Rorate Caeli

A most relevant letter


Dear Friends and Benefactors,

The Church’s situation increasingly resembles a sea that is agitated in all directions. We see waves and more waves, which seem to be about to capsize the bark of Peter and drag it into the endless abyss. Since the Second Vatican Council, it seems that a wave has been trying to carry off everything into the deep, leaving only a heap of ruins, a spiritual desert, that the popes themselves have called an apostasy. We do not want to describe this harsh reality again; we have already so often done, and all of you can see that it is so. Still, to us it seems useful to comment somewhat on the events of the past months; I want to speak about the surprisingly violent and particularly well-orchestrated blows that have been dealt to the Church and the Supreme Pontiff. Why such violent attacks?

To return to our metaphor, it seems that for some time now, more or less since the beginning of the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI, a new wave has appeared which is much more modest than the first, yet persistent enough that it is noticeable nevertheless. Contrary to all expectations, this wave seems to be going in the opposite direction compared to the first. The indications are sufficiently varied and numerous, that we can state that this new movement of reform or renewal is quite real. We can see this especially with the younger generations, who are plainly frustrated by the spiritual ineffectiveness of the Vatican II reforms. Considering the very harsh and bitter reproaches leveled by the progressives against Benedict XVI, it is certain that they see in the very person of the present pope one of the most vigorous causes of this incipient renewal. In fact, even if we find the pope’s initiatives rather timid, they run deep and are contrary to the agenda of the revolutionary, left-leaning world, both inside and outside of the Church, and this is true at several levels.

The resulting irritation of the progressives and of the world is sensed initially in questions concerning morality. Specifically, the Left and the liberals have been irritated despite the pope’s well-pondered words about the use of condoms in dealing with AIDS in Africa. As for the life of the Church, the restoration of the Mass of All Ages to its rightful place in 2007, and then two years later the rescinding of the degrading punishment aimed at disqualifying us, provoked the rage of liberals and progressives of all stripes. Moreover-the felicitous plan of a Year for Priests, restoring the priest to a place of honor, recalling his important and indispensable role in the salvation of souls, and proposing the holy Curé of Ars as a model, is not only an invitation to the Christian people to pray for their priests, but also a call to make use of the Sacrament of Penance, which had completely sunk into oblivion in broad sectors of the Church, and also to foster Eucharistic devotion, calling to mind in particular the importance of adoring Our Lord in the Sacred Host, a clear sign of the reality of the real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

The appointment of bishops who are distinctly more conservative, some of whom were already celebrating the Tridentine Mass before, is another positive development. We could cite also, as an undeniable example of the reality of this little wave of opposition, the Letter to the Catholics of Ireland inviting them to repentance, confession, and spiritual exercises and asking also for the adoration of Jesus in the Eucharist.

Even though people in our circles rightly think that these [papal] efforts are still insufficient to stop the decay and the crisis of the Church—especially in view of certain acts along the regrettable line of his predecessor, such as the visits to the synagogue and the Protestant church—in Modernist circles however, the hour has come to report to their battle stations! The big wave is attacking the very little one with unexpected violence. It is not surprising that the meeting of these two ill-matched waves should cause a lot of backwash and turbulence and give rise to an extremely confused situation in which it is quite difficult to tell and predict which of the two will win the day. This, however, is something new that deserves to be commented. It is not a question of giving in to thoughtless enthusiasm or believing that the crisis is over. On the contrary, the aging forces that see their gains, which they thought were definitive, being called into question, will no doubt put up a large-scale battle to try to save this dream of modernity which is starting to fall apart. It is very important to remain in this regard, as realistic as possible about what is happening. Although we rejoice over all the good that is being done in the Church and the world, we nevertheless have no illusions about the seriousness of the present situation.

What should we expect to see in the coming years? Peace in the Church, or war? The victory of good and its long-awaited return, or a new tempest? Will the little wave manage to grow enough to prevail someday? The assurance that the promise of Our Lady of Fatima will be fulfilled—“in the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph”—does not necessarily or directly resolve our question, because it is still quite possible that we will have to first pass through an even greater tribulation before the long-awaited triumph occurs….

A terrific challenge is also intended by our rosary crusade. We would not want to diminish in the least, the joy over the announcement of the extraordinary result of our Rosary Crusade. We boldly asked you one year ago for twelve million rosaries so as to crown our dear Heavenly Mother, the Mother of God, as if with an equal number of stars, and to surround with a magnificent crown of praise that Mother, who to the enemies of God appears “terrible as an army set in battle array” (Canticle of Canticles 6:3). You responded so generously that we can now bring to Rome a spiritual bouquet of more than nineteen million rosaries, not counting all those not directly affiliated with our priories and chapels who joined in our campaign.

Surely it is no accident that when Pius XII declared the dogma of the Assumption, he decided to change the Introit of the feast on August 15, to the passage from the Apocalypse that salutes the great sign that appeared in heaven. This excerpt from the Apocalypse ushers in the description of one of the most terrible wars that are set forth in that sacred Book: the great dragon, who with his tail will sweep away a third of the stars, comes to wage battle with the great Woman (see Apocalypse 12). Is this whole passage intended for our time? We can easily believe it, while avoiding a literal or overly specific application of those mysterious and prophetic descriptions. We have absolutely no doubt that all our prayers are important, and even of very great importance at this moment in history at which we find ourselves. However we think that we should warn you also and encourage you in these circumstances of the history of the Church.

Your great generosity shows, without the slightest doubt, your very real devotion and your love for our Holy Mother, the Roman Catholic Church, for the Successor of Saint Peter, and for the hierarchy, even though we have much to suffer from it. God is stronger than evil – good will be victorious, but perhaps not with all the pomp that you would like.

Now we must convince the authorities to accomplish the famous consecration of Russia that they say has already been made; we must recall the present relevance of what Our Lady of Fatima said, even though in the year 2000 there was manifestly an attempt to turn a new leaf and not to return to the subject again. It seems inevitable that the difficulties and obstacles will multiply so as to prevent the realization of what we are asking. That doesn’t matter; we count much more on God than on men, just as we expect from acts as simple as the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary surprising results for the Church and the world, results surpassing anything that we can imagine. It is foolishness in the sight of men, but it is really a reflection of what Saint Paul already preached to his age: what men regard as wise is foolishness in God’s sight, whereas God’s wisdom is considered absurd foolishness by the wise of this world (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:20).

As we bring to the attention of the Holy Father your remarkable efforts, along with the reason for these prayers, thus hoping to contribute, in our way, to the good of the Church, we ask you to please continue those same efforts. According to the example that Our Lord Himself invites us to follow in his very moving exhortation to prayer: “Ask, and you shall receive,” let us ask, indeed insisting on much (cf. Matthew 7:7-11). Although we do not doubt that our prayers will be answered, our persistence and perseverance must be proportioned to the magnitude of what we are asking.

Let us remember also that the essential element of the Fatima message is not just the consecration of Russia, but above all devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. May all these prayers and sacrifices lead us to increase and deepen our special devotion to the Heart of the Mother of God. For, through it God wants to be moved.

As the month of May begins, the month of Mary, may we all find ourselves even more reliant on her maternal protection; this is our fondest wish. Thanking you for your truly great generosity, we ask Our Lady to deign to bless you with the Child Jesus.

+ Bernard Fellay

May 1, 2010, Feast of Joseph the Worker

96 comments:

Anonymous said...

Bishop in Greek means "watchman".

And it seems that a Bishop, wrote this.

Wonderful defense of His Holiness and a sincere love of the sheep.

D.P.H.

Anonymous said...

What is relevant in this letter? Is there anything new, that we haven't already heard?

Anonymous said...

"In fact, even if we find the pope’s initiatives rather timid, they run deep and are contrary to the agenda of the revolutionary, left-leaning world, both inside and outside of the Church, and this is true at several levels."

I hope all the Traditionalists who continously slam the efforts of the
Holy Father remember this statement by Bishop Bernard Fellay.

Paul Haley said...

This message to friends and benefactors by HE Bishop Fellay stands in stark contrast to the following quote: "PARIS (Reuters) - Vatican talks with a controversial splinter group have been difficult and the ultra-traditionalist Catholics will have to make concessions if an accord is to be reached, a senior Vatican cardinal said on Wednesday."

Who is this senior Vatican Cardinal? None other than Cardinal Kasper who has always called for concessions from the SSPX while not ever stating clearly how these so-called concessions would differ from what Holy Mother Church has always held, taught and professed to be true from apostolic times.

One would have to ask Cardinal Kasper if he believes that which has been publicly proclaimed by one of his confreres from The Chairman of the German Bishops' Conference and Archbishop of Freiburg, Robert Zollitsch, to wit (http://gloria.tv/?media=25210):

On Holy Saturday, the archbishop denied the Expiatory Death of Christ in an interview with the German TV station 'Hessischer Rundfunk'.

Christ "did not die for the sins of the people as if God had needed a sacrificial offering or something like a scapegoat" - the archbishop said.

According to him the dying Christ simply expressed "solidarity" with the suffering of the people even to death..."

But, even more important than that issue is the specificity, or should I say lack thereof, of what he means by concessions from the SSPX if an accord is to be reached.

The problem, dear friends, is that the modernists cannot answer that question without committing abject apostasy by disclaiming what the Church has previously held to be true in doctrinal terms. So, instead they throw mud at the SSPX and infer that the SSPX is the problem rather than their modernist theories. This is clearly an attempt by the modernists to seek the higher ground in the debate without so much as a rightful claim to that ground. In a word it's BALONEY.

There is also the use of such terms as "ultra-traditionalist Catholic" to describe those who steadfastly refuse to drink the modernist's Kool-Aid. It is yet another characteristic of the Upside-Down Church and the honest man, if there is such a person today, would see it clearly.

Anonymous said...

Notice first the ominous predictions of trouble ahead, the frequent mentioning of conflict, even apocalyptic conflict. Wedded to this, Bishop Fellay parades the obvious good things done by Benedict XVI. What is going on here? Notice also how there is no report of progress in the talks.

Well, compare these words with the recent report of that all-time world-cup failure, Walter Cardinal Kasper, œcumaniac-at-large and heretic-general of the curia. Kasper the friendly œcumenist is not happy these days. His œcumnism of convergence has produced results opposite to those it encourages, and the one form of œcumenism he rejects--a pre-conciliar œcumnenism of return--has insulted his heretic buddy, the Archdruid of Cant-erbury. Anglicans are now beginning to *return* to Rome on his watch and entirely on Rome's terms. This is a disaster for everything Kasper stands for.

Also, before reading Kasper's words, keep in mind that, for liberals, there is no such thing as truth, only appearances. When a liberal loses in spades, he squawks that he has won. When he wins, he screams that he has been cheated and robbed, all in the hope of gaining even more.

Keeping all this in mind, let us turn to Kasper's analysis of the situation (I have altered the grammar of the journalist's words to save him or her embarrassment for being a subliterate, and I have deAmericanised the punctuation):

"'The main problem with them is not the Mass in Latin', he said, referring to the S.S.P.X's insistence on the pre-conciliar liturgy, 'but the concept of tradition. Do we want a living tradition or a petrified one?'

"'I'm for a dialogue, but on our conditions, not on the traditionalists' conditions', he added. The S.S.P.X had to accept the conciliar reforms, the 'sine qua non' of any accord.

"'Without an accord, the group will have no official status and its clergy will not be recognised as Catholic priests or allowed to exercise their ministry.'"

TO BE CONTINUED . . . .

ocd sister said...

Thank you for posting this letter. Let us pray for a full reunification of our SSPX brethren. From the tone Bishop Fellay used when referring to the Holy Father, it seems to me that there is great hope.

Tony said...

"Even though people in our circles rightly think that these [papal] efforts are still insufficient to stop the decay and the crisis of the Church—especially in view of certain acts along the regrettable line of his predecessor, such as the visits to the synagogue and the Protestant church..."

For all the good this Pontiff has done, he must stop giving any credence to these false religions.

Anonymous said...

Bishop Fellay and Cardinal Kasper, Part II:


Kasper is over 76 and doesn't have long. He ends his time on a colossal failure: a return of traditionalist Anglicans that is a diplomatic disaster for his relations with the Arch-heretic liberals of the Church of England. As a parting shot (and as his master, Re, gets the boot), he is signalling that the talks with the S.S.P.X are not going very well. It is interesting, though, that he has been excluded from those talks, just as he was excluded from the return of the Anglican traditionalists. Who wants a loser? His real master, the fiend, is a loser, and so is he.

If Kasper is telling us that Rome cannot reach an accord with the S.S.P.X, he is only telling us what we already knew before. He only hopes to make it look like some exciting good news for liberals. Clearly, there can be no accord until one of two things happens, as follows:

(a) the Society compromises on principle or

(b) The curia admits to recent error and corrects her mistakes.

The Society will not do (a). Even assuming that Bishop Fellay were willing to compromise (and I do NOT think that, by the way), the others would not stand for it. It would split the Society in twain, and Bishop Fellay is both orthodox and, a fortiori, does not want to go down in history as the man who split the S.S.P.X and caused its ruination.

Rome can do (b) but the present liberal and even 'conservative' curialists cannot, for this would wound their pride, and such curialists live by pride alone, and not by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Why else were they willing to take Marcial Marsupials dirty money?) They cannot admit that they were wrong all along. Hence Bishop Tissier de Mallerais is right to predict a period of *at least* thirty years before an accord can be reached. It can be reached only by new curialists, the present crop having died or retired to wheelchairs in nursing homes.

TO BE CONTINUED IN PART III

Anonymous said...

Kasper and Fellay, Part III:

So, we next get to Kasper's assertions. He says that regularisation cannot come sans an accord. Well, we knew that. Duh!

Then he cleverly says that "its clergy will not be recognised as Catholic priests". Well, nor has Rome ever denied that they are Catholic priests. In fact, judging from the way Rome has treated the Society, recognition of their priesthood can be safely assumed from the course of the negotiations and how Society representatives are addressed. Since Society priests have never, as a group, denied what Catholics must believe by divine and Catholic faith, and since they have all received valid Baptism, they are certainly Catholic. It may be the case that Kasper is not Catholic, but Society priests clearly are. Since they are, Kasper is wrong: Rome could recognise that they are both Catholic and validly-ordained priests. While the N.O. form of ordination has been questioned by some, nobody has ever questioned the validity of the preconciliar one (and to do so would mean that nobody's orders were valid owing to mistransmission).

Why do I get the feeling here that K. is throwing down the gauntlet? His statement looks like a challenge to some unnamed initiative being devised by his curial opponents.

Lastly, he says that Society priests may not be "allowed to exercise their ministry". Well, being allowed to exercise ministry and being able to do so are different things altogether. Kasper is not allowed to spew heresy and yet he spews it all day long, particularly about the covenant with the Jews being still open.

I get the feeling that the Pope is preparing some statement and Kasper is getting ready to react to it. The papal statement will probably look very bad for the Society but will actually be good for those who can read between the lines. Kasper is preparing for it by making its conclusions seem even worse than they will be. Kasper may even be delivering his public disagreement with the Pope over the good part to come.

The Pope will make the statement look bad for the Society because it is the way to get the good bit past the liberals. He thinks that he needs to give the liberals some ammunition, all in order to prevent their rebellion. Like Bishop Fellay, he does not want his legacy to be one of causing a huge split.

TO BE CONTINUED IN PART IV

Thomas John said...

Bishop Fellay reaffirms time and again Pius X's warning cry that the true friends of the people are traditionalists. This is a letter of the highest caliber. I think we're blessed with a man like this working at the heart of the Church. No revolutionary spirit could write what we have here; pride recedes and truth advances. It really gives a chap hope, I must say.

Anonymous said...

Part IV: Kasper and Fellay


So, what can we expect from the Pope regarding the S.S.P.X?

1. We can hope that the Pope will receive the Rosary crusade and consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in accordance with our Lady's wishes. This has not yet been done. Those who would say that it has have comprehension problems (e.g retardation). Mental deficiency and wishful thinking are the only possible causes.

Such a consecration could change everything, but I cannot comment on the powers of our Lady. This is beyond human understanding. So I will keep my analysis to human possibilities.


2. Rome will recognise that the Society is Catholic and that its clerics are all validly ordained. It will also recognise publicly that, as a result, its Masses fulfil the Sunday and holyday obligation. This is the good bit that needs to be propelled past the liberals.


3. Rome will report that the Society has refused to accept some of her dispositions and interpretations. As a result, resistance to those dispositions (perhaps on the matter of the nature of tradition, for example), incurs the grave threat of schism. Therefore, everyone should refuse to support the Society in any way and should shun its Masses and Sacraments. Given the gravity of the situation, Rome cannot recognise faculties for Society priests. Everyone is reminded of a duty to avoid the near occasion of schism and to avoid all recoruse to the Sacraments of the S.S.P.X.

(Note that, in English translations, Rome will use that lovely imprecise verbal 'should': it will carry a strong recommendation but with an overtone of command.)

It will be worded so as to deceive people. For example, only resistance to Rome's dispositions might incur a danger of schism, not mere attendance at Society chapels. But it will be worded so as to suggest a danger merely by attending them. It is true that there is some danger caused by attending Masses offered by a heretic or schismatic but, if we had to avoid all those, we'd have to avoid countless Masses of regularised N.O. priests. Nobody who has the firm intention to refuse schism can fall into it unless he changes his mind.

Rome will not assert that anyone in the Society is schismatic but will use this threat of 'falling gradually into schism' from John Paul II's motu proprio "Ecclesia Dei".

Some on this list will be very disappointed when Rome refuses to recognise (but also does not deny!) Society faculties. This is foolish. Given the circumstances, an accord simply cannot come, and the Pope is politically not in a position to do more than to recognise that the Society is Catholic. It would take an heroic *spiritual* act to do more. I'll leave it at that.

As I have argued before, a recognition of Society faculties is NOT important comparied to a public recognition that Society Masses fulfil the Sunday obligation. Private recognitions in letters of the P.C.E.D. simply do not have adequate authority to prevent denials of their conclusion by liberal bishops. But if such a recognition of this is coming, no matter how much it is couched in negative terms, it will be the greatest advance for tradition since and including 1984. It can also be followed by gifts to 'loyal' regularised traditionalists. Once one shoe has *apparently* dropped against tradition, another shoe will drop for tradition (e.g. for the F.S.S.P., &c.). Kasper won't want to be in office when that happens. He'll want to be in hiding under his bed. He will want to be able to crow that the S.S.P.X has been defeated or turned down in order to take some of the attention away from new provisions favouring the Traditional Latin Mass. Expect more than a clarification of S.P. Expect structures; expect jurisdictions; expect ordinariates for the Latin Mass.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

"I get the feeling that the Pope is preparing some statement and Kasper is getting ready to react to it."

PKTP, you have been feeling that for at least three years or so.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Perkins

Do you have any evidence for your assertion that we should "Expect structures; expect jurisdictions; expect ordinariates for the Latin Mass"?

I am just curious whether this is speculation, or if you have sources reporting that something big is going to happen. If so could you give a time frame for these events.

Anonymous said...

Great letter by Bishop Fellay - oh that the rest of Catholic Bishops could be so clear.

PKTP,
I hope that you are being too emotional about political motives. I hope that pride will not unduly influence the Pope on this matter - this same Pope who humbly wept for the abused children and young adults.

Cardinals Mayer and Poggi pray for us.

John McFarland said...

Anonymous 17:53,

There's not very much new for those who follow closely the publications of the Society and the pronouncements of its leadership. But that class by no means includes all the recipients of Bishop Fellay's letters to friends and benefactors. Iike any other teacher, Bishop Fellay keeps repeating himself in hopes of eventually reaching everyone but but the proverbial 10% who never get the message.

Also, the fact that there isn't much new to be reported is itself news.

In particular, Bishop Fellay's continuing belief that there's something real about the Pope's effort to clean up things is a matter of some interest. I myself find it hard to credit; but Bishop Fellay's considered opinions are not something to be treated lightly. It is also to be noted that the Holy Father is our Holy Father, no matter how far he's wandered off the right road; and so what he is about should be a matter of some interest -- and much prayer -- on the part of his children. I say this as someone who has not been much inclined to do so until now.

Anonymous said...

Dear New Catholic,

Did you miss the staunch defence of His Holiness delivered a few days ago by abbé de Cacqueray, head of the french district of the SSPX?

"We are the most faithful sons of His Holiness"

http://www.laportelatine.org/district/france/bo/cacquerayMondevsPapaute/Cacqueray100505.php

Unknown said...

Blessed be God, Blessed be His Holy Name! He has not forsaken Holy Mother Church, He in His mercy left a remnant that the faithful would have hope. Thanks be to God for the SSPX, their courage, their faithfulness and their love of Holy Mother Church.
Magaret

Afonso Miguel said...

A great letter, indeed.

And a great banner! Portuguese traditionalists (we are so few...) are waiting the Holy Father with joy in the heart. We'll welcome Benedict XVI with an important message.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous wrote:

"Do you have any evidence for your assertion that we should "Expect structures; expect jurisdictions; expect ordinariates for the Latin Mass"?


Actually, I do have a source but I do cannot say what the time frame might be. To do that, the source would have to be the Pope himself. Also, I really cannot gague the reliability of my source.

It does not follow that my predictions are based on pure speculation, however. There is something called logic and there have also been indications over the months, various smoke signals. Also, there is assessment of various persons involved. For example, I do not think that this Pope wants to leave the position of the Society as it is. He will try at least to begin a process of reconciliation; in fact, he's already done so. But he'll do more.

I'd suggest that the Campos structure of 2002 opened a juridical door. The Anglican ordinariates are not modelled on military ordinariates (as anyone knowing the least bit of canon law could easily discern). Only fool reporters think that. Their closest model in the Latin Church is the Campos structure. I suggest that the next logical step is one or more personal particular church(es) for the T.L.M., meaning personal (arch)dioceses, apostolic administrations, or ordinariates.

Look, logically, this Pope can only go so far, unless he is prepared to compromise on doctrinal matters. So, what can he do and what can he not do within the law (and not taking into account the opening of his heart through our Lady's grace?)? There are only so many possibilities and this is not rocket science.

When it comes to the psychological part, some of us are rather good at discerning probabilities, others less so. That's about it.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Someone responded to me:

"I hope that you are being too emotional about political motives. I hope that pride will not unduly influence the Pope on this matter - this same Pope who humbly wept for the abused children and young adults."

I was not really referring to the Pope (although not entirely excluding him either). I think that many powerful curialists have political motives.

In the case of the Holy Father, I think that he wants to find a way forward that will not entail a rebellion from the in-house heretics. He's trying to keep everyone together in the belief that this is the best way to advance the salvation of all. Whether or not that is an ordered remedy is open to question.

In purely human terms, the best way for the Pope to advance tradition right now is to trick the liberals into thinking that tradition is being slapped down. By giving liberals something to crow about, the Pope keeps them under control.

However, on the purely doctrinal level, I simply cannot for the life of me see how the Pope and Bishop Fellay can reach an accord if this requires doctrinal agreement. The fact that, by various means, they are working together harmoniously is wonderful and uplifting. But, as Bishop Williamson rightly reminds us time and again, one plus one must equal two, and you cannot square a circle. If two views are at variance, one must admit to error.

To think that two and two make four and neither five nor three,

The heart of man has long been sore, and long 'tis like to be.

P.K.T.P.

Mary Regina said...

What a beautiful letter. Rorate, thanks for being the wonderful news source that you are.

Long-Skirts said...

Paul Haley said..

"...Cardinal Kasper who has always called for concessions from the SSPX while not ever stating clearly how these so-called concessions would differ from what Holy Mother Church has always held, taught and professed to be true from apostolic times."

THE
BISHOP'S
CLOCK

Seems a good Shepherd
Takes care of his flock
Tickety-tock, tickety-tock

Feeds them The Bread
Full of truth that some mock
Tickety-tock, tickety-tock

Won't open the doors
When the wolves come to knock
Tickety-tock, tickety-tock

Insists that the Bride
Must reside on the rock
Tickety-tock, tickety-tock

Would die on the barque
'Til she's safely in dock
Tickety-tock, tickety-tock

But to follow sell all
There's still time on the clock
Tickety...boing!

JMJ
Long-Skirts

Anonymous said...

Looks like the fix is in and that Bishop Fellay is about to sell the SSPX out.

Anonymous said...

Anon. writes:

"Looks like the fix is in and that Bishop Fellay is about to sell the SSPX out."

The moon is bright tonight. It must mean that Jordanes is about to become a Buddhist.

Really, what in Bishop Fellay's letter could possibly suggest a sell-out? So he says some pleasant things about the Pope who has done more than the others to restore tradition. What could possibly be wrong with that? Heaven forbid that a Catholic should praise a Pope!

P.K.T.P.

Confitebor said...

Er, what? Become a Buddhist? I haven't been paying very close attention to this discussion, and I must have missed something important.

Oliver said...

A big wave attacking a little wave would be more a description of the Society's predicament than of mighty Rome and her 'besieged incumbent'. He is indeed part of that big wave which keeps trying to screw the remnant. A catalogue of little conservative gestures hardly erases the general thrust of a life given over to the philosophy of the new as it sinks deeper and deeper into ignominy. In this day and age conservatism merely perpetuates the liberal drift. We are not fooled in this attempt to white-wash the obvious in order to maintain an artificial suspense and fraudulent hope.

Anonymous said...

"Who is this senior Vatican Cardinal? None other than Cardinal Kasper who has always called for concessions from the SSPX while not ever stating clearly how these so-called concessions would differ from what Holy Mother Church has always held, taught and professed to be true from apostolic times."

This diatribe from Kasper and other Vatican II cheerleaders in the Vatican Curia is to be expected. These aged remnants of the Vatican II Revolution than failed still cling to their model of the Church and it's warped agenda, which represented a total break from the Catholic past and Catholic tradition. It is no surprise that this radical liberal bunch continues to whine their complaints and condemnations against the SSPX and our holy Catholic tradition, because they see that their own miserable agenda of the Novus Ordo, ecumenism with protestants, inter-religious dialog with Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, and pagans has been a conplete disaster and has left the Church in ruins.

The Pope knows this, and as much as people like Kasper hope...Benedict XVI I don't think is stupid enough to insist on a complete adherence to the failed agenda of Vatican II as a condition for re-admittance of the SSPX into full union with the Church.

He's smarter than that, and realizes what has been a disaster (most of Vatican II), and what is the eternal truth, source of Grace, and success for the Church ( Catholic traditon and the Mass as expressed by the SSPX).

Anonymous said...

I really am somewhat amazed at all the negative views of the Holy Father's theological acumen; I think a reconciliation is easily promoted, if the first doctrinal agreement made, is the easiest and the most principle one necessary: that Vatican II did not teach anything new which must be accepted by divine or catholic faith.

Once we get pass that bridge, a whole lot of possibilites open up.

I would suggest in the second phase that,

The SSPX can couch their criticisms in the context of what has always worked, and produced fruit, even citing all those saints canonized by JP2 as examples.

The Holy Father can couch his approval of V2 and reforms in terms of what was thought to be best at the time, and leave the question open as to whether it was effective in any statistically verifiable manner.

I would suggest in the third phase, a comparison of the prudential measures promoted and applied during the aggiornamento to what is known from the common opinion of approved theologians prior to the council: with a detail examination of each practice and its relation to reveeal truth, a study which would inevitably show that the traditional practices and disciplines are more coherent with the Deposit of the Faith and therefore ought to be promoted more principally by the Apostolis See, and thus the SSPX deserverse approbation.

Fourth Step would include an internal review of the SSPX, and here the Holy Father can balance the negotiations by any corrections in the matter of internal discipline that need to be made, for the sake of promoting holiness and christian virtue.

The fifth step would be complete regularization -- here I demure, and think the SSPX would be better off as an institute of pontifical rite, with a special indult to always have 4 members as Bishops without jurisdiction, merely titulary sees, but with capacity to confer orders on men of any institute which requests it.

Gideon Ertner said...

"Expect structures; expect jurisdictions; expect ordinariates for the Latin Mass."

No, no and no! As I have argued before, traditional Catholicism must not be confined to reservations but must transform the whole Church from within - each and every parish, diocese and province!

Sure it would be more comfortable for us if we could have a sheltered place within which to live our legitimate spirituality, but at what cost to the rest of the Church? Better that we continue carrying our cross as the Just Man, Who will eventually be victorious.

Anonymous said...

Although I agree with Mr. Ertner that the vocation of the traditional orders, labelled as such because they just continue to do what the Church has always done, is to contribute to the renewal of the entire Church, it would be naive to think that they wouldn't need protection from the Supreme Authority of the Church to be safeguarded especially from the Bishops. Otherwise their task will become impossible. They have to be free to establish new Mass Centers, Chapels, Houses, Convents and Monasteries, Houses of Formation, Seminaries, to conduct pilgrimages to Holy Shrines etc.

Don't worry! In time, the traditional orders will be the ones remaining alive in the spiritual desert left behind by the modernists. We will then inevitably see Bishops appointed from Catholic Tradition, then Archbishops, then Rectors of Sanctuaries, then Cardinals and then Popes.

Until then, however, a safe and protective canonical structure is needed. What Mr. Ertner hopes for will inevitably come about as the influence of Catholic Tradition will pour down to the rest of the Church and will lead to an augmented number of traditionalists in regular parishes. This is alreday happening today. All Catholics will have to contribute to the much needed renewal.

Traditionalists unite!

Also, don't forget that all the Cardinals have agreed on the idea of the process of reconciliation with the SSPX.

Thank you, Bishop Fellay!

/Keep your spirits up.

Sean said...

Mr. Perkins:

Thank you for your analysis of the SSPX situation. I hope and pray that you’re correct about canonical structures being erected for Catholics of tradition. May I offer one possible scenario that might offer some hope for the full alignment of the SSPX with the Holy See?

In a letter dated May 4, 1988, the Judicial Vicar (Monsignor Lawrence Deery) of the Diocese of Worcester, wrote and official letter to another diocesan official clarifying the doctrinal position of the Sisters of St. Anne House vis-à-vis Father Feeny’s view of the doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
(cf: http://www.catholicism.org/images/DeeryLetterII.jpg)

This is the part that is ad rem to this discussion: (Monsignor Deery was directly involved in the reconciliation of Father Feeney)

“It would seem that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith holds the doctrine to have been defined and consequently definitive. It is its theological interpretation and speculation which they see as problematical.

“In our discussions with the Congregation it seemed rather clear that the proponents of a strict interpretation of the doctrine should be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as those who would hold more liberal views.

“Summarily, Mother Teresa and her community in no manner abandoned Father Feeney’s teachings. Consequently, the Sisters do a good deal more than keep the memory of Father Feeney. They now actively proclaim his teachings as they did before the regularization.”

Of course, the-then Cardinal Ratzinger was the Prefect of the CDF at the time. Suppose, just suppose, Pope Benedict takes the same tack with the SSPX as he did with Father Feeney and his followers at Still River? The Holy Father could say: “The interpretation of the SSPX regarding the documents of the Second Vatican Council is to be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as others with different views. This will assist in the on-going review of the hermeneutic of continuity regarding the interpretation of Vatican II.”

This would be the heart of the counter-reform. Bishop Fellay, I believe, would be wise enough to see this. With this legitimating by a reigning Pontiff, the SSPX could be the heart of a universal ordinariate. I do believe that this Holy Father is capable of doing something exactly like this. Oremus!

Sean said...

Mr. Perkins:

Thank you for your analysis of the SSPX situation. I hope and pray that you’re correct about canonical structures being erected for Catholics of tradition. May I offer one possible scenario that might offer some hope for the full alignment of the SSPX with the Holy See?

In a letter dated May 4, 1988, the Judicial Vicar (Monsignor Lawrence Deery) of the Diocese of Worcester, wrote and official letter to another diocesan official clarifying the doctrinal position of the Sisters of St. Anne House vis-à-vis Father Feeny’s view of the doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
(cf: http://www.catholicism.org/images/DeeryLetterII.jpg)

This is the part that is ad rem to this discussion: (Monsignor Deery was directly involved in the reconciliation of Father Feeney)

“It would seem that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith holds the doctrine to have been defined and consequently definitive. It is its theological interpretation and speculation which they see as problematical.

“In our discussions with the Congregation it seemed rather clear that the proponents of a strict interpretation of the doctrine should be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as those who would hold more liberal views.

“Summarily, Mother Teresa and her community in no manner abandoned Father Feeney’s teachings. Consequently, the Sisters do a good deal more than keep the memory of Father Feeney. They now actively proclaim his teachings as they did before the regularization.”

Of course, the-then Cardinal Ratzinger was the Prefect of the CDF at the time. Suppose, just suppose, Pope Benedict takes the same tack with the SSPX as he did with Father Feeney and his followers at Still River? The Holy Father could say: “The interpretation of the SSPX regarding the documents of the Second Vatican Council is to be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as others with different views. This will assist in the on-going review of the hermeneutic of continuity regarding the interpretation of Vatican II.”

This would be the heart of the counter-reform. Bishop Fellay, I believe, would be wise enough to see this. With this legitimating by a reigning Pontiff, the SSPX could be the heart of a universal ordinariate. I do believe that this Holy Father is capable of doing something exactly like this. Oremus!

Anonymous said...

It is a fair- and necessary- question which "The SSPX Pews Ask Bishop Fellay: Where are you Leading Us?" http://traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f039ht_Flores-Fellay.htm

Anonymous said...

Dear Sean:

I feel very gratified at reading your last post because you argue exactly what I argued here once before on this blog, and I even used the Feeneyite example to demonstrate it. This was exactly a possible solution I had proposed. I feel as if you have stolen my idea!!!

However, it will not work, I think--and I added that at the time. In essence, the Feeneyites are allowed their strict interpretation of the dogma EENS even to the point of being allowed to condemn the positions of others in the Church who do not agree with them. However, Rome chooses not to use her authority at this time to rule out other possible interpretations. In other words, Rome allows non-Feeneyites to hold their interpretations as well.

This will not work in the case of the S.S.P.X. The reason is that the hardliners in the Society insist that every Catholic must be bound to the interpretatios of doctrine that the Society holds. In other words, the Society hardliners--and even its 'mainliners'--want Rome to anathematise all those who do not subscribe to the Society's interpretations. The Society wants this for the good of the Church, so that error can be extirpated.

The Society wants more than the proclamation of truth; she also wants the direct extirpation of error and the use of papal authority to assure it.

It may be that Bishop Fellay would be willing to take a 'Feeneyite' solution here for the good the Church, together with an internaitonal particular church (although how they'll get around the concordats would be a problem). But he'd be facing a split if he tried it.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Ertner, Part II

Traditionalists need structures in which the T.L.M. is the normative liturgy, along with the Office and forms of Sacraments of 1962. Our personal bishop could restrict altar service to males, insist on communion kneeling and on the tongue, devise a calendar, laws on fasting and mortifications, and generally promote a way of life which is traditional, complete with the preservation of traditional devotions.

We are already in a ghetto in the sense that we have little--very little--in common with N.O. faithful. That is becuase the N.O. people attend a Mass that represents and advances an entirely different worldview, one is that man-centred rather than theocentric and democratic rathe than hierarchical. That is why they turned around the Altars; it is why everyone in the pews has to have an effect on the Mass (e.g. at the Pax). It is not a hierarchical way of thinking from God down to the laic; it is the exact opposite. The N.O. and its entire ethos is revolutionary and incompatible with a traditionalist perspective, at least in practical terms.

Without the S.S.P.X, there would be no F.S.S.P. or I.C.R., no Campos arrangement, no Summorum Pontificum, no Ecclesia Dei Adflcta, no Quattuor Abhinc Annos, and virtuallly no Latin Mass movement. E.D.A., for instance, was a direct reaction to the consecrations of 1988. I have written a great deal on this. And why did it all happen? It happened because there is *already* an organisation that is de facto a universal particular church, completely exempt from the jurisdiction of the local bishops. That would be ... the S.S.P.X.

But don't worry, Mr. Ertner, we already a precedent in the Campos and the Anglican ordinariates, and there will be similar structures to protect tradition. It is inevitable, particularly as the S.S.P.X will decline such a solution in the foreseeable future.

The local bishops are the problem. I could report to this list on this in great detail, as I assist Mr. Schwalm in compiling the Mater Dei listing of Latin Masses. You would not *believe* the resistance from them, even after S.P. I could write about the cases, one by one, for year. There is one American bishop who finds things for a priest to do so that that priest cannot offer the T.L.M. Another American bishops says that he will allow the T.L.M. in his Diocese "over my dead body". The French hierarchy has simply forbidden all new venues for Latin Masses. The German one forbids personal parishes for tradition in direct contradiction of S.P. One Polish bishop simply orders his priest to stop offering Latin Masses and then follows this up with threats. Then there are the cases in the Diocese of Novara, Italy, and the recent one in France.

You need to re-think your position from scratch. The correct position is the exact opposite of the one you hold. With a little more experience in this issue, you might finally come to see that.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Ertner:

You are totally wrong, as I have argued for many years now. This 'ghettoisation' line is completely false. With one or more personal jurisdiction, tradition can flourish in the Church, and this need not replace the implantation of the T.L.M. in the territorial parishes in the least. In other words, particular churches for traditon can supplement rather than replace the parochial Latin Masses offered in and by local dioceses and their priests.

Traditionalists need a place in the Church where they are protected from the local bishops, the great majority of whom do not know or care about their traditionalist sheep. The sheep need a shepherd who knowns his sheep. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes: we need an international particular church where we can have our own parishes and our own priests. If concordats with various states make this impossible, ordinariates need to be erected for those exceptions.

I have seen the problem first-hand. There is virtually no communication between those attending the T.L.M. and those attending the N.O.M. in my own parish--and countless others. The N.O.ers barely stomach our existence and would remove us in a flash were it not for our priest wanting to offer our Mass. The instant he retires, we could be thrown out, as we were for fourteen years in the past.

TO BE CONTINUED: ERTNER

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

"It may be that Bishop Fellay would be willing to take a 'Feeneyite' solution here..."

Mr Perkins,

Do you honestly feel that His Excellency, Bishop Fellay wants any kind of a "solution" similar to the Feenyites, or another "solution"?

Do you really believe [and I am just asking, I mean no ironic offense] that Bishop Fellay feels the absolute need for the Society to have a canonical standing?

His Excellency believes that the Society, rightly or wrongly, has been unjustly suspended "a divinis". He believes the Society has supplied jurisdiction for confessions and weddings.
He believes that given the state of emergency in the Church, the FSSPX can, without sin, enter a diocese and set up a chapel without the Ordinary's express permission and administer Catholic Sacraments, rightly or wrongly.

Given all this, is it a priority or even a desire, at all, for Bishop Fellay to have a Vatican solution given to the Society?
God bless
D.P.H

Anonymous said...

"Don't worry! In time, the traditional orders will be the ones remaining alive in the spiritual desert left behind by the modernists. We will then inevitably see Bishops appointed from Catholic Tradition, then Archbishops, then Rectors of Sanctuaries, then Cardinals and then Popes"

This is probably the way it will work. UNfortunatly, it may taken another 25 years!

Except for 90 people around the world (the Pope, 9 retired Vatican Cardinals, and 80 bishops), those who were the "Fathers of Vatican II" are all dead. But the wreckage they created survives them. Those remaing alive are into their late 80's and 90's.

Their 1st generation disiples of the radicalism of Vatican II are all in their 70's and 80's.
The second generation is in their very late 50's and all thru their 60's.

Actually, there really are no complete, die-hard radical Vatican II supporters much younger than their late 50's. So the result is, that this movement is dying off rapidly....and they know it.

So are religious Orders.
Next year, the Franciscan Order (OFM) will probably have less than 10,000 priests world wide, and only about 14,200 members (- 14,500 since Vatican II). They have close close to 1,000 monasteries since Vatican II !! Unfortunatly, they remain radicalized, dissident, progressive, and ecumenical....the very things that caused their collapse. Except in very small pockets of traditionalism, they will die out.
Same with the Salesians, Dominicans, Capuchins (despite the legacy of the great Saint Pio of Pietralcina), the Redemptorists, Servites, Trappists, and the Camaldolese (one of the most ancient Orders in the Church after the Benedictines...and down to less than 90 radical members).

I need not mention the sisters. There are SO many Orders that have abandoned Catholic tradition, the holy habit, and traditional lifestyle...and are now so aged and corrupt that the Vatican-at least in the USA- is investigating them- and are so aged ( some major Orders have a median age of close to 80!!!"), that they will not survive much past 10 more years.

I suggest (and it is time for other Catholics to take up the call), that the SSPX, and also generous young religious priests and sisters....and even laypeople...to commit themselves to try to re-establish TRADITIONALIST branches of ALL the major Orders of priests, friars, monks and sisters and nuns in the Church...and even smaller, less well known Orders. Because the bottom line is that the crew that brought us Vatican II is nearly all dead. Their priestly and religious supporters are now so old that their Orders are not viable institutions.

But for these Orders to survive, it is important to being this work of resurrecting Orders in every continent, either as Ecclesia Dei branches or under the SSPX, or simply independant Orders following the old Mass and traditions but attached to the Pope. There are hundreds of Orders that are NOW on the point of extinction, but still are pursing the "Vatican II" agenda and are pulling the rest of the Church down with them. We must not let this happen.

The SSPX/Vatican talks will survive and reach a good outcome...despite Kasper.

Let us help begin a work for the Church to assist in this resurrection.

Interested people who would like to communicate with me can email me at stoneharbor1970@yahoo.com

Anonymous said...

To anonymous in regard to the five steps:

Actually, I agree with this approach. The only problem is that I think that the S.S.P.X wants firm and clear condemnations of specific positions and interpretations that are dear to the hearts of liberals. This will be politically difficult to deliver as long as such liberals are still holding positions of power.

I pray that I am wrong about this but that is what I think. Society figures such as Bishop Tissier, in particular, will want to draft certain propoositions for specific condemnation as a way to exclude liberal ideas that are still popular.

I prefer this poster's step approach and also what Sean proposed. The reason is that I feel that, in time, were the Society free to promote its interpretations in a juridical particular church (e.g. international personal diocese) of its own, the liberal misinterpreations would gradually fade from view, much like that horrible Beatles noise that accompanies them. Notice, however, that we are seeing at the moment a resurgence of stupid sixties subculture. It is because the petulatnt brats from that generation have now reached a social apogee (aged 55-65) and are finally in senior managerial positions. Their day is not done. Sadly, by the time it is, there may be no churches left to worship in.

I think that we shall not see the end of the nonsense for at least another thirty years. Bishop Tissier's time-frame seems realistic. Keep in mind that the liberals are mostly malicious enemies of tradition. That is why traditon cannot spread its wings under liberal bishops, as Mr. Ertner proposes. Mark my words here: the libearls in Europe, in particular, have only begun their campaign of vilification of the S.S.P.X. They will try to paint it as a cabal of Nazis so as prevent the Holy See from recognising it. This will get vicious.

The Consecration to Russia is probably the real solution. A divine and miraculous cure is likely the only one possible.

P.K.T.P.

Paul Haley said...

“The interpretation of the SSPX regarding the documents of the Second Vatican Council is to be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as others with different views. This will assist in the on-going review of the hermeneutic of continuity regarding the interpretation of Vatican II.”

This will not work and the SSPX, I think, will have none of this. Neither will the independent traditionalist groups that profess loyalty to the Holy See in terms of what the Church has always held, taught and professed to be true from apostolic times. It's kind of like an agree to disagree approach which will not work in terms of doctrine and dogma. At least that's my take on it for what it's worth.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes,

Actually, it was an indirect compliment to you. I was suggesting that the sort of person who could read Bishop Fellay's letter and see it as a capitulation to Rome was like the sort of person who would expect Jordanes to convert to Buddhism. In other words, not a chance.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

D.P.H. writes back to me and I respond between the lines:


"Mr Perkins,

Do you honestly feel that His Excellency, Bishop Fellay wants any kind of a 'solution' similar to the Feenyites, or another 'solution'?"


No, I don't think that. Hence my use of "may" in the expression.



"Do you really believe [and I am just asking, I mean no ironic offense] that Bishop Fellay feels the absolute need for the Society to have a canonical standing?

"His Excellency believes that the Society, rightly or wrongly, has been unjustly suspended "a divinis". He believes the Society has supplied jurisdiction for confessions and weddings.
He believes that given the state of emergency in the Church, the FSSPX can, without sin, enter a diocese and set up a chapel without the Ordinary's express permission and administer Catholic Sacraments, rightly or wrongly."


He also believes that separation from the authority of the Vicar of Christ is an aberration that is acceptable only in a case of true necessity. And he also believes that such a situation is injurious to souls and needs rectification as soon as possible. Bishop Fellay wants regularisation per se, and he wants a form of it that will protect his Society from the predations of the local Bolshevik bishops. But he will not accept regularisation until doctrinal difficulties have been resolved; and he does not want an arrangement that would split his Society. What's your point?




"Given all this, is it a priority or even a desire, at all, for Bishop Fellay to have a Vatican solution given to the Society?
God bless"


A priority? No, he does not expect a quick and easy resolution from what I've read in his words. But the Holy Father can erect an international and personal particular church (e.g. diocese) for the rest of us in the meantime.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

If one shoe drops against tradition, then we had all better pray with everything we have that this Pontificate will continue long into the future to a time when the other shoe will drop in favor of tradition. Isn't this a somewhat risky way to do things, especially coming from the Pontiff? Because caught in the middle are millions of souls. And what if a future Pontificate were to put the SSPX on the back burner? It just seems the timing is right for some kind of agreement regarding faculties and the right to exercise them. The Holy Father and Bishop Fellay are both two people who seem like they can work together for the best interest of the Church as a whole. What are the chances of that happening again with a future Pope and Society leader? Once regularized the whole thing will die down and everyone can move on to the bigger issues of HOW to implement reform for what has been so damaging. The more time they go in an irregular status, the more attacks against them will go on and the more Rome will appear to be playing a political games with people's souls involved. If everyone is telling the truth about the desire to reconcile themn the Holy Father and Bishop Fellay can and will do so soon. It is time.

Anonymous said...

Everything can't be achieved at once. The damage caused by the Church crisis will have to be mended slowly step by step and brick by brick. To try to convert the die hard modernists is more or less a waste of time.

I think the better approach would be to just bypass them, to rebuild the Church despite of them. The time for this is more ripe than ever before.

If the reports are accurate, that Rome is very well aware of the state of the Church, finding a solution that would allow the SSPX to be deployed in the great task of rebuilding Holy Mother Church would seem very feasible. The SSPX could be allowed to continue to do what they already do today but with official Roman approval. Personally, I think they already have some kind of unofficial approval of some sort.

The SSPX have over 500 priest, several hundreds of seminarians, hundreds of affiliated clergy, monasteries and convents (Benedictines, Dominicans, Franciscans, Capuchins, Carmels etc). I am sure the Holy Father knows what tremendous asset they constitute for our times.

Let's pray for the good Bishop Fellay that he may continue to lead his congregation to it's greatest tasks, which probably lies ahead of the the already heroic defence of the Catholic Church they have demonstrated during their 40 years of existence.

And Mr. Ertner need not worry. He will see the number of TLM's augment in the NOM-parishes as well. Think of Narnia, as soon as the ice starts to melt, hope and rebirth come anew in the wasteland.

Just remember who you owe your regular TLM to, and pray for them being protected from the wolves. Your regular TLM also depends upon it, since we are all part of the mystical body and the communion of saints.

Kind regards from someone who's been around since the 70's.

Anonymous said...

"The SSPX have over 500 priest, several hundreds of seminarians, hundreds of affiliated clergy, monasteries and convents (Benedictines, Dominicans, Franciscans, Capuchins, Carmels etc). I am sure the Holy Father knows what tremendous asset they constitute for our times."

You need to contemplate figures : there are over 400.000 priests around the world and just with the bishops, you have far more than the SSPX.
Even if you add the generous priests and religious orders from the Roman trad. institutes, we compare a cup of tea and ... an ocean.
The whole trad. movement is an incentive for a much wider reform - in the most traditional sense - of the Church.

Alsaticus

Anonymous said...

Mr Perkins

My point is I was responding to your statement that Bishop Felay may accept a solution of some sort.[which I pray for]

And again, my question was, why do you think His Excellency would accept a solution from Rome, if the Society is already set, up de facto, seperated from the authority and persecution of many of the local Ordinarys, and able to dispense the sacraments?.

Why would he want a solution?

Thats
my
point.

D.P.H.

Anonymous said...

Splintering in the "Novus Ordo church" is a fact already.

Just come to my parish for the eight or 10 o'clock Masses and you will see what I mean. The two congregations do not beleive the same things. They may recite the Credo with the same words but if asked for interpretations the variances in their respective confessions would readily emerge.

Recently, one parishioner derisively remarked: she would never go to the earlier Mass because she is Catholic. I was not surprised at her remark, I have never been to the later Mass either. I would not feel comfortable with the way they conduct themselves.

The genie is long ago out of the bottle. Just let the SSPX in with a suitable structure and watch the migration of the faithful toward their corner. I believe, in another generation or two Bp. Fellay will be elected Pope by the full Catholic Church. The others' children will either become orthodox or just go.

Anonymous said...

D.P.H.:

And I have answered your question now. He wants a canonical solution because it attract more souls and because Christ wants us all to be in visible unity with his Vicar. So he does want a canonical solution and he has said so before. The problem is that he and the Society will not accept this at any price. They want the doctrinal problems solved first. If we cannot agree on principles, then we cannot be united in a charity that is honest. That would be his answer, I'm sure.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

P.K.T.P said.:

"...there is *already* an organisation that is de facto a universal particular church, completely exempt from the jurisdiction of the local bishops. That would be ... the S.S.P.X."

It remembered me of:

"Batman has no jurisdiction. He'll find him, and make him squeal. I know the squealers when I see them."

Both are apologies for Realpolitik.

Anonymous said...

Alsaticus is exactly right. I did the figures once and am now trying to recall them. The following is approximate:

Traditionalists (lay and clerical combined) are about one-half of one per cent in Western Europe, Northern America, Australia, N.Z.

We are about one-eighth of one per cent in Latin America and Eastern Europe and likely the Philippines.

In Africa and the rest of Asia, we are considerably less then one-tenth of one per cent--a number so small that it is hard to calculate.

Now, of course, with a proper reform, this can all change because many faithful would clearly prefer the T.L.M. to much else. Polls prove this. But the current system with bishops really running everything is keeping us tiny, almost too small to see.

Even in France, where numbers of traditionalist are often exaggerated, the N.O.ers outnumber us considerably, although it is true that the N.O. is dying there fast, whereas traditon is not.

I think that any restoration to come must appeal ultimately to Latin America, where 46% of all faithful happen to live. An emotional return to traditon from there could overwhelm ClownChurch. At the moment, however, there are only a few Latin Masses, although there is now a foothold in the dioceses, whereas, before 2000, there was almost nothing at all.

Really, a restoration must come from the top. The Pope orders a return to tradition and everyone obeys, except for a few feminazis with brushcuts and huge earrings. Then the restoration of liturgy helps restoration of faith. Such a miracle as this must come from God. But the reason it might happen is that many faithful would prefer the ancient Mass. They would prefer it but they are not prepared to do anything to get it, so the tired old liberals in polyester chasubles rule on.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

"We are already in a ghetto in the sense that we have little--very little--in common with N.O. faithful. That is becuase the N.O. people attend a Mass that represents and advances an entirely different worldview, one is that man-centred rather than theocentric and democratic rathe than hierarchical. That is why they turned around the Altars; it is why everyone in the pews has to have an effect on the Mass (e.g. at the Pax). It is not a hierarchical way of thinking from God down to the laic; it is the exact opposite. The N.O. and its entire ethos is revolutionary and incompatible with a traditionalist perspective, at least in practical terms."

First, I would not write off all those who go to the NO. The numbers of those who want Tradition to return is vast, they just don't have the opportunity in their part of the world.

Second, I agree with you P.K.T.P, that it needs to come from the top, with some sort of papal order or directive, but I believe that in your analyses you have not referred substantiall to the long awaited decree or instruction about the application of SP.

If the pope just comes out and says that any priest can at any time or place say the TLM, regardless of his bishop, than that will add a great demographic force behind the movement to restoration.

It would also represent a very strong psychological defeat of the liberal establishment.

So don't discout the quiet but silent work of the Holy Spirit who has been preparing for 50 years the restoration of His handiwork, Ecclesiastlical Tradition.

I will try to get some indication tomorrow from a friend of mine who works at the Pontifical Commission, as to when this document might be published.

Anonymous said...

"If the pope just comes out and says that any priest can at any time or place say the TLM, regardless of his bishop..."

Anon,

Pope Benedict XVI has already said this in "Summorum Pontificum"

What is effectively needed is a Papal mandate commanding all seminarians to learn the TLM and at least priest in every single parish learning the TLM and offering at least one TLM every Sunday and Holy Day in every parish.
D.P.H.

Anonymous said...

If the good folks at Rorate Caeli will permit the following:

Bishop-elect J. Douglas Deshotel is slated to serve the Dallas Diocese as an auxiliary bishop.

He will also function as pastor in the diocese at Saint Joseph's parish in Richardson, Texas.

Does anybody know whether Bishop-elect J. Douglas Deshotel is TLM-friendly?

Thank you. Pax.

Anonymous said...

Anon.:

"Both are apologies for Realpolitik."

Realpolitik? I'll tell you about Realpolitik. It means depriving priests of their livings for offering a Mass that was never abrogated. Now that we know it was never abrogated and those countless priests were in the right, where is their compensation? And where is the compensation for the lay faithful who had a right to attend such Massses but were deprived from 1971 to 2007?

When the lawgiver breaks his own law at will, his subjects can have a right to disregard his ordinances in order to protect their rights. Even the Pope must obey his own laws at least until he changes them; otherwise, he is only exercising an abuse of power.

One of the fifteen priests who refused to comply with the illegal law was apparently from the Archdiocese of Sydney, Australia. Where is his compensation? Let's talk dollars and cents. That's Realpolitik.

P.K.T.P.

Gideon Ertner said...

Mr. Perkins, I understand well where you are coming from. As I indicated myself it would be vastly more comfortable to be part of such an ordinariate structure. I'm just worried what the fallout would be.

Would it serve as an excuse for Rome to halt liturgical reform? Would it serve as an excuse for Bishops (both liberal and conservative!) to stop doing anything for tradition?

Your assertion that the TLM will be more widely disseminated as a result of being confined to a reservation is, to me, very questionable. Here in Denmark, for example, interest in and knowledge about the TLM is so scarce that if our group were not based in a parish setting hardly anyone would realize that we existed at all! At least having our Masses in a large 'normal' parish enables people who would not otherwise have known about the TLM to drop by and discover it. It also removes any stigma that people might feel attached to attending the TLM if it was offered in a personal parish, for example.

Unknown said...

May 1st Feast of St Philip and St James, Apostles.

Gideon Ertner said...

"What is effectively needed is a Papal mandate commanding all seminarians to learn the TLM and at least priest in every single parish learning the TLM and offering at least one TLM every Sunday and Holy Day in every parish."

This, I think, offers a more proper solution. I think it is possible to convince Catholics around the world that it is only right and proper that all seminarians are taught the ancient rite, if for no other reason than to better understand the new.

Learning the TLM in seminary, especially if combined with more rigorous Latin and liturgical formation generally, would automatically make new priests interested in the TLM, and at the very least it would have a tremendous influence on their celebration of the New Rite.

Now the seminaries are not directly responsible to the Holy Father, and the cooperation of Bishops and rectors is necessary to ensure quality. But the Pope can demand that within 5 years' time all seminaries around the world have put into place courses in the TLM.

Forcing priests in every parish to say the TLM is a more difficult matter. In most places it would not make sense as both priest and laity would be strongly opposed; moreover in rural settings priests will often have three or four Masses in every village or small town every Sunday; must one of these be a TLM?

What would be reasonable, on the other hand, would be to require the TLM to be celebrated on an every-Sunday (and possibly every-day) basis at least one place in every diocese (and to prevent bishops from sending the TLM to the local Timbouctou it could be further stipulated that the Mass must be celebrated in the diocesan cathedral unless the attending laity agree otherwise). This would still be a vast improvement over the current situation, especially if this obligation is enforced across the whole world.

Neal said...

The Vatican has shown itself well capable of realpolitik in recent memory. Abp. Lefebvre was certain that he was being strung along with the hope that his death would precede the consecration of a new generation of traditional bishops. That is nothing if not coldly practical. What we are waiting to see is whether the Vatican might exercise realpolitik to benefit tradition rather than (at best) contain it.

Anonymous said...

"Forcing priests in every parish to say the TLM is a more difficult matter. In most places it would not make sense as both priest and laity would be strongly opposed"

This was not a problem when the NOM was being introduced. All the opposition, with the exception of Archbishop Lefebvre, was silenced. Why should it pose a problem now?

Anonymous said...

Regarding the figures, I would say that the relevant figures for the future is the ratio in the seminaries.

It would seem to be, from varoius sources and reports as well as personal experience, that the clergy of tomorrow will be far more traditional than todays.

The ratio traditionalist clergy vs. modernist will very soon change for the better.

Mr. Ertner, I don't think you should exclude one alternative from another. The "protected Tradition" will inevitably influence the rest of the Church. See it as a temporary measure for the service of the restauration of the hole Church. Something like the Dominicans or Cluny, back in the day.

What id needed is a strong papal mandate for Church renewal.

Paul Haley said...

7/07/2010 will be the third anniversary of Summorum Pontificum and Pope Benedict XVI said after three years its implementation would be studied and further actions taken, if necessary.

The exact words were: "Furthermore, I invite you, dear Brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years after this Motu Proprio has taken effect. If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought." The boldfaced words are to me kind of a threat to the bishops that, given their intransigence and failure to adequately implement SP, the Holy Father himself will grab the bull by its horns.

It is for this that I expect some type of papal action to be forthcoming - i.e., a universal structure for the traditional form of sacraments with its own bishops, reporting structure, etc, even including the FSSPX, the FSSP, the ICK and others. The reason is the bishops in large measure have not seen fit to implement SP as widely as the Holy father intended.

And this structure will have the authority to erect churches, chapels, oratories, seminaries, schools, etc, independent of any existing territorial jurisdiction. It is the only way that I can see SP not dying on the vine so to speak but it involves the Holy Father removing the suspensions levied against the FSSPX and granting them canonical status. This is something he can do using his apostolic authority - one only wishes he would get on with it.

Anonymous said...

Yet another SSPX priest resigns in protest against Bishop Fellay's program. http://traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/F040ht_Turco_Fellay.htm

Anonymous said...

Real Politick
Lets start a class action law suit for justice for the priests and laity.

This is the only language our leadership understands.

Then the TLM will be given its rightful place.

Anonymous said...

D.P.H. said, "Bishop in Greek means 'watchman'." Bishops are also commonly referred to as "shepherds". The main characteristic of a watchman or a shepherd is Vigilance. Our Lord referred to some of them as "hirelings". The Acts of the Apostles say of Judas, "his bishopric let another take ." In the parable of the good seed oversown with cockle, it was done by an enemy "while men (bishops) were asleep." The Bishop of a diocese is responsible, before God, for every single soul in that diocese. Everything in the Catholic order seems to depend on our bishops. Yet, I have heard that you get the leadership you deserve. God help them, and us. Amen.

Anonymous said...

"This was not a problem when the NOM was being introduced. All the opposition, with the exception of Archbishop Lefebvre, was silenced. Why should it pose a problem now?"

Because trads are not tyrants. We are realists. Also, we take Church discipline seriously whereas progressives don't. The scare crow of excommunication doesn't work on them, only on docile trads...

The renewal of the Church will take time as it comes through individual conversions. Many Catholics have been raised, believing the average parish is the normal state of the Church. In this lies the tragedy of the silent apostasy. It's an apostasy by still believing to profess Catholic truth. Just think of it...

I would hope for the Holy Father to formalise his "paternal care" for the SSPX soon. Clearly they must be blessed for having survived in very difficult circumstances. Their situation is already de facto, why not make it de jure. The sooner the better, if you ask me.

Confitebor said...

It's an apostasy by still believing to profess Catholic truth.

Which is to say, properly speaking it's not an "apostasy."

Anonymous said...

P.T.K.P.:

I wrote:

"If the pope just comes out and says that any priest can at any time or place say the TLM, regardless of his bishop..."

You wrote:

"Anon,

Pope Benedict XVI has already said this in "Summorum Pontificum"


Funny, I've read the SP in several languages and I never read that. I mean't what I said as regards public masses, not private masses. As regards a priest choosing which liturgy to celebrate as part of his pastoral authority, without interference from the Bishop or his officie of liturgy.


As for my friend who works at the PC, I asked him, and he pretended that I never even opened my mouth and began talking about other things.

In the past when I asked him, he'd say, "When the time is ripe". Now nothing at all.

From this I guess that he's either under specific orders not to comment, and that means the publicatin of the document is scheduled soon.

Or he has lost hope that it will ever been published, and is tired of responding to the question.

Seeing that we are about to arrive at the 3 year reporting period determined in the SP, I do not think that it is likely this year, but only after they cull through the responses during the winter, and then next summer at the earliest.

If we have seen anything about the tactics of the Pope, he prefers to wear down oppositoin by having them suffer years of expectation of being defeated with a strong blow, and then hitting them with a light one.

I think he'll use that with the expansion of the TLM initiative.

Sean said...

Mr. Perkins,

Having been away for a couple of days, I just read through the weekend posts. I had not realized you had already articulated a “Father Feeney Solution” to the present SSPX situation. Apologies for the unintended plagiarism!

You may be right about the SSPX not accepting such. I think Bishop Fellay would be willing. However, unless he could bring the overwhelming number of priests with him (and all of the bishops), I doubt that Rome would even offer such a solution. BUT, if Bishop Fellay COULD persuade those participants in this contemporary historical drama, it could happen.

Mr. Haley’s articulated scenario would be the most desired: “It is for this that I expect some type of papal action to be forthcoming - i.e., a universal structure for the traditional form of sacraments with its own bishops, reporting structure, etc, even including the FSSPX, the FSSP, the ICK and others….And this structure will have the authority to erect churches, chapels, oratories, seminaries, schools, etc, independent of any existing territorial jurisdiction.”

Though I have always sensed that heaven’s permitting the selection of the present Holy Father was for the purpose of expediting a catalyst for the counter-revolution (such as a canonical universal structure for Catholics of tradition), his continued persistence on governing according to the post-conciliar “dogma” of episcopal collegiality makes it increasingly unlikely that he possesses either the will or the inclination to erect a canonical entity that would violate that policy so violently.

Evidence for my latter assertion lies within the Letter to Bishops which accompanied Summorum Pontificum when the Holy Father states: “There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, 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.”

These sentences are already creating a problem for a number of priests who refuse to return to the Novus Ordo after offering the traditional Mass for a time. It is also a post-Benedictine time bomb for the traditional societies (FSSP, ICK, IBP, etc). Though I hesitate to suggest this at what is probably among the closing comments of this thread, but I would like to see Rorate Caeli create a couple of discussions around this issue.

Sean

Anonymous said...

When the CDF allowed that Catholics may understand a defined dogma of the Faith by way of the plain words used to define it, the CDF was only being consistent with the statement of St. Pope Pius X, who said that 'dogmas are to be understood by the WORDS USED to define them.' To say that they may be understood in such a way as to negate, or even, to give an opposite meaning is obviously ridiculous. How can a fallible theologian "interpret" an Infallible Dogma? And, that, in such a way as to give it an opposite meaning? Behold, the cancer which has brought the Church to this low point- the denial of the dogma, "Extra Ecclessiam Nulla Salus"!

Anonymous said...

Anon. 03.12:

Private Masses can include a congregation of invited guests. Also, Article 1 of S.P. has not been adequately studied. I have argued that it means that the T.L.M. ***MUST*** be offered in every diocese in accordance with expressed desire and available resources. People are dead wrong in thinking these words to be merely a pleasant statement of ideals:

The T.L.M. "must be honoured for its ancient and venerable usage". I have argued that these words have canonical force and that the locus of that force is each diocese. The Latin construction used is one of strict obligation, but the exericse or application of a right depends on such factors as resources and demand.

Yes, we need the clarification document. Pray that it cometh soon.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Sean:

The Pope will try, if he has time, to erect international structures for tradition. He and his predecessor have been breaking down opposition to this by using gradualism:

Q.A.A. of 1984; E.D.A. of 1988, formation of 30-some traditionalist orders starting in 1988; Campos canonical precedent for us, 2002; Anglican ordinariates as models, 2009.

Also, Bishop Fellay has, on several occasions, admitted that a personal apostolic administration or other particular church has been offered to the S.S.P.X--offered and refused, unfortunately.

In closing, has anyone here noticed how long it is taking for the Sons of the Holy Redeemer to get their canonical structure? How very odd! How strange! It could be done in a week and it is taking years. I WONDER why. Hint, hint: even Mr. Ertner might get it.

(Could it be that the Sons will be incorporated into a coming international structure? Really, I don't know what will happen. But the endless delay is certainly very suspicious. I expect that certain curialists are arguing over what should be done ....)

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Ertner writes:

"Would [a universal particular church] serve as an excuse for Rome to halt liturgical reform? Would it serve as an excuse for Bishops (both liberal and conservative!) to stop doing anything for tradition?"

What are they doing for tradition right now? Almost nothing. There are some few exceptions. The German bishops did act to implement S.P. but they had a long way to come, since there were almost no approved Traditional Laitn Masses in Germany (only in one third of the dioceses and very few in number) before S.P. was issued. Oddly, the New Zealander bishops have responded favourablly to S.P. That's about it. I have noticed that the T.L.M. in Denmark is not offered on the every-Sunday basis yet, although there are some in Sweden.

I did not argue for a reservation for tradition but a supplement to the current situation.

It would be an act of masochism to continue to subject tradition to the local bishops and the local lay loons. They will cancel our Masses, wreckovate our sanctuaries, and continue the persecution, particularly becuase they are going down and they know it.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

P.K.T.P.

The Latin text of Article I of SP says no such thing:

Missale autem Romanum a S. Pio V promulgatum et a B. Ioanne XXIII denuo editum habeatur uti extraordinaria expressio eiusdem “Legis orandi” Ecclesiae et ob venerabilem et antiquum eius usum debito gaudeat honore. Hae duae expressiones “legis orandi” Ecclesiae, minime vero inducent in divisionem “legis credendi” Ecclesiae; sunt enim duo usus unici ritus romani.

Proinde Missae Sacrificium, iuxta editionem typicam Missalis Romani a B. Ioanne XXIII anno 1962 promulgatam et numquam abrogatam, uti formam extraordinariam Liturgiae Ecclesiae, celebrare licet. Conditiones vero a documentis antecedentibus “Quattuor abhinc annos” et “Ecclesia Dei” pro usu huius Missalis statutae, substituuntur ut sequitur:

-------------

The key phrase is:

debito gaudeat honore

That means

enjoys due honor

In Latin a due honor, is a debt of justice, and yes that is an obligation, but in canonical terms, it must be understood in the least restrictive manner. Its obviously not a positive obligation for every diocese or priest, even though it is a general obligation of the Church.

I would argue, however, that it does not in fact enjoy much honor at all, rather it ought to enjoy due honor

It it were a stricter obligation of honor, then the Pope could be faulted for not offering a public TLM mass. And certainly I have not heard that argument.

If the pope from the issuance of SP started regularly offering the TLM, then I would grant your interpretation, from the context of the actions of the Supreme Moderator.

Anonymous said...

Anonyomous in the woods writes:

"In Latin a due honor, is a debt of justice, and yes that is an obligation, but in canonical terms, it must be understood in the least restrictive manner. Its obviously not a positive obligation for every diocese or priest, even though it is a general obligation of the Church."


That makes no sense. General obligations can be positive, and this one is. I agree with you, as my previous post showed, that the obligation is restricted. The reason is the normal restriction carried in all positive law. Yes, there must be adequate human and other resources available, there must be an expressed demand, and the provision must be reasonable. On the whole, you are right here, although this is something I have already noted.


"I would argue, however, that it does not in fact enjoy much honor at all, rather it ought to enjoy due honor"

Say what? I have looked at the construction used very carefully, and to explore exactly what you might be alleging here. The obligation is NOT a strong recommendation, an 'ought'; it is a must, a strict requirement. I was surprised when I saw the translator's "must" in English and looked at the construction very carefully.

None of this is surprising. Let us suppose that I live in Coppermine, North-West Territories, way above the Arctic Circle. I telephone the Bishop way down south in Yellowknife and ask for the Novus Ordo Mass in my town, to be offered every Sunday. I do have a general right to that, obviously, for it is the 'normative Mass'. However, the Bishop might say that he'd love to comply but he does not have enough priests to meet this demand. He is not breaking the law but there remains an ordinary obligation for him to supply that Mass when he can.

I wiil not repeat all my previous arguments here. One needs to consult other laws to see how Article 1 must be applied. Ironically, I found Vatican II documents that prove my point! My interpretation is that the ordinary obligation is that every diocesan bishop provide *at least one* T.L.M. The obligation falls on diocesans unless stated otherwise because the Church is governed 'in and through the local particular churches (i.e. dioceses). More recent research has led me to the conclusion that it need only be provided on Sundays and holydays. In my past published article, I had thought that it must be provided even daily. (I was wrong before because I forgot that priests may only be required to offer Mass publicly 'on days of precept', and you can have no obligation to receive what need not be given.)

The crucial point is that the obligation--NOT recommendation--falls on every diocesan bishop in every territorial particular church in the Latin Church. This means even apostolic administraions in Kazakhstan and the Prefecture Apostolilc of St. Pierre et Miquelon. (A technicality, I realise.) It certainly includes, say, the Archdiocese of Djakarta and the Archdiocese of Lagos, and the Archdiocese of Manila, and the Diocese of St. Denis near in metro Paris.

Of course, enforcement of this can be a problem, there must be an expressed request, and bishops can indeed wiggle out of it by threatening their priests and then falsely claiming that they have no priests who are available and able.




"It it were a stricter obligation of honor, then the Pope could be faulted for not offering a public TLM mass. And certainly I have not heard that argument."


Non sequitur. The obligation is for one per diocese after a request has been received, and it does not mean that a bishop must offer this Mass himself, only that he must see to it that some priest offers it in this diocese. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome and he has seen to it that the T.L.M. is offered in that Diocese even daily. So the Pope has fulfilled the obligation in his own See.

I am betting that Article 1 will be among those clarified by the P.C.E.D. soon.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Some may wonder why I am arguing for a strict obligation to provide our Mass every Sunday and holyday, one per diocese, upon request within each diocese. Why bother arguing this if the bishops can just claim a lack of priests to do it?

Well, if this is a norm established by S.P., faithful can ultimately appeal to Rome on the grounds of non-provision. Rome can then take the same measures it would take if a parochial request were not satisfied: it could, for instance, contact the F.S.S.P. or I.C.R. or other groups to see if they have available priests to help. It could contact diocesan priests from other dioceses to see if they would be willing to assist.

It does matter.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

P.K.T.P.

"It ought to enjoy due honor" would be a positive obligation indicating something....

"it enjoys due honor" is a statement deprived of actual verification at the time SP came ought. At that time it certainly did not infact enjoy much honor at all.

That explains what I meant.

As for general obligations and specific positive obligation, the Church universal can fulfil a general obligation at any time at all, but a specific one binds specific individuals and specific times.

There is no such latter obligation according to Article 1 of SP.

If the English translator wrote "must" he was certain dreaming...there is no must in paragraph 1 at all.

"Must" in English translation of Latin texts is inferred from either the use of the future gerundive, 'oportet', or a form of 'debere'.

As for your argument that there is an obligation for 1 mass, I do not see that either from the rest of what follows in SP.

Infact if there were substantial requests and means in every parish, it seems SP requires a TLM in every parish, because the manner in which it affirms the TLM is one relative to requests made.

I'd hate to see your interpretation prevail, because then NYC would lose a great number of TLMs, once they got word that you were right (light sarcasm).

Anonymous said...

Regarding Sean 14:59; Sorry, but I just have to ask. What would a "more liberal view" of a Defined Dogma look like? Apparently, some may obey and others may disobey and, it's all the same! Interesting. Sounds alot like protestantism.

Anonymous said...

Mr Perkins,

Why stop at the one TLM per diocese every Sunday and Holy Day?

Many dioceses cover a gigantic geographical area, and what does it benefit the group that loves the TLM who live say,100- 200 miles distant from where the TLM is offered in the diocese?
It is entirely unreasonable to ask a man to drive 400 miles round trip to Mass.

No, rather the TLM must needs be offered in every parish.

There are some places in the world, many in fact, where it is even many many miles between parishes, so the one per diocese, though some might see it as a good start, which it is for the people who can reasonably get there, is still not at all satisfactory.
D.P.H.

Anonymous said...

Regarding Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus,

I submit that St. Alphonsus conveyes this doctrine in the exact Catholic manner, the liberal interpretation that is found in the New Catechism and the occasional more extreme views attributed rightly or wrongly to Fr. Feeney or his followers, not being correct.

According to St. Alphonsus it is morally impossible for anyone at any time after Pentecost to get to Heaven apart from being a baptised member of the visible Catholic Church.

He argues in several places of his Moral Theology, that this impossibility is not one that regards God's power, since God is omnipotent He could theoretically save anyone at any time or circumstance. This impossibility arises from the fact that without the graces one receives only in the Church, one cannot avoid certain mortal sins or vices, which inevitably or certainly damn one eternally, and this on account of the nature of the concupiscence our race suffers from after the Fall.

But as regards God's manifest and revealed will, it is clear that He intends that all who wish salvation come to Him in the Church and through the waters of Baptism, that is the Sacrament; the other means of receiving the grace of justification are extraordinary, not intended to be presumed sufficient, nor even hoped for by those who have access to the physical sacrament. In this sense the baptism of desire, which is a very poor translation of baptismus flaminis, is a special and rare grace given to those who for no fault of their own could not approach the waters of baptism before death, and likewise the baptism of blood.

But the Church must preach the baptism of water, and those who knowingly refuse it, in the Church, are all damned, without exception, since this entails the positive rejection of the grave obligation contained in Christ's words.

None of this prevents the possibility that someone through invinceable ignorance and a special personal grace of innocence would attain salvation apart from the visible Church, because he thought he was already in such a Church.

But this is a moral impossibility for the normal individual, since God does not vouchsafe extraordinary graces for the ordinary man; and the ordinary man who would risk his salvation on the presumption of having such a grace, is worthy of damnation, because such presumption is a mortal sin.

So Outside the Church No Salvation, means just that, without excluding either the hypothetical affirmation of God's omnipotence and the recognitinon that for a very few elect, who God might permit to suffer invinceable ignorance, they are saved by extraordinary graces which supply their personal defect.

For all others who refuse the Catholic Church, there is no hope of salvation whatsoever, in any shape or form.

That is the Catholic Faith, and that is what has always been preached by the Church (when She speaks definitively about this).

For those who deny the efficacy of baptism of blood and baptismus flamninis, they in my opinion are sinning in a grave matter, and should humbly accept the consensus of the Fathers.

I think however that they do this, because of an exaggerated reaction to the "liberal view", and without a proper understanding of the Catholic position, as I have articulated it above.

Anonymous said...

Fellay is a hypocrite. Why is his Society causing problems for Msgr. Anthonisamy Neethinathan the Bishop of Chingleput over the Immaculate Conception Church at R.N. Kandigai?

Why do they give a Rosary Bouquet to the Bishop of Rome but a legal headache to his brother bishop Anthonisamy in full communion with him?

Contact for further information:

chengaidiocese@yahoo.co.in

M. A. said...

Anon. 00:00: "Regarding Sean 14:59; Sorry, but I just have to ask. What would a "more liberal view" of a Defined Dogma look like? Apparently, some may obey and others may disobey and, it's all the same! Interesting. Sounds alot like protestantism."
__________________________________
Thank you for saying this. I was going to express a similar sentiment but I considered it not worth my time. If even good people don't get it, then what's the use?


There was a time when Rome could act decisively. The "Feeney" solution is just another example of the modernist tendency to not condemn anyone because, you see, "we are all SOMEHOW united to Christ", and thus, all are traveling the road to the same Heavenly Father. So they say.

"Liberal" solutions are not worthy of God! The SSPX wouldn't even consider such a "solution".

Anonymous said...

So for the sake of the Latin Mass you refuse to publish our post on the problems caused by Saint Piux X Society to the Bishop of Chingleput, Most Rev.Anthonisamy Neethinathan over the Immaculate Conception Church at RN Kandigai?

This issue will be referred to the CDF to ask how talks with such people can continue

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 02:18. If there is even ONE unbaptized person in Heaven, then Christ lied. B of D and B of B are NOT de fide and one cannot sin by not subscribing to something which, ultimately, leads to the denial of a defined dogma. Further, B of D and B of B are far from the consensus of the Fathers.

Anonymous said...

"If there is even ONE unbaptized person in Heaven, then Christ lied."

So Christ was kidding when he said "today you will be with me in Paradise"?

Anonymous said...

Anon 19:25. St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori states; "Cornelius and the Good Thief were justified without having any knowledge of Baptism, but everyone knows that the obligation of Baptism did not commence until after the death of the Savior" (Apostolic Digest) http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=23&l=43&f=s#x In the same way, The Holy Innocents are NOT an example of salvation by B of B as they predated the necessity of H2O Baptism. Cornelius, however needed to be Baptized in order to gain Heaven. (Acts Ch.10)

Anonymous said...

"Let us remember also that the essential element of the Fatima message is not just the Consecration of Russia, but above all devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary." Would not the former most greatly increase the latter? Benedict is the 7th Pope to NOT do as Our Lady commanded. There is no downside to doing the Consecration, except for the devil. It's difficult to believe the professed Marian devotion of these Popes in light of their disobedience. Fellay is already towing the party line.

Anonymous said...

Anon 02:18 said; "I submit that St Alphonsus conveys this doctrine (EENS) in the exact Catholic manner...". I agree. Here is a quote from the good Saint; "We must believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true Church; hence,they who are out of our Church, or they who are separated from it, cannot be saved." (Apostolic Digest pg.32)

Anonymous said...

Someone wrote:

"So Christ was kidding when he said "today you will be with me in Paradise"?"

Actually, Paradise is not Heaven.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Some anonymous person wrote:

""Must" in English translation of Latin texts is inferred from either the use of the future gerundive, 'oportet', or a form of 'debere'."

No, these are not the only ways to convey obligation in Latin. This is wrong. 'Must' was, in fact, an accurate translation into English.

Secondly, the obligation binds the dioceses becasue the Church is governed in particular places by the particular churches in and from which the Church Universal subsists.

Lastly, to others, I never said 'one' T.L.M. every Sunday but *at least* one. At least one does not mean at most one. There must be at least one because, otherwise, due honour is not being rendered.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Some anonymous coward wrote this:

"If the English translator wrote "must" he was certain dreaming...there is no must in paragraph 1 at all.

"Must" in English translation of Latin texts is inferred from either the use of the future gerundive, 'oportet', or a form of 'debere'.


While there are other ways to express obligation, and while this anonymous poster has obviously never heard of the jussive subjunctive, I am wondering what he thinks "debito" is.

Here is the Latin expression from Article 1:

"ob venerabilem et antiquum eius usum debito gaudeat honore".

I wonder if debito is from the supine debitum? I wonder if debitum is the fourth part of debeo? Now, what could we have here? Could it be a perfect participle? Could it be the dative of something or other?
Anonymous gets three guesses or he fails the test.

I submit that the official Vatican translator was indeed correct in translating this as a "must", although, as I have pointed out, it is only a general obligation.

But on whom is it an obligation? Who gets to implement this obligation? Stay tuned for the next post to find out.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

So on whom does this debt, this 'debito', fall?

This is what I wrote in my article in the past:

"Now a liturgical rite cannot be given due honour unless it be offered by competent authority. And the initial locus of ordinary authority in the Church is the diocese and its equivalent, “in which and from which the one and only Catholic Church . . . truly exists and functions” (Canons 368, 369; cf. Lumen Gentium, 23, ¶ 1). In fact, the diocesan bishops are not “to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiff, for they exercise an authority which is proper to them” (ibid., 27) such that “every legitimate celebration of the Eucharist is regulated [but not solely regulated] by the bishop . . . for his diocese” (ibid., 26). Furthermore, given the supposed principle of 'subsidiarity' (cf. "Preface to the Latin Edition of the Code of Canons", no. 5), it is the bishops who are charged with the initial duty of acting for their local communities. It follows that it is the duty of each diocesan bishop to see to it that the Gregorian Mass be celebrated in his diocese even if no faithful request this."


To reiterate, this does NOT mean that there must be 'only' one T.L.M. per Sunday and on days of precept (mainly holydays of obligation). It means that there must be AT LEAST one such Mass per diocese. The reason is that the liturgy cannot be given its due honour for its venerable and ancient usage if it is not being offered at all on days on which priests are bound to offer Mass.


Again, Article 1 is a time bomb cleverly planted by Benedict XVI. If some bishops are simply not able to render this debt, the Pope will have to 'help them' when he can. In the end, there should be at least one every-Sunday and holyday T.L.M. per diocese and other particular church.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Warning to Jordanes and other moderators:

If there are two subjects that this blog should ban, they are

(a) sedevacantism and

(b) Feeneyitism.


From my experience, arguments on these questions can transpire for years, even decades.

Normally, I don't try to help guide Jordanes, but I make a compassinate exception here, since I wouldn't wish these two subjects on anyone. Those two issues can be argued ad nauseum and there are people out there who would love to hyjack your blog to do it. In order to defeat them in debate,

(a) Jordanes or someone like myself would have to win the lottery, since there will no longer be any time left to go to work and

(b) the moderator would have to give up having a life (hey, I've already done that, maybe this is the work for me!).

You think that some of my posts are long and persistent? Ha! That's nothing. They're luxxxxury compared to what the defenders of those positions can manage.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr.Perkins, Your advice to censor the defense of the "strict interpretation" of EENS (i.e. by the words used), must alarm people who come to this blog expecting the free exchange of stimulating and diverse ideas. If the CDF allows us that liberty, why won't you?

Anonymous said...

On the last point about censorship:

There are censorings that are political and then there are those that are practical. An example of the latter is that, on a Catholic blog, we needn't concentrate ad nauseum on the opinions or points of view tiny non-Christian minorities, such as the Jains or the Jews. That would be off-topic.

Another practical restriction regards subjects that have been re-hashed endlessly. It is possible to argue nearly anything ad infinitum. However, we don't do that for most things. Then there are the exceptions. In the Catholic world, the two largest exceptions are the subjects of sedevacantism and Feeneyitism. Moderators and others may want to answer what they regard to be wild opinions on these subjects. The problem is that most of us cannot afford to give up our jobs and our lives to argue with nitwits for months and weeks and years.

In the past, I was on certain weblists in which the moderators simply decided that those subjects would be banned for this practical reason, and not for a political one. Those who WANT to waste their lives engaging in debate forever on those topics can go where they are welcome to do so. I am certain that some sites exist where this is done. I've even had the misfortunate to stumble across them from time to time.

Jordanes is not a bad fellow, even though I think him to be dead wrong on some things. If I despised him, I would advise him to let debates on this topics be welcomed. But I don't despise him and I don't want him and the other moderators to become addicted to aspirins dealing with the Feeneyite and sedevacantist lunatics who will argue their points down to the parsing of simple words. The problem with those two subjects is that they are *both* (a) inflammatory and (b) overfamiliar.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Feeneyite anon. wrote:

"Mr.Perkins, Your advice to censor the defense of the "strict interpretation" of EENS (i.e. by the words used), must alarm people who come to this blog."

No, I am advising that the moderators censor ALL discussion on EENS, not only the strict interpretation. The problem with this subject is that nobody can ever win the debate. It can lead down so many alleys that the debaters would die of old age before they got to the end of it.

Ditto for sedevacantism and sedeprivationism. God help you if someone like Fr. Cekada were to invade your site to present his arguments on that subject.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Perkins, There is no debate. "Rome has spoken, the case is closed."