Rorate Caeli

Society of Saint Pius X: Benedict XVI to pass on the dossier to successor

Regarding the issue of the Society of St. Pius X, [Vatican spokesman Fr. Lombardi] reaffirmed that the date of 22 February to decide the issue is pure hypothesis and that Benedict XVI has decided to entrust the matter to the next Pope, therefore, a definition of relations with that society should not be expected by the end of this pontificate. (Vatican Information Service)

[Note: the letter and the date mentioned in it, Feb. 22, 2013, are real; it was never called an "ultimatum" by Rorate, though it was called so by some news organizations.]

73 comments:

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

Regularization of the SSPX at this point in time is not important. What is important is the conversion of Rome to the Catholic Faith. Let us pray that the next Pope will take seriously Our Lady's command to consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart.

Katsumoto said...

"...refusal to recognize the achievements of Vatican II..."

It's not that the FSSPX refuses to recognize the "achievements" of Vatican II... it's that the Society disputes the value of these "achievements".

Benedict Carter said...

Fundamentalists?

Doesn't he mean "Catholic"?

How I despise these nu-Churchers and their snide asides and attacks. "Taliban Catholics" is the phrase one hears from the useless "Catholic Voices" in Britain, for instance.

Who wouldn't be "fundamentalist" for eternal life?

Modern "Catholics", it would seem.

Benedict Carter said...

Talking of next Popes, the philosopher and theologian Enrico Maria Radaelli has written that he will regard the next Pope as an anti-Pope. See the Chiesa site (link below):

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350437?eng=y

Funnily enough, an Abbot I know (his monastery is in Fatima in Portugal) said to me only three months ago that "I expect the arrival of an anti-Pope, and it may be the next one".

Jacob Biddle said...

Qué ridículo! I love the use of the world of the word "fundamentalists" it's soo... subversive

Chris said...

Does the CDF think if it asks the same question three times to Bishop Fellay, it will magically get a different answer the third time?

If the offer is the exact same as before, what has changed in the past few months to make Bishop Fellay go from "no" to "yes"?

Why would the Society sign on to an agreement regularizing them this Friday when the next pope may be a flaming neo-modernist? This makes no sense.

IHSV said...

... and while the men of the curia can hardly say a word that doesn't contradict what another one has said, the SSPX faithfully continue administering the sacraments and doing the true work of the church, handing on what they have received and working for the salvation of souls.

Whats Up! said...

"Regularization of the SSPX at this point in time is not important. What is important is the conversion of Rome to the Catholic Faith. Let us pray that the next Pope will take seriously Our Lady's command to consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart."

Brother Anthony,

Regularisation of the SSPX at this moment is EXTREMELY important.

The Society at, present, in most cases, cannot validly absolve sins or witness marriages.

All the sacreligous Communions and couples living in concubinage apart from Holy Wedlock, cry from the bowels of the earth for the Society to become regularised.

Souls are at stake.

Whats Up! said...

I think Fr Lombardi is very inaccurate in his statement, if he actually said these things.

Dave K said...

Br. Anthony,
If you think he Roman church has defected from the Catholic faith then it is you who have left it. Isn't your position that of Luther and the other Reformers? Is it really necessary for me or others to educate you on this elementary point of Catholic doctrine?

COTWM said...

THE SHIP = HAS SAILED

frankdavis said...

And the world groaned to find itself Arian (St. Jerome). There was a time when almost the whole Church lost the faith with exception of a few. It was not possible to be a Catholic and an Arian at the same time then nor is it possible to be a Modernest and a Catholic now. Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, Υἱὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐλέησόν με τὸν ἁμαρτωλόν

Truth Seeker said...

SSPX needs the Church, and the Church needs SSPX.

Whats Up! said...

David,

What Brother Anthony and the Society believe about the crisis in the Church cannot be compared to what Luther and the revolters did.
Theirs is world of a different issue.

The SSPX is Catholic.

Luther was not. [after his heresy]

New Catholic said...

Thank you for the image suggestion, COTWM.

Whats Up! said...

I really do not believe "The Ship has Sailed" for the Society.

I sincerely believe they will be recognized soon.

They are too good Catholics for that to happen

Jim said...

Am I the only one who has grown tired of the SSPX? I used to love them and identify with them much, but they have straddled the fence enough to lose much of their credibility as genuinely seeking a reconciliation. Think about it. They continue to play hard to get, and then pull out the perennial wild card in the eleventh hour -- "Rome needs to convert" and "We adhere to *eternal* Rome". Since the SSPX has long since lost the monopoly they originally had on the traditionalist movement, I think it is time for the faithful to say, Reconcile, or we leave. What other group has a golden deal like this offered? Person prelature? Carte blanche preaching and ministry practically. Is it such a "burdensome" demand for the Pope to require Catholics to abide by the Council and the New Mass being valid and legitimate? That doesn't exclude a wide arena in which to constructive debate the matter and seek clarifications and improvements. The SSPX more and more lives in their own world of charade, posing as the pure creme de la creme. I pray for them, and wish them good will, but there is a time when you just have to call someone out on being unreasonable. Their position makes no sense ultimately in light of the Tradition of the Church. The New Mass, universally promulgated, is evil? Even Michael Davies had enough sense not to fall into that error, not to mention it belies an extreme ignorance of the New Mass liturgy and liturgical history throughout the whole Church. So we continue on ad infinitum with the same story. For some this my be new and exciting, but for me this is old and tired. For effing sake Cardinal Ratzinger was hashing all this stuff out in the early 80s!

Jim said...

Oh, and let me add. I had to get my marriage convalidated because of them and their supplied jurisdiction fraud. (I don't deny my own responsibility in the matter, mind you.) So I am just a little tired of their shenanigans!

Whats Up! said...

Jim,

I and many Catholics are definitely not growing tired of the SSPX.
They are our brothers in the Faith and we desperately need them fully recognised.

I am glad God did not grow tired with me when for years I lived in deep, deep sin and sacrilgously compounded my sin by recieving the Blessed Sacrament in mortal sin, for years.

But God did not tire of me and kept me alive long enough to see the error and evil of my ways.

My life was immeasurably worse than this present SSPX situation and Almighty God will not tire of these good people.

Common Sense said...

"Until now, apart from its official pronouncements, the Holy See has for various reasons refrained from correcting certain inaccurate assertions regarding its conduct and competence in these interactions. A time is rapidly approaching, however, when in the interest of truth the Holy See will be compelled to address some of these inaccuracies. Particularly dolorous are statements that impugn the office, and person, of the Holy Father and that, at some point, would demand some response."
+ J. Augustine Di Noia, O.P. Advent 2012 letter to SSPX

Gratias said...

Benedict XVI directed most of his papacy to bringing these SSPX back into obedience. He failed in this and now SSPX has lost the boat. Pity, but we will survive without them.

Dave K said...

Whats Up,
Excuse me but Luther did believe the Church of Rome had defected. This is why he ignored his excommunication and continued on in his heresy and schism. His refusal to submit to the authority of the pope doomed him. Ditto Lefebvre and the SSPX. If you are ignorant of the authority of the Pope in all maters concerning the faith, government and discipline of the Church I would suggest you educate yourself.

Whats Up! said...

David,

Thank you for your concern for my education.

The Socirty cannot be compared to Luther,partly in that Luther was an apostate and an heretic.

At worst the Society is in schism [though it has never been officially declared] and while schism is an evil to be avoided, there is in fact an heirarchy of evils and schism is not as bad as heresy and apostacy.

There is in reality no comparison with their wrongs.

lucas clover alcole said...

Jim, you chose to get it convalidated because someone, most likely hostile to the sspx and unorthodox, told you you had to or some such, how is that their fault?


For others I think its quite sad and a little pathetic you want to compare the sspx with luther, there are
plenty of people in the church including cardinals and bishops who are like luther both doctrinally and in their actions but the sspx are not. Besides according to JP2 and others luther was alright, so what's the problem?

As for the article itself, it doesnt come as a surprise.

Tom said...

nyJim said..."Am I the only one who has grown tired of the SSPX? I used to love them and identify with them much, but they have straddled the fence enough to lose much of their credibility as genuinely seeking a reconciliation. Their position makes no sense ultimately in light of the Tradition of the Church. The New Mass, universally promulgated, is evil?"

Jim, I haven't grown tired of the Society of Saint Pius X. I have paid attention to them from their beninning. Certain folks pretend that the Society was THE FIRST and remain THE ONLY force behind the preservation of the Traditional Roman Mass.

For one thing, said folks must be unaware of Father Gommar A. DePauw. Father operated out of New York City and the greater area. That alone allowed him to garner great publicity.

In 1964 A.D., long before the Society of Saint Pius X had existed, Father DePauw had launched the Catholic Traditionalist Movement to preserve the Traditional Roman Mass and Holy Tradition

At that time, Archbishop Lefebvre pushed for the reform of the Traditional Roman Mass. For example, Archbishop Lefebvre wished to vernacularize the lion's share of the first part of the Mass, the Mass of the Catechumens.

Here is an SSPX link that has acknowledged that fact:

http://angeluspress.org/The-Mass-of-All-Time

What has grown tired and boring is the Society's promotion of errors...Vatican II contains errors...the Catechism of the Catholic Church promotes heresies and the utter nonense that the Novus Ordo is "evil."

Sorry, SSPX. But the Catholic Religion says that you are wrong. The Catholic Church tops the Society of Saint Pius X.

That said, I have benefitted greatly over the years from the Society and their publications when they have presented orthodox Catholicism. When the Society promotes orthodoxy, as they do in general, then they are a force for good.

I love the Society's bishops and priests, even when they oppose the Holy See's authentic teachings, as they are my brothers. I love my brother and sister Catholics attached to Society chapels.

A pray for a regularized and, therefore, orthodox Society of Saint Pius X. As soon as they enjoy peace with the Holy See, I wish that they would open a parish near me.

Tom

Barona said...

Unfortunately, "Taliban Catholics" seems to have originated - or been heavily propagated - by the CEO of "Salt and Light" TV. A priest who lauded praise on the excommunicated ex-priest, the arch-heretic Gregory Baum. This same priest also has referred to the Pope as "first amongst equals" on a television interview in Canada the other day. Vox Cantoris blog is carrying a full report. I urge Catholics to review Vox's post.

Dave K said...

Whats Up,
Let me help you a little with the teaching of the Church on the office of the Pope. This is from the First Vatican Council;
“1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45].
2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46].
3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received [47].
4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48].”
Did you notice the language about the permanence and perpetual guidance by Christ of His Church through the office of the Pope? It could not be clearer, yet the SSPX and other Trads have their doubts. Where is their faith?

Beefy Levinson said...

Only in talking about the SSPX does the word "Protestant" have a negative connotation now. I thought the Protestants were our separated brethren, with whom we're supposed to have long ecumenical discussions and mutually enrich each other and stuff?

Jason C. said...

Luther: I have decided, over and against the Bishop of Rome, that the Catholic Church's teaching contradicts Scripture.

______: I have decided, over and against the Bishop of Rome, that the Catholic Church's teaching contradicts Tradition.

If your name goes in that blank, then, well.

querite said...

In the same way that church needed St. Francis, so does today's church need the SSPX. The new Pope will want to enjoy some semblance of a honeymoon and will not poke the SSPX hornet's nest too quickly. Bishop Fellay will not have reason to get it to the top of the new Pope's agenda. The new Pope will need some time to find another job for Cdl Muller - in Lower Mozambique, preferably. So nothing new will happen in 2013.

Anonymous said...

Please send me the email of Bro Anthony. I can't seem to get it.
Many thanks.
My emeial is : agape516@hotmail.com

best wishes
Jamie

LeonG said...

There we are, for all the knee-jerk reactionists everywhere - The Society remains in the church and will be dealt with by the successor to the current supreme pontiff. It really is time there was some rational and clear thinking about the issues surrounding The Confraternity.

How can the bulwark of the Traditionalist movement be ignored when it represents so many Roman Catholics who love the true Faith? There is no schism and there never was; there is certainly no heresy; the excommunications are impossible to reapply since in any case they were very possibly canonically illegal in the first place and it is self-evident the so-called Indult Societies have many problems with their current situation of compromise between having The Latin Mass but no freedom to spread the orthodox Faith without episcopal approval which power is absolute over them.

What we require here is some sense of the social reality and thoughtful perspective necessary for taking this vital issue forward to a reasonable and just conclusion. Threats and condemnations and merely idle and lacking the appropriate intelligence.

LeonG said...

Indeed, we have been treated to all the negative labelling - "integristes", "lefebvristes",
"fundamentalists", "taliban",
"radical traditionalists" and so on. Every single one of them is a characteristic piece of postmodernist mediatised propaganda. Each one reflects that universal education has done almost nothing to improve the popular mind and raise it up towards higher matters. Instead, what is considered education today is merely political correction and social engineering.

LeonG said...

Some here need to pull their heads out of the sand for a moment.

The Roman Catholic Church has not defected from The faith but the liberal modernist one has. For its representatives in The Vatican and everywhere else it is time to own up and admit that it has made some terrible mistakes and needs to follow the advice of Pope St Pius X found in Pascendi... and Lamentabile... as well as Pope Pius IX's "Syllabus". These are even more relevant to today's church than was the case when they were written. Both Holy Fathers correctly and germanely anticipated the worst. We now have it. The chief indicators and the contemporary state of ecclesiastical chaos demonstrate this objectively.

Dave K said...

Beefy Levinson,
The Protestants are the separated brethren of Catholics. The sin of heresy and schism would not apply to them today because they have never professed the Catholic faith as most traditional Catholics claim to do. Sadly, too many Trads reject the teaching of the Church on the authority of the pope, thus they find themselves in heresy or schism, at least materially so. So, yes, this does put them in a worse position than that of our Protestant separated brethren. As far as talking to them and maintaining a spirit of friendship with them goes, hasn't the Church kept relations with the SSPX open and amicable. This all the while the SSPX claims to be more Catholic than the pope and at the same time unwilling to submit to him.

Father Anthony Cekada said...

It was Benedict XVI's personal involvement with the question from the '80s onward that provided an especially powerful impetus for regularizing SSPX's status. It also overcame substantial internal opposition in the Curia, no doubt.

The biographies of papabili I've read so far don't indicate that anyone among the likely candidates has a Ratzinger-like level of interest in the affair.

Since (as your cartoon shows) the ship has indeed sailed, it's hard to imagine Benedict's successor pursuing the same course without worrying that he'd just wind up stuck on another Carnival Cruise.

Woody said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jean-francois said...

@whatsup said, "At worst the Society is in schism [though it has never been officially declared] and while schism is an evil to be avoided, there is in fact an heirarchy of evils and schism is not as bad as heresy and apostacy.

What is that supposed to mean, schism is not as bad as heresy? So rape is worse than an extramarital affair. Guess where each of them winds up if unrepentant.

Another group dedicated to preserving the Traditional Mass before the SSPX was Una Voce which started to form in 1964 and was active by 1967.

jean-francois said...

@ Leon, The Society remains in the church and will be dealt with by the successor to the current supreme pontiff.

Who reaffirmed that the SSPX "remains in the Church" per your quote?

One can use the labels you say are negative not as a "knee-jerk reaction" but because we have spent considerable time around the SSPX. Evidence of the "taliban" mentality is found in the quote on this post or the previous one about the attire found among some people at adoration chapels. Jesus called out those hypocritical Pharisees who concerned themselves with their outward appearance rather than their inner selves. I've experienced too many instances of backbiting and gossip from SSPX'ers because "so and so's wife was wearing pants at the store." Or we don't associate with them because they watched a PG-13 movie or don't listen exclusively to gregorian chant.

As far as the SSPX being the "bulwark of the Traditionalist movement" I'm afraid that is untrue, unless you are inadvertantly describing a movement which is outside the Catholic Church.

Jim said...

@lucas clover alcole, the people who informed me that my marriage was invalid were the canon lawyers with the diocesan office of canonical service, which is headed by a bishop who is a canon lawyer, so please spare me. Furthermore, they are all orthodox and friendly to the SSPX. Denial is not going to change the matter. A poignant quote:

ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on ROPER) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you -- where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? (He leaves him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast -- man's laws, not God's -- and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

Janet baker said...

The ship has not sailed. Luther did not aver that the Church had abandoned its mission, but that its mission was wrong. And the next pope will either be a supporter of the Council, and will be locked into a dance with SSPX, or will be himself dubious now of the 'benefits' of the kick in the cojones administered by the Council, and will sign off on SSPX on their terms, which are primarily that they never have to celebrate the novus ordo and may continue to criticize the Council on its doctrinal modernisms, along with some secondary demands, a bishop, an ordinariate. I think I'm summing them up pretty well, without going to the website. I mean the terms specified by Bishop Fellay after the fiasco of last summer and fall. Either way SSPX will continue to be a key player. If the Church could right itself without righting the doctrine and the liturgy, it would. It can't, and that's why it has to continue in struggle with SSPX. Or when it begins to right itself, it will begin with the mass and the doctrine, and will be able to allow SSPX to function canonically without any problem. SSPX (and all Catholics) cannot accept the poisonous Council, and those who love working people and the poor, those who love justice, those who love Christ the King, had better pray they never will.

Dave K said...

LeonG,
Catholics are under the same obligation to obey modern popes as they would have been in the time of Pius IX, X, XI, etc.to obey them. Why is devotion to the teaching of past popes superior to that of today's pope? All popes exercise the same authority and speak for the church of their time. Trads need to stop the destructive habit playing one pope against the other. It undermines the faith and unity of the Church.

Athelstane said...

Hello querite,

The new Pope will need some time to find another job for Cdl Muller - in Lower Mozambique, preferably.

What do you have against Mozambicans, anyway?

Matthew Roth said...

Jim,the relevant dicastery at the Holy See ruled on the matter, and bishops are going by that judgment (for Confessions as well). For the SSPX to say they can absolve and witness marriages is just foolish on the SSPX's part, and risky for the souls involved.

LeonG said...

Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos and Pope Benedict XVI thenselves declared SSPX was not schismatic and was inside the church though its situation was not regular. We knew that already. When the church deals with The Society it is dealt with as an internal issue.
No heresy; no schism; no excommunications and iundeed, the bulwark of the traditionalist movement not hampered by bureaucratic liberal modernist compromises.
The fact that the modernist church disciplines nobody else who merits severe rebuke, such as Maloney or Maciel who when alive was known as a child molester evidernce demonstrates, is illustrative of the flagrant humbug in the Rome.

Indeed, there is full evidence to show they prefer de facto schismatics; heretics and serial liturgical abusers to real traditional Roman Catholics. The Catholic Faith is an embarrassment to them.

LeonG said...

The news everyday now carries yet more evidence of Cardinals, bishops and presbyters who supposedly "in full communion" propagate abortifacients; homosexuality; a feminine priesthood; episcopal cover-ups for clerical serial child abusers; Holy Communion to protestants, civil divorced & remarried Catholics and for pratising homosexuals. This is just the beginning of the de facto schism by regular members of the liberal church. The objective evidence is omnipresent and incontestible. The scandals and shame brought upon our good name is appalling yet remains unpunished by any ecclesiastical authority.

LeonG said...

To criticise The SSPX for defending Sacred Tradition when the liberal modernist church is inhabited, as Pope Bendict XVI himself admitted, by so much filth, demonstrates myopic ignorance and intolerable injustice of systemic proportions.

jean-francois said...

@Leon

And he put before them another parable; Here is an image, he said, of the kingdom of heaven. There was a man who sowed his field with clean seed; 25 but while all the world was asleep, an enemy of his came and scattered tares among the wheat, and was gone. 26 So, when the blade had sprung up and come into ear, the tares, too, came to light; 27 and the farmer’s men went to him and said, Sir, was it not clean seed thou didst sow in thy field? How comes it, then, that there are tares in it? 28 He said, An enemy has done it. And his men asked him, Wouldst thou then have us go and gather them up? 29 But he said, No; or perhaps while you are gathering the tares you will root up the wheat with them. 30 Leave them to grow side by side till harvest, and when harvest-time comes I will give the word to the reapers, Gather up the tares first, and tie them in bundles to be burned, and store the wheat in my barn.

I don't recall any parable in the Gospel where some self-proclaimed pure group would remain in isolation from an evil one only to be re-introduced when it was sufficiently pure again for them to do so.

Dr. Timothy J. Williams said...

Thank you, Janet Baker, for injecting some sanity into this discussion. You are quite right. Without adopting the positions of the SSPX - that is to say, the Roman Catholic positions - the Vatican and our next Holy Father will never be able to right the ship.

I have faith that a Pope, someday, will indeed correct the errors of the Council. And there will be no need for the SSPX to sign any agreement, since they already agree to the entirety of the Faith.

Fr. John said...

Dear What's up,

You wrote, "The Socirty cannot be compared to Luther,partly in that Luther was an apostate and an heretic."

This is clearly an error. Luther was not an apostate, he was simply a heretic. Since you do not know the difference between these two, you should not be making any theological judgments at all.

Fr. John

Fr. John said...

Dear Dr. Timothy J. Williams,

Please list "the errors of Vatican II." Be sure to cite passages from the council itself.

-Fr. John

Hilltop said...

Love the cartoon!
SSPX pictured standing on firm ground while titanic-like ship sails out to sea...

John McFarland said...

It would be hard to find a less apropos metaphor for the situation than the ship sailing before the SSPX got on board.

The ship sailed no later than the end of June 2012, when the Holy Father confirmed in writing to +Fellay his agreement with the CDF that in order to be regularized, the Society must accept Vatican II and the New Mass.

Anyone who thinks that the SSPX would do any such thing, or that there is some middle point between the Society's July 14 declaration and the CDF's position, is just not thinking rationally.

There is no middle ground here. Unless and until there is a regularization that will permit the Society to keep teaching and doing what it is teaching and doing right now -- including that the most notable teachings of Vatican II are erroneous, and the Novus Ordo Missae as it stands is evil -- there can be no regularization.

New Catholic said...

"... to keep teaching ... that... the Novus Ordo Missae as it stands is evil..."

Dream on. Thankfully, despite some misunderstood declarations, Bp. Fellay was in his latest interview much more nuanced than you.

Common Sense said...

Dear Fr. John, please give us half a dozen reasons why VII failed to work and why St. Pius X was succesful in supression of modernism on the other hand.

AntiNeoCath said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mark said...

Dear Fr. John,

The manifold errors of Vatican II are fully explained in this essential book:

The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church, Fr. Matthias Gaudron

To list, explain, and cite them all here would take too much time and space.

Dave K said...

To Common Sense & Mark,
If Vat2 taught error please explain how it came to be that its teachings were approved by the supreme teaching authority in the Church, namely the Pope and bishops in union with him? If an ecumenical council convened by the authority of the Pope and whose decisions were approved by him are in error why accept the teaching of any council or the pope himself? In anticipation of an answer along the lines of “the council did not exercise the extraordinary magisterium”excuse to dismiss it, remember the the teachings of the ordinary magisterium are also binding on the faithful. Since the teachings of the extraordinary magisterium have their roots in the ordinary magisterium it is critical that the Church has the ability to identify her own doctrine as belonging to it. The post Vat2 popes have all taught that Vat2 belongs to the ordinary magisterium and must be accepted as such by the faithful. Much of the trouble in the Church today is not the fault of the Council itself since it has largely been ignored.

Ora et Labora said...

Father Anthony Cekada I agree with you when you said:

"The biographies of papabili I've read so far don't indicate that anyone among the likely candidates has a Ratzinger-like level of interest in the affair."


Mary help of Christians pray for us!!!

RJHighland said...

Fr. John

Apostate (Noun) somebody who renounces belief, somebody who renounces a belief or allegiance.

What part of that does not describe Martin Luther? He renounced his belief in the See of Peter as the 1st Shepherd of the Church, renounced confession, renounced the true presence in the Eucharist he defined it as consubstantiation, he renounced the celibate priesthood and many more teachings. Which of those have the Society renounced? It seems to me many of the progressives in the Church have more in common with the teachings of Martin Luther than the Society ever has or will. Luther was an apostate and a heretic, so What's up Padre.

Great reference Mark.

Hilltop, it took me 10 min. to compose myself after your enlightened view of the Cartoon, love it. Let me just add, in the suit case were the navigational charts to avoid the iceberg field.

Jonvilas said...

Dear LeonG and other SSPX-ers, you may claim as many times as you want that you are not schismatics etc. Yes, cardinal Hoyos told that. However, one simple fact remains as true as it is – you are not in Full Communion With The Holy See. That is, you are not in Full Communion With Peter. That is, you are not fully cum Petro et sub Petro. That is, you do not fully take as your own another ancient maxim of One True Church – ubi Petrus ibi Ecclesia. When you will acknowledge this simple truth, your reconciliation will really become true. In Christo.

James said...

Fr Gaudron is a priest of the SSPX - not that that makes his arguments or conclusions false or wrong, of course.

However, surely it is wishful thinking on the part of the SSPX to believe that the Church will concede that a validly and lawfully convoked and Papally approved ecumenical Council taught error and that the Church held such errors officially for over 50 years and that these "errors" cannot be reconciled with church doctrine.

Similarly, can one see the Church admitting that liturgical and sacramental rites duly sanctioned for the Roman Rite, which were the use of at least four (now presumably 5) Popes, and nearly the entire episcopate and priesthood of the Roman Rite for over 40 years, is "positively evil"?

How does this fit with an indefectible Church guided and guarded by God?

Antinous said...

Common Sense: Neither of those requirements in any way invalidates Fr. John's request for proof it was erroneous. The Council of Florence failed; does that mean it promoted error? No, of course not.

The traditionalist movement in general, and Lefebvrists in particular, would do themselves a great favour if they directly addressed the questions asked of them rather than attempting to distract attention by pointing to the errors of others.

Any time the SSPX is challenged, it seems the defence is always to ask an aggressive counter-question, or else to work up a long list of errors witnessed in the 'modernist nu-Church', or some similar rant. Anything to avoid actually answering the question asked.

Which is, to say the least, a little intellectually dishonest. I for one would have much more respect for the SSPX if I wasn't so often given the impression of a group of people desperately trying to convince themselves.

Katsumoto said...

Dave K wrote:
"...hasn't the Church kept relations with the SSPX open and amicable..."

What color is the sun on your home planet?


LeonG wrote:
"Indeed, we have been treated to all the negative labelling ... "lefebvristes"..."

Really, I dont think "Lefebvrists" is all that negative. I mean, you've got Benedictines, Jesuits, & c...


jean-francois wrote:
"What is that supposed to mean, schism is not as bad as heresy? ... Guess where each of them winds up if unrepentant."

Wow, I think this is the first time I've seen a Catholic admit that the so-called "Orthodox" are going to hell (if they remain schismatics).


Matthew Roth wrote:
"For the SSPX to say they can absolve and witness marriages is just foolish on the SSPX's part, and risky for the souls involved."

Well, as far as absolving (annulling) marriages goes, they have no authority to do so. But, as far as witnessing marriages goes, they dont need any authority, as the sacrament is administered by the husband and wife; a priest is just a witness for the Church.


LeonG wrote:
"The fact that the modernist church disciplines nobody else who merits severe rebuke, such as Maloney or Maciel who when alive was known as a child molester evidernce demonstrates, is illustrative of the flagrant humbug in the Rome."

Yeah, seriously: what's with that? You've got whacked-out Cardinals spewing all sorts of non-Catholic garbage, and the FSSPX gets special treatment for what? Keeping alive the traditional Mass and Sacraments? The horror...


Hilltop wrote:
"Love the cartoon!
SSPX pictured standing on firm ground while titanic-like ship sails out to sea..."

Nice! Talk about putting a positive spin on things...

Adfero said...

Scourage of Sanctimony, this blog is for Catholics, not those that worship themselves and spread calumny.

Please leave, and never try to comment again. In fact, don't even read us any more.

Jim said...

@Matthew Roth

"But, as far as witnessing marriages goes, they dont need any authority, as the sacrament is administered by the husband and wife; a priest is just a witness for the Church."

Incorrect. They need delegation from the local bishop or pastor. They lack it, therefore their marriage have a defect of form, and need to be corrected through radical sanation or convalidation. This fact is why they've contrived the supplied jurisdiction argument. If/when the SSPX reconciles, there marriages will be radically sanated. That's just reality, folks. If we're self-confident that we are the ones not asleep in our time, then we need to face realities, even if they reach into our own home, and may be uncomfortable.

James said...

This marriage issue really bugs me - I was married in the SSPX. My wife comes from an ardent - one might say fanatically - SSPX family and she is similar but at least she is prepared to go to non-SSPX TLM's now unlike her family. I used to be very pro SSPX but no more. I go to be with my wife and kids (long story), but also support the "approved" TLM now. Not sure how to deal with the convalidation issue. I've gingerly raised it with my wife but it becomes an emotional argument. No diocesan priests we know have raised the issue at all, but it sits there nagging away. I don't want to spit on 10 years of marriage as if they're worth nothing and break my wife's heart but I don't want to burn in hell either....

Jim said...

@James,

You've got to trust in God. My situation was/is much like yours. My wife was quite non-plussed at first, then resistant, but then warmed up as I explained some things to her. It was slow going, and I did gently command certain things, like we would not attend irregular Masses anymore. The priest we worked with with the Diocese was very straightforward ("it's invalid"), but also very compassionate and understanding, since we all do this in good faith. There's a kind of middle ground because 1) You're civially married, 2) everything was right except the delegation. This is not the same as people who marry with a non-Catholic minister. So they did not limit our reception of the Eucharist in the month or so it took to hash this all out. If your wife finally resists that step, then that is what a radical sanation is for, when the other person is not willing to convalidate. My wife agreed to convalidate, though I originally sought a sanation. You can have a discreet ceremony. In my case the witnesses were provided by the parish, since we wanted it to be as discreet as possible, though we were happy to finally have the blessing of the Church.

Yes, there was a cross to bear in the whole matter, but we are so grateful to God for His kindness. We not only had this straightened out, but now participate in a parish that is benefiting from our presence, and us from them. If we never made the move, our voice would never be brought to the table. Our pastor, even though they had the TLM and were quite traditionally-minded, never fully understood the our perspective and why some resist coming into regularity. We have to understand that traditionalists aren't the only players. There are the "conservatives" amongst us who would be our partners in restoring all things in Christ, but there are misunderstanding are prejudices, worries of division in parishes, etc. So we need to come out of the catacombs and take our rightful place in our local TLM-friendly parish, and make our message known in humility and charity. God provides!

Last post on this and the marriage stuff. God bless, friends!

Mark said...

Regarding how the teaching of error was possible at V2, the aforementioned Catechism of the Crisis in the Church anticipates and addresses all such questions. Just read it.

Matamoros said...

Yes I liked the Titanic comparison too.

Actually we've always been on the same ship. It's on fire and the captain is trying to put it out by pouring a bucket of water on it with one hand and a bucket of petrol in the other.

Most are doing the same, but one group refuses. They love the captain and the ship and won't jump overboard. But neither will they join in pouring petrol on the flames. They've been confined below deck but at least aren't getting their fingers burnt like the rest.

As for marriages and confessions, the SSPX had their faculties taken away in the 1970s long before the concecrations. Why, because they refused to accept the new liturgy and the errors coming out of Vatican II.

If a person cannot see that this motivation that runs against the interest of the Church can invalidate a sanction like suspension a divinis, then such a person is of course better off in a standard parish.

But don't assume that parishes, even those friendly to the traditional Mass are the best place for those faithful who attend SSPX Masses. The parish system isn't working very well. If one feels the vocation of getting involved in a local parish to improve things that's great. However most parents struggling to bring up Catholic families have a lot on their plate and do not need to battle with the lukewarm parish life that is the norm in most places. We trads aren't used to people who don't know how to behave or what to do in a church, nor should we be.

The Church today is living to some degree on the energy provided by various spiritual communities. The SSPX and those friendly to it are one of these. It is not a community of ordinary parishes nor does it need to be. We don't need t be reintegrated anywhere, regardless of the outcome of discussions with the Vatican. Every religous order has its own culture, or charisma, and so does the Society of St Pius X. Not your cup of tea? no need to worry. eEmember the Dominicans and the Jesuits? All Catholic but different, very different.

The Catholic Church is big, and ignorance of one part vis a vis another can be very great at times. Has preference or fate placed somebody in one part of it rather than another? This is the way it's always been and it's not a question of salvation or damnation for somebody to stay or continue going to Mass at a SSPX chapel - just sectarianism.

Common Sense said...

Jim and James,
I sincerly hope that you've sorted out your own personal issues and that it isn't a proverbial misery seeks company. That should be the end of SSPX bashing on your part. God bless.

ryandominic said...

If God is with you,who can be against you..no need to worry if the next Pope is a modernist.

James said...

@Jim,

Thank you for your comments. Would you mind if I discussed this matter privately with you? My email address is waters dot james64 at gmail dot com.