II and state, "We accept Vatican II as a valid council, ..."

This is basically what Bishop Fellay did in the response that he composed in order to try and remove the deadlock. It was mentioned in the adelaide conference.

Discussio said...

Bp. Fellay has himself said several times during the past few years that no "negotiations" were taking place, because the faith is non-negotiable. He has repeatedly said they were discussions, not negotiations. Now Muller pretends otherwise.

I am not Spartacus said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Patrick said...

This all should just stop. The SSPX embodies the pre-VCII Roman Catholic Church based on countless papal pronouncements over centuries (all of which fit together like a well crafted puzzle). Unfortunately one can not be more Catholic than the pope which is why springs explode from the SSPX members' heads as they overcome their denial that the last five popes demonstrably either fundamentally disagreed with them or, as the present Holy Father does, tolerates them at best as long as they tow the well established line. Ultimately this all boils down to the concept that the Roman Catholic Church is based on nothing more complex than the acceptance of naked papal authority/power regardless of how contradictory it may appear or even how silly it manifests itself. After all, when a Blessed Supreme Pontiff kisses the Koran nothing should be surprising anymore. Lace, dalmatics and tunicles don't change that. Neither does legalese or spin. So sad.

Matt said...

John L said, "So the SSPX is a 'breakaway organisation,' but when it comes to the LCWR - a group that has openly rejected and opposed Catholic faith and morals, and that is fundamentally and bitterly anti-Catholic and anti-Christian - Abp. Mueller says, 'There is no struggle between the Holy See and this organization, but we do want to help the LCWR in its renewal of religious life.'

Really, how is this to be taken seriously?
"


Well, as about as seriously as we should take Obama's efforts at renewing America as we know it.

Tom said...

"Dear Tom. Well, at least one of the SSPX Hierarchy confesses he does not know if he actually is a Catholic Bishop."

I guess that he will have to deal with his doubt.

But Archbishop Müller declared that Bishop Williamson is neither a bishop nor Catholic.

However, in 2009, the Apostolic See identified Bishop williamson as a Catholic bishop.

"In virtue of the faculties that have been expressly conceded to me by the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, in virtue of the present decree, I lift from Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta the censure of excommunication latae sententiae declared by this congregation on July 1, 1988, and declare void of juridical effects beginning today the decree published then."

Rome, Congregation for the Bishops,

Jan. 21, 2009
Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re
Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops

New Catholic said...

We did not affirm that either side was satisfied or "okay" with the end of discussions, but both sides have certainly affirmed that they are over.

JTLiuzza said...

Father Cekada said: "Both sides know that it is, practically speaking, now or never for an SSPX/Rome deal."

I see this all the time in one form or another and I must confess to be at a complete loss to understand this position or it's basis.

If someone could educate me on that, I would appreciate it.

Lynda said...

This kind of a comment on the LCWR scandalises the Faithful. where is the zeal and stridency in fighting heresy and saving souls?

Mike said...


While I am deeply sympathetic to SSPX, not "accepting" Vatican II is simply not accepting Roman Catholicism.

*the Council was legally valid
*the vast majority of documents restate traditional positions
*the problems of later mis-interpretations and the NO Mass are easily to waive
*the problematic statements in the documents of the Council must be read in light of the whole Tradition of the Church.

Done. Accept.The.Council.

JTLiuzza said...

Lynda said: "where is the zeal and stridency in fighting heresy and saving souls?"

Ironically, in the SSPX who the coach has on the bench and won't put in the game.

I don't intend to be inflammatory or provocative in any way but I believe Bishop Fellay would accept his mortal end before he ever kissed a koran.

JTLiuzza said...

Mike said: "*the vast majority of documents restate traditional positions"

Shouldn't all of the documents restate such?

Enuf Already said...

The "wisdom" of Vatican II and its affect on society:

Willy Nilly Annulments=Catholic Divorce: Due to the breakdown of this Sacramental vow, homosexual unions are the wave of the present & future.

Freewheeling NFP=Catholic Contraception

Effects of selfishness: Billions of babies have been murdered by their own mothers in the name of "choice."

"What God has joined together, let no man put asunder" and "Be fruitful and multiply" doesn't mean anything to modern day Catholics "inside" the Church.

We hope that Abp. Muller has an enlightenment to his enlightenment of the Council's fruit.

We will also pray for God's will and Divine intervention, if He sees fit.

Ora et Labora said...

I don't think we are back to square one...I however believe we are facing the possibility of an official Schism within the Church.

And as difficult as this must be I have always believe the Holy See needs to officially define the status of the FSSPX in the Church once and for all.

I obviously have prayed and hope for the Society to return to Rome but I don't blame them if they choose not to comeback, because I don't even think the head of the CDF has a clue of the tremendous Crisis we have in the Catholic Church today.

This an example:
Cardinal Muller says:
"We must concentrate our forces on the New Evangelization, especially in the old Christian countries of the West, which have lost their way A LITTLE." (emphasis mine)

I am sorry Cardinal Muller but th the Western world has lost it's way almost completely and it is catastrophic.


Now I will also agree with father Cekada, that once Benedict XVI dies, the SSPX will find it very difficult to dialogue with the Holy See.

I too believe the door is closing on the FSSPX, and like I said earlier I fear we are facing a potential Schism within the Church very soon!!!

This will be a tragedy...may the Good Lord help us!!!

But I have not lost hope!!!

Mary help of Christians pray for us!!!

Mike said...

There can be no new Revelation, correct.

There can be more explicit understanding of the deposit of the Faith, however.

Cardinal Newman wrote extensively on this development of Doctrine.

(I am not saying the V2 crowd who treat the thing as a watershed are right, they are not.)

Tom said...

"Now I will also agree with father Cekada, that once Benedict XVI dies, the SSPX will find it very difficult to dialogue with the Holy See.

"I too believe the door is closing on the FSSPX, and like I said earlier I fear we are facing a potential Schism within the Church very soon!!!"

Separation from Rome hasn't dampened Rome's desire to "dialogue" with the Eastern Orthodox and Protestants.

In 2010 A.D., for example, Pope Benedict reiterated that "with the Orthodox Churches and the Ancient Eastern Churches, with which "very close bonds" exist ("Unitatis Redintegratio," No. 15)..."

The reality is, however, that within Eastern Orthodoxy, a deep hatred for the Catholic Church abounds.

In 2001, just prior to his arrival in Greece, the rank-and-file Orthodox clerical union, which represented thousands of Greek priests, denounced Pope Venerable John Paul II as an "arch-heretic" and "two-horned grotesque monster of Rome."

Pope Venerable John Paul II had Eastern Orthodox Olivier Clément compose Way of the Cross meditations.

Oh, by the way, Olivier Clément referred (not during the meditations, of course) to a part of the Vatican document Dominus Iesus as an "act of blasphemy."

He also said that "I would like to add that the beatification of Pope Pius IX is a disaster for the Orthodox, for he is the man of the First Vatican Council [which proclaimed] the dogma of papal infallibility, which poisoned relations between the divided churches."

Despite such attacks against Holy Mother Church, Rome "dialogues" with the Eastern Orthodox.

Rome continues to "dialogue" with Jews despite the deep hatred for Holy Mother Church that exists among more than a few Jews.

Hatred for Holy Mother Church is par for the course within Islam.

But "dialogue" with the Society of Saint Pius X — people who are Catholic — may end?

I doubt that.

Tom

LeonG said...

Ora et Labora

This is nothing to be afarid of, especially when a large part of the official church is in de facto schism with itself.

Long-Skirts said...

Now it's Hope?! Huh??!!!

Archbishop Muller stresses hope as SSPX talks hit impasse

Vatican City, Oct 5, 2012 / 04:50 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The Vatican's doctrine head says hope must be maintained for full communion between the Society of St. Pius X and the Catholic Church"

Everyday it's something different. Well, as a Catholic I will continue to Hope, Hope, Hope even amidst all this ambiguity...Mother of Perpetual Help - HELP us!!

AMBIGUITY

One day animist
The next day Latin
One day Renew
Some use a paten.

Some let ministers
Eucharistic-chick
Hand out Our Lord
So you can have your pick.

Sometimes bongos
Assembly on their feet
Holding hands in the air
Kneelers obsolete.

One Holy Catholic
Apostolic Church?
Good for some let others run
In circles as they search.

For we ourselves have ours
Don't ever rock the boat --
Like those who open schools and classes
Teaching souls to float.

Saintly Thomas More
Could’ve had it all
Private Latin Masses
Behind a purpled wall.

But no he chose the scaffold
Where truth and lie collide

Heads were cut --

Entrails gut -

Ambiguity couldn’t hide!

backtothefuture said...

I really feel that alot of the higher ups in the clergy don't realize the gravity of the crisis in the church. Church attendance is at all time lows. Nobody knows the faith. South America is being conquested by evangelicals. As flawed as the evangelicals theology is, they have the zeal that seems to be non existant with catholics. All the zeal and no truth, and all truth and no zeal. The way the faith has been protestanized, the uninformed can't tell the difference between faiths, churches and the liturgy. People want authenticity. Either we're gonna give it to them, or they will be fooled into believing zeal is truth. I wish that the higher ups would realize this.

Tom said...

"I really feel that alot of the higher ups in the clergy don't realize the gravity of the crisis in the church."

Pope Benedict XVI declared that in vast areas of the world, the Faith is in danger of being extinguished.

The "higher ups" are aware that the Church is in a state of collapse.

Timothy Cardinal Dolan has acknowledged that a massive, "towering" problem exists within the Church in regard to Catholics who reject Holy Mother Church's teachings.

He said:

"I'm not afraid to admit that we have an internal catechetical challenge — a towering one — in convincing our own people of the moral beauty and coherence of what we teach."

Bishop Galante (Camden, New Jersey Diocese) commissioned a survey of within his diocese.

In July 2012, Bishop Galante noted that 53 percent of people believed that Jesus Christ committed sins.

Bishop Galante said he was not surprised by that finding.

Again, he was...NOT...surprised by said finding.

The bishop has established a continuing-education program for laypeople to counter the reality that Catholic education continues to develop "religious illiterates."

Don't kid yourself.

The "higher ups" who govern the Faithful are aware that the Catholic Religion has collapsed.

The problem is that with few exceptions, our Churchmen are not interested to return to that which would generate a strong Catholic identity among the Faithful — that is, Holy Tradition.

Tom

Tom said...

Can we expect the SSPX to enter into an "agreement" with Rome when the following is par for the course among our "traditional" Churchmen.

Archbishop Cordileone was installed today as the Ordinary in San Francisco.

From the Associated Press:

-- Archbishop Cordileone offered "self-deprecating jokes about his recent drunken driving arrest."

(Ahhh...what's a Catholic Mass today without some jokes!)


-- The Rev. Marc Andrus, the Episcopal bishop for Northern California and a strong same-sex marriage supporter, was invited to take part in the procession of interfaith clergy who were to be seated up front.

However, Rev. Marc Andrus, the Episcopal bishop, had "arrived late and missed the procession of interfaith clergy."

(We wonder why countless Catholics believe that the Catholic Religion is little more than just another religion on the block.

An "interfaith clergy" procession took place as a "traditional" Catholic Archbishop was installed in San Francisco.

An Episcopal "bishop" who is a staunch supporter of homosexual "marriage" had been invited to process to the front of the Church.

It is unbelievable that Archbishop Cordileone was on board with said plan.

Actions speak louder than words.

Therefore, does Archbishop Cordileone actually expect Catholics in San Francisco to resist homosexual "marriage".

Good luck in attempting to convince Catholics who witness "interfaith clergy" processions in Catholic Cathedrals that, for example, Episcopalian "bishops" are not true bishops.

Tom

Mike said...


Tom,

Your comment has some errors and dangerous assumptions.

1. The self-deprecating remarks might have come in the homily.

2. The Protestant "bishop" wasn't on the list for the procession, and he left when he was asked to wait in the basement until it was too late for him to go in.

David of Glasgow said...

Well, if the reformable teachings of Vatican II are henceforth to be given the same obedience of faith as the irreformable teachings of the great Christological Councils (rather than the prudential assent that has always been understood to be due to such non-infallible teachings) then perhaps might I suggest that the Vatican provide a mobile phone app that provides Catholics with weekly updates to the Creed?

Tom said...

Mike said..."Tom, Your comment has some errors and dangerous assumptions.

1. The self-deprecating remarks might have come in the homily."

"...might....might have come in the homily."

Is not that an assumption...a dangerous assumption...on your part?

Seriously, even though you and I have only assumed so, I had imagined that his jokes were uttered during the sermon.

Regardless, I stand by my point from my earlier post...can our Churchmen offer a Mass today without having to include jokes?

The Archbishop made a serious mistake that invloved alcohol.

He apologized publicly for that.

I am sure that he went to confession for the sin in question.

I am certain that he is far holier than I.

But let us please have a Mass today that doesn't include the telling of jokes.

Tom said...

Mike said...

"2. The Protestant "bishop" wasn't on the list for the procession, and he left when he was asked to wait in the basement until it was too late for him to go in."

Mike, you are wrong, according to the spokesman for the San Francisco Archdiocese.

San Francisco Archdiocese spokesman George Wesolek said that Protestant "bishop" Andrus had arrived late and missed the procession of interfaith clergy who were to be seated up front.

Church staff then looked for an opportunity to bring the bishop in without disrupting the service, according to Wesolek.

When they went to retrieve him, "bishop" Andrus had departed from the Cathedral.

Again, Episcopalian "bishop" Andrus had been invited to join the "interfaith" procession in question, according to San Francisco Archdiocese spokesman George Wesolek.

Mike, if you have information that is opposed to the account of the Archdiocese's official spokesman, then I stand corrected.

Pax.

Tom

Tom said...

Mike said...

"2. The Protestant "bishop" wasn't on the list for the procession, and he left when he was asked to wait in the basement until it was too late for him to go in."

I had replied: "Mike, you are wrong, according to the spokesman for the San Francisco Archdiocese."

I wish to make clear that Mike was wrong to have claimed that Episcopalian "bishop" Andrus "wasn't on the list for the procession..."

The "bishop" was on the list in question, according to the San Francisco Catholic Archdiocese.

Mike is correct that the "bishop" waited in the basement then, after a time, departed from the Cathedral.

But the Protestant "bishop" was expected to have taken part in the "interfaith" procession, according to the spokesman for the San Francisco Catholic Archdiocese.

Tom

Mike said...


Tom,

I defer to the comment prior, as I have no special knowledge about the event.

I agree that humor is often over-played. However, a proper sense of humor, with a light touch, can show genuine lightness of heart, joy, all solid Christian virtues.

Ceolfrid said...

backtothefuture said...
"I really feel that alot of the higher ups in the clergy don't realize the gravity of the crisis in the church."

No. They understand the gravity of the crisis in the Church. They simply are unable or unwilling to even consider the possibility that Vatican II might have had something to do with the crisis.

Consider this... The Pope just opened a meeting of Catholic leaders to consider how to counter rising secularism. (See: http://www.france24.com/en/20121007-catholic-leaders-gather-counter-decline-faith) Interestingly, this is being done on the 50th anniversary (read: celebration) of the Second Vatican Council.

Now, however it actually shook out, there is some kind of causal relationship between the rise of secularism in the world and the Second Vatican Council. Whether or not the Council was well-intended and simply misinterpreted and misapplied is irrelevant: the point is that, in the wake of the Council, Catholicism has been on the decline and, correspondingly, secularism has been on the rise. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that.

But, almost the entire ordinary hierarchy has a psychological, intellectual, and emotional blind spot concerning the Council.

Furthermore, note the breath-takingly astounding juxtaposition: The Pope opens a meeting of Catholic Church leaders from around the world to debate how to counter rising secularism... and the one organization that has been consistently warning about rising secularism (the FSSPX) is treated like this.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/05/us-pope-traditionalists-idUSBRE8940EK20121005

Of course, this is because the FSSPX calls ugly the Modernists' baby (i.e., Vatican II).

That's a lot like celebrating the hypothetical decriminalization of marijuana use, then inviting a bunch of pot-heads to a conference and asking them why so many more people are using recreational drugs... but excluding the doctors who argued against the decriminalization of marijuana in the first place and dont use it themselves.

Unless and until the ordinary hierarchy is willing to consider the possibility that Vatican II was problematic (whether or not it was intrinsically so, or whether or not it had to do with its interpretation and application), the crisis in the Church will continue and secularism will continue to rise.

JM said...

The door is closing on the SSPX? LOL. Does anyone really think they feel that way, or that they are actually Protestants? Does anyone question that the larger Church since Vatican II is highly infected with Modernism? I suggest all the earnest souls here ready to lecture Bishop Fellay about his loyalties and pedigree go try to make sense of Ratzinger's "Introduction to Christianity," then come back to the table a little more informed. Sheesh.

JabbaPapa said...

SSPX-SO = /facepalm/

(hopefully, a salutory one)