Rorate Caeli

The FSSP in France

The Priestly Society of St. Peter has been entrusted with the Chapelle des Clarisses in Versailles under the authority of the rector of St. Louis Cathedral (Diocese of Versailles). The first Mass will be offered on October 12.

I will make no comment on the proximity of the FSSP’s new parish to the Society of St. Pius X’s Notre-Dame de l'Espérance chapel.


Tip: Le Forum Catholique

32 comments:

  1. Anonymous6:28 AM

    Perhaps they can organise a soccer game between them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous10:00 AM

    It will be interesting to observe if the French bishops interpret SP as meaning that they should set up rival parishes near every SSPX parish in France and not anywhere else.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous10:04 AM

    This is important, since the Chapel called "Notre Dame des Armees" is no longer served by the FSSP. The priests there have formed an association named after St John Bosco and no longer consider themselves members of the FSSP. Their approach has also become somewhat lax when it comes to the use of the vernacular in texts and hymns during Mass which, even in the French traditional climate, has caused quite a stir.

    I am surprised, but very pleased, that the bishop allowed the FSSP to set up there again.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Perhaps they can organise a soccer game between them.

    Now, that would be genuine ecumenism!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous10:58 AM

    Do you think that this was done to stir up trouble? To make it seem that the TLM is divisive and only leads to infighting and not the kind of tranquility and open-mindedness that the Holy Father often speaks of?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I can think of more than one French bishop who ought to provide the ball.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous2:04 PM

    Just when a Cardinal in Rome lamented that we trads are causing division in the Church by demaning the TLM, using it as a weapon...

    Perhaps the Cardinal should castigate the Bishops who use allow the TLM only where they can use it as a weapon against other trads....

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous2:16 PM

    I acknowledge the problem may lie with the French bishop, but I was hoping the FSSP had moved past their model of setting up next or near to SSPX chapels instead of moving into areas that do not already have a traditional Mass.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous2:36 PM

    "I can think of more than one French bishop who ought to provide the ball."

    I don't think they even have one to spare.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous6:07 PM

    Bishop Fellay said in a conference some months back that for a while now, the French bishops have been ousting the FSSP and replacing them with their own guys. I forget whether he mentioned the Notre Dame des Armees variant (keeping the FSSP guys around if they'll leave the FSSP), which kills two birds with one stone. So the likely hypothesis regarding the Chapelle des Clarisses is that trying to neutralize the SSPX is the only work that the FSSP can get in France, and that they're taking the job. Of course, it's not much different anywhere else.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous6:20 PM

    Incidentally, Bishop Fellay used to be quite the footballer.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous9:39 PM

    This is quite sad. With so many places needing the Latin Mass the FSSP should be working with the SSPX not against them. They need to actually think of the faithful and their desperate need for Latin Masses instead of one-up-manship.

    ReplyDelete
  13. With so many places needing the Latin Mass the FSSP should be working with the SSPX not against them.

    However, as indicated in Ecclesia Dei adflicta 6a, the Church established the FSSP for the specific purpose of ministering to Catholics who are attached to the traditional Roman Rite so they wouldn't decide to affiliate with the SSPX until such time as a reconciliation is achieved between the SSPX and the Church.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous10:29 PM

    Quick -- get the SSPX to open a chapel next to Notre Dame.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "The priests there have formed an association named after St John Bosco and no longer consider themselves members of the FSSP. Their approach has also become somewhat lax when it comes to the use of the vernacular in texts and hymns during Mass which, even in the French traditional climate, has caused quite a stir."

    Were any of these priests among the 16 who caused trouble in 2000?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous1:07 AM

    I think it would be an act of charity for the FSSP fathers to forego offers from Bishops to set up next to SSPX chapels.

    I think it would be an act of charity for the Bishop to accept the SSPX priests in his diocese.

    If the SSPX priests are active there, it is for the charity of the faithful.

    Hence, who is it that is serving the Church in all of this?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous1:47 AM

    Jordanes I am aware of that but with so many faithful screaming out for a Latin Mass and no Priests available it is a sad situation that this is happening. This is not about politics it is about saving our souls. Ecclesia Dei has said on many occasions that the SSPX Masses are valid and so all traditional catholics should be working together.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous1:51 AM

    Carlos Antonio, you pose a great question to which I hope some one will be able to answer.

    A.M.LaPietra

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jordanes I am aware of that but with so many faithful screaming out for a Latin Mass and no Priests available it is a sad situation that this is happening. This is not about politics it is about saving our souls. Ecclesia Dei has said on many occasions that the SSPX Masses are valid and so all traditional catholics should be working together.

    Yes, it is sad. The division and enmity in the French Church is sharp, as bishops' establishing an FSSP presence near SSPX chapels indicates. Though a provocation, given the FSSP's reason for existence such things are not surprising, especially in France.

    Of course it's important to remember that for the SSPX it isn't solely a matter of the traditional Latin Mass: as important, if not more so, are theological and doctrinal objections. This is another important reason why the SSPX and the FSSP do not cooperate.

    I'm not trying to justify any of it. I'm just recalling why this is happening.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous4:07 AM

    That is an act of charity that would be very desirable, however, I do believe the Fraternity fathers would be not be unreasonable in expecting reciprocation in the form of a refraining by the Society to preach the idea that fraternizing with or marriage to those that attend Fraternity or other recognized Traditional masses.

    The SSPX's own website still contains the same material that so-called "Indult" cannot and should not be attended by traditional Catholics. Until such time as these positions are revisited it is unrealistic and hypocritical to expect the group that you characterize as morally compromised to defer to you.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous6:18 AM

    Are any of the SSPX priests prepared to show the act of charity of seeking incardination in dioceses in which they wish to serve?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous11:28 AM

    This may be about politics or getting one over on the SSPX. If this is the case then they can fool themselves as much as they want but no man fools God. Remember, priests too will have to answer to Him, whether in so-called "communion" or not.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous4:52 PM

    As Jordanes notes, trying to get the SSPX faithful away from the SSPX, or beating the SSPX to those who come to tradition and are trying to figure out where to go to Mass, is pretty much the FSSP's raison d'etre, at least as far as the Vatican is concerned.

    And as Jordanes also correctly observes, the issue for the SSPX is primarily doctrinal. Since in the SSPX's view, the FSSP has sacrificed truth to obedience, it is part of the problem and not part of the solution.

    So, sadness is in order, but for reasons much more profound than the inability of the SSPX and FSSP to cooperate at least negatively. The SSPX is convinced that the magisterium of Vatican II and the post-conciliar Church is not the integral and perennnial faith of the Church, and I'm afraid that it's right.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous3:15 PM

    " Since in the SSPX's view, the FSSP has sacrificed truth to obedience, it is part of the problem and not part of the solution."

    The SSPX is wrong. Obedience is truth.

    Matthew 16:19-
    And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Obedience is truth.

    Not necessarily, or else St. Peter could not have said, "We must obey God rather than men."

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous9:53 PM

    David,

    Of course obedience is not truth. Obedience is doing the will of someone with authority. Truth per St. Thomas is the adequation of the intellect and the thing.

    Is what you're trying to say that in accepting what the Pope says, you're sure to be accepting the truth?

    But that only works when the Pope is speaking ex cathedra (which I think no pope since Pius XII has done) or repeating what the Church has always taught or what has previously been infallibly taught (which the conciliar popes haven't done much of either, and the SSPX certainly has been pleased when they have). So how is assent to the Pope's words when he is not speaking infallibly a guarantee of anything?

    The Lord's pronouncements on binding and loosing are no help. Can the Pope loose us from believing in the Immaculate Conception? Can he dissolve a validly contracted and consummated marriage?

    So it's truth (when guaranteed by infallibility, but only then) that governs obedience, not the other way round.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Is all of this really that significant in the light of Summum Pontificum? It should increasingly be the case that the spread of the usus antiquior occur outside the previously known confines of the SSPX and the FSSP. That there should be 3 locations in the same region is a blessing for those who live there, perhaps the competition might inspire a healthy rivalry!
    Could we, perhaps see them soaring to ever greater liturgical heights in every camp?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous7:44 PM

    Dear Fellow Catholics,

    Perhaps the Holy Spirit has a better plan now that the two greatest traditional orders of the Catholic Church have been divinly positioned within rock throwing distance of each other?

    Wouldn't it be great if the Tradies of both congregations decided to work together to build the Church? Modernists look out.

    Let's pray that all the faithful to the Holy Catholic Church in both congregations great each other with fraternal charity, strong faith and sincere hope as per the teaching of the Church immemorial.

    I see it this way:
    - Extraordinary Magisterium equates very much to the Extraordinary Form. Bedrock.
    - Ordinary Magisterium and non-infallable teaching (Authentic Magisterium et al) equates very much to the Ordinary Form. Sandy foundation, much explaining needed.

    May God's will be done and He needs our help. Fasting, prayer and penance will remove the scales from our eyes.

    Sincerely,
    Jerry, SFO

    P.S.
    Want to loose weight now? Need some mental clarity?
    Try the Penetential Diet of St. Francis of Asissi. Guaranteed results. Thoroughly tested. Available at select locations since 1221.

    ReplyDelete
  29. -Extraordinary Magisterium equates very much to the Extraordinary Form. Bedrock.
    - Ordinary Magisterium and non-infallable teaching (Authentic Magisterium et al) equates very much to the Ordinary Form. Sandy foundation, much explaining needed.


    I think that's a bad analogy, because extraordinary, infallible magisterium can also need much explaining (for example, the dogmatic definition of the Hypostatis Union, the Two Natures and Two Wills, isn't exactly Catholicism 101; neither, for that matter, is the dogmatic definition of transubstantiation). Nor are the infallible ordinary magisterium and non-infallible authentic magisterium a sandy foundation.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anonymous8:34 AM

    Jordanes,

    Perhaps my analogy is simplistic and bad.

    What I meant to say was that immemorial teaching seems to support the TLM more readily and not so plainly the NO.

    Difficult teachings are indeed found in the different kinds of Magesterium as well you point out.

    In my discerning about 'obedience' I have only recently learned about the Authentic Magesterium and what constitutes the Ordinary Magisterium.

    The crisis and confusion is perhaps most seen with the non-infallible Authentic Magesterium - so many personal opinions and ideas given without certitude. On these matters shouldn't we Catholics be prudent and give conditional assent not blind unconditional assent as with the Ordinary Magisterium that is faithful to the fathers.

    For me the sandy foundation becomes apparent when recent documents are not well supported by Church fathers and Doctors. Some say there is no break with the past, others say there is. Some say obedience is the real issue. These argumentative kinds of things is the sandy foundation I was referring to.

    The extraordinary form is indeed extraordinary. It enjoys more certitude and less baggage if you will.

    Respectfully,
    Jerry SFO or should it be TOSF

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anonymous10:38 PM

    This is a trial message, to be followed by my contribution.
    Charles

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous5:10 PM

    Many bishops deny FSSP priests the authority to provide Confirmations, Holy Matrimony, or funeral masses. If this is one of those, the point will be made to many parishioners - these guys are here just as political puppets. SSPX is the whole deal.

    ReplyDelete

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.

_______
NOTES

(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!