Rorate Caeli

The first meeting of the foreseen discussions with the Fraternity of Saint Pius X will take place on Monday, October 26, in the morning.

Those who will participate [in the meeting] will be, from the part of the Commission Ecclesia Dei, other than the Secretary of said Commission, Mons. Guido Pozzo, the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, H.E. Archbishop Luis F. Ladaria Ferrer, S.I., and the already named experts: Fr. Charles Morerod, O.P., Secretary of the International Theological Commission, consultant of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; Rev. Mons. Fernando Ocáriz, Vicar General of Opus Dei, consultant of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; Rev. Fr. Karl Josef Becker, S.I., consultant of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

The meeting will take place at the Palace of the Holy Office. The contents of the conversations, which regard open doctrinal questions, will remain strictly reserved.

At the end of the meeting, a communiqué will be released.
___________________________



Bishop Bernard Fellay has named as representatives of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X for the theological discussions with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, director of the Seminary Nuestra Señora Corredentora de La Reja (Argentina), Father Benoît de Jorna, director of the Séminaire International Saint-Pie X of Ecône (Switzerland), Father Jean-Michel Gleize, professor of Ecclesiology at the seminary of Ecône, and Father Patrick de La Rocque, prior of the Priory of Saint Louis in Nantes (France).

Bishop de Galarreta had already been the president of the commission which was in charge of the preparation of these discussions withon the Fraternity, after the month of April 2009.

The works will start in the second half of the month of October and will require the discretion needed for a serene exchange on difficult doctrinal questions.

Menzingen, October 15, 2009

78 comments:

  1. Anonymous3:36 PM

    Oremus!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Trisha3:36 PM

    The talks will commence the day after the Feast of Christ Our King - May He truly reign in these talks.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous3:52 PM

    May God take mercy upon Holy Mother Church and let the restoration begin! ¡Viva Cristo Rey! Margaret

    ReplyDelete
  4. May the Holy Spirit guide their work for the good of the Church and the salvation of souls.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous4:36 PM

    Keep Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta and his group in your prayers. What a terrible burden to carry. What an important moment in history.

    Thy will be done, my Lord. ¡Viva Cristo Rey!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous4:48 PM

    I wonder what language they will speak...French?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous5:11 PM

    "Keep Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta and his group in your prayers. What a terrible burden to carry. What an important moment in history.

    Thy will be done, my Lord. ¡Viva Cristo Rey!"


    Indeed. The weight of this task is surely being felt by Bishop de Gallareta and the other men. I will be praying for them.

    Zakhur

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous5:12 PM

    Hopefully Latin!

    ReplyDelete
  9. French or Latin, I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous5:42 PM

    Since VII pronounced no new dogma, and indeed only introduced (excepting those things reiterated) possibly fallible novelty, as it was wont to do, being the first-every purely pastoral council in the history of the Church (most councils are called to fight error; VII was called to embrace a world full of error). I am not sure what fruit is going to come from these discussions?

    For instance, VII's document on Ecumenism is nothing but a matter of taste, and the decree on social communications is ipso facto already obsolete.

    I don't know why some prelates demand that SSPX follow the precepts of VII, especially now that in hindsight it is plain that it has brought no real good to the Church, and, in fact, has greatly damaged it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous6:25 PM

    Isn't that nice, you only pray for the SSPX side. Maybe we should pray for everyone involved in these talks, not just those we believe are right.

    "Keep Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta and his group in your prayers. What a terrible burden to carry. What an important moment in history."

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hey! Where's the guy who always says that the Vatican theologians will wipe the floor with the SSPX men? I need my daily dose of amusement.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "which regard OPEN doctrinal questions".

    It started off well already!!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Peter8:12 PM

    I think that the Commission will give answers acceptable to the SSPX. The problem I see is that the liberals are strong and hostile to both the SSPX and the idea of clarification, so God only knows what will happen next.

    Let's keep praying.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous8:54 PM

    Rob, I was thinking the same thing! "Heavyweight CDF theologians will squash these SSPX dimwits" or similar. I think we also need PKTP to swing in with some entertaining speculation -- "I predict Pope Benedict XVI [get it right, guys!] will grant faculties on the feast of St. Francis the Fire Handler, because his name sounds so cool. You read it here first."

    ReplyDelete
  16. Gerard9:04 PM

    The SSPX will have to reframe all of the doctrines to exclude the heterodox interpretations. Such as "Is Ecumenism which does not include a stated and clear end goal of unity under the authority of the sovereign pontiff, and unity in the same doctrines and same seven sacraments, a false ecumenism?" It's not enough to say what is the Catholic Faith. An effort must be made to define the Catholic faith by excluding heterodox interpretations.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous9:11 PM

    Isn't that nice, you only pray for the SSPX side. Maybe we should pray for everyone involved in these talks, not just those we believe are right.

    Well, the SSPX is right when to comes to these specific issues.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous9:41 PM

    As an aside...sort of...Fr. Z has an interesting rant about how the liturgical reform was 'imposed'. If true there are implications against Pope Paul VI and Bugnini....is anyone surprised?

    http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/10/fr-bouyer-and-an-anecdote-about-how-the-liturgical-reform-was-imposed/

    Anon Anon

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous9:44 PM

    Interesting that the entire committee, apart from Bishop Galareta, are all French. What is that all about??

    ReplyDelete
  20. Scholastic Latin of St Thomas Aquinas

    ReplyDelete
  21. John McFarland10:47 PM

    Anonymous 21:44,

    The French are the heart and soul
    -- and brains -- of traditionalism.

    ReplyDelete
  22. John McFarland11:01 PM

    Alex,

    Father Lombardi: "which regard open doctrinal questions"

    The SSPX: "on difficult doctrinal questions"

    Interesting that both sides (to the extent that Father Lombardi can be said to speak for the Vatican) thought it desirable to characterize the doctrinal character of the discussions.

    I'm not sure what open means. So the conciliar embrace of ambiguity continues.

    I'm quite sure what "difficult" means.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I'm not sure what open means.

    An "open" doctrinal question is question that has not been given a definitive answer by the Church.

    So the conciliar embrace of ambiguity continues.

    Whatever. We've been told the contents of the conversations will be strictly reserved, with only a communique being issued after the meeting is concluded. Anything the Vatican says publicly about the talks must therefore be "ambiguous," because it won't go into any specifics.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I'm not sure what open means.

    In English, an "open" doctrinal question is a question that has not been given a definitive answer by the Church. I don't know Italian, however, and it is in Italian that Fr. Lombardi's release is written. Online Italian dictionaries say "aperto" means "open," but also "frank, aboveboard, overt, outright, fair, just, or forthcoming." Perhaps it means the doctrinal questions involve honest, plain disagreements?

    So the conciliar embrace of ambiguity continues.

    Whatever. We've been told the contents of the conversations will be strictly reserved, with only a communique being issued after the meeting is concluded. Anything the Vatican says publicly about the talks must therefore be "ambiguous," because it won't go into any specifics.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous11:38 PM

    Isn't that nice, you only pray for the SSPX side. Maybe we should pray for everyone involved in these talks, not just those we believe are right.

    Maybe you should stop assuming you know what anybody does.

    Zakhur

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ah, the wonderful world of fast translations.

    Regarding this specific word, I chose to keep the translation literal. The context seems to indicate that some matters are still being debated (which is why they remain open, but this does not mean that the discussing parties do not have firm views about them), not that they will be discussed openly (open as "candid", a possibility in English as well). Not that they will not be discussed candidly... they probably will... But in this context "open" indicates simply that there are some matters regarding which there are no previously arranged agreements.

    NC

    ReplyDelete
  27. John McFarland12:26 AM

    Jordanes,

    The opposite of specific is not ambiguous.

    The opposite of specific is general or generic.

    "Dog" is not ambiguous because there are many breeds of dogs, male and female dogs, young and old dogs, etc. The word's function is to refer to dogs in general.

    The opposite of ambiguous is unambiguous or unequivocal.

    "Partial communion" is ambiguous from the traditional Catholic perspective because it is not clear whether it is denying the the traditional doctrine that either you're in communion or you're not, or saying something else.

    "Hermeneutic of continuity" is ambiguous because it is not clear whether it means thinking in such a way as actually to find continuity, or thinking in such a way that you MUST find continuity, or you haven't thought right.

    "New evangelization" is ambiguous because it is not clear whether we're simply adopting evangelization to new circumstances, like St. Paul before the Areopagites, or doing something that's literally new.

    "Collegiality" is ambiguous because it's not clear whether it means something consistent or inconsistent with the doctrine of the papacy defined by the First Vatican Council.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous1:46 AM

    Zakhur,
    Read what the individual wrote and read what "he" wrote in reply to me. Seems pretty clear that he is clearly not praying for Rome's group. I'm just going by what he wrote.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous2:26 AM

    Mcfarland,

    The French are the heart and soul of traditionalism.

    Really? Including the Avignon Papacy?

    ReplyDelete
  30. The opposite of specific is not ambiguous.

    Correct.

    The opposite of specific is general or generic.

    Correct again.

    The general, however, tends toward greater ambiguity.

    "Dog" is not ambiguous because there are many breeds of dogs, male and female dogs, young and old dogs, etc. The word's function is to refer to dogs in general.

    It IS ambiguous if a particular breed is to be specified.

    The opposite of ambiguous is unambiguous or unequivocal.

    Another opposite is "perspicuous."

    "Partial communion" is ambiguous from the traditional Catholic perspective because it is not clear whether it is denying the the traditional doctrine that either you're in communion or you're not, or saying something else.

    And further, the status of being in partial communion is ambiguous.

    "Hermeneutic of continuity" is ambiguous because it is not clear whether it means thinking in such a way as actually to find continuity, or thinking in such a way that you MUST find continuity, or you haven't thought right.

    And certainly if one found continuity, then one must be thinking incorrectly, since we have your assurances that there is in fact no continuity between what the Church taught up to 1963 and what the Church has been teaching since.

    Anyway, none of this has anything to do with Fr. Lombardi's statement today. It's just another instance of your seeking any pretext, no matter how flimsy, to hop back on your "conciliar magisterium is ambiguous -- si si no no" hobby horse.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Including the Avignon Papacy?

    Cute. Mr. McFarland said "the French are," not "the French of the 1300s are. . ." But no doubt you knew what he meant.

    ReplyDelete
  32. TRAD606:06 AM

    It will be interesting to see what happens because both sides seem to be maintaining that the key issues are non-negotiable. A successful outcome would be great but I believe it is very important that the SSPX hold its ground. Is anyone else wondering why an Opus Dei prelate is involved in this? As far as I know, Opus Dei seems to see itself as the very face of Vatican II, and thus far is not sympathetic to traditionalist concerns.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous6:34 AM

    If the French are the "heart and soul", why is Zaitzkofen so much better a seminary than Econe???

    ReplyDelete
  34. John

    Frankly, if the SSPX had not kept on consistently pursuing the necessary critique of conciliar policies then there would not have been such a strong traditionalist response arriving at where they are at this juncture today. It is imperative to keep reminding people who think they know what constitutes orthodox Church doctrine and liturgy with all its inherent norms and values expressed with customary Roman Catholic clarity. There is a quite a long list now of post-conciliar shibboleths that need repeating in order to put them up for "open" discussion otherwise the ecclesiastical establishment would have placed them beyond reproach years ago, bestride The Holy Mass of All Times, by no means abrogated nor obrogated.

    I recall both my parents and some traditional friends of mine being told to shut up when they defended the continuous and perpetual legitimacy of The Holy Mass in Latin. Thankfully, they did not.

    ReplyDelete
  35. How would one be a participant of this debate? I got this backlog of things I need to convey to these gentlemen :).

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anonymous12:21 PM

    "I don't know why some prelates demand that SSPX follow the precepts of VII, especially now that in hindsight it is plain that it has brought no real good to the Church, and, in fact, has greatly damaged it."

    This piece from a larger post by a contributor is 100% true.

    The stated purpose as given by Fr. Lomardi of the Vatican of the gathering of the Vatican CDF people and Bishop Galaretta and the SSPX priests and experts is a DISCUSSION- not, as some rabid anti-SSPX people would have us believe, an ultimatum from the Vatican to accept all of Vatican II and obey.

    If it were to turn into that (which hopefully will not happen), then the SSPX should just get up and leave. They could hold their heads up high and declare that they entered into the meeting in good faith, and were decieved.

    I believe the outcome will be a long discussion over several months, during which SOME OF Vatican II will be clarified, and even perhaps eventually repudiated.

    Personally, I believe that the Vatican will not (as some like the infamous Cardinal Schonborn have claimed), demand adherance to ecumenism, inter-religious dialog, and special relationship with Jews etc. That is not what makes a Roman Catholic.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Peter1:15 PM

    According to annual Ecclesia Dei bulletins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_between_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X_and_the_Holy_See) there was nearly uninterrupted effort to find a canonical solution since 2000 and some drafts are ready since 2007, also there were contacts and "progress" every year.

    Preconditions (January decree and the Mass) were fulfilled, so I think that the SSPX is trying to push the Church towards the Tradition as far as it is possible by these talks (for the hypersensitive SSPX-bashers: "to be a pretext for the Church to go towards Tradition for the sake of unity, reconciliation, etc. etc.")

    I think we all should pray for the success of these talks as they will benefit the entire Church.

    I hope that we are close to reconciliation and that it will be the beginning of the end of the Novus Ordo.

    TRAD60:
    Opus Dei is probably most conservative Novus Ordo organization. Also they act in a discrete way.

    ReplyDelete
  38. The excommunications were lifted.

    The Pope did not condemn the most recent ordinations.

    Doctrinal discussions are under way.

    I wonder why isn't the orthodox church already in union with the Pope and the Church.

    ReplyDelete
  39. It is a sad day when Catholics of a traditional stripe cannot simply pray for the Holy Spirit to inspire both sides in these discussions and harp continually about their own personal disagreements. I needn't name names; that is not my point. But I can say that if some members of this forum were actual participants in the discussions taking place in Rome, IMHO there would be no hope of a resolution. Years of bitterness will not be corrected overnight so be prepared for a long struggle ahead.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Joe B2:32 PM

    This is going to be interesting to follow. I can well imagine all the rumors and second hand leaks we are going to be treated to coming from the discussions. You just know there are going to be side-channel leaks, and many of them will be on purpose. The liberal elements use leaks as propaganda, and the traditional side usually responds with doubts and counter views of their own. The trick, of course, is to sort out the most probable state of things from the leftist media spin. New Catholic is going to have a "ducks in a barrel" shoot on all the leaks from these "restricted" discussions.

    I know, it's serious business. Nothing says we can't enjoy it, though.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anonymous4:09 PM

    Paul Haley said...
    It is a sad day when Catholics of a traditional stripe cannot simply pray for the Holy Spirit to inspire both sides in these discussions and harp continually about their own personal disagreements...

    Dear Paul, There is no such thing as a traditional Catholic. Either you are a Catholic or not. Let's not kid ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  42. TRAD604:18 PM

    Hello Peter! this is TRAD 60,

    It is not my intent to debate Opus Dei on this blog, but from what I have heard and seen at a parish run by Opus Dei, they do not seem quite as conservative as most people perceive them to be. But then again, "conservative" is now a word whose meaning is negotiable and increasingly more in flux.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Dear Anonymous,

    If there is no such thing as a traditional Catholic, then this forum really has no use. To deny the obvious is in my opinion flirting with disaster. I was formed in the 40s and 50s and I can tell you that what identifies one as Catholic today is in many ways a repudiation of what has identified them for centuries. Nevertheless, we are all Catholics if we believe what the Church teaches and holds to be true for centuries and in that sense I agree with you.

    ReplyDelete
  44. DICI has just issued a new letter to friends and benefectors of the Society, by Bishop Fellay. It´s in French. Translate it for us, Rorate people, if possible. The piece seems to be quite interisting, insofar it talks about Fatima.

    ReplyDelete
  45. ben joyce6:24 PM

    For the crusade of the SSPX to succeed they must keep to the high ground of orthodoxy concerning doctrine. As stated above "heterodoxy" of VII doctrine must be exposed.

    The problem with the SSPX is that they do not have orthodoxy concerning the most important DOGMA of the faith, that is "Outside the Church there is no salvation". The primary mission of the Church and the priesthood is to SAVE SOULS. The confusion enters by obscuring what is necessary for salvation. By the Church's dogmatic teaching, the necessities for salvation are clear as Fr. Leornard Feeney spoke of so often.

    1) Profession of the catholic faith
    2) submission to the Pope
    3) Love for the Virgin Mary.

    Because the Dogma's pertaining to the above three have been tainted (largly explained away) by the heterodoxy of Vatican II, as Fr. Feeney stated, "everything that is Catholic is being taken away from us."

    The many Catholic beliefs, devotions, and practices of the Catholic faith that the SSPX fight for are grounded on the necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation.

    As Fr. Feeney stated, pull out support of "the Dogma", then the church collapses

    Tragically the SSPX viciously combat Fr. Feeney's doctrine against heterodox interpretations of Extra Ecclessium Nula Salus. By doing so the SSPX reveal their Achilles heal and lay aside a most powerful weapon for these doctrinal talks.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Anonymous7:00 PM

    I really hope that these doctrinal talks conclude with the SSPX being fully reconcilled with Church, however if this can only be done by accepting Vatican II than I am completely against it.

    I believe that whatever way these talks end, Our Lady's Immaculate will soon after triumph with the completion of the Rosary Crusade in 2010.

    ReplyDelete
  47. John McFarland7:32 PM

    Anonymous 06:34,

    I myself know nothing at all about Zaitzkofen.

    But I do know that it's the consensus that Father Le Roux has been doing a fabulous job at Winona, and his fellow Parisian Father Rostand seems to be doing a fine job with the U.S. District.

    But my real point is more general. Where would traditionalism be without the French tradition of guts and brains in the face of liberalism, going back far into the 19th century? Know of any German (or any non-Frenchman at all) who would be much more than a footnote in the history of traditionalism since 1962 in a history written a century from now?

    My point is not to knock anyone, or draw invidious comparisons; just to give credit where credit is due.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Anonymous7:44 PM

    "I wonder why isn't the orthodox church already in union with the Pope and the Church."

    What???

    ReplyDelete
  49. Anonymous8:10 PM

    Good luck Brothers in Faith! Let us pray to Virgin Mary to protect threse talks against insults of the Devil.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Anonymous 06:34,

    All SSPX seminaries are doing a wonderful job for the Church and its Tradition. But if you really need to go into comparing one seminary with another, you simply need to look at the much higher number of new entries as well as new priests ordained each year in Ecône than in Zaitzkofen...

    ReplyDelete
  51. "Tragically the SSPX viciously combat Fr. Feeney's doctrine against heterodox interpretations of Extra Ecclessium Nula Salus."

    Ironically and interestingly, the Vatican's response to Fr. Feeney and the Feenyites might, quid pro quo, work in favor of SSPX as well.

    Fr. Feeney was allowed rapprochement with the Vatican even though he didn't subscribe one iota to the now sacrosanct notions of "baptism by desire," or "invincible ignorance." Ideas which were even held by such esteemed theologians and Saints as Thomas Aquinas.

    So, why , given this model, should SSPX have to adhere to much more novel, and less entrenched, ideas such as Ecumenisim etc. expressed in Vatican II? Vatican II was non-dogmatic, pastoral, novelistic and ambiguous. So, why force a group such as SSPX, the force that has retained tradition in the Church, to adhere to even one novelty in it?

    Btw: what has ecumenical pandering gained for the Church except indifferentism towards the Catholic faith?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Knight of Malta: "So, why , given this model, should SSPX have to adhere to much more novel, and less entrenched, ideas such as Ecumenisim etc. expressed in Vatican II?"

    1. Because the SSPX is still the largest traditional organisation in the world. The second largest, FSSP is roughly something more than half size of the SSPX (as far as I remeber).

    2. Because the SSPX wants to be exempt from the authority of the local bishops, unlike to all other Ecclesia Dei institutes.

    3. Because the SSPX has been speaking loudly and clearly against the Novus Ordo, unlike to all other Ecclesia Dei institutes (if they had promised to keep quiet they would be regularised in 1978 or 1979 - there was a meeting between John Paul II and archbishop Lefebvre at that time).

    4. Events of January, June (consecrations), and October (Swedish TV again) have shown that the SSPX is a pain in the back of the liberals, not just a pretext to attack the Church. I can't remember world-scale bashing of any Pope under the pretext Fr Feeney or any Ecclesia Dei organization.

    Maybe it's because they don't pose any threat to the liberals?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Anonymous1:45 PM

    Something that will give strength to the position and arguments of the SSPX in these discussions, is the fact that the Pope-announced by Cardinal Kasper-will be visiting the Lutheran "church" of Rome in the near future.

    I can't thing of anything more repulsive. And it certainly will fortify the SSPX in their resolve in standing up to this false ecumenism in the name of our holy Catholic Church.

    The Popes from Pius XII on backward 450 years would be appalled by this gesture of Benedict XVI....as would so many heroic priests, nuns and laity who fought and died for the Faith at the hands of Protestants during the Reformation and for 100+ years afterward.

    A tragedy....but good amunition for the SSPX!

    ReplyDelete
  54. Joe B3:18 PM

    Good ammunition for someone, maybe, but not for SSPX to hold up to those representing the Vatican at these discussions. That's like telling liberals they are being liberal and expecting them to be ashamed.

    No anecdotes. This is going to take facts, quotes, and historical research.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Cooperator3:33 PM

    RINUNCE E NOMINE , 17.10.2009


    NOMINA DI MEMBRI DELLA CONGREGAZIONE PER I VESCOVI

    Il Santo Padre Benedetto XVI ha nominato Membri della Congregazione per i Vescovi l’Em.mo Card. Antonio Cañizares Llovera, Prefetto della Congregazione per il Culto Divino e la Disciplina dei Sacramenti, e l’Ecc.mo Mons. Raymond Leo Burke, Arcivescovo emerito di Saint Louis, Prefetto del Supremo Tribunale della Segnatura Apostolica.



    [WOW!
    http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/24500.php?index=24500&lang=it ]

    ReplyDelete
  56. John McFarland3:37 PM

    I'm afraid the analogy with Father Feeney doesn't quite work.

    The post-V2 Vatican couldn't have cared less about what Father Feeney taught; if he was willing to submit, they were willing to accept his submission. In case you hadn't noticed, doctrine is not a big preoccupation of the conciliar Vatican. I also believe that Father was non compos mentis at the time.

    As for the Feeneyite doctrine, it is heresy, but so obviously wrongheaded and without influence that very few trads (including the SSPX) can take it very seriously, particularly since the traditionalist Feeneyites are quite sound on everything but the Feeneyite preoccupations, and clearly in good faith. So they basically get treated like traditionalism's eccentric uncle. The SSPX has made clear that the doctrine is fallacious, but that's about as much as it can see any purpose in doing.

    ReplyDelete
  57. John McFarland3:44 PM

    Anonymous 13:45,

    Ammunition for the SSPX against whom?

    The SSPX is talking to the Vatican.

    It's the Vatican that's sponsoring the visit to the Lutherans.

    So it seems unlikely that the Vatican will be much impressed by an SSPX denunciation of what the Vatican itself is doing.

    As for anybody else, if they haven't already been scandalized by the Vatican's exercises in communio in sacris with schismatics, heretics, Jews and pagans over the last generation, it's hard to see why visiting the Lutherans would scandalize them.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Anonymous4:07 PM

    "The Popes from Pius XII on backward 450 years would be appalled by this gesture of Benedict XVI..."

    Not to forget that Pius X protested in strongest terms against the construction of cult sites for protestants in Rome.

    ReplyDelete
  59. In case you hadn't noticed, doctrine is not a big preoccupation of the conciliar Vatican.

    Which explains the new Catechism and the numerous and lengthy papal encyclicals and other documents . . .

    ReplyDelete
  60. "As for the Feeneyite doctrine, it is heresy, but so obviously wrongheaded and without influence that very few trads (including the SSPX) can take it very seriously, particularly since the traditionalist Feeneyites are quite sound on everything but the Feeneyite preoccupations..."

    The Feeneyite "doctrine" to my knowledge, it not a dogma, which it would have to be to be heretical.

    Notions such as "limbo," "baptism by desire," and others can be believed or not--although respect should be given to the Church's traditional understanding of such things.

    Remember, Fr. Feeney was allowed rapprochement notwithstanding his intransigence on the issue of salvation outside the Church.

    So, I think the approach between SSPX, after the dust settles when the talks are through (which will yield no intellectual concessions from either side, I can assure you), is, "you have it your way, and I'll have it mine, but we shall be friends nonetheless."

    See, that way SSPX can reenter the Church in full rigor, and still retain their intellectual integrity until the time comes when the Church realizes it was too hasty and liberal at Vatican II and renounces its hitherto foolishness.

    ReplyDelete
  61. "Not to forget that Pius X protested in strongest terms against the construction of cult sites for protestants in Rome."

    How about a site dedicated for protestants, inside the Vatican itself, for them to practice their heresies, funded and paid for by Catholic faithful:

    http://www.cfnews.org/EcuChapel.htm

    http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/b012ht_EcumenicalChapel_1_Vennari.htm

    ReplyDelete
  62. John McFarland,

    I am relatively new to this. Although I have some limited familiarity with Fr. Feeney, I am not entirely sure what you mean by the Feeneyite "doctrine" and why you consider it to be heresy, but so obviously wrongheaded and without influence

    I was under the impression that he taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Robert Moynihan's Inside the Vatican states Archbishop Burke will be saying Tridentine Rite inside St Peter's at Eucharistic Chapel tomorrow at 10AM.

    ReplyDelete
  64. ben joyce3:50 AM

    Wait a second John McFarland:

    "As for the Feeneyite doctrine, it is heresy, but so obviously wrongheaded and without influence that very few trads (including the SSPX) can take it very seriously,"

    ...Br Andre & Co. from St. Benedict Center could "take you apart" by calling Fr. Feeney's Doctrine "heresy"

    Fr. Feeney's doctrine was DOGMA and that was the strength of it.

    I'm going to their conference in two weeks. I'll tell them what you said.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Anonymous4:39 AM

    Bishop of Lourdes to allow FSSPX to celebrate mass

    http://ulstertaig.blogspot.com/2009/10/bishop-of-lourdes-opens-doors-to-sspx.html

    ReplyDelete

  66. I was under the impression that he taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.


    Yes, but some people belong to the invisible Church, like martyred catechumens before baptism, who are now venerated as saints. Fr Feeney AFAIK denied it.



    Bishop of Lourdes to allow FSSPX to celebrate mass

    http://ulstertaig.blogspot.com/2009/10/bishop-of-lourdes-opens-doors-to-sspx.html


    Although it's not the first time the SSPX is officially allowed to act in Lourdes (there was a large pilgrimage in 2008) I think it's the first time that they are allowed to celebrate solemn Pontifical Mass. AFAIK last year the bishops were offering only private masses. That's what I call "progress".

    Apart from ecumaniacal meetings with heretics, schismatics and pagans in Catholic churches, this is another proof that the hostile attitude towards SSPX has more to do with what they say and do, than their canonical situation. What I want to say is that they will probably be not welcome in diocesan churches even if they will be in 100% good canonical standing.

    After all, they had the courage to do an Act of Reparation for desacrating the Fatima sanctuary by putting Budda on an altar during an ecumaniacal meeting.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Anonymous3:10 PM

    Peter,
    What does"AFAIK" mean?

    I agree with your FSSPX comments.

    ReplyDelete
  68. AFAIK = "as far as I know."

    ReplyDelete
  69. Brian8:09 PM

    some people belong to the invisible Church, like martyred catechumens before baptism

    Perhaps you are correct that Fr. Feeney denied that, I don't know. Certainly the numbers of catechumens martyred before Baptism is an extremely small number of people. I do not think that martyred catechumens was Fr. Feeney's main concern.

    It is my understanding that what got Fr. Feeney's group into hot water was that they taught against the recent assumption that the "invisible Church"(?) includes those outside the Church with invincible ignorance and (based on their a good conscience and faithful adherence to truth as they understand it) an implicit desire for baptism.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Anonymous1:36 AM

    Heresy must be pertinacious. It's one thing to label as a heretic a Catholic who willfully abandons the faith (like during the Protestant Reformation), but one cannot apply the term 'heretic' so readily or so easily to someone who was born, baptized and raised in a Lutheran household (for instance). The individual in question doesn't know what he's denying never having been taught it to begin with. The aspect of being heretical, or of choosing, is diminished if not altogether eliminated in such cases. A trinitarian baptism connects such an individual in some way to the Church; however repugnant the SSPX finds the idea, that is the truth. Vatican II should not be criticized for attempting to define these situations -- situations, which are, indeed, affected by context. Although the SSPX shudder at the notion of context, it does influence objective reality and therefore cannot be denied. Sex in marriage is an expression of unity and justice, outside of marriage it's sinful fornication. It's the same act, yet the context changes it's nature.

    ReplyDelete
  71. John McFarland2:48 AM

    There is indeed no salvation outside the Church. That is de fide. The problem with Father Feeney is that he denied that one could be saved by baptism of blood and desire.

    The problem with that assertion is that St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Thomas, the Council of Trent, the Catechism of St. Pius X, the Baltimore Catechism and Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII -- among other authorities -- all maintain baptism of blood and baptism of desire.

    The Feeneyite arguments I know of range from the gratuitous to the goofy, and have no pedigree or precedent worth mentioning. Perhaps the later Feeneyites have neatened them up; but I'll be pretty surprised if they can overcome the sort of precedent laid out in the previous paragraph.

    In dealing with Feeneyites, watch out for the bait and switch. Their undeniably good intentions in combatting liberalism do not justify them in do-it-yourself theology in contradiction of the settled doctrine of the Church.

    Angelus Press has two little books relevant to the subject: Fr. Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic? and Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau, Baptism of Desire. An interesting fact about Fr. Rulleau's opuscule is that it was originally written in French and then translated and published in English; but never it was never published in French, because Feeneyism is a purely American phenomenon.

    Father Feeney was not strictly speaking excommunicated for his doctrine; he was excommunicated because, when called to Rome to face the music about this teaching, he refused to go. However, the Holy Office sent a letter to Cardinal Cushing of Boston making quite clear that the Feeneyite doctrine was, as we Irish theologians say, malarkey.

    But baptism of blood and baptism of desire are of very ancient pedigree. Its witnesses include such raving liberals as Sts. Ambrose and Augustine.

    In the effort to defend his position, Father Feeney developed a distinction between justification and sanctification that is basically his own creation.

    I have no idea about recent Feeneyite thinking; but if they still deny baptism of blood and of desire, and defend it with do-it-yourself theology, I don't think any further refinements can matter very much, given the the antiquity of the doctrines of baptism of blood and of desire.

    One thing to notice is that the Feeneyites can and do come up with ten thousand quotes from the Fathers and the Doctors about the necessity of water baptism. But these prove nothing, because water baptism is the only way in which we on earth can be assured that someone is in the Church, and are absolutely the only way in which any child that has not reached the use of reason (except the Holy Innocents) can enter into the kingdom of God. Baptism of blood and desire are matters in God's hands. So unsurprisingly, the Church has always hammered away at the necessity of water baptism. (I pass over in silence that unspeakably scandalous pronouncement of a Vatican theological commission a few years back.)

    ReplyDelete
  72. the problem with Father Feeney is that he denied that one could be saved by baptism of blood and desire.

    The problem with that assertion is that St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Thomas, the Council of Trent, the Catechism of St. Pius X, the Baltimore Catechism and Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII -- among other authorities -- all maintain baptism of blood and baptism of desire . . .

    In dealing with Feeneyites, watch out for the bait and switch.


    Mr. McFarland,
    Thank you for your response. What I am struggling is what seems to me to be "bait and switch" of another sort.

    As you reference, there are some early references to Baptism of Desire and it is included in the Council of Trent. But it always referred to explicit desire for Baptism among catechumens who died prior to being Baptized. These are individuals who have the faith, assent to Catholic Truth and the Magisterium, and are in the process of preparing to be Baptized, but die before receiving the Sacrament.

    I do not, however, find any magisterial reference to implicit desire for Baptism until the 1800s. These two concepts are very different.

    Given the lack of any Church Father or pre-1800 Pope teaching about implicit Baptism of desire (i.e., invincible ignorance of the Church and a good conscience being sufficient for receiving Sanctifying Grace), I do not see how this new teaching can be considered to be an authentic development of doctrine. If this was not taught for the first 1800 years of the Church, I cannot see how this teaching could be a matter of making explicit what the Church has always and everywhere believed.

    I am not saying that this teaching is heretical, but it strikes me as being overly optimistic speculation, tending toward presumtpion.

    It seems to me that this recent teaching and the tendency to consider it to be authentic Catholic doctrine, lies at the basis of much of what is controversial with Vatican II.

    ReplyDelete
  73. John McFarland2:36 PM

    Brian,

    For current purposes, I would note that I don't think that the difference between explicit and explicit desire plays any role in Feeneyism, unless a (so to speak) "mitigated" Feeneyism has grown up.

    I am not learned enough to speak to the pedigree of implicit desire. I do know that Pope Pius XII taught it in Mystici corporis; and he was a quite accomplished theologian, although obviously not a pro.

    The chief thing to note about the whole matter is that it is primarily an academic point -- except for the liberals, for whom it is the back door to universal salvation. Whether a man is saved by baptism of desire is a matter known only to God, and to those to whom he (occasionally, in private revelations) sees fit to reveal it. For the Church on earth, the drill is clear: evangelize 'em; and if they believe, baptize 'em.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Brian3:57 PM

    Whether a man is saved by baptism of desire is a matter known only to God, and to those to whom he (occasionally, in private revelations) sees fit to reveal it. For the Church on earth, the drill is clear: evangelize 'em; and if they believe, baptize 'em.

    Agreed.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Peter4:55 PM

    Good times are coming.

    Bishop de Mallerais is allowed officially to celebrate solemn Pontifical Mass in Lourdes for the Feast of Christ the King.

    Fr Mark Jasny from SSPX priory in Neustadt offered a private Mass in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome this summer (http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/TED/Articolo.asp?c=315189) - although this celebration is not mentioned in New Catholic's post from today.

    Now, according to Andrea Tornielli, the SSPX is officially allowed to celebrate TLM "in Vatican" before commencing "work". Tornielli (who has mistyped the surname "de Galarreta") says that the Society seeks status similar to Opus Dei (http://www.ilgiornale.it/interni/il_progetto_lefebvriani__diventare_come_lopus_dei/17-10-2009/articolo-id=391496-page=0-comments=1)

    I will be much more than pleased if all those talks end up in establishing something like new Sodalitium Pianum.

    ReplyDelete
  76. ben joyce8:41 PM

    I'm told by St. Benedict Center that BOD is NOT an article of faith

    Fr. Feeney was taught it in his seminary years and believed it, but by the '40s he said that there was an "abuse" of BOD. It was stretched to fit in with non catholic america. By BOD any non catholic can be saved.

    BOD (baptism of desire) taught by Fr. Feeney as The Council of Trent taught it (Fr. Feeney's doctrine, which he states is from the Council of Trent)taught that a catachumin who has vowed (latin word votim) is justified. Justification is not salvation. If the word used was to be "desire" as the americans use it than a different latin verb would be used (something like disidrea ???)

    By the way Fr. Feeney was described by his superior as the top theologian in the U.S.A. When he was ordained in 1926, he had received the highest grades ever recorded for an American Jesuit for the "high tract" in theology.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Anonymous12:25 AM

    "Father Feeney was not strictly speaking excommunicated for his doctrine; he was excommunicated because, when called to Rome to face the music about this teaching, he refused to go."

    But remember Father Feeney was allowed full re-admittance back into full communion without renouncing one of his arguments against BOD.

    So, BOD IS NOT a dogma!!

    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!