Italian publishing house Cantagalli, of Siena (which has recently published Cardinal Biffi's autobiography) has just released an interview in book format by journalists Alessandro Gnocchi and Mario Palmaro (well known for their work for the dailies Il Foglio and Il Giornale).In Rapporto sulla Tradizione - A colloquio con il successore di monsignor Lefebvre*, the Superior-General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), Bishop Bernard Fellay, discusses the history and aims of Traditionalist Catholics.
This publication itself, by a mainstream Catholic publishing house in Italy, is an encouraging sign. The book contains several interesting excerpts, for instance:
"We have, as of today, presented to Roman authorities cases regarding our Fraternity which are solved by Rome, by the Pope."[Rome has solved] "a case of reduction to the lay state of a priest of ours, dismissing him from priestly obligations".
More excerpts to follow.
___________________________________*"Report on Tradition - In conversation with the successor of Monsignor Lefebvre" - the title is an obvious reference to "The Ratzinger Report", the 1984 book-interview by V.Messori, published in Italy as Rapporto sulla Fede, "Report on Faith"
26 comments:
Wow! I hope they translate it into other languages.
Anon Joseph John Francis:
The cultural un-demonizing of Traditionalists is an important parallel step to the MP and the evetual normalization of the relationship between SSPX and Rome. This is therefore a good sign and an important part of the process of restoration in the Church on Our Lady's first Saturday of 2008. Deo gratias et Mariae!
JMJ
The sooner the SPPX come fully 'into the fold' the better. We need you guys on board! And just think how furious the liberals would be! Go on, do it!
Yes, if they hurry, the SSPX can "get on board" just in time to be compelled to jettison the Good Friday prayer for the Jews in favor of some blanc-mange acknowledgement of our "older brothers in the faith" that will offend no one...except real Catholics.
This demonstrates that SSPX is not a society of practical Sedevacantists.
Exactly correct! They are schismatics who resist the the authority of the person they perceive as the Roman Pontiff. At least sedevacantists are consistent!
The SSPX has always been "On Board." It is they who have held the integrity of the Catholic Faith whilst Modern Rome has fallen down in front of V2 & ecumenism. Let Benedict et al. renounce the NO Mass & V2, then we'll talk.
Chris Bates
Yes, the SSPX have always been "on board" their own quasi-traditional ship. Their partial adherence to Rome equates to schism.
The suggestion that they are a "society of practical Sedevacantists", is the propaganda of go-betweens who seek to hoodwink despite the obvious.
Please post more interesting excepts soon!
Why does SSPX decide marriage cases themselves but then present other cases regarding their fraternity to Rome?
By allowing Apostate Rome to "solve" some of their "cases",,,SSPX ,Fellay et al have proved their allegiance to apostate enemies of Christ and only serve to expose themselves as frauds.
I owe my faith to the SSPX but the moment is now in my view. The Church is perfect but the situation never is. The MP may not give us everything we would want for the Church but it gives us the means to achieve it,
We can build the traditional movement without restriction. What can the liberals build? Liberalism reflects the broken society so it can not be a refuge from it. Tradition is.
As someone else said, I pray for an English translation. My Italian is still poor!
It is not a case of: "The MP may not give us everything we would want for the Church but it gives us the means to achieve it."; but rather a case that the MP gives us absolutely nothing!
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/Motu%20Article%2007-07.pdf
Anonymous: why care? Aren't you guys sedevacantists?
Joseph John Francis
To the anons making wild claims about SSPX being sedevacantist or schismatic, a prudent reflection on your spiritual folly is in order. The Holy Father himself disagrees with that position, and the Vatican has officially dismissed any claim that the SSPX is "in schism". Learn what schism actually is, for your own salvation's sakes.
As the sedevacatist who claimed that Rome is "apostate", you have the example of Christ to tell you: "the gates of hell shall never prevail against her". Listen to Christ, save yourself from the perdition you are foolishly throwing yourself into.
Disobeying orders even of a pontiff where there is a case of or state of necessity is a saintly thing. The saints and canons of the Holy Church are clear on that. The holy Father appears to agree with that.
May the wise Magi pray for the Holy Father and the SSPX, that in prudent wisdom the restoration of Tradition will unfold.
JMJ
Batesy,
I'm with you on this one.
(I should point out I was commenting to the Anonymous linking to traditionalmass.org, a site run by a group that I understood to be a) not SSPX; and b) sedevacantist.)
The sooner the SPPX come fully 'into the fold' the better. We need you guys on board!
The question is where does the SSPX do more good to the Church, in full communion or in the present acrymonious one.
I would say WAIT, continue your rapprochement but wait until more definitive measures against liberalism in the Church are taken. The educational system of new clerics MUST be reformed and a complete overhaul of the Roman Curia NEEDS to be implemented. The papacy of Benedict XVI seems still quite labile to me. Benedict is in a process of internal battle between liberal JR and traditionalist Benedict. Nobody know who will win in the end. Better to be safe than sorry.
humboldt
Our Pope is in a battle and we should await the outcome rather than rushing to his side? I don't think so.
Regarding schism and sedevacantism I was at an SSPX Mass this morning and the Priest declared that anyone who did no believe Benedict was Pope should not attend that Church. It could not have been clearer.
Sedevacantists are indeed consistent...
with the worst principle of Protestantism: The private interpretation of divine revelation. Come down from that high horse and look in the mirror, folks.
The SSPX has limited, specific criticisms which the Roman authority has not addressed, therefore tacitly recognizing the legitimacy of these criticisms. For all the historical polemics back and forth, the "attitude" of the society has been more of an issue for Rome than the actual positions.
Nevertheless, key figures in the Magisterium have recognized that the SSPX is not in a state of schism. The only ones who hold such a thing are extremely foolish Neo-con types and SVs, both of whose opinions are entirely worthless and without merit. And if you recognize yourself in such a category, I can demonstrate this: In reading this, you are left with no recourse but to become angry and annoyed and maybe you can shoot off some angry reply and get New Catholic to shut down another thread.
Worthless.
Neocon educate yourself. SV come back to the Church. It is not fitting for Catholics to have such worthless opinions.
"Exactly correct! They are schismatics who resist the the authority of the person they perceive as the Roman Pontiff. At least sedevacantists are consistent!"
If you had any knowledge of the centuries-old Tradition of the Church you would know that obedience to the Roman Pontiff is never at the expense of the traditional Faith AND its traditional expression - it is at the service of it. Your neo-conservative model of "give me the Faith but water it down all you like" is not Catholic. The SSPX, in preserving both the traditional Faith AND its traditional expressions shows itself to be truly Catholic, while neo-conservatives such as yourself show yourself to have a defective notion of the importance of the form that Tradition takes and what obedience to the Roman Pontiff really consists in.
"Henry94: Our Pope is in a battle and we should await the outcome rather than rushing to his side? I don't think so."
What I meant is that the biggest battle for Benedict XVI is his internal battle, not the external battle. I do not believe that he has crossed the point of no return to expunge the Church of all the errors of the past 40 years. He is still not convinced that this is the answer.
So I predict that he (and the church) will continue in the ambivalent ways of the past.
The money is not in tradition but in relativism. You need money to maintain the chores of bureaucrats in the Vatican and in the Episcopal Conferences.
The alternative is to decree Vatican II a mistake.
Benedict is just one man, but the Vatican and the order of bishops have their eyes in different places, than those of Benedict.
"Disobeying orders even of a pontiff where there is a case of or state of necessity is a saintly thing. The saints and canons of the Holy Church are clear on that. The holy Father appears to agree with that."
It all depends on what is being disobeyed.
The SSPX are not disobeying what can be legitimately disobeyed.
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=70&catname=10
The priest reduced to the lay state referred to by Mgr Fellay was Benedict Van der Putten.
On Jan 5, 2008 New Catholic said...
The book contains several interesting excerpts, for instance:
"We have, as of today, presented to Roman authorities cases regarding our Fraternity which are solved by Rome, by the Pope."[Rome has solved] "a case of reduction to the lay state of a priest of ours, dismissing him from priestly obligations".More excerpts to follow.
On 07 January, 2008 Anonymous said...
The priest reduced to the lay state referred to by Mgr Fellay was Benedict Van der Putten.
I ask...
~~ CAN WE HAVE MORE INFO PLEASE? ~~
Post a Comment