Rorate Caeli

Confirming the news

I have known for many days and am able to confirm the news published by Novus Ordo Watch - USA, Sedevacantist, CSI-Diffusion - France, Sedevacantist, and Whispers in the Loggia - USA, Ultraliberal (a very eclectic team) regarding the possible future settlement of the two prerequisites for further discussions between the Apostolic See and the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X: the lifting (the wording may not be exact) of excommunications and the recognition of the right of every priest in the Latin Church to celebrate the Traditional Mass, at least in private.

I would add the most important information that reports of a division among the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and co-consecrated by Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer in 1988 are wrong -- there is no such division.


  1. I think the incessant rumours about division between the Bishops of the Society are largely based on the fear that lies behind this uncharacteristically uncharitable comment by Fr. Tucker:

    "there are elements within the Society of Saint Pius X that are very much on the fringe and hold to ideas and methodologies that seem to have more to do with Jansenism than with Catholicism, a narrow-minded and very un-catholic approach to the world and to the Church at large. Bishop Williamson seems to be of that ilk, and I don't relish the idea of that sort being turned loose upon us." [emphasis mine]

  2. No, gfvonb, that's exactly my reaction when reading Williamson as well. I don't think it's a question of charity at all. Williamson comes off as proud, stubborn and completely uninterested in living under the authority of Rome. He knows what's right and what's wrong and it's up to Rome to straighten itself out according to HIS lights. When it does that, MAYbe then it'll be time to talk of unity. Just go back and read the last to items by him linked on your own website and you'll see what I mean.

    Fellay seems altogether more civil and reflective and it seems to BOTHER him on some level that the SSPX is not in a proper situation regarding Rome. My impression is that Fellay, like a good superior, is trying to hold disparate attitudes together. I HOPE that Williamson will come back as part of a wider deal. But it would surprise me.

    Splits in the Traditionalists have happened before; that's why we have the Fraternity of St. Peter and Bishop Rifan's outfit in Campos. To speculate based on observation and reading that there continue to be substantial differences of attitude on the question of "regularizing" the SSPX is hardly unwarranted nor is there any reason to postulate some sort of "fear" at the back of them.

    Anyway, how come it's okay for traditionalists to talk about neo-Caths, wholesale betrayal of tradition, people not having a truly Catholic sensibility, post-Vatican Two Modernists, etc., etc., but NOT okay for "neo-Caths" to say, unfaithful, obstreperous, narrow-minded crypto-Jansenists? Beam before mote. Though I suppose that principle hasn't been infallibly defined and is ambiguous of application and therefore is to be rejected with contempt.

  3. True. Also, some "indultarians" (and I am one of them...) have to lighten up a bit.

    For instance, at Recta Ratio it is said:

    "Even regularize the consecration as bishops of the SSPX 'bishops' and the ordinations of the 'priests' they have ordained. But let's not put them in charge. I think that if a red hat is to handed out for the Latin Mass community, it should go to an FSSP priest, with the current SSPX 'bishops' (then real bishops of the Church) as deputies (along with the heads of the ICKSP and CRNJ)."

    Come on! "Let's not put them in charge"? It is not for us to make that call. It does not matter what we think should be done, but what is the best way the Traditional Mass may be promoted and given a true place of citizenship within the Church.

    I have read about the "older brother of the Prodigal Son syndrome" in Ecclesia Dei traditional communities, a very apt name, and people have to let it go. It is not about POWER, folks! It is about the Mass, about the unity of the Church, and about the greater glory of God.

    Let us pray.

  4. IT was not exactly a split in Campos, Jeff -- the priests of Campos were closely related to the SSPX but they were separated, and, as Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos has often explained, their situation was objectively different.

    We have to stop with the uncharitable comments, and with the gossip, and with the "what I think should be done" attitude. To all the readers of this blog, I ask: please, let us pray and do penance, for the grater salvation of souls, for the unity of the Church, and the greater glory of God.

  5. I'm not entirely convinced by your approach--I think that substantive disagreement begets a certain amount of heat by nature--but you make your request so earnestly and in such good faith that you silence criticism and carry me with you.

    So...Amen. I will pray also, though, that *IF* you are wrong and Williamson proves resistant, that won't keep the others from grabbing what may well be the last and best opportunity to heal this thing.

  6. Oh, yes...

    I said splits among TRADITIONALISTS. Campos and the SSPX were allies and parallel structures and had few if any disagreements on substantive grounds. When Campos regularized, the SSPX reaction varied from wary to condemnatory. And it veers toward condemnatory today.

    But indeed, God bless them all and bring them Wisdom.


Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.


(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!