Rorate Caeli

SSPX - The true scoop was missed: no consecrations of new bishops, but an opening for the first time to a pragmatic agreement with Rome

Enzo Bianchi, the ultra-progressive founder of the "ecumenical monastery" of Bose, tried to create a scoop in the Italian media days ago by saying that the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) intended to consecrate new bishops. He said he had information from "good sources". Enzo Bianchi, with "good sources" inside the SSPX? ... Rorate can affirm with certainty both that there will be no consecrations in the SSPX in any foreseeable future, and that Enzo Bianchi has certainly no "good sources" inside the Fraternity.

In an article published today, the French conservative news website Nouvelles de France also ridicules this idea made up by Enzo Bianchi, and recalls that the real scoop is to be found in the declaration made by the SSPX bishops on June 27. That declaration was perceived as a having a somewhat harsh tone (we agree with this assessment), but it included an "or" that is a startling opening for a pragmatic resolution of the canonical irregularity of the Society:

Let us read this interesting - and real, not imaginary... - 11th paragraph of the June 27, 2013, declaration: "We mean to do the same: either when Rome returns to Tradition and to the Faith of all time – which would re-establish order in the Church; or when she explicitly acknowledges our right to profess integrally the Faith and to reject the errors which oppose it, with the right and the duty for us to oppose publicly the errors and the proponents of these errors, whoever they may be – which would allow the beginning of a re-establishing of order." In other words, a kind of open door is left to the consideration of the Roman authorities. A door that does not require a calling into question of Vatican II, but rather a pragmatic solution. This passage contains a true revolution. But it was curiously ignored. A pity! It was perhaps the true scoop that, unfortunately, eludes newsrooms that are more skilled in spreading gossip than in the study of ecclesiology ...

The "right," the "right and duty," are already acknowledged in the Code of Canon Law ... 

35 comments:

Dan Hunter said...

This is wonderful to read NC!

Perchance the Society will be regularized soon!

Supertradmum said...

Not consecrating bishops is a good sign. Prayers.

Dan Hunter said...

Consecrating Bishops is a good sign.

With Papal Mandate.

Pulex said...

As the New Catholic wrote, the right and duty of every catholic to profess the Faith and denounce errors are part of the Canon Law. Therefore, this requirement seems somewhat 'populist' and does not make sense. Why should they make such precondition?

John Gerardi said...

The problem is in the words "with the right and the duty for us to oppose publicly the errors and the proponents of these errors, whoever they may be..."

The "errors" the Society refers to (unless I'm gravely mistaken) are contained in the texts of the documents of Vatican II. The proponents of these errors are Francis and all of his postconciliar predecessors. The Holy See is not going to sign on to any agreement wherein the Society is reserved the right to berate the Holy Father publicly. The Holy See will only allow non-polemical and constructive disagreement.

Matthew said...

I was saddenned to read this SSPX declaration for exactly the reason mentioned. What makes the SSPX think that they will not fall prey to the wolves in the hierarchy should they sign an agreement? Many members of the Ecclesia Dei groups are doctrinally compromised, even if they continue to primarily say the TLM, by their giving adherence to the licety of the NO and the possibility of reconciling VII with perennial Church teaching. They are better placed in their "holding pattern," as it has been described, until Rome shows signs of actually abandoning these errors, rather than dressing them up with Latin and ad orientem. That has not happened and does not seem to be likely in the forseeable future.

And for what it is worth, I usually assist at an "approved" Mass.

New Catholic said...

Pulex,

You forget, however, that there is only one side that can actually state that to be the case and regularize the situation accordingly. The side that has the power and the authority.

Bwangi Kilonzo said...

Matthew;
Tell you what, a majority of Catholics, basically over 85% are open to the truth of the faith including priests, especially the younger priests who go into their priesthood ill equipped for it. . The problem is, there is no one feeding it to them; instead they get fluffy stuff about Love and fuzzy feelings.

What a regularization of SSPX would allow them to do is what FSSP is doing. It would give them access to these Catholics. Through retreats, events mass and the likes.
I know of a Fraternity Parish that is growing at an exponential rate, of close to 20% and pretty soon will be forced to build a new Church because the one the local ordinary granted them is too small. Why? Regular Novus Ordo attendants come and get sucked in, by truth and they start bringing their friends and those too get sucked in. Eventually you start seeing other priests coming to the FSSP events like Rorate Mass and Major Feast days not celebrated on the Regular Roman Calendar.

SSPX can fight this fight outside or they can get in on the inside and get access to the masses hungry for truth. May the Holy Spirit guide them to the fullness of Union with the Holy Father.

Crouchback said...

Pontius Pilate had power and authority.....what he lacked was Truth

Squabble all you like about the SSPX....

The Truth is the Church is in deep deep trouble......and the SSPX didn't cause the trouble....the Bishops refuse to admit the Truth...that Vat II has infected their diocese and is hollowing them out....rotting therm to the core...

Time some one told the Bishops the Truth....weather they are man enough to recognize the Truth is the question.

Athelstane said...

I agree with Bwangi:

What a regularization of SSPX would allow them to do is what FSSP is doing. It would give them access to these Catholics. Through retreats, events mass and the likes.

This is access the SSPX just doesn't have now. What they see is too often seen (wrongly) as suspect, simply because they are in a "canonically irregular situation" (Which is too often glossed as "schismatic," causing plenty venting online by Society adherents).

For "indult" traditionalists like me, it's easy to acknowledge the debt that we all owe to Archbp. Lefebvre and the Society for keeping the Old Mass (and Tradition) alive during the dark days when it was pretty much extinguished everywhere, and there were no sympathetic bishops to be found (outside Campos). That era was, to me, arguably a "state of emergency."

But it becomes harder to see it still in force since (arguably) Ecclesia Dei and (more arguably) Summorum Pontificum. I know, it's not just about the Mass; but there is room for traditionalists to worship and speak out in a way there was not before. If the SSPX insists on waiting until Rome fully converts to Tradition before it dares stick its toes in the water...it will not only wait a long time, but deprive itself of the ability to make that day come sooner. And it will risk the dangers that attend so long an isolation from Rome.

At some point, the Society must take the risk, if there is any reasonable opportunity to do so. And trust that Our Lady will not let the wolves devour them.

Kathryn Rose said...

The modernist heretics who conceived, planned, and orchestrated the revolution within the human element of the Church started with the TLM. So the idea that simply the TLM suffices is naive. It is like the Protestant view of Scripture & Tradition - logically untenable, because Tradition is prior to Scripture. Doctrine is prior to the Mass, in a formal sense at the very least.

im-blogger said...

Pulex wrote:

"As the New Catholic wrote, the right and duty of every catholic to profess the Faith and denounce errors are part of the Canon Law. Therefore, this requirement seems somewhat 'populist' and does not make sense. Why should they make such precondition?"

It's not so much populist as that it is wise. Visibly placing oneself under authorities that are imbued with and thus blinded by error seems pretty much suicide. When Rome/ the Holy Father acknowledges that there are problems with the Council itself (not just in its aftermath), a situation exists that is more hopeful regarding the survival of the work of +Lefebvre / SSPX. They would not be opposed in their work, at least not by their direct authorities. Until then, the current status quo seems more favourable to them.

This is what John Gerardi said (but he possibly wanted to make another statement) when he wrote in his post that '[t]he Holy See is not going to sign on to any agreement wherein the Society is reserved the right to berate the Holy Father publicly."'

That is, as it appears, the point for the Society that Athelstane was talking about: 'At some point, the Society must take the risk, if there is any reasonable opportunity to do so. And trust that Our Lady will not let the wolves devour them.'

yoink! said...

I hope and pray that SSPX will return to the Church. It is sad to see passionate people of faith being led by ego and spiraling outside of the Church like the Old Catholics, the Protestants and the Orthodox. Very sad....

MSN said...

Please Bishops of Society of St. Pius X.....Please we need you in full Communion with the Holy See....as some of us would love to see parishes in our area........

Bwangi Kilonzo said...

@im-blogger said...

, Visibly placing oneself under authorities that are imbued with and thus blinded by error seems pretty much suicide. When Rome/ the Holy Father acknowledges that there are problems with the Council itself (not just in its aftermath), a situation exists that is more hopeful regarding the survival of the work of +Lefebvre / SSPX.,


The Church has never said that the Council of Vatican II was dogma. No one is required to believe anything that was in Vatican II.

So if its not dogma, like benedict said Vatican II has to be seen in the light of what came before it. Which means, if it’s contrary to what was before, then you go with what was before?

So the hoopla is not about faith but implementation of the Vatican II.

Angelo said...

Many will not concede that Traditionalists have the right and obligation to point out and correct errors. "Its mean spirited", the modernists say. Yet the modernists have been wrongly condemning Traditionalists for years. Bl. John Paul ll made it clear that we all have the right and even the obligation at times to point out errors so that they be corrected. Here's a correction for them! Bl. John Paul ll said in "Ecclesia Dei Adflicta", "THE RIGHTFUL ASPIRATIONS OF THOSE ATTACHED TO THE ANCIENT LATIN DISCIPLINE, MUST ALWAYS BE RESPECTED". Those in Rome must be reminded of this and accept it or they are in grave error. A serious sin before God.

poeta said...

yoink! -

I have not seen the SSPX do any "spiraling" here. Perhaps it's just the circle that you find in the windmills of your mind.

John L said...

On the bishops' declaration; it should be noted that it does not state that any of the texts of Vatican II are clearly and unambiguously in opposition to Catholic doctrine, but rather that the problems with the council lie in the conciliar texts rather than only in the 'event' of the council. This statement leaves open the possibility of holding that the problems with the texts consist in deliberate ambiguity that permits or actively insinuates heterodox meanings, without holding that any of the texts completely exclude an orthodox interpretation. This is precisely the point made by Ennemond on the Forum Catholique here: http://www.leforumcatholique.org/message.php?num=725314. Ennemond can be trusted to not present views that are at odds with those of the Society leadership.

John L said...

In fact, it seems that the main result of Benedict XVI's pontificate on the case of the SSPX has been to change the main point at issue. That issue is no longer the problematic character of some texts of Vatican II. That problematic character is in any case clearly established by the history of the council, and has been admitted (although not in so many words) by Cardinal Kasper among others; there is no real future in trying to get the SSPX to deny it. The issue is now the status of the Novus Ordo. The letter accompanying Summorum Pontificum stated "There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal... in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness." It appears that the CDF, consistently with this statement, required the SSPX to accept the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo; a demand not made of Abp. Lefebvre in 1988. This new demand the SSPX refused; the bishops' statement makes it clear that they will always refuse it, as one would expect. So the status of the Novus Ordo is now the battleground.

yoink! said...

Poeta - Appreciate the insult...Perhaps you didn't read the declaration from the SSPX Bishops from 6/27....

I hope and pray they come back to the Church and abandon the path the Old Catholics took.




Physiocrat said...

The celebration of the Novus Ordo facing the people and in the vernacular comes close to being a liturgical abuse and should stop. If you look at Sacrosanctum Concilium it can be seen that it was clearly intended that vernacular celebration should NOT be the norm, but an exception, perhaps for catechetical purposes. Vernacular celebration is permissive. Celebration facing the people is based an bad archeology, as Uwe Lang pointed out in Turning towards the Lord.

One those matter are put right, things will at least be on a proper course. If the Novus Ordo is not of God it will then die out of its own accord. The Novus Ordo in Latin is a clumsy piece of liturgy in comparison with the Tridentine mass and there is no reason why anyone should actually prefer it. If the Novus Ordo is not of God it will then die out of its own accord.

We should not get too hung up about this matter - that is getting in the way of real progress in remedying the matter.

UnamSanctam said...

I used to be on of those Traditionalists who thought that all you need to do is get the Old Mass back (a la Summorum Pontificum) and all would be alright.

Later I realised this view is danergously naive; in short, totally false.

The manifold serious problems in the Catholic Church have at their heart not liturgical but doctrinal: in emphasizing certain "trace elements" of teaching and blowing them up into a full-blown speculative theology, the train has gone diving off the rails into the gorge below.

The NO reflects this new theological stance - a New Mass as the summit of a new theology. The Old Mass represents an entirely different theology and the two are not only mutually incompatible but antithetical. This is why the Modernist proponents of V II and the New Mass do all they can to suppress the Old Mass - they actively fear and hate it.

This means the SSPX, forced by the circumstances of the Crisis, and in my view supported by the Holy Ghost, are of course right to insist upon their freedom to work, while within the Church, against this false theology and to crtiicise those who promote it.

Did not St. Catherine of Siena do the same, even to a Pope's face? As the article points out, does not Canon Law explicitly give the Catholic the "right and duty" to point out error to legitimate authority? It does, and so does St. Thomas Aquinas and other Doctors and Saints of the Church.

Reading some of the comments in Rorate Caeli, one can only wonder at the many Traditionalists who exhibit all the conformist tendencies of the so-called 'conservative Catholic', who goes about his business saying "I like the Latin Mass but I go along with the Revolution anyway".

Wake up, for God's sake!


Benedict Carter

Morgan said...

Maybe NewCatholic can look into this link and tell me whether or not this is SSPX or some new age VatII because I just moved to the area, this is my new "church" boundary I'm in, and I've been there 3x.

The first - they had a line for reconciliation when the priest stopped & said No More, before leaving all of us there who had waited for over an hour.

The second time? The homily was all about social justice with no links to the readings in the missals.

The last time? There were no missals but the homily had changed to a less antagonistic one and the priest stayed at the end to shake hands with the parishioners. It felt inviting.

http://theinstituteofcatholictheology.com/professors.php

I have no idea what flavor these priests and professors are - Jesuits, Franciscans, Benedictines, etc. Can someone help me out and let me know as those at the Institute are those at St. Thomas the Apostle? Thank you. I may have to drive to a suburb.

im-blogger said...

Blogger Bwangi Kilonzo said...

'The Church has never said that the Council of Vatican II was dogma. No one is required to believe anything that was in Vatican II.'

The churchmen have, however, acted as if Vatican II is a holy grail, and mostly so concerning those items that the SSPX (and others, let's not forget that!) has difficulty with. In Fact, they acted like it was a super dogma (cf. Card. Ratzinger).

Just to be clear: you need to believe everything that was dogma already. One also needs to adhere to everything Vat.II said. Unless... it is against Revelation, Divine Law, etc.


'So if its not dogma, like benedict said Vatican II has to be seen in the light of what came before it. Which means, if it’s contrary to what was before, then you go with what was before?

So the hoopla is not about faith but implementation of the Vatican II.'

While your reasoning sounds nice, there is a small problem with it. True, one has to see Vat. II in the light of tradition. And then you keep what is in accordance with tradition. But what do you do with what cannot be reconciled with tradition? Do you implement it in the light of tradition, that is, you simply do not implement it?

The problem is, that Vatican II was a council of the church. And, despite it not being a dogmatic council, churchmen behave as if it was. The Spirit was there. It cannot be wrong. There just cannot be anything in Vatican II that is not in accordance with tradition. Or so they say.

Hence, when the SSPX (and others) say that some parts of Vatican II cannot be implemented because of tradition, this is where they get in trouble. Because, supposedly, they do not acknowledge the Magisterium of the church. Because, supposedly, they do not follow the Spirit.

There is more to this than 'just' applying the light of tradition to the documents of Vatican II. There is also the question of the authority of Vatican II. Whether there can be errors in it, or not.

If you say that there can be no errors in Vatican II, and you have to see everything in light of tradition, then you have a terrible time trying to reconcile those two (well, concerning a few paragraphs).

The SSPX (and, again, others) says: Vatican II was not infallible, there can be errors, and there actually are errors in the texts. This is the problem at hand. It is all about the Faith, and about how an abuse of power helps demolishing the faith.

If the churchmen (at least the Pope, at least Rome..!) would see, would accept that there are errors in the Churchs, then there is some sort of possibility of survival for the SSPX outside of the current status quo.

By the way, we see the same discussion (authority and faith) concerning the 'liceity' of the NOM. Does it harm the faith? In asmuch as it is protestantized, yes! Is the concecration valid? If the conditions for the validity of the Sacrament are there, yes! If there is a consumption, one would think that the Sacrifice is complete, too. Yet, is it dangerous for the faith? I repeat: yes!

Now, is the NOM licit? If you agree that something which is wrong, cannot have a right, and you concluded that the NOM is wrong (becuase it is dangerous, and we have a perfectly good Mass anyway!), then the NOM cannot have a right. It might be valid (under the usual conditions), but it cannot have rights. It cannot be licit.

Yet, if you say so, you "doubt the magisterium, who rightfully legalized the NOM", they say. And so we're back at the discussion of (abuse of) authority.

The SSPX acknowledges Rome's authority. Otherwise, they wouldn't even talk to them, certainly not about a canonical structure! But they will not blindly follow those authorities in non-dogmatic matters when they see their faith attacked!

Sorry for the lengthy response.

LeonG said...

In answer to many posts here and elsewhere - this is hardly a church to be in "full communion" with. The SSPX has already inflicted massive damage on itself by its predictably unfavouarble attempts to make an agreement with the previous papacy. This was the direct consequence of completely overlooking Pope Benedict XVI's total commitment to the Councils and its liturgical vehicle the NO.

Ecumenism, interconfessionalism and liturgical syncretism are variable factors that make the notion of "full communion" with the liberal modernist church appear practicably impossible.

Let us all be honest with ourselves: can we truly admit we feel "in communion" with what is happening in this rapidly degenerating institution called the "Catholic Church" today? Frankly speaking, I cannot.

Athelstane said...

Unam Sanctam,

I used to be on of those Traditionalists who thought that all you need to do is get the Old Mass back (a la Summorum Pontificum) and all would be alright.

I never thought that, and I don't know many traditionalists who ever did. I think it's been obvious for a long time that the deformations go well past what was done to the Mass.

Having more TLM's - lots more TLM's - won't be the solution, just an important first step of the solution. After all, the universal presence of the TLM (however indifferently celebrated) up until 1964 did not prevent two generations of clergy, theologians and laity from gradually becoming, in many cases, de facto (crytpo-)modernists even before the Council, and certainly did not prevent the Council - and how it turned out, and how it was implemented - either.

The TLM is no guarantee. But it does help change how priests view their priesthood, and the Mass, and those are important first steps to being open to the rest of Catholic Tradition. We can already see how it is changing, in good ways, so many young priests and seminarians being exposed to the TLM for the first time. It's a first step, not the last step.

Sometimes it seems like the loudest criticism of some (some) SSPX adherents of "licit" TLM's celebrated by Ecclesia Dei societies or diocesan priests is that the homilies don't consistently denounce the errors of the Council and the post-Council. But I think that this is a misperception of the chief end of homiletics, which is to feed souls. That can indeed require clarifying doctrine, and denouncing errors, but lay Catholics need more than that to sustain them spiritually. The Church must be transformed, but *I* need to be transformed, too.

Long-Skirts said...

Athelstane said:

"We can already see how it is changing, in good ways, so many young priests and seminarians being exposed to the TLM...The Church must be transformed, but *I* need to be transformed, too."

The importance of good Catholic Seminaries to bring us Alter Christus to teach...

GRAVE
NEW
WORLD

You can build a Hindu Temple
You can build a Mega Church
A Mosque with many minarets
Where muezzins sit and perch.

Jehovah Witness Halls
A Synagogue, you bet
But a Christian Seminary
Is the one and only threat.

Rama - dama - ding - dong
The People pray and sing
Amazing Grace, there's no disgrace
'Cause nice is everything.

Except this Seminary
Of line, Melchisedech
Hova, Yahweh, Allah...
But certain Christians keep in check!

Bwangi Kilonzo said...

im-blogger said...

The churchmen have, however, acted as if Vatican II is a holy grail, and mostly so concerning those items that the SSPX (and others, let's not forget that!) has difficulty with. In Fact, they acted like it was a super dogma (cf. Card. Ratzinger).
But then there is a distinction between the Church and its teaching and its members acting in a way that is not faithful to Christ. The SSPX at this point with the Mortu Proprio could learn a lot from the Saint of Assisi, or the Saint Avila. With the TLM normalization, the place from which to 'reform' the Church is inside and not outside, and not through intellectual academic papers but by churning out saints. Creating in the hearts of Catholics a desire for Holiness. That is what is going to turn Our Lord's ship around

im-blogger said...


Now, is the NOM licit? If you agree that something which is wrong, cannot have a right, and you concluded that the NOM is wrong (becuase it is dangerous, and we have a perfectly good Mass anyway!), then the NOM cannot have a right. It might be valid (under the usual conditions), but it cannot have rights. It cannot be licit.
NOM is licit. You know why? The Holy Church says it is.

However, its clear to me, that Ignorance of EF is ignorance of NO. There is no way a priest could properly celebrate the NO without knowing how to celebrate the EF. I have been to NO masses (by Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco) that was celebrated so closely to the EF, in Latin, that you could clearly see the Organic development.


My personal opinion is this. The NO as celebrated now is a clear break from what came before. Even a Casual observer will clearly see its not the same rite. Its only the same rite becouse the Church says it is.

However, the Mass as said the way the Church prescribes it is Valid and Jesus is indeed present in the Eucharist at the Altar.

poeta said...

CWR has a nice article on this at http://tinyurl.com/mqcajwn

Aloysius Gonzaga said...

It's best to stop the fantasizing. This will never happen under a Pope for whom traddies are "fools" "hardened of heart" and "fighting the Holy Spirit."

Common Sense said...

As much as I appriciate the good work that the others are doing, the SSPX as the only one stands out as uncompromised and has no need to justify itself. The others aren't quite the same.

Angelo said...

I am one of those Traditionalists who once thought that all we needed was the TLM. But reading the Posts here on Rorate Caeli I realize it is much deeper than that. Take for example the Post by im-blogger, that was an excellent post. I now see that what has been said about the reform of the Church coming about by the Laity, is the truth. May God continue to Bless this site.

Angelo said...

I just read a very interesting item from the SSPX site. I wish Rorate Caeli would publish it on this site. "A reply to Cardinal Ottaviani: Archbishop Lefebvre. Archbishop Lefebvre's reply to Cardinal Ottaviani after the Council. Rome December 20, 1966." In it I understand that the real intention of Vatican Council ll was to abolish all the errors of Modernism. I quote from the article, "This was the point at which the Council found itself while preparing, by preliminary commissions. to proclaim the truth in the face of such errors in order to banish them from the midst of the Church for a long time to come...Now this preparation was odiously rejected in order to make way for the greatest tragedy the Church has ever suffered. We lived to see the marriage of the Catholic Church with Liberal ideas."

LeonG said...

Yes Angelo, Pope John XXIII spent three years preparing the various documents for The Councils to come but it was the liberal modernist bishops led by Archbishop Achille Leonart who usurped the opening of the councils which finally led to trashing the preparatory work. After that it was liberalism which became the dominant motive force of the aftermath.

Angelo said...

LeonG, What you say was said many times by the SSPX. I admit I never did believe them. Lately I have been reading for the first time "The Rhine Flows into the Tiber". I now see that it is true, the modernists hijacked the Council! If the Second Vatican Council had gone the way Bl. John XXlll had intended we would have had a Council equal to the greatness of the Council Trent. I now see the Council as a battle between modernists and Traditionalists. The modernists won most of the battles while the Traditionalists were only able to stave them off in defense of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. The Council Fathers were bound to secrecy on the debates. This veil of secrecy should have been lifted long ago so that we could have known all that really went on at V2.