Rorate Caeli

Three years:
It can be quite a suffocating life for a priest who loves the Traditional Mass

This weekend, many Catholic faithful in the Valais (Switzerland), close to the very ancient Abbey of Saint-Maurice d'Agaune, which used to be a bulwark of Swiss-French Catholicism, were surprised to learn that one of the most beloved priests in the abbey, Canon Yannick Escher, had left the Augustinian house.

Canon Escher, who was the Chaplain of the abbatial school and master of ceremonies at the Abbey, left Saint-Maurice for ... Écône [the main international Seminary of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X - FSSPX / SSPX, also in the Valais]. Why? Summorum Pontificum Observatus explains:

In a message he sent us this morning, Canon Yannick Escher explains himself, and adds important details. He thus underlines that "Mgr. Roduit, the Abbot of Saint-Maurice, received a 5-page letter explaining my departure. On the following morning, my fellow brothers received the same letter. It involves essentially liturgical (it is unthinkable to implement the Motu proprio) and doctrinal reasons."

It is thus confirmed that the reasons for this departure are not those of a personal nature - a bad relationship with his brothers or a depression, etc. - but rather liturgical and doctrinal. Canon Escher informs that implementing the Motu Proprio was unthinkable.

Three years after the promulgation of the latter, the time of the reports having arrived, this departure of Canon Escher should be understood in this perspective. The resistance to the Motu Proprio is great among the episcopal and ecclesial authorities. ... It is about time that the Ecclesia Dei commission knows what it wishes to do so that it will not fall again in the inaction of the previous years.

[In the image, Canon Joseph Roduit, Abbot of Saint-Maurice.]

132 comments:

  1. Talking of inaction, when will PCED issue this Compendium of norms we have been waiting on for three years?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous10:37 PM

    Well it seems quite obvious that the future of the Church in many quarters lies with the FSSPX.
    They at least can not be forced into stone like indecent silence about the Truth.

    Cruise the Groove.

    ReplyDelete
  3. anon. said:

    "They at least can not be forced into stone like indecent silence about the Truth"

    How happy for this brave Priest to know that only the Truth (the WHOLE Roman Catholic Faith, daily Mass, schools, retreat houses,seminaries, etc.)will set you free!

    SELL

    EVERYTHING


    How can you not

    Crave it --

    When given the

    Truth

    Of all time


    Your children in schools

    Where the spiritual rules

    Awe-inspiring beauty

    Sublime


    How can you not

    Sacrifice

    For your children

    Lay down silver too


    From the ravenous vulture

    Who preys on our culture

    Regurgitating nice

    But not true


    How can you not

    Desire

    Peace for all

    Of goodwill


    Instead give man

    Your family plan --

    Skimp on nectar

    For free public swill

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous12:08 AM

    Bravo!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous1:08 AM

    "Will set you free!"

    Free from what? Free from obedience to the Holy Father? Free to set up any parish, church, or school that you like, where you like, when you like.

    The Grass looks greener on the FSSPX side of the fence -- unfortunately, it is easy to make grass green when you can ignore all the binding regulations. If only the real Catholics could turn on the water and put down the fertilizer whenever and wherever they wanted.

    The FSSPX are free and that is precisely the problem with them. It is a freedom that they have purchased for a price -- lest we forget.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Good for the Canon...may God bless him and btw is that a pectoral cross that abbot is wearing? Looks like the got it out of a box of Cracker Jack...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous2:09 AM

    I pray this starts a stampede. Orate Frates!

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's a shame to lose a fine priest from Communion with Rome. The pressure under those circumstances would be enormous. I'm no apologist for the SSPX, but if a drowning man will grab even the point of a sword, I suspect the judgment against those who drove the good Father away will be ever so much harsher.

    The above having been said, it's nice to read Long-Skirts' poetry again.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous4:34 AM

    We should be thankful he chose to remain a Catholic Priest and will be joining a Catholic Group that will soon be in communion with Rome. I am sure it weighed heavy on his heart but that only goes to show the cruelty and difficult positions he must have been placed in before deciding that the best way to serve God and the Faithful, for him, will be with the SSPX. I wish him many success and hope he helps in speeding the reconciliation efforts by becoming an ardent supporter of some type of International Administration that they may be offered with full faculties. I pray he can let go of the pain that caused him to make the break. Shame on anyone and all who pushed this Priest so hard to come to this. Please Holy Father, we need your clarification document to add that clarity which is still so lacking in the minds of Bishops and some Priests. Don't leave us to fight this on our own. No one wants to disagree or fight with their Bishops. We simply want to request the Tridentine Mass and be met with a smile and discussion on ways to implement such requests. We are not NO haters or fighters. Many of us are simply backed in this corner and we see it as the only way left to defend ourselves if not just our positions.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous9:02 AM

    I do not think things should be seen in such a dramatic way as some commenters see it. The SSPX is in imperfect communion, but it is as part of the Church as it has always been. They might soon be in full communion again. Failing that, they'll be in full communion again when.... the Church recovers full sobriety again.

    This doesn't seem to me an old man suddenly deciding to throw his soul to the flames of Hell, nor a grumpy old man marching toward bitter radicalisation and enmity against everyone alive.

    More probably, he has simply decided that it is time to go where he can do the work of the Lord best, in the hope that he will soon be able to do this in full communion with the Church all these SSPX priests so obviously love. There is more Catholicims and love for the Church in the little finger of priests like him than in a dozen Cardinals like Danneels or Schoenborn.

    Mundabor

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous11:50 AM

    "We should be thankful he chose to remain a Catholic Priest and will be joining a Catholic Group that will soon be in communion with Rome."

    "...soon be...?"

    The Priestly Society of Saint Pius X is not in communion with Rome?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous12:10 PM

    "It's a shame to lose a fine priest from Communion with Rome".

    What is meant by this? Is Cardinal Mahoney in Communion with Rome? Hans Kung? Communion within the Church is based on catholicity as well as formal communion with the Pope. The SSPX as a group have refused to go along with the nonsense preached and taught for the last forty years and for this they were made pariahs. Whereas others who have done nothing but attempt to destroy the Church from within have been left by the authorities in the Church to wreak endless harm. It would seem to me that there is more to "Communion" than meets the eye.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "What is meant by this? Is Cardinal Mahoney in Communion with Rome? Hans Kung? Communion within the Church is based on ..."

    I did NOT suggest that either Hans Kung or Cardinal Mahony were in Communion with Rome. I lamented the loss of one particular priest to that Communion. I confined my remarks to that.

    ReplyDelete
  14. John McFarland3:24 PM

    The acceptance of the notion that communion admits of degrees on the part of people who consider themselves traditionalists is quite distressing.

    A person is in communion with the Church if he is baptized, accepts all that God has revealed on the word of God revealing it (that is, has supernatural faith), and accepts the authority of the hierachy. He can also be excommunicated, either automatically or by action of the hierarchy.

    In any event, one is in or one is out; and it seems to me obvious that the members of the SSPX are in. Now they are certainly in an irregular canonical situation, since among other things they are running a priestly society without Vatican approval; and they are in various ways disobedient to the hierarchy and the requirement of Church law. But their justification or lack or justification in doing these things is not an issue of communion.

    This whole partial communion business was made up from the whole cloth by the makers of the Vatican II revolution. In most cases, it is used to asset or imply that people who are manifestly NOT in communion (Protestants, Eastern schismatics) are somewhat in communion. In the case of the SSPX, it is used to assert that people who manifestly ARE in communion are somewhat not in communion.

    The real issue is whether the SSPX is justified in its disobedience, and that is tied, above all, to the fact that much of what the hierarchy is currently teaching was made up out of the whole cloth in the decades before Vatican II, and inflicted on the Church from and after the Council by a progessivist cabal of which Pope John XXIII was something of a sympathizer, Pope Paul VI the patron, and his successors members in good standing.

    Note that Canon Escher makes reference to doctrinal as well as liturgical issues.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous3:26 PM

    It must be horrible for a priest who is serious about his commission from Christ to have to deal with these clowns on a daily basis. He did the right thing and i wish him well.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I have to side against those who regard the SSPX as a dangerous splinter group in formal schism. They lack canonical jurisdiction, though it's unclear to me how they lost it (must it have been automatic upon the declaration of excommunication latae sententiae?) On the face of it, their priestly functions are illicit--and, arguably, with respect to certain sacraments, invalid--but the sentence declared against them has been lifted. If the sentence was declared, and not imposed as a matter of discipline, how could it be lifted while their state remains unchanged? And if the bishops are no longer excommunicate, how can they be who follow them? And as to licety and validity, could the sentence be lifted without the grant of faculties and jurisdiction while they persist in those purported crimes? I am familiar with the Abbé de Nantes's case against them, but it seems clear the Holy Father doesn't regard their disobedience in the same light.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous3:56 PM

    Dear Long-Skirts,

    Most excellent. Sadly many parents (among trads) are worldlings themselves and cannot bear to have their children not be a part of the establishment clique. Too much prayer, too much discipline...

    God save us!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous4:05 PM

    Mr Alexander,

    What is your beef with the FSSPX?

    Cruise the Groove.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous4:40 PM

    Good choice Fr. Escher, it is the best thing a priest and laity can do in these confusing times.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "I did NOT suggest that either Hans Kung or Cardinal Mahony were in Communion with Rome."

    Do you deny that Cardinal Mahony is in communion with Rome? Not only is Mahony a prelate with many years of service as a bishop, but is a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church and has participated with full privileges in the last papal conclave.

    Clearly, Cardinal Mahony is not seen as outside communion with the Church of Rome by the supreme legislator of the Church - the Roman Pontiff. Rather, he has retained the honor of being one of its princes.

    Furthermore, only the Roman Pontiff can declare someone outside the Roman Catholic Church, not an individual layman. Until the Roman Pontiff strips Cardinal Mahony of his titles and episopal privileges and excommunicates him, he is certainly in communion with Rome and is to be viewed as one of its chief leaders and should be treated with the respect that his office entitles him to. To do anything less is to refuse to think with the evident mind of the Pope, which has traditionally been seen as a true sign of authentic Catholicism.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anon. said:

    "The FSSPX are free and that is precisely the problem with them. It is a freedom that they have purchased for a price -- "

    Yes, and that price is SOULS!

    THE
    VINEYARD

    Disease has crept
    Along the branch
    Rotting from within

    A pestilence
    And blackened stench
    Mold that smells like sin

    And in a crook
    On branch near Vine
    There are some plants who sit

    Preferring Vine
    Accepting branch
    Their leaves and stems are split

    But years ago
    A faithful farmer
    Grafted growths to Vine

    Broke from branches
    Twisted cracked
    "These shoots I know are mine."

    And to this day
    Forever more
    To Vine these stalks adhere

    Branching churches
    Priest and schools --
    Glistening grapes appear!

    ...for the good of the WHOLE Church!

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Communion within the Church is based on catholicity as well as formal communion with the Pope."

    Traditionally, it is the supreme legislator and final arbiter on faith and morals - the Roman Pontiff that ensures that only those that are truly Catholic remain in outward communion with Rome.

    To assume that the Pope has failed in connecting the inward and outward expressions of communion with Rome is equivalent to questioning the Faith of the Pope, himself, which is an attack on his authority and role in the Roman Catholic Church.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "What is your beef with the FSSPX?"

    My remarks here are the answer to your question.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Adam:

    I'm not here to discuss whether or not Cardinal Mahony is in communion with Rome. By now you've figured out that it's a whole different discussion. The term being avoided here is "imperfect communion." This is the current relationship of the FSSPX with the Holy See. (Notice it doesn't have the word "schism" in it.) I'll say it ten times real fast so everyone remembers it.

    Imperfect communion.
    Imperfect communion.
    Imperfect communion.
    Imperfect communion.
    Imperfect communion.
    Imperfect communion.
    Imperfect communion.
    Imperfect communion.
    Imperfect communion.
    Imperfect communion.

    (Whew!) Okay, what's next?

    Now, someone asked what my "beef" was with the FSSPX. I don't know if you'd call it that. They have a great publishing house called Angelus Press, and I have an account with them because they do great work.

    As to the Society itself, I've watched these negotiations over the years. Like that last twenty or thirty years. Now, some of us could probably write a book about every jot and tittle of these proceedings. But I cannot help but notice that, just when it seems like both sides are going to reach a full accord, the Society breaks it off for some reason. Or (and this is the one that gives certain people away), there is at least the appearance of great progress between the two, and then Fellay or Williamson or somebody goes back and starts speaking maybe a bit too freely during an interview or a public rally, and gets the troops all fired up. That seems to me to reinforce a "state of siege" mentality, one that keeps the Society's followers sufficiently motivated (for what, I'm not sure), but has the long term effect of making an accord with Rome even more difficult.

    As to how the lifting of certain penalties affects the Society as a whole (this is in regard to another remark), what was removed was the excommunications against the four bishops. This did not affect anything else, as I am to understand, but I admit it makes things between the two parties potentially more harmonious.

    And after what I said before (and in all fairness), I do notice that leaders of the Society are less inclined toward a "state of siege" than before, which indicates to me that there's a change of attitude among them. I attend the Traditional Mass almost exclusively. I would want this form of the Mass for my wedding (it could happen), and for my funeral. I look forward to leaders and followers of the FSSPX returning to perfect communion with Rome.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous9:25 PM

    Then someone please explain fully what is meant when Rome says the SSPX is not in full communion with Rome. I think it is the Pope that decides and none of us on this forum. My understanding is not about principles but about the words chosen by Rome to describe the situation. I am a supporter of the SSPX position but however must recognise how their status is defined by Rome at the same time.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Imperfect communion.
    Imperfect communion.
    Imperfect communion.
    Imperfect communion.
    Imperfect communion.
    Imperfect communion.
    Imperfect communion.
    Imperfect communion.
    Imperfect communion.
    Imperfect communion."


    Yeah, it was a little obnoxious. Good thing I'm not like that very often, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Picard9:50 PM

    Adam:
    Questioning the Faith (the orthodoxy) of the Pope is not an insult in itselfe and can be totaly jusitfied by circumstances.

    E.g. the Holy Mother Church prays in the Litany of All Saints "ut Domnum Apostolicum ... in [Tua] sancta religione conservare digneris" what is proof enough that Holy Mother Church does not think that such a loss/deficit of Faith is impossible (as also the doctors and theologians of the Church hold and teach)!

    ReplyDelete
  28. M. A.9:57 PM

    Says Adam: "..the Roman Pontiff ...ensures that only those that are truly Catholic remain in outward communion with Rome."

    Case in point > > Mahoney, right?

    aha...sure.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The trouble with Mr. Alexanders's explanation, is that there is no such thing as "imperfect Communion" with the Mystical Body of Christ. Either one is attached, or one is not.

    Things were so much simpler before new terms were INVENTED.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "The trouble with Mr. Alexanders's explanation, is that ..."

    ... it's the same one that comes from the Holy See, which already makes it suspect among those who place themselves above its Visible Head. And for those among them who don't get out of the house often enough, Cardinal Mahony is no longer the Archbishop of Los Angeles. No, the Archdiocese is not out of the woods, but early reports suggest that the worst is over.

    "Either one is attached, or one is not."

    And yet, both beg their own set of questions, or the current discussions would not be taking place. Thank goodness for the SSPX that there is such a distinction. After all, as we say back in Ohio: "'Almost' ain't good enough, except when playing horseshoes."

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anonymous11:27 PM

    Mr Alexander,

    We all are in imperfect communion with Rome[most of us anyhow] so why is the FSSPX any different?
    As long as I or anyone else is a sinner, we are in imperfect communion with the Church.
    Unless one is perfect on this earth he must enter Purgatory upon his corporal death[if he dies in a state of grace], wherein we become in perfect communion with Rome.
    Cruise the Groove.

    ReplyDelete
  32. picard11:36 PM

    D.L.Alexander, J.Mc Farland, "annonymous" (ehem!!), M.A. etc. -- and also P.K.T.P.:

    The term of "full" /"not full" or "imperfect" communion is (canonically) not that clear.
    But, Mr. Mc Farland, although I am not so happy and comfortable with this ambiguous term, I think it can still be reconciled with tradition; it can be interpretated in a traditional way -- because traditionally there are also "steps" or "gegrees" of communion with the Church (well, although perhaps the terminus "communion" is not the best or proper word in this context - I am still thinking about this - and was not used exactly this way).

    Because there is and was always the distinction of sbd. who is not even baptized, sbd. who is baptized but heretic or schismatic and sbd. who is baptized and neither heretic nor schismatic but excommunicated (and also sbd. who is not excommunicated in terms of canon law but is not allowed to go to Holy Communion because of a mortal sin ... and you could finde more "steps" and "degrees", more differentiations..., like public sinner etc....!).

    So the heretic or schismatic is in "more" or "some kind of" communion with the Church because he is still baptized (and can not lose the character-indelibilis of baptism!) and therefor member of the Church ("semel Christianus semper Christianus").
    And sbd who is not schismatic or heretic but exommunicated is in "greater" or call it what you want "communion" with the Church than a schismatic or heretic. And so on...

    But the members of the FSSPX are neither schismatic nor heretic nor excommunicated. And only this canonical clear things should be considered, because if they committed a mortal sin is controverse. Well, perhaps you could call them "public sinners" because of public and notorious disobedience. But that´s a knotty and complex debate because it is not clear - and there are good arguments against it - that their disobedience is sinful.

    So (at least traditionally) as neither heretic nor schismatic nor excommunicated they have to be seen and treated as just "in communion" with the Church (with no further qualification) or - if you want - in "full communion" with the Church. Well, some of the members are suspended a divinis and the whole organisation has no canonical sturcture or recognition. But this is totaly irrelevant for the question of beeing in ("full") communion or not.

    The best way to say is that they are (just) in communion with the Church, but the organisation has no canonical structure.

    (btw, e.g., the (ex-)Transalpine Redemptorists also still lack canonical structure and errection but there is no question of beeing in communion with the Church, so you see these questions are different ones!)

    ReplyDelete
  33. picard11:59 PM

    "annonymous" of 09 July, 2010 01:08

    Yes, FREE to save the starving and betrayed souls (as long-skirts rightly indicated).

    You seem to be one of the law-positivists/ legal positivists that see a burning house with a garden around it and a label, written on it: "Keep of the grass"; then the firefighters coming and You are saying: "Oh, stop, can´t you read - the clear and undoubtfull expression of the will of the owner/law-giver - you must not go further!"

    And if they go on however and fight the fire You would blame and accuse them afterwards of trespassing...

    And think You Yourselfe are a very good Catholic therefore... in "full communion" and perfect obedience... because you would have obeyed and not have trespassed..........
    ok, well some persons would have died in the fire (-> some souls would have died in Modernism....), but that does not care -- you would have OBEYED...

    Because man is there for the Sabbath, .....

    ReplyDelete
  34. "We all are in imperfect communion with Rome[most of us anyhow] so why is the FSSPX any different?"

    Assuming what you describe is a comparable situation (and I'm going to humor it for the sake of argument), some go to confession to repent for their errors, others dress up in Italian lace and Baroque vestments and tell someone else to repent for their errors.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Picard12:13 AM

    Cruise the Groove:

    Yes, in this sense, as I remarked above, we can also say sbd. is not in full communion, even if perhaps only sinner without mortal sin, so we all are not in (absolute) perfect/full union with the Church

    But well, some will argue the SSPXers are mortal sinners or public sinners. Canonically only the last should be considered.

    But as I said also above, this is a complex question and because they are baptized and neither heretic nor schismatic nor excommunicated canonically it is the best to speak just of beeing in communion with the Church - or in full communion....

    Yes, if we want to say not in (absolute) full/perfect communion, then we all are not...., more or less... ;-) ... Yes, things were easier and much simpler before new terms were INVENTED (M.A.) ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anonymous12:19 AM

    May Our Lord continue to bless this courageous and truly Catholic priest! May others--priests and bishops, and yes popes--have the same courage!

    ReplyDelete
  37. The decomposition of Catholicism in our time (to use the title to Boyer's book) falls flat on the head of Vatican II. This Priest is obviously trying to do the right thing, and quit his adherence to the 60-90s mantra that "Tradition is bad; Vatican II was great."

    Vatican II is what it was: a badly conceived, poorly-wrought, ecumenical council. Yes, "ecumenical," but not every ecumenical council has good things to offer the Church, as my latest, greatest friend, Msgr. Gherardini can attest.

    Indeed, there have been flawed councils before. It would have been much better for the Church had Vatican II never happened. But it did, and it was a wallop to the mystical body. The air we breath continues to be "defiled and defiling."

    But there are die hards out there who love Vatican II like their own child, even Bishops and Cardinals, who are disoriented by their roles as the preservers of tradition, not the innovators of tomorrow. Certainly the Church has and must change, but, for instance, you don't try to garbage-can a rite over a thousand years old, pull an enemy of tradition off the streets (Bugnini) and charge him with manufacturing (to use Pope Benedict XVI's words) a brand new mass!

    But the mass is just the tip of the iceberg; Vatican II is chalk-full of silly innovations which I think we could safely and comfortably ignore, but for the boobish bishops out there who are caught in the mental-trap that the 60's were good for the Church (and the world,) when in fact, those years were most decidedly not good for the Church and the world.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Picard12:26 AM

    And, yes, perhaps you can differentiate again and say that sbd. who is not excomunicated but is under some censure is also in some lesser communion than sbd. without any censure. Well, so you can say the sspx is not in (absolute) full communion. It´s a question of definition.

    But well, if you like this nomenclatura, I will say: So what?!? - Remember the burning house and the dying souls... (see above!!)

    [means: we as Catholics are NOT (!!) legal positivists... A censure is not infallible and so it can only seem that you are not in full communion in this sense but indeed you are!!]

    ReplyDelete
  39. Picard12:50 AM

    oncer more re annon:

    Yes - they are FREE to trespass and save the souls -- THANK YOU, You trespassers, therefor/for it!!! Thank you for saving our souls even if blamed for trespassing!!!

    May GOD pay You back!

    ReplyDelete
  40. Good discussion going on here! Everyone seems to be remaining civil. I'm actually enjoying Mr. Alexander's counterpart.

    I used to tread the FSSPX with extreme, and even disparaging suspicion.

    But having lived on both coasts, many places in-between, travelled repeatedly in Europe and even Africa (and I'm not saying to boast, but to give a point) I can say this:

    The Church is in ramshackles, it's a mess.

    For instance, I've been to masses in Flagstaff, Albuquerque, Sedona, and Santa Fe (where I was actually hit-on by a priest,) as well as, like I implied, dozens of places east and west of those cities. And, I must say, it's just a wasteland.

    If the priestly abuse scandals weren't proof enough that things are disordered and disoriented (yeah, I know, some of them happened before Vatican II, but the VAST majority of them happened after,) we have the commensurate loss of the faithful people's trust.

    You might see some full parishes here and there, but you also see deserts where the pews used to be full. Overall, the situation is grim, and bishops still cling to Vatican II like it's a buoy to their dying dreams of a truly ecumenical church.

    Like Benedict, I think we need to cut of the gangrene flesh, and really renew the Church of Christ!

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anonymous1:16 AM

    "Yes, FREE to save the starving and betrayed souls (as long-skirts rightly indicated)"

    Picard, I think that you may have missed the point. Long-Skirts was painting this glorious picture of Catholic schools, parishes, etc. etc. fully thriving within the FSSPX.

    As a member of the Church militant, I fail to see the excitement about an FSSPX apostolate. The FSSP and the Institute of Christ the King -- now there is something to rejoice about.

    Again, it is easy to build a Catholic parish and school when you do not need permission from the local Ordinary. Anyone could establish a great little oasis of Catholicism if they were given the freedom to do so (and the financial means).

    Your firefighter argument is ridiculous. I would be happy to have the firemen do their job. I suspect your point is that some laws can be ignored for the good of the Church. Given the recent posting about St. Thomas More, perhaps you can recall what the saint says to Roper about the laws of England (in "A Man For All Seasons")

    I am not particularly interested in the debate about "full communion" (that is one for the canon lawyer); however, I think the proof is in the pudding. If the FSSPX were in Communion with Rome, Long-Skirts would have nothing to write about since you can't just establish a parish, school, seminary, college, etc. etc. anytime, anywhere, anyhow. That is not Catholic -- plain and simple.

    I look forward to the day when all Traditionalist movements can be militant together -- but for now, the FSSPX are not a group that we Catholics can take delight in.

    You seem to use the term "OBEYED" as if it was a negative thing. This is bizarre -- unless you harbor some guilt for joining the FSSPX. I obey what I must and everything else does not require obedience. Perhaps you do not realize that it is possible to be a traditional Catholic without joining the FSSPX. This is the tragedy of this swiss Cleric. It can be quite a suffocating life for a father of seven children who loves the Traditional Mass. I am sure that Our Lord found Judas quite suffocating for three years.

    ReplyDelete
  42. "Long-Skirts would have nothing to write about ..."

    Personally, I give her more credit. Except you can't answer everything with a poem, or you start sounding like the Joker or the Riddler in one those old Batman episodes. (Really, she's good. I'm just sayin'...)

    "... since you can't just establish a parish, school, seminary, college, etc. etc. anytime, anywhere, anyhow. That is not Catholic -- plain and simple."

    Plain and simple. Okay, fine. Isn't that what the SSPX does when it establishes such institutions, and do not answer to a higher authority, for whatever the reason? This presents a genuine conundrum for the Society. "Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia." Peter is in Rome, not Econe. At the end of the day, however it is done, under whatever conditions, and in response to whatever number of concessions, they must come to Rome, not the other way around. That requires humility, a quality which the late Cardinal Gagnon found lacking (for all the other virtues he found present) when he visited the Society.

    That is why I don't think they will. It's hard to back out of a corner after you've painted yourself into it, and the Society's leadership is not immune to the human condition. They will come back in pieces -- a group of priests here, a convent there, a parish or institute elsewhere -- but never en masse.

    What's more, the Society's bishops would have to answer to someone higher on a regular basis, and right or wrong, old habits die hard.

    (Boy, I'd love to know who my counterpart is. Maybe I'll stick around ...)

    ReplyDelete
  43. Sir Knight:

    For all your travels, you've obviously never visited the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anonymous1:55 AM

    Long-Skirts, your poetry is as free as the FSSPX (both in content and style). Can you say it in a sonnet?

    You lost me at "Rotting from Within". Do you mean that the Catholic Church is rotten at its core? And that glistening grapes are being produced by a branch that is grafted to a rotten vine? I am not sure whether to comment on your poetics, ecclesiology, or horticulture.

    For Catholic poetry read Aubrey de Vere, for the state of the Church read "Iota Unum", for horticulture read some "Acres USA"

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anonymous2:15 AM

    Long Skirts,

    Your poem "Sell Everything" is a tad bit insulting. I crave it for me and my seven children. Like Lefebvre, I too can hand on what was handed to me.

    You suggest that the FSSPX is the only source of Catholicism. This is absurd. When a Catholic recognizes the current state of the Church and walks away it is dishonorable (or worse). Fight the good fight. The swiss Cleric is not fighting the good fight.

    It is really pathetic when Catholics are seduced by glistening grapes without taking into account the inappropriate (or worse) means to achieve them.

    To continue your horticulture analogy, I ask you what is better to do... remineralize the pesticide ravaged soil, with blood, sweat, and tears, so that you can produce good fruit they way God designed it -- or ignore these rules and genetically modify a beautiful looking grape.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Anonymous2:35 AM

    "...others dress up in Italian lace and Baroque vestments and tell someone else to repent for their errors."

    Mr Alexander,
    I am rather a dimwitted three toed sloth,
    please humor me,
    who are these "others" that wear fine vestments, you refer to?
    Cruise the Groove.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Anonymous4:18 AM

    I am not much of a poet ... but here goes:

    There once was a Glistening grape,
    Attractive to all who could see,
    But on closer inspection,
    Many saw the sedition,
    But others just swallowed it whole.

    ReplyDelete
  48. You're right, Anonymous, you're not much of a poet. You couldn't even successfully complete your silly limerick.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "Mr Alexander, I am rather a dimwitted three toed sloth ..."

    Someone asked: "We all are in imperfect communion with Rome [most of us anyhow] so why is the FSSPX any different?" I answered it. HEY, it was YOU! Wow, you really ARE a dimwitted three toed sloth!

    ReplyDelete
  50. Anonymous1:34 PM

    Mr Alexander,

    I think I got it.
    You are insulting the FSSPX!
    How brave of you!
    I did not think you had it in you so I was not sure.

    Actually the FSSPX priests I know wear Gothic and Roman vestments with no lace on their albs.

    It must be really nice to have access to a diocesan TLM.
    Many of us are unable to drive the hundreds of miles it takes to get to one, and we fulfill our obligations at them thar nasty ol' FSSPX rapscallion wildcat chapels.

    Cruise

    ReplyDelete
  51. Canon Escher said:

    "...but rather liturgical and doctrinal. Canon Escher informs that implementing the Motu Proprio was unthinkable... The resistance to the Motu Proprio is great among the episcopal and ecclesial authorities."

    This good Priest is telling the world that he cannot confect the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass properly and that he is not going to wait any longer as many souls are in danger as they wait and wait and wait and wait...

    David Alexander said:

    "Personally, I give her more credit. Except you can't answer everything with a poem..."

    Thank you David, you are a good Catholic gentleman. You have stated your opinions very nicely, although I may not agree, but you have tried to be civil and I love reading yours and all the other very intellectual essays. I am just a simple poet because I'm not as smart as someone like you who can write and impart their knowledge so well...and because I've had 10 children I had to learn to get my opinions out in as few words as possible while cooking,spanking kids, changing dirty diapers (not THAT'S a place where Angels fear to tread!)and driving them to school.

    Anon. said:

    "I crave it for me and my seven children. Like Lefebvre, I too can hand on what was handed to me."

    My dear Anon., we are not BISHOPS, we can make babies but not Priests. I am not saying that there aren't good Catholics fighting elsewhere but in my humble opinon, the SSPX are the Marines of the Priesthood because of their preserving the WHOLE Catholic Faith for ALL!

    Anon. also said:

    "It is really pathetic when Catholics are seduced by glistening grapes without taking into account the inappropriate (or worse) means to achieve them."

    Like you, Anon. with 7 children I am the mother of 10 AND a fruit-picker. My children had been in diocesan schools and public and when God placed us near an SSPX school (an orchard of grace) I started picking the fruit. The grapes have come back to the vineyard BECAUSE of Archbishop Lefebvre's stance to hand down what was given to him and the branches of the Vine or the Catholic Church ARE now, bearing much fruit (grapes)because we (the SSPX Order) are receiving nourishment from the Vine (Our Lord's Roman Catholic Church)...after 40 years of Modernism surely you smell the rot from within the Church and her decaying branches.

    Archbishop Lefebvre merely grafted us to the healthy Vine before we too fell onto the ground with the People of God - I am Church, etc., etc.


    "Holy Mary Mother of God pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death."

    ReplyDelete
  52. What is full communion? Is it communion with a person or with the Faith that a person subscribes to? Is it communion with what the Holy Catholic Church has always held, taught and professed to be true from apostolic times or is communion with ideas that have been proposed in modern times by modern-day theologians, concepts such as universal salvation, fruitfulness of other religions, collegiality, old covenant still being in effect, etc.

    And, the question could be asked if there is anything that can be defined as "full communion"? I submit that Communion can be said either to exist or not and therefore is not subject to qualifications like partial, incomplete, full, visible, etc.

    It appears to me that the SSPX is taking the position that they are in communion with the Faith, that same Faith that has been expressed since apostolic times, and so long as persons hold to that same Faith, they are in communion with them. Indeed, is this not the reason for the doctrinal discussions that are currently underway?

    I have not heard, by the way, any disagreements among the participants in these discussions nor do I really expect them to occur if both sides stick to what has already been defined as infallible doctrine and dogmas. So, perhaps it is a bit premature to classify the SSPX as not being in communion with the Holy Father or vice versa when the talks are underway.

    The priest, then, who seeing these discussions as crucial to the success of his ministry chooses to affiliate himself with the SSPX is choosing to take a stand in favor of Tradition. I certainly will not criticize him for doing so. Nor will I imply that by taking this stand he is necessarily opposing the Holy Father, not with those discussions currently underway.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Bruno Luís Santana3:01 PM

    I'm happy with this canon.
    I'm brazilian, and I love the church, so, It's good to see the growing of FSSPX, 'cause the catholics needs to fight together, with no compromises with the modernism.
    Let's pray for our beloved pope, and for all the faithful!

    ReplyDelete
  54. John McFarland3:26 PM

    With all due respect, one is either in communion with the Church or one is not. What makes one in communion is baptism, faith and acceptance of the authority of the Church. The most hardened, Hell-bound sinner who meets these criteria is in communion. There are no degrees of communion. Any other position is either wrong, or is using "communion" in some different sense from how it is traditionally used with respect to membership in the Church.

    The issue with the SSPX is whether it is right in thinking that the state of the hierarchy as regards the Faith is in such bad shape that one must going about preserving the Faith even if it requires disobedience to the duly constituted authorities. If salvation of souls is the highest law, and if the authorities are teaching and ordering things in derogation of the salvation of souls, then not only MAY one disobey them, one MUST disobey them. It is like refusing one's fathers order to commit suicide.

    So: is the SSPX right in saying that things are so bad as to constitute a "state of emergency," or is it wrong? That is the question, and the only real question.

    That question is infinitely more important than the SSPX. If the SSPX is right, it is only an instrument in the preservation of the Faith. As Bishop Williamson says: if the SSPX were (God forbid) to surrender, the battle would go on.

    Are we in a state of emergency? Until that question is answered, everything else is just pointless.

    It seems to me that once the question is properly posed, the answer is obvious. What the Pope teaches is NOT what his predecessors before 1962 taught, and it cannot be squared with what those predecessors taught. You can pick pious and traditional language out of his writings and addresses, but there are other less wholesome things in them.

    But everyone has, by study and with prayer, to decide on that for himself.

    The members of the SSPX are serious men. They are not playing games. The same is not true of most of their critics. Those critics need to get equally serious, and get to the bottom of things.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Anonymous4:48 PM

    Jordanes,

    I appreciate your comment on my silly attempt at a limerick (I figured that given everyones love for Long Skirts' modern/formless poerty, I could get away with it).

    Now, would you care to comment on the content of the silly limerick?

    As a main contributor to Rorate Caeli perhaps you can explain the excitement surrounding a swiss Cleric who suffers in the Church of Rome and decides to join the FSSPX. It sounds more like sour grapes than glistening grapes.

    I am wondering if Rev. Fr. L. Demets, FSSP would care to contribute to this pro-FSSPX blog posting. He too is listed as a contributor to Rorate Caeli; however, I seldom hear from him either in the posts or the comments. Is his name there just to provide some cover for all those who comment about the gloriousness of the FSSPX?

    Anyone who understands the crisis in the Church should realize that the crisis is just exacerbated by the existence of the FSSPX. As the FSSPX grows, the Church suffers more. It is the FSSPX priests who should feel suffocated by their lack of jurisdiction (how do you save souls if you cannot forgive their sins?) and their lip-service to the Pope (in the canon, of all places).

    The FSSPX needs to return to the source of Tradition in order to validate their holding on to it.

    It is one thing to attend the FSSPX on Sundays to fulfill your obligation because you personally have a letter from Rome; but it is something completely different to write poetry that exalts the FSSPX as some sort of glorious panacea for our time.

    Fellay would be better of as a Catholic Bishop than a free-wheeling pseudo-pope. Mahoney managed to be both at the same time. Again, the crisis in the Church is directly related to actions taken by individuals who feel suffocated by the modernist stronghold and simply walk away. Fight the good fight. All those who support the FSSPX do not have the mind of Christ. If they did they would not walk away when His bride is being ravaged.

    ReplyDelete
  56. I appreciate your comment on my silly attempt at a limerick (I figured that given everyones love for Long Skirts' modern/formless poerty, I could get away with it).

    If you think her poetry is either modern or formless, it's no wonder you can't even master a simple limerick.

    Now, would you care to comment on the content of the silly limerick?

    No, not really.

    As a main contributor to Rorate Caeli perhaps you can explain the excitement surrounding a swiss Cleric who suffers in the Church of Rome and decides to join the FSSPX. It sounds more like sour grapes than glistening grapes.

    I'm certainly not a main contributor here. Usually all I have the time or inclination to do is to post comments, and to assist with comment moderation. Lately I've hardly had time to do even that. As for the excitment to which you refer, many of Rorate's readers and commenters are affiliated with the SSPX or at least sympathise with it (for myself, I do sympathise with the SSPX, though I think Msgr. Lefebvre's schismatic actions were not justified, nor is the continued illegal existence of the SSPX -- the SSPX needs to submit to Christ in His Church). For those who believe the SSPX is right and the Catholic Church is wrong, they would naturally be happy to hear the news of Canon Escher's joining the SSPX. It's really no more complicated than that.

    By the way, you should refresh your memory of Aesop's "sour grapes" fable. You have not successfully deployed your play on words.

    I am wondering if Rev. Fr. L. Demets, FSSP would care to contribute to this pro-FSSPX blog posting. He too is listed as a contributor to Rorate Caeli; however, I seldom hear from him either in the posts or the comments. Is his name there just to provide some cover for all those who comment about the gloriousness of the FSSPX?

    Father Demets is no doubt a very busy priest, far more than I am, and he seldom contributes here. His name is certainly not there just to provide cover for the pro-SSPX commenters.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Anonymous5:49 PM

    Yes Anonymous the Bride is being ravaged - by her own sons. Sic. I will stick with the FSSPX, at least they know what it means to be Catholic.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Anonymous6:08 PM

    "...they would naturally be happy to hear the news of Canon Escher's joining the SSPX."

    Jordanes,
    Sighhhh... No, most people here are not naturally happy to see Canon Escher join the FSSPX.
    No rather most of here are dismayed to hear how much Canon Escher's former society has lost the Faith.
    We are glad that there is a place for Canon Escher to go and fulfill his ministry while, hopefully his former society comes to its senses and comes back to the Faith.
    You might say that it is an unnatural happiness at best.

    But there is not an intrinsic happiness solely because he has joined a society that apparently is in an irregular status within the Church.

    Bye the bye,
    What crime has the FSSPX committed against the Faith anyhow?
    I have never quite gotten a satisfactory answer to this.

    Cruise the Groove.

    ReplyDelete
  59. "Mr Alexander,
    I think I got it.
    You are insulting the FSSPX!
    How brave of you!"


    Actually, "Cruise" (no relation to Tom, right?) I was trying to insult YOU. What I have in me, is the guts to use my real name, which is more than I can say for most of those in this discussion.

    As for Mrs Long-Skirts, I am honored by your tribute. While you are (shall we say?) confused on any number of issues, you are no doubt a lady of good breeding, a blessing to your husband, and a seat of wisdom to your children. May you live to see their children, and the prosperity of Jerusalem, all the days of your life.

    Now, I'm going to read the other comments. Stand by.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Anonymous7:11 PM

    Dear Long Skirts,

    I am sorry that I do not like your poetry (I do not care much for e.e. cummings either or even the forms employed by T. S. Eliot); however, if you are going to put it out there than criticism of it is to be expected.

    You cannot make priests without babies and so our decisions as laity are crucial for the life of the Church. If you raise 10 for the FSSPX and I raise 10 for the FSSP are we going to consider that the same? An equally Catholic response during this critical time in Church history?

    I understand your perspective on diocesan and public schools (I homeschool) but that does not mean that the beautiful set-up provided by the FSSPX is a legitimate alternative (no matter if it is across the street from your house).

    I would be surprised if Msgr. Perl wrote a letter saying you could send all your children to a FSSPX school to satisfy your obligation to educate them in the faith. There are other ways.

    My argument is simply that supporting the FSSPX is, by its very nature, a decision to NOT support the restoration of Tradition within the Church. Believe it or not, but the modernists were always happy over the last 40 years when Catholics decided to leave for the FSSPX. The FSSPX do not pose a problem to the modernists. SP does, but the FSSPX does not.

    Plain and simple -- any and all efforts that support the FSSPX are energies, resources, stable communities, clerics, etc. that are being taken away from the fight within the Church.

    Some of the greatest suffering in the world is in the realm of the spiritual, emotional, and mental faculties. When a Catholic is faced with a bad bishop we suffer greatly. So be it -- offer it up. The FSSPX are definitely a glistening grape -- but at, at present, they remain a forbidden fruit.

    P.S. Just because someone takes exception to your metaphors and dislikes your poetics does not make them lacking in gentlemanliness. I do not recall writing anything ungentlemanly about you.

    Cruise the Groove,

    I drive 100s of miles. Sometimes you have to make sacrifices. However, fulfilling your Sunday obligation at an FSSPX chapel during this difficult time in the Church IS NOT the same thing as trumpeting the greatness of the FSSPX as the only source of Catholicism. By all means fulfill your Sunday obligation but we Catholics miss you on the front lines during the week. We will miss the swiss Cleric too.

    Suffocating for three years ... is he serious. The laity have been suffocating for 40 years without the advantage of being able to say a private mass in our own house chapels. Perhaps spiritual suffocation is the method of martyrdom for our time -- unfortunately, no FSSPX supporters will suffer this martyrdom and thereby renew the Church. In the end it will not be the FSSPX that saves Rome but Rome that welcomes back the FSSPX to join with the FSSP et al. to complete the restoration.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Anonymous7:39 PM

    AS far as the debate on whether the SSPX is in communion or not...

    I have it from the one of the best FSSP priests...

    "THE SSPX IS IN THE CHURCH; THE SSPX IS CATHOLIC;
    THE SSPX IS NOT IN SCHISM; THE SSPX IS NOT IN HERESY "

    ReplyDelete
  62. Anonymous7:52 PM

    "By the way, you should refresh your memory of Aesop's "sour grapes" fable. You have not successfully deployed your play on words"

    I am sorry Jordanes but I have no memory of Aesop. I was actually alluding to Jeremiah 31:29-30 ...

    "In those days they shall say no more: The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the teeth of the children are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that shall eat the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge."

    The sour grape resulting from Lefebvre's decision may not fall to the children; but now every decision to support the FSSPX will set your teeth on edge.

    Long Skirts and I are in a similar position but our method of coping is different. I see a sour grape she sees a glistening grape. My teeth are straight, traditional, and Catholic. I am sure she feels the same. But the Dentist will have the final say.

    ReplyDelete
  63. July 10, 16:48 Anonymous:

    How is this a "pro-SSPX" post? It is not an "anti-SSPX" post, either. It merely describes an event. We link and translate the Canon's explanation. We link to the Abbey's communiqué. "We report, you decide."

    Please, do not shoot the messenger.

    NC

    ReplyDelete
  64. I said: "As for the excitment to which you refer, many of Rorate's readers and commenters are affiliated with the SSPX or at least sympathise with it . . . For those who believe the SSPX is right and the Catholic Church is wrong, they would naturally be happy to hear the news of Canon Escher's joining the SSPX."

    Sighhhh... No, most people here are not naturally happy to see Canon Escher join the FSSPX.

    I did not say anything about "most people here." I said "many of Rorate's readers and commenters are affiliated with the SSPX or at least sympathise with it," and, "For those who believe the SSPX is right and the Catholic Church is wrong, they would naturally be happy to hear the news of Canon Escher's joining the SSPX."

    No rather most of here are dismayed to hear how much Canon Escher's former society has lost the Faith.

    Perhaps you are right (though that would mean you have the ability to read minds), but that sentiment is certainly not reflected in the comments in this discussion, which praise Canon Escher's decision to join the SSPX but do not deplore so much the state of his former order.

    Bye the bye, What crime has the FSSPX committed against the Faith anyhow? I have never quite gotten a satisfactory answer to this.

    The late Msgr. Lefebvre continued to operate a priestly fraternity after the Church had juridically suppressed it, then proceeded with ordinations in a diocese without the ordinary's permission, then proceeded with episcopal consecrations without the assent of the Successor of St. Peter, a schismatic act (cf. Vatican I's Pastor Aeternus). In addition, the members of the SSPX continue to exercise episcopal and priestly ministry even though the Church has told them they have received no episcopal and priestly ministry from the Church.

    In short, the SSPX functions as if there is no church to which they must answer. It is professedly a Catholic fraternity of priests, and of course it's members are Catholic, but it is not a Catholic family and can get along quite well with or without the Church, or with or without the Pope.

    ReplyDelete
  65. I have it from the one of the best FSSP priests...

    And if you can't believe the testimony of an anonymous weblog comment handing on the opinion of an anonymous priest, whom can you believe?

    ReplyDelete
  66. I am sorry Jordanes but I have no memory of Aesop. I was actually alluding to Jeremiah 31:29-30 ...

    Well then, I suppose that can fit your play on words a little better, even though it's not really what God was getting at when He cited the ancient proverb in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and in Western culture "sour grapes" is shorthand for Aesop's fable of the wolf who said, "Those grapes were probably sour anyway!" when he failed after repeated attempts to leap up and grab the ripened fruit on the vine.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Anonymous9:01 PM

    On Mark's question, I have some suggestions for 'Complementary Norms' for "Summorum Pontificum"

    1. In light of Article 1 of S.P., that the T.L.M. "MUST [emphasis added] be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage" and given the fact this prescription pertains to each diocese because each diocese is a particular church "in which and from which the one and only Catholic Church exists" [Lumen Whatever--no need to quote from that substandard V. II Council when earlier and better documents exist--but they will anyway], as at 14 September, 2013, every diocese must offer the Traditional Latin Mass at least once every Sunday and current holyday of obligation. This prescription does not apply to particular churches other than dioceses and archdioceses.

    Before the skimmers on this list scream 'Not enough!', please note that I have written "at least" here. This would be an obligation OVER AND ABOVE that contained in Article 5 in regard to each parish. In other words, even if not one soul asks for this Mass and not one priest wants to celebrate it, it must be offered at least once every Sunday and holyday in every diocese of the Latin Church.

    Special exceptions might be granted under indult for extreme causes (e.g. dying sees having few priests, like the Diocese of Mogadishu, Somalia, which has only one serving priest at present). The prescription does not apply to junior and missionary particular chuches, such as vicariates apostolic, prefectures apostolic, apostolic administrations, abbacies nullius, territorial prelatures; nor does it apply to missions sui juris, obviously.

    A period of three years is given in order to give bishops time to train and assign priests.

    2. This provision in no way limits Article 5. This is a norm pertaining to Article 1.

    3. Each seminary must train its priests how to celebrate both Rites of Mass.

    4. To be eligible to offer the T.L.M., a priest need only be able to pronounce the Latin words, know the rubrics, and know the general meaning of each prayer of the Ordinary [which can be memorised, of course]. Before offering Mass, he should also review the propers in the vernacular, unless he understands the Latin original.

    TO BE CONTINUED IN PART II

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Anonymous9:02 PM

    PART II, P.K.T.P.


    5. In regard to Article 5, a cœtus need only be a group who manifest their intent to worship according to the Traditional Rite of Mass in some given parish. This desire can be manifested in writing by faithful who need not have worshipped at that parish in the past.

    6. Every priest has a right to offer Mass in Latin, the lingua sacra of his ritual Church, whether using the Missal of 1962 or the one promulgated in 1970. Therefore, if he is unable to do so, at his request, his Bishop must see to it that he receives the needed training to make this possible.

    7. In regard to Articles 1 and 5 and with due regard to Canons 837 899.2 and 904, every parish priest has the right to offer the T.L.M. publicly even if no groups of faithful request this. Should he be unable to offer it, he may invite other available priests to do so.

    8. Every priest who is in good standing but is not assigned to any apostolate [e.g. retired priests] is entitled to offer the T.L.M. or N.O.M. privately, with due regard to Canon 905.1 He may offer such Masses in sacred places (cf. Canon 903) or, if unable to gain access to one, may do so in a fitting place under the prescriptions of Canon 932. If these Masses are not public parish Masses, faithful may still attend them under Article 4 of S.P. [For example, guests may and *should* be invited (cf. Canon 832) and others may be admitted, but the Masses may not be advertised by the celebrant or parish in accordance with a regular schedule.

    9. In regard to Canon 1248.1, the faithful can fulfil the Sunday and holyday obligation to assist at Mass by attending any Mass offered by a priest who is a member of or affiliated with the Society of St. Pius X. However, because this Society has no canonical form, the Holy Father advises that faithful should not attend such Masses for this purpose unless they are unable to attend some Traditional Latin Mass offered by an approved priest of the Church.

    10. Because the said S.S.P.X has endeavoured to resolve its canonical situation, the Holy Father grants faculties to its priests pro tempore, but with the same limitation from the foregoing Article here.

    11. At a T.L.M., Holy Communion may only be received by a kneeling communicant on the tongue. Those unable to kneel may sit or stand but must make some gesture of reverence before receiving.

    12. At a T.L.M., ministers of the Altar must be male to preserve the symbolism that servers represent the future of the priesthood.



    That would do the trick. The problem right now is simply episcopal obstruction and, in some cases, episcopal unconcern.

    One of the purposes of my suggestion is to address the situation in the poorer countries. All faithful are created as spiritual equals. Therefore, it is unacceptable that a treasure of the Church should be more available in some parts of the earth than in others. These provisions will force African and Asian and Latin American bishops to get off their rumps and arrange at least one T.L.M. per Sunday.

    The next step, presumably, is to begin the process of reforming the New Mass so that it actually looks like a real Mass.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Anonymous9:18 PM

    I feel I should apologize for the multiple postings; however, I received a google error when I submitted them (saying they were too long) -- so I broke them up and tried again, and again. I figured the moderators would actually read them before posting.

    "many of Rorate's readers and commenters are affiliated with the SSPX"

    Jordanes, that explains everything!

    "What I have in me, is the guts to use my real name, which is more than I can say for most of those in this discussion"

    David L. Alexander, you have nice name. I remain anonymous because my ideas speak for themselves and my name would add nothing to their meaning. What might be gained if I signed my name? I have not said anything uncharitably which my anonymity would make cowardice.

    What information can I disclose to prove my guts? I was born on the Feast of St. Martin of Tours and baptized on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. I was married on the Feast of the Transfiguration (it was a Tuesday -- our choice). I received the Catholic faith from my parents and hand it on to my children. I have read pretty much all their is to read, in English, on the current state of the Church (Angelus Press is helpful in that regard). I had my bout with bitterness (but my teeth are straight) and yes the grape is glistening when you are in that lowly position. I happen to have two graduate degrees (one in English Literature -- and yes, Long Skirts is writing modern poetry). The other is in Information Science (i.e. research librarian). If I said my name was Fred or Ned, would that make a difference? If you want you can call me Martin, The Catholic.

    Be that as it may, I have guts enough to fight for the Catholic faith within the Catholic Church -- no matter how suffocating it is. Perhaps one day Long Skirts' children will join mine in the fight.

    These are confusing and painful times but it remains simple to be Catholic. The FSSPX complicates this simplicity. The Catholic laity should not SUPPORT them; but rather encourage them to join the battle -- especially in this post-SP landscape.

    I am sorry to hear that Rorate Caeli is strongly influenced by the FSSPX supporters.

    "Drop down dew, ye heavens, from above, and let the clouds rain the just"

    Signed: Martin, The Catholic.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Anonymous9:20 PM

    P.K.T.P. Postscript:

    In regard to the 'three-year window' of my last two posts:

    The rule would be that each diocese in the world must offer at least one T.L.M. every Sunday and current holyday by 14 September, 2013, UNLESS there is not already at least one on this basis AND a group in the same see asks for one, IN WHICH CASE the provision must be implemented as soon as possible.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Anonymous9:30 PM

    Anonymous 1.08 writes:

    "Free from what? Free from obedience to the Holy Father? Free to set up any parish, church, or school that you like, where you like, when you like."


    I'm sure that some Arians in the past argued precisely such points!

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Anonymous9:40 PM

    Mundabor:

    There is no such thing as partial communion. This is a fiction dreamed up by the liberals. Where did they get the concept? It came from the branch theory of Anglicanism!

    Communion is a munion, a unity of two parties (co-). You are either in communion with Rome or you are not. It is an absolute, like pregnancy or death. If you are in union with the Holy Father then you accept what he imposes because you accept his plenary and supreme and universal and immediate AUTHORITY. He does not impose all authentic teaching as necessary to salvation, so you can be in communion with him without assentign to all the Church proposes. But you cannot be in communion in any degree (as there are no degree to an absolute) unless you accept what he does propose.

    The S.S.P.X accepts everything the Magisterium imposes. Therefore, its priests are in communion with Rome. Period. They are not in 'imperfect' or 'partial' communion; they are in communion.

    The S.S.P.X per se is not schismatic. Rome judges that the 1988 consecrations were a schismatic act but not one adequate to effect a schism (like the blow of an axe is a destructive act to a tree even if it does not fell the tree).

    The S.S.P.X is in disobedience to Rome; it is not heretical or schismatic. On the contrary, it is countless Novus Ordo fraud priests who are heretics and/or schismatics.

    Now disobedience to legitimate authority can be wrongful or rightful. It can be rightful when it is necessary to preserve the faith, or even if someone honestly believes it to be so necessary.

    A state of necessity can give rise to rightful disobedience.

    Enough said for now.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Anonymous9:46 PM

    Dear Mr. Alexander:

    All communion with the Pope is imperfect in the sense that the will of each faithful to do anything (including to adhere to Blessed Peter's successor) is imperfect. But in the objective sense, there is no such thing as imperfect communion.[

    Fortunatly for us, the Pope claims no infallibility in semantics. Hence we can toss in the trashcan such nonsense as outreach, discernment, 'People of God', and dialogue--a term best used in regard to plays.

    Rome can get terminology terribly wrong. Hence the misterm 'extraordinary form'.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Anonymous9:59 PM

    "Well then, I suppose that can fit your play on words a little better, even though it's not really what God was getting at when He cited the ancient proverb in Jeremiah and Ezekiel"

    My expertise is not in scripture. I have read up on Aesop's The Fox and the Grapes and fail to see how God used it "properly" either! Perhaps he used it in a different way than Aesop.

    It seems to me that God's way hits at the notion that each individual will account for their own choices (in this case, to support the FSSPX). As opposed to having all the FSSPX supporters suffer the punishment of their father (i.e. Lefebvre). I think the play on words is pretty relevant.

    As far as Aesop is concerned, the FSSPX are a grape that looks really good but the Catholic just cannot reach it (or should not reach it). The Catholic then walks away from the glistening grape saying "it probably was not ripe anyway". It is not a perfect analogy because of the fox's response but it does point out how the glistening grape dangling over the Catholic laity is a temptation that can lead to bitterness.

    Why can't I have what I know to be the best for my children? There it is in all its apparent glory (right down the street). I should have it ... I am entitled to it, am I not? This is a great temptation resulting from the existence of the FSSPX and perpetuated by the laity that support them. This same laity could support an FSSP apostolate, create a large stable community, support the financial viability of a personal parish, write to bishops, cardinals, the Pope. Fight the good fight.

    I do none harm, I say none harm, I think none harm, I just want to defend the faith of our fathers and ask all the FSSPX supporters to join the fight against the modernists in the Church. I am not the Fox (I am not bitter about Long Skirts apparent good fortune) nor the Wolf ravaging Church. I am an offspring of the Milk-White Hind -- suffocating, but right where we all belong.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Anonymous10:06 PM

    Communion is an Absolute

    What is communion? It is a union, a unity, between two parties.

    In what way are they united in the case of a religious unity? They are united in what requires unity. In the case of the Catholic Faith, it is the Pope who says, "You must agree with a, b, c, d, e, f, g but you need not agree with my view on h, i, j, k". So, those who agree to this are in full unity. They are in communion with Rome. Period.

    Now someone accepts the Immaculate Conception of our Lady but rejects the Fatima revelations. The Pope says, 'These are private revelations worthy of belief but you need not accept them'. That person is in unity.

    It is the Pope who sets the critera for unity, for communion, because Christ gave him that authority. You accept all the teachings of the Church except the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Are you in 'partial communion'? Of course not, because this is a required belief. Full stop. You cannot be in communion with the Pope if he refuses communion with you on the grounds that you reject a NECESSARY belief.

    Anglicans invented the concept of partial communion because THEY HAD NO AUTHORITY to set the criteria for a true communion. They had no Pope but only a wretched Archdruid of Canterbury who could not even agree on basic articles of faith, other than the Creeds (some Anglicans say not even those). Since nobody knew the criteria of a true communion, all the teachings could change. When they did, the result was disintegration.

    Get your concepts wrong, fools, and confusion of faith followeth. THen all hell doth break loose.

    The Greek Schismatics are not in 'parial communion'. We call them Orthodox to be polite but they are not orthodox. As long as they do not assent to Pastor Æternus, they are not only schismatics but also heretics. Their countries desperately need the holy work of proselytism to save their eternal souls from damnation.

    The others--the Protestants--are worse. And there is no hope in the beliefs of those who reject Jesus Christ Himself, particuarly those whom He came to save. Their only hope lies in our prayers and in our mortifications on their behalf.

    The separation of the S.S.P.X is not a disunity in a matter that requires unity, given the circumstances; and it is not a failure on its part to accept what must be believed by divine and Catholic faith.

    As one poster rightly remarked, like the Orphans of the Holy Redeemer, the S.S.P.X lacks canonical form but is in communion with Rome, is not schismatic and is not heretical. Of course, there might be the odd schismatic among their clergy. It's a remote possibility, just as it is blatant that a huge per centage of 'regularised' clerics are heresiarchs leading souls to hell.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Anonymous10:25 PM

    "AS far as the debate on whether the SSPX is in communion or not..."

    There is no debate. Rome has simply to speak. Until Rome speaks there is no definitive answer to the question. The laity must be patient and suffer for Rome's lack of courage to speak (or act) in this difficult time. We could debate why Rome does not act (but that would just lead us into a discussion of the last 50 years).

    I have chosen to enter this blog fray (I am the lame limerist) because Long Skirts challenged me (a father of seven -- young enough to have seven more) with the line: "How can you not / Sacrifice / For your children" among other lines.

    The real debate for this blog posting revolves around whether or not the Swiss Cleric (and Long Skirts) are justified in joining the FSSPX because their life was suffocating for them. It is suffocating for me too (and for my children) ... must I join the FSSPX? Is there no other way to remain Catholic than to support the FSSPX? It is an absurd notion.

    To SUPPORT (with poetry and silver) the FSSPX is to desert the Church militant. To fulfill your obligation at an FSSPX chapel is a different, individual matter.

    Signed: the Lame Limerist (formerly Martin, The Catholic)

    ReplyDelete
  77. "Fortunatly for us, the Pope claims no infallibility in semantics."

    Fortunately for him, it is required of him. He also has absolute juridical authority over the Church, and can introduce distinctions such as "ordinary form" and "extraordinary form" without the sanction of the magisterium of the internet. He and/or his duly authorized spokesmen can also demonstrate the limits of audacity in introducing the term "imperfect communion" to describe the SSPX.

    I stand with Peter. Not you, my good man, the other one.

    ReplyDelete
  78. "David L. Alexander, you have nice name. I remain anonymous because my ideas speak for themselves and my name would add nothing to their meaning. What might be gained if I signed my name? I have not said anything uncharitably which my anonymity would make cowardice."

    Martin:

    You would be correct in that your ideas may speak for themselves. Since you questioned the strength of my convictions -- you know perfectly well what I'm referring to; I'm not going to spend the rest of the day going over a slew of comments to find the correct one -- I considered it necessary to support my willingness to put my name behind my remarks.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Anonymous10:35 PM

    Anon. 21.59:

    The milk-white hind, you may have forgotten, was "Without unspotted, innocent within, she feared no danger, for she knew no sin".

    Does this describe NewChurch? Is it unspotted without, in the liturgy, in discipline, in its pro-abortion nuns? Even in its nuns who procure abortions to 'help' pregnant women? Or is it spotted and besotted and marred by the presence of Cardinal Baloney and his gang? How is the Bride of Christ honoured by Cardinal Schönborn's picnic Masses, complete with hamburgers, cigarettes, and lighters?

    Is this NewChurch 'innocent within' its precepts, when its lawful successors of the apostles protect those who rape children, as Archbishop Sarasti Jaramillo has done in Cali, Colombia? I think not. I beg to protest.

    Your grape analogy would work better if only the wolf who reaches for the grape were starving to death in a liturgical desert. St. Thomas teaches that the starving man may take the grapes hanging over the wall to feed himself and his starving children. What may we do when we are deprived of the spiritual food we need and when Christ is mocked by pumpkins on the Altar?

    The Arians and the NewChurchers: are they not parallels?

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  80. "Fortunately for him, it is required of him."

    I meant to say "NOT required of him." Hopefully I can submit this in time to prevent a long response.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Anonymous10:42 PM

    Mr Alexander,
    Forgive me, but I still do not understand
    How saying that there are a group of people who wear Gothic vestments an attempt to insult me?

    My last name is Cruise.
    I just thought it would be witty to add the "The Groove" part.[guess not]
    I am actually not afraid to post my Christian name, it is Martin.
    At least I have a bit of an imagination

    Cruise the Groove

    ReplyDelete
  82. Anonymous10:44 PM

    Dear Mr. Alexander:

    Words convey meaning and should therefore conform to truth. The Pope's terminology does not have the mint of his infallble authority in merely disciplinary instrucments such as apostolic letters.

    This New Mass is more distant in content and spirit from the T.L.M. than the T.L.M. is distant from the Ambrosian Rite of Mass. How, then, can the Ambrosian one be a separate Rite? Does a liturgy become a Rite only because the Pope inscribes 'Rite' on its titlepage? Not. The designation pertains to content, my man. The additions, deletions, alterantions, re-orderings, new rubrications and musical settings of NewMass make it a separate Rite of Mass, if it can be called even that, given its rubrical instablility.

    Accurate terminology must convey the facts of the matter. That Perl of low price made an error and Benedict XVI signed it, perhaps without giving the matter due consideration.

    In Catholic Tradition, there is no history of 'partial and full communions'. That is the blather of Anglicans. They don't know what makes a communion because they have no sure authority to tell them what it consists in.

    I stand with the first 260 popes. You can stand with the last two. They can disagree among themselves, as these are not matters of sure dogma. I cannot find the decree which proclaims that we must believe by divine and Catholic faith that there is a partial communion and a full one.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Anonymous10:49 PM

    "It is the Pope who sets the critera for unity"

    Then it is the Pope who will clarify if the FSSPX can be supported by the laity and it is the Pope who needs to write a letter to the Swiss Cleric commending him for his action.

    As far as I can tell the Pope has not, as of yet, stated that an FSSPX chapel can be considered equal to a Catholic Parish (objectively speaking -- not some horrible NO Catholic Parish in your neighborhood).

    Until the Pope speaks about the state of the FSSPX, all this "debate" only serves to complicate the real issue -- Should the laity and clerics support the four FSSPX bishops when these same clerics and laity could support the restoration of Tradition spurred on by SP.

    The immediate response by the FSSR after SP was the appropriate (i.e. Catholic) response and it should have been followed, en masse, by the laity and clergy that currently support the FSSPX bishops. I realize that the FSSPX does not like the FSSR anymore (I recall one commenter here calling Fr. Michael Mary a fool). Do you (generally speaking) honestly think that the FSSR thought everything would be a bed of roses after their response? Did they respond that way because the they thought they would walk into a restored Catholic Church? They responded that way because it was the right way to respond.

    Is it possible that some officials in Rome will try and suffocate the FSSR now? Obviously. Why is the FSSPX afraid of suffocating? Since when have Catholics sought refuge from suffering and persecution? The proof is in the pudding.

    The Lame Limerist (and poor interpreter of Aesop)

    ReplyDelete
  84. I feel I should apologize for the multiple postings; however, I received a google error when I submitted them (saying they were too long) -- so I broke them up and tried again, and again. I figured the moderators would actually read them before posting.

    Sorry about that. I read and approved them in reverse chronological order, so it appeared you had posted three or more somewhat different comments, and I thought it was safer to let them all through. The multiple postings have been removed now.

    I am sorry to hear that Rorate Caeli is strongly influenced by the FSSPX supporters.

    I don't know who told you that. I've only said that many of the commenters here adhere to or sympathise with the SSPX. Rorate is a weblog devoted to traditional Catholicism, but there is no requirement that one show that one either supports or opposes the SSPX before being allowed to comment here.

    My expertise is not in scripture. I have read up on Aesop's The Fox and the Grapes and fail to see how God used it "properly" either! Perhaps he used it in a different way than Aesop.

    You're quite mixed up. "Sour grapes" (Aesop) has nothing at all to do with "The fathers have eaten a sour grape" (Scripture). The point of Aesop's fable is to show how people can denigrate things that they in fact desire but cannot have. The point of the ancient aphorism quoted in Scripture is to illustrate the erroneous belief that the guilt of a father is inherited by his children -- God instead proclaims that a father is responsible for his own actual sins, and a child is responsible for his own actual sins; God does not punish a child for his father's actual sins, and does not punish a father for his child's actual sins.

    ReplyDelete
  85. "Mr Alexander, Forgive me, but I still do not understand."

    Well, forgive ME, Martin Cruise, but it was a response to a remark you made. No "magnum opus" I write subsequently will take the place of you simply going back to the original remark. Simply do that, and all will be revealed. Do it not, and the mystery remains.

    ReplyDelete
  86. PKTP:

    I was hoping to correct an omission, in expressing the limits to (and, this case, the irrelevance of) the Pope's freedom from error. But I was too late. And I believe I can determine without your analysis the number of Popes with which I stand, thank you very much. I stand with the current one, Benedict XVI, the legitimate Successor of Peter, as he does with those before him.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Anonymous12:28 AM

    Anon. coward (no identity) writes:

    "Then it is the Pope who will clarify if the FSSPX can be supported by the laity and it is the Pope who needs to write a letter to the Swiss Cleric commending him for his action."


    In law, esp. Canon Law, what is not forbidden is allowed. If the S.S.P.X priests were Baptized (and I don't mean in Pepsi Cola, as were some in the N.O. crowd, or by one saying the words while the other pours the water, or by a false formula), and if they have not been found to be schismatics or heretics, and if we have no good reason to think them such, then, in justice, we are bound to assume that they be good Catholics. If only we could say the same for Cardinal Kasper, for instance.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Anonymous12:32 AM

    Anon.:

    "Until the Pope speaks about the state of the FSSPX, all this "debate" only serves to complicate the real issue -- Should the laity and clerics support the four FSSPX bishops when these same clerics and laity could support the restoration of Tradition spurred on by SP."

    Perhaps some will do both.

    The decision to support or not support the S.S.P.X pertains to whether or not one thinks there to be a state of necessity or not. As different people can have differing opinions on the matter, support from one may be justified but not from another.

    If there is reasonable and probable doubt on such a matter, one is permitted to support the group or take the action.

    As most here know, I don't support the S.S.P.X but I strongly sympathise with it.


    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Anonymous12:39 AM

    Um, lame poetaster:

    The Orphans of the Holy Redeemer have now waited more than two years for what could have taken two days. The delay is just a great pretext for the S.S.P.X not to trust Rome!

    My only hope is that the reason for the delay has to do with something bigger than the F.S.S.R., like an international particular church for traditon that the Sons would be part of. If the reason is not something grand like that, the delay can only be a suffocation. Already, it has resulted in a separation in which a group of Sons have become step-Sons of the Redeemer and are now worshipping in a garage on the main Island of Papa Stronsay.

    Should this continue much further, we shall have step-Sons of the Redeemer and half-brothers of the Saviour galore. Where is Peter?

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Anonymous12:54 AM

    Dear Jordanes,

    I think we are in agreement about Aesop and the biblical usage of sour grapes. I admit that I am only taking what I want from each allusion and leaving the rest behind. Unacceptable in the academy, I know. I will tread more carefully when employing allusions.

    P. T. K. P.,

    I have not forgotten Dryden's great poem (my favorite). I read it whenever I get the time.

    I think that the current crisis is unprecedented and therefore strict comparisons with the Arian heresy will not work. Obviously, all difficult periods in Church history have a resemblance (mostly because one of the seven deadly sins becomes predominant among the clergy and perhaps the laity as well).

    I am not an expert on the Arian heresy but I do not think their was a third party involved. I think it was simply the Catholics versus the Arians. That is what should happen now: the Catholics versus the Modernists. The FSSPX are a third party drawing the faithful away from the battle (usually some of the best, or better informed, of the faithful). We could use the help.

    I think I said that I was an offspring of the Milk-White Hind (as I am sure you are as well). I did not say that Mahoney was. There are plenty of heretical, blasphemous, and just plain ridiculous members of the hierarchy; however, I do not follow the logic of your argument in this case. I am sure that Peter Damian could have also listed off some names, as you do, of reprehensible members of the clergy, but I would be surprised if he would like to see the faithful support independent chapels. But that leads us to the ultimate question:

    "What may we do when we are deprived of the spiritual food we need and when Christ is mocked by pumpkins on the Altar?"

    Indeed... What may we do? I am faced with that very question every day. What did every Catholic do when faced with oppression, persecution, and suffering? What did every Catholic do when they were deprived the sacraments? What does every Catholic do when they do not get what they know they need? If you are going to compare NewChurch with Arianism then you should compare our actions with those of our historical counterparts (whether lay or consecrated).

    Yes, Christ is mocked by pumpkins on the Altar; but are you certain that he is not also mocked by four bishops who refuse to submit to His Vicar on Earth -- while at the same time drawing clergy and laity to themselves in what is undoubtedly a parallel structure (complete with schools, colleges, seminaries, and glistening grapes).

    I agree with you regarding NewChurch but I am not sure that its existence justifies support for the FSSPX -- especially when there does exist Traditional movements in the Church (including some good Bishops) that could benefit from the support currently going to the FSSPX.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Anonymous1:14 AM

    P. K. T. P asks "Where is Peter?"

    Why bother with this question when you so clearly show the answer to be irrelevant? Does it matter where Peter is if you do not stand with him?

    You say that supporting the FSSPX is up to the individual -- no Peter needed for that.

    Your argument once again uses NewChurch (Kasper, Pepsi Cola) as the justification for the FSSPX. That argument does not hold water (or pepsi cola) in any law system. Part of your argument runs through the baptism, etc. etc. of a given FSSPX priest to prove their "good standing" as Catholics. Again, there appears to be no need for Peter, in your argument.

    Why not try and justify the existence of the FSSPX by juxtaposing them to the FSSP or another Catholic reality that can actually be taken seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Anonymous1:36 AM

    Mr. Alexander, amateurish as usual, writes:

    "I stand with the current one, Benedict XVI, the legitimate Successor of Peter, as he does with those before him."

    Really? Please point out to me usage of the terms 'partial communion' and 'full communion' in the works of Pope Leo XIII or Pope St. Pius X. This is NONSENSE. The misterm came from the Anglicans and was part of their heretical branch theory. It has no place in the tradition of Catholic usage. Recent popes have picked up on this error only from teh 1950s or so. Exactly what Benedict XVI means by the misterm is unclear. He seems to mean a unity in some essentials but not in others. If so, this does NOT reflect Catholic usage, as I've demonstrated before. If you have unity with in all essentials, presto!, you have communion; otherwise not.

    Relativism: it is the real tenor of this partial communion vehicle. Can't you see that?

    We're also in communion with those in Heaven and in Purgatory. As for those in Hell, they're in communion with the Protestants, the infidels, and the Modernists in NewChurch.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  93. SACERDOS

    “They have abandoned the Fort, those
    who should have defended it.” (St. John Fisher)

    Who held the Fort
    Till the Calvary came
    Fighting for all
    In His Holy Name?

    Who fed the sheep
    As the pastures burned dry
    A few Good Shepherds
    Heeding their cry.

    Who led the charge
    ‘Gainst heresy’s Huns
    Defending the degreed
    To His lowliest ones?

    Who battened down
    The hatch of the barque
    To warm cold souls
    From shivering-seas dark?

    “Who?!!” mocks Satan
    Delighting in doubt
    Fills you with questions
    Never lets you find out.

    “Hoc est enum
    Corpus meum…
    …and for many…” who kept
    The dead words – Te Deum!

    ReplyDelete
  94. "Mr. Alexander, amateurish as usual ..."

    Ouch! Better to be amateurish than arrogant. Also, better to be the guy who said:

    "P. K. T. P asks 'Where is Peter?'

    "Why bother with this question when you so clearly show the answer to be irrelevant? Does it matter where Peter is if you do not stand with him?

    "You say that supporting the FSSPX is up to the individual ..."


    Never has a Pope been bound to simply regurgitate the same words of the last Pope. At some point in all the centuries, one of them is going to have the audacity to elicit an original thought. This carries the risk of someone who begs to differ. There's a lot of second-guessing of Popes in venues such as this, not to mention cherry-picking which dead Popes earn our devotion and which do not. One might ask, where is Peter? I would ask, where is humility?

    If "communio" is a matter of absolutes, very well then. The Society is NOT in communion with Rome. Satisfied? Probably not. Maybe this is like a door left open, the hand of a father who extends mercy and solicitude to the very limit. The Holy Father also has the right (and every authority, whether you like it or not) to propose new juridical terminology, such as "ordinary" or "extraordinary form." His authority "to bind and to loose," a continuation of the rabbinical authority that Christ gave to the Apostles, is well within his prerogative.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Anonymous4:23 AM

    "Anon. coward (no identity) writes"

    Enough with the Anonymous = Coward gibes. There was a time when Anonymous meant humility. In fact, there are plenty of reasons why a person may wish to remain Anonymous (cowardice being pretty low on the list). If the commenter is being rude or attacking the person and not the ideas than perhaps he or she is a coward not to put their name to it. If that were the case then I would suspect the moderators would not even post the comment.

    You would be hard pressed to apply the definition of the word coward to the use of Anonymous in a blog comment box.

    Coward = a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain. Dare I add ... suffocation?

    ReplyDelete
  96. Anonymous4:31 AM

    It has been said that JP 2 and now BXVI is pussy footing around so as not to cause a schism in the Church.

    Schisms take 100s of years to heal whereas heretics die off in one generation.

    Their reasoning suggests it is easier to suffer some heresies rather then to cause schism.

    I do not agree with this line of thought.

    Hanni

    ReplyDelete
  97. Anonymous6:04 AM

    Anonymous Coward writes:

    "You say that supporting the FSSPX is up to the individual -- no Peter needed for that."


    If the Church allows us to support the S.S.P.X, then it is indeed up to the individual. The Church does not forbid such support, and what is not forbidden is indeed allowed. This has nothing to do with Peter's *DUTY* to protect the faithful from irreverance and sacrilege. Thousands and thousands of babies were misBaptized in Mexico City. The priest went through the cathedral and used an invalid formula and this was widely reported. The Pope has done nothing about it. It is his duty to take action in such things when the more immediate superiors do nothing. So where is he?

    I would worry less about the S.S.P.X and more about the thousands of priests and monks, friars and nuns who are heretics, who support abortion, who (like one in Toronto who has not been disciplined) simulated the marriage of two men, who are Raymond Gravel and support abortion and inverted marriage openly on television.

    You want some facts? Oh, that's good. I like facts, especially since they're all on my side. Rome says that the S.S.P.X is not in schism. That's a fact! Rome says that its priests are not heretics. Another fact! The P.C.E.D., since 2002, has been saying that its Masses fulfil the Sunday obligation. I did not say these things first: Peter did. Benedict XVI and even John Paul II said them.

    Despite all these things, I do not and never have supported the S.S.P.X. But, yes, Peter does allow it. It's a fact! So it is up to each individual.

    But the Franciscan priest who composed his own Canon on the spot in a N.O. I once attended: did Peter allow that? No!

    The nun in Illinois who is conducting women to get their abortions. Did Peter allow that? NO!

    The priest in my former parish who made the hosts out of yummy little cakes with raisins in them and then popped these into communicants mouths. Did Peter allow that? No, but he did nothing about it.

    Fr. Gravel. Does Peter allow what he stands for? No, but Peter won't stop him either.

    Get it straight. Think Arian heresty.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Anonymous6:13 AM

    I have always wondered where the idea of "partial" communion came from. The fact that a pope may use that term does not mean that there actually is such a concept. It has always sounded to me like being "a little bit pregnant."

    I also wonder why there is such a hubbub against the SSPX from certain quarters. Nowadays Catholics believe nearly anyone can be saved, regardless of their religious affiliation. Can those who are in "partial" communion be saved? If so, and the SSPX is in partial communion, what's the big deal?

    Recent activity on the part of some in the Vatican regarding the pro-abortion, communist Patriotic Association in China surely should make anti-SSPX people think twice.

    If Mother Teresa can go to Mass at a Church run by priests associated with a pro-abortion, communist organization, and yet still become a Blessed, what's to stop anyone from attending an SSPX Mass?

    ReplyDelete
  99. Anonymous6:44 AM

    My argument is simply that supporting the FSSPX is, by its very nature, a decision to NOT support the restoration of Tradition within the Church. Believe it or not, but the modernists were always happy over the last 40 years when Catholics decided to leave for the FSSPX. The FSSPX do not pose a problem to the modernists. SP does, but the FSSPX does not.

    Plain and simple -- any and all efforts that support the FSSPX are energies, resources, stable communities, clerics, etc. that are being taken away from the fight within the Church.

    Some of the greatest suffering in the world is in the realm of the spiritual, emotional, and mental faculties. When a Catholic is faced with a bad bishop we suffer greatly. So be it -- offer it up. The FSSPX are definitely a glistening grape -- but at, at present, they remain a forbidden fruit.

    P.S. Just because someone takes exception to your metaphors and dislikes your poetics does not make them lacking in gentlemanliness. I do not recall writing anything ungentlemanly about you.

    Cruise the Groove,

    I drive 100s of miles. Sometimes you have to make sacrifices. However, fulfilling your Sunday obligation at an FSSPX chapel during this difficult time in the Church IS NOT the same thing as trumpeting the greatness of the FSSPX as the only source of Catholicism. By all means fulfill your Sunday obligation but we Catholics miss you on the front lines during the week. We will miss the swiss Cleric too.

    Suffocating for three years ... is he serious. The laity have been suffocating for 40 years without the advantage of being able to say a private mass in our own house chapels. Perhaps spiritual suffocation is the method of martyrdom for our time -- unfortunately, no FSSPX supporters will suffer this martyrdom and thereby renew the Church. In the end it will not be the FSSPX that saves Rome but Rome that welcomes back the FSSPX to join with the FSSP et al. to complete the restoration.


    I disagree with the above post on a number of levels. First, it is not true that the modernists were always happy over the last 40 years when Catholics left (sic) for the FSSPX.

    They were obsessed with the FSSPX and fought it for years. And the Catholics who "left" weren't quiet about anything, and the bishops couldn't stand it. I know; I was there during those early years of the SSPX.

    The example of Saint Nicholas in Paris comes to mind.

    No, what the modernists were quite happy with were those who stayed, prayed, and obeyed because the modernists knew that such people pose no obstacles to their plans.

    The old Mass is around today, purely and simply, because Catholics disobeyed. There's no getting around it.

    To insinuate that the SSPX is not fighting the good fight from within the Church is to deny what is happening these very moments with the discussions on the documents of Vatican II. The SSPX is the first, and only, group that has taken the fight right to Rome, and the result will one day be a clarification of just exactly what Vatican II was supposed to mean.

    In addition, the above post speaks about martyrdom. All well and good. However, I was rearing children during those awful years, and I did not have the right to choose martyrdom for them. I had the duty to teach them the Catholic Faith, something that had become absolutely impossible in many formerly Catholic venues throughout the world.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Anonymous12:50 PM

    I just went into the 2010 volumn of "Annuario Pontificio" which has a chapter listing ALL religious Orders of priests,friars,monks, and all nuns (active and clositered) which have been granted Pontifical Status.
    I found this Abbey of St. Maurice, and the tiny Augustinian congregation of Caons to which it belongs. Also listed is the Abbot of this house.....the liberal one pictured.

    According to this volumn, the St. Maurice Congregation has only 1 house....the abbey from which this hero-priest fled to the SSPX. There are less than 40 members in the Congregation, and less than 30 at the Abbey.
    Before Vatican II and the disaster of the reforms and the Novus Ordo, the Congregation had close to 200 canons, and several monasteries in Switzerland. Today they are an aged group of less than 40.
    Their liberal Order will not last long.

    And, according to the Annuario, neither will some of the big, established Orders of priests and nuns....some very ancient and with well known names.
    There are now less than 10,000 Franciscan OFM priests (Friars Minor). That might sound like alot to some people, but before Vatican II, there were twice as many, and many more houses. The OFM Franciscans have closed close to 1,000 monasteries in the last 17 years alone!!!! They're nearly gone in Europe.
    The Capuchins in Italy have only 20 novices!!! Only 20.
    And in Italy, CARDINAL BERTONE'S precious SALESIANS have only 2.....in the whole country.

    So much for the reforms and "New Springtime" of Vatican II !!!

    ReplyDelete
  101. The decision to support or not support the S.S.P.X pertains to whether or not one thinks there to be a state of necessity or not. As different people can have differing opinions on the matter, support from one may be justified but not from another.

    Oftentimes the FSSPX is berated for its disobedience by those who seek to minimize its impact on the life of the Church. But the fact of the matter is there is such a thing as the state of necessity in canon law that would justify actions otherwise considered illicit. This history of the FSSPX is replete with instances wherein they employ the state of necessity theory to justify their stance. This state of necessity clause is in the 1983 Code and like it or not, the modernists must not relegate it to the dustbin.

    Like P.K.T.P. I do not attend an FSSPX chapel but I sympathize with their predicament, i.e., not having status or faculties while others of the most horrendous stripe enjoy such privileges. I have made the state of necessity argument at my website; http://phaley.faithweb.com and one needs merely to scroll down the page to find it. Surely, anyone with a degree of common sense, when looking at the abuses prevalent in the Church today, which have lasted since 1970, must agree that there is at least the possibility of this argument in favor of the FSSPX. That possibility tends to exculpate them from penalties envisioned in canon law for their offenses. This is why I believe the PCED and the Holy See continue to accept them as an internal matter for the Church.

    ReplyDelete
  102. FranzJosf2:00 PM

    Great discussion. Some responses:

    1. When Bishop Fellay met with the Holy Father in August of 2005, I believe it was, the HF said to the Bishop: A state of necessity may well exist in France and Germany. (I'm paraphrasing.) It is likely that French and German-speaking Switzerland is included. I certainly sympathize with the Swiss Canon.

    2. The terms "partial" or "imperfect" communion are simply convenient terms in a discussion. What really matters is that the SSPX are baptized Catholics who hold and believe all contained in the Deposit of Faith and are in union with the Church; however, they do not have a legal, canonical standing, which is a disciplinary consideration. The doctrinal questions that they have are not in areas of the Deposit of Faith, but how some apply it. For instance, there is but one way to the Father: Jesus Christ, but some in the Curia hint otherwise. They simply want these things to be clarified. Not unreasonable.

    3. Mr. Perkins. I agree with your guidelines. My only quible: change one sunday TLM per diocese to one sunday TLM per deanery. Will you send your suggestions to the Holy See? I hope so.

    4. The Holy Father is about to establish in the Curia and new discastery to evangelize formerly Christian Europe. The SSPX is already a partner in that endeavor; imho, the Holy Father is grateful for that, hence his thrust to canonical regularity for the SSPX.

    5. The SSPX is not stepping back at the last minute, as implied by a poster above. They have been 'transparent' all along in saying that they seek doctrinal clarity and protection from modernist bishops who would try to blunt their message. Again a reasonable proposition.

    6. Martin: Using a name simply makes discussion easier, as do the imprecise terms 'partial' and 'imperfect' communion. Neither carry the weight of authenticity.

    ReplyDelete
  103. "Fortunately for us, the Pope claims no infallibility in semantics."

    Fortunately for him, it is not required of him. He also has absolute juridical authority over the Church, and can introduce distinctions such as "ordinary form" and "extraordinary form" without the sanction of the magisterium of the internet. He and/or his duly authorized spokesmen can also demonstrate the limits of audacity in introducing the term "imperfect communion" to describe the SSPX.

    I stand with Peter. Not you, my good man, the other one.


    I've had been debates here in the past with Mr. Perkins and Mr. McFarland about whether or not the Church is right to speak of things such as "imperfect communion" and "full communion." I'm not interested in further futile back-and-forth over the matter, because at the end of it all we have the Church, whose speaks of "imperfect communion" in her presumably fallible but certainly authoritative Magisterium, and we have traditionalists, who insist in their fallible and unauthoritative magisterium that communion is all-or-nothing. I see where both sides are coming from, but as a Catholic who seeks to be faitful, orthodox, and docile, I'll side with the Church on this matter and treat the opinions of certain traditionalists with the seriousness they deserve.

    I stand with the first 260 popes. You can stand with the last two. They can disagree among themselves, as these are not matters of sure dogma. I cannot find the decree which proclaims that we must believe by divine and Catholic faith that there is a partial communion and a full one.

    That cuts both ways, because there is also no decree which proclaims that we must believe by divine and Catholic faith that communion is an absolute, something that you either have perfectly or don't have at all. Neither has any pope prior to the last two taught so, but a valid oecumenical council of the Church has taught us using the language of "imperfect communion" or partial communion -- and that's in documents that even Msgr. Lefebvre put his John Hancock to.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Anonymous4:38 PM

    "If the Church allows us to support the S.S.P.X, then it is indeed up to the individual. The Church does not forbid such support, and what is not forbidden is indeed allowed."

    Let me get it straight. You are equating the Vatican documents that say a Catholic can fulfill his Sunday obligation at an FSSPX chapel with SUPPORT of the FSSPX.

    I am sorry P. K. T. P. but you are using the facts wrongly. I agree with the facts that you state (how can I not, they are facts). What I have disagreed with from the very beginning of this posting is the notion that SUPPORT can justifiably be given to the FSSPX. Support means money, time, energy, family life, affiliation, etc. etc.

    There is a big, BIG, distinction between fulfilling your Sunday obligation and pouring your whole entire family life and being into a local FSSPX chapel.

    Please point me in the direction of the PCED document (or any other) that stated it is acceptable for a Catholic to SUPPORT the FSSPX.

    Regarding the State of Necessity argument. It sounds very convincing and obviously exists on paper; however, I fail to see where it exists in reality. If it is up to the individual than it must be specific to the individual.

    P. K. T. P., you are very knowledgeable about where the bad "Catholics" are and where the good Catholics are, perhaps you can locate for me an individual State of Necessity.

    Just because there are Pumpkins on an "altar" in a diocese 4000 miles away from me that does not put me in a State of Necessity. If it is up to me then there would have to be nothing available to me in my area (no FSSP; no Eastern Rite option; no Latin Ad Orientem Novus Ordo a la "reform of the reform"). If we have hit "Necessity" then absolutely no other options can be available.

    It seems that if the FSSPX supporter can find one or two (or even 100 or 2000) bad prelates or nuns anywhere in the world they can then cry out "State of Necessity" and SUPPORT the FSSPX -- even when there is an FSSP apostolate equidistant from their house.

    Perhaps I do not understand the "State of Necessity" argument properly. It made sense when applied to Lefebvre but no so much when given freely to the individual. Does it mean that the Catholic Church cannot not be supported (or does not exist) because of the presence of Modernists within it? Really?

    Things are becoming clearer to me. The FSSPX will claim a State of Necessity due to the presence of Modernists within the Church (confuse "fulfilling an obligation" with "out-and-out" support), but they allow for the legitimacy of the Pope and so avoid Sedevacantism. It seems the FSSPX is stuck between a Rock and a hard place. You should support the Rock if you think he is legitimate... if not, by all means, join the Sedevacantists.

    Oh, and one more thing... P. K. T. P. stop being a coward by using the Modernist disease that ravages the Church as the juxtaposition to the argument on hand. It is not the FSSPX versus Modernism in the Church (that is not an argument); it is the FSSPX versus the FSSP et al. in the Church.

    Signed: the Anonymous Coward who has only asked one simple question but still can't get a straight answer -- some nice poetry though.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Anonymous4:46 PM

    "Martin: Using a name simply makes discussion easier, as do the imprecise terms 'partial' and 'imperfect' communion. Neither carry the weight of authenticity."

    Agreed (this is Martin, The Catholic -- not Martin Cruise). My objection was to the continual use of the word Coward in relation to the choice to remain anonymous.

    I am sorry to be such a bother. I am just waiting for an intelligent answer to my question and then I will bow out to think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Anonymous5:30 PM

    "No, what the modernists were quite happy with were those who stayed, prayed, and obeyed because the modernists knew that such people pose no obstacles to their plans."

    Again, I am faced with this argument that only the FSSPX were traditional for the last 40 years. What if I stayed, prayed, and didn't obey? What do you mean by obey? There are somethings you just need to obey -- and others you don't (meaning obedience is not the issue).

    I know a priest in Toronto who stayed, prayed, and obeyed what he needed to (but did not obey what he did not need to). I want mention his name but anyone who knows Tradition in Toronto will know of whom I speak. It was he who drove the 100s of miles to bring the Mass to the families of 10. He puts the FSSPX priests to shame (and, to be honest, the FSSP who recently pulled out of Toronto to a little bit of shame as well -- maybe shame is too harsh a word for the FSSP).

    ReplyDelete
  107. Anonymous5:32 PM

    "The old Mass is around today, purely and simply, because Catholics disobeyed. There's no getting around it."

    Sorry. This is an absolutely ridiculous statement. And in the context of your other statements trumpeting the FSSPX as the sole panacea of our time, it is a laughable statement.

    If I am not mistaken, the Tridentine Mass was never abrogated; consequently, a single diocesan priest saying the Tridentine Mass between 1969 and 1988 would completely shatter your argument in favor of the glistening grape. This single, non-FSSPX priest would neither be disobedient, FSSPX, nor letting the Tridentine Mass die. Fortunately, my argument does not depend on a single priest -- there were others. Once 1988 hit, your argument is ... well, just that much more ridiculous.

    Lest we forget, The Tridentine Mass may also be around today because some priests said the Novus Ordo "properly" and preached and heard confessions properly for 40 years keeping the faithful alive during the difficult times. How many of the new SP Masses are being offered by these types of priests? P. K. T. P. might know.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Anonymous5:34 PM

    "To insinuate that the SSPX is not fighting the good fight from within the Church is to deny what is happening these very moments with the discussions on the documents of Vatican II"

    That is funny. Fellay is not in the ring along with with Burke and Rifan (for example). As soon as Fellay got close to the ring (i.e. the "lifting" and the "talks") we all saw how the Modernists reacted.

    The FSSPX supporters are not in the ring. I am in the ring. Rifan is in the ring. It is round 14 and Mick has already had to cut my eye lid. I have read the script and so I know I will win. I look out into the audience and I see a group of spectators that look glistening. They are far enough from rings side to avoid getting any of the suffocating blood, sweat, and guts that are flying out of the ring. The opponent is a beast -- a bit of a creed and a bit of a russian (sometimes even sporting a mohawk). No, I am sorry, but the FSSPX is not fighting the good fight, anymore.

    Don't get me wrong I like how Fellay speaks and conducts himself. He sounds stronger than Burke but Fellay has not taken any punches -- he is not suffocating yet. I look forward to his return. We could use the help. The measure of his greatness will be the difference in his statements after he joins Burke, Rifan, et al. and after the FSSPX join the FSSP et al. The FSSPX may indeed be fighting a fight -- but we need to make distinctions in this difficult time.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Anonymous5:45 PM

    “The SSPX is the first, and only, group that has taken the fight right to Rome, and the result will one day be a clarification of just exactly what Vatican II was supposed to mean.”

    Sorry. Wrong again. The result will be the Anonymous Cowards (who already know that VII means) holding up the belt shouting “Ave Maria ... We did it” and Our Lady, in tears of joy, saying “I love you”. I hope that the FSSPX can join us before that day so that the term coward will not have to be appropriately applied, for once, and to a much more horrible effect.

    “In addition, the above post speaks about martyrdom. All well and good. However, I was rearing children during those awful years, and I did not have the right to choose martyrdom for them. I had the duty to teach them the Catholic Faith, something that had become absolutely impossible in many formerly Catholic venues throughout the world.”

    Your experience may be horrible but it does not carry through to being an argument for the SUPPORT of the FSSPX under the current conditions.

    Also, I am pretty sure that your one experience can be countered by many historical examples of Catholic fathers and mothers handing on the Catholic faith when there was no venue around to support them either because of the geographic barriers or some revolution that just happened to be going on all around them.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Anonymous6:10 PM

    This is the Anonymous Coward, again.

    I am just wondering if I need to keep repeating that this is no longer a question of Modernist Revolutionary versus the FSSPX (even though the FSSPX would like to think it is).

    So far, all I have is an individually determined "State of Necessity" argument, some anecdotes regarding how bad it was, some references to how bad it remains, and a translation of "fulfill obligation" into "support with all your might". Oh, and one really great poem (but two not so good ones).

    Is this all you can conjure Saruman? (this is where the scene changes and an FSSPX supporter jumps into my question and explodes the entire thing with an amazing, intelligent, and relevant answer)

    Please answer the question:

    Is it an appropriate Catholic response in our post SP-world to SUPPORT the FSSPX?

    I am not asking if it was acceptable to SUPPORT the FSSPX from July 1, 1988, to January 21. 2009, when the four leaders of the group were excommunicated (although that is an interesting question in light of Long Skirts' poetry).

    These are different times with different realities that require different actions. And yet, the arguments from the FSSPX supporters remains the same. "We alone are faithful"; "We alone are fighting"; "We alone parent properly as FSSPX supporters"; "We cannot return now because Rome cannot be trusted"; "See, see ... the FSSP, the FSSR ... we cannot return now ... betrayal, betrayal"

    I look out from the ring and I see that Fellay approached Mick saying "we will return when the Modernist Beast is no longer throwing such heavy punches. When you and I can sit down and talk about this whole opponent thing, my group of glistening grapes will join your group of pummeled, suffocating Catholics".

    With Lefebvre, it looked like necessity -- but with Fellay, now, it is beginning to look a bit like cowardice.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Anonymous6:14 PM

    Protestants in pretty clothing.
    Or, Orthodox in lace.
    The FSSPX should just admit their decision, elect their own "pope" who they feel will teach what their ears want to hear, and move on.

    ReplyDelete
  112. John McFarland6:38 PM

    Jordanes,

    Your remarks, and some comments. The block caps are because I have no way of doing bold face or italics.

    "The late Msgr. Lefebvre continued to operate a priestly fraternity after the Church had juridically suppressed it, then proceeded with ordinations in a diocese without the ordinary's permission, then proceeded with episcopal consecrations without the assent of the Successor of St. Peter, a schismatic act (cf. Vatican I's Pastor Aeternus). In addition, the members of the SSPX continue to exercise episcopal and priestly ministry even though the Church has told them they have received no episcopal and priestly ministry from the Church."

    THE SSPX'S COURSE OF CONDUCT IS A MATTER OF DISOBEDIENCE, AND NOT OF SCHISM. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THAT DISOBEDIENCE IS JUSTIFIED. IS IT LIKE YOUNG JORDANES DISOBEYING WHEN HIS FATHER TELLS HIM TO TAKE OUT THE GARBAGE? OR LIKE YOUNG JORDANES DISOBEYING HIS FATHER WHEN HIS FATHER TELLS HIM TO STEAL?

    In short, the SSPX functions as if there is no church to which they must answer. It is professedly a Catholic fraternity of priests, and of course it's members are Catholic, but it is not a Catholic family and can get along quite well with or without the Church, or with or without the Pope.

    THE SSPX MUST ANSWER ABOVE ALL TO THE HEAD OF THE MYSTICAL BODY, AND THE SALVATION OF SOULS IS THE HIGHEST LAW. WHEN WHAT THE POPE SAYS CONTRADICTS OUR RESPONSIBILITIES TO HE WHO OF WHOM HIS IS THE VICAR ON EARTH, WE CANNOT OBEY HIS VICAR. WHEN CANON LAW COMES ATHWART THE SALVATION OF SOULS, IT MUST BE DISOBEYED. THE SSPX DOES NOT GIVE THE VATICAN A WIDE BERTH BECAUSE IT LIKES TO, BUT BECAUSE IT HAS TO. FIRST THINGS FIRST.

    YOU ARE WITHIN YOUR RIGHTS TO TAKE ISSUE WITH THE SSPX'S JUDGMENTS, BUT THAT INVOLVES SOMETHING MORE THAN ACTING AS IF, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AT ISSUE, YOU CAN'T EVER DISOBEY THE POPE. THAT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. IF THE STAKES ARE HIGH ENOUGH, YOU NOT ONLY CAN, YOU MUST. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE STAKES ARE HIGH ENOUGH.

    ReplyDelete
  113. John McFarland9:42 PM

    Jordanes,

    To note the obvious, the issue regardin the term "imperfect communion" is: what does it mean?

    Traditionally, "communion" was tied to the issue of whether an individual was baptized, had supernatural faith, and accepted the authority of the hierarch; and in the case of an instiution, whether it professed the Faith and accepted the authority of the hierarchy.

    It is notoriously the case that the term "communion" by the conciliar Church (for example, in the "communio theology" of Josef Ratzinger and his collaborators) the whole concept of communion has become very murky -- to say the least of it.

    I am a Catholic, and so I accept the authority of the Pope to legislate. But against this murky background, I have no idea what it means to say that the Pope has in some sense enacted the concept of partial communion.

    I am not even sure that he's ever done anything to officially enact the concept.

    If all that it means is that the SSPX is not in a regular position vis-a-vis the Church, nobody -- starting with the SSPX -- denies that.

    Ordinarily "partial communion" is used to treat as sorta kinda in the fold, what we used to call heretics and schismatics. It is my considered opinion that the converse use of "partial communion" as regards the SSPX is used to make the SSPX's status seem scarier than it is -- and to distract attention from the real issue: the scariness of the state of the conciliar magisterium that led the SSPX to its current status.

    ReplyDelete
  114. John McFarland10:21 PM

    Jordanes,

    To the extent that law doesn't take proper account of reality, its binding character is thrown into doubt, or even effectively destroyed. To take the extreme example, you can't legislate black into white.

    As regards the "ordinary form" and "extraordinary form," we are told that they are the two forms of the one Latin rite.

    But everyone knows that the New Mass was introduced and intended to supersede the Old Mass, without that every actually being said -- typical Vatican II slipperiness. For years Rome kept mum about the real situation -- that the Old Mass had not been abrogated or obrogated -- even though everyone at the Vatican knew the score. For whatever his reasons, the Holy Father finally fessed up.

    Everyone also knows that the two "forms" have two different theologies. The Ottaviani intervention makes that clear. So does the SSPX's 2002 pamphlet, The Problem of the Liturgical Reform. So does a substantial body of literature (the SSPX pamphlet's first draft was about 500 pages, I believe). I don't think that the progressivist liturgical community has made any effort to challenge that view. They know it's true, and they're proud of having produced a new and improved Mass as the prime tool of promoting the new and improved theology whose supporters took over at and after Vatican II.

    Nor has the Holy Father made any attempt to explain what he means by the concept of two forms.

    Of course, we know what he appeals to: the hermeneutic of reform and continuity.

    But he hasn't made much success in explaining that concept either.

    So I don't think the confusion of the underlying theological situation leaves the two forms concept with much meaningful authority.

    As for "ordinary" and "extraordinary," they are words that seem to give some justification to maintaining the status quo: the Old Mass as the inferior Mass with its public use at the mercy of the episcopacy, even though there is no reason given (and no principled reason existing) for this state of affairs. So the practical result is that the words just remain words.

    ReplyDelete
  115. THE SSPX'S COURSE OF CONDUCT IS A MATTER OF DISOBEDIENCE, AND NOT OF SCHISM.

    Perhaps, perhaps not. Certainly the Holy See does not wish to declare that the SSPX has formalised a schism through their disobedience and through Msgr. Lefebvre's deliberate creation of an extra-ecclesial organisation and initiation of an episcopal line of succession outside of the Church's communion.

    THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THAT DISOBEDIENCE IS JUSTIFIED. IS IT LIKE YOUNG JORDANES DISOBEYING WHEN HIS FATHER TELLS HIM TO TAKE OUT THE GARBAGE? OR LIKE YOUNG JORDANES DISOBEYING HIS FATHER WHEN HIS FATHER TELLS HIM TO STEAL?

    Yes, we've gone over all that many, many times before. I agree with the Church's position that the illicit episcopal consecrations were not justified and that the SSPX's members are suspended, whatever they may personally, sincerely believe.

    THE SSPX MUST ANSWER ABOVE ALL TO THE HEAD OF THE MYSTICAL BODY, AND THE SALVATION OF SOULS IS THE HIGHEST LAW.

    It is not, however, of itself a justification for disobedience.

    WHEN WHAT THE POPE SAYS CONTRADICTS OUR RESPONSIBILITIES TO HE WHO OF WHOM HIS IS THE VICAR ON EARTH, WE CANNOT OBEY HIS VICAR.

    Sure. That's what is in dispute.

    THE SSPX DOES NOT GIVE THE VATICAN A WIDE BERTH BECAUSE IT LIKES TO, BUT BECAUSE IT HAS TO.

    Or rather, because it believes that it has to, whether or not it in fact has to.

    YOU ARE WITHIN YOUR RIGHTS TO TAKE ISSUE WITH THE SSPX'S JUDGMENTS

    Even more than that, I am within my obligations to take issue with their judgments.

    BUT THAT INVOLVES SOMETHING MORE THAN ACTING AS IF, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AT ISSUE, YOU CAN'T EVER DISOBEY THE POPE.

    As I've told you many, many times, I am fully aware of the fact that one can disobey the Pope under certain circumstances. I've never said anything to the effect that one can't ever disobey the Pope, so you really need to quit bringing up the "Ultramontanism" canard with me. It is the SSPX and its adherents who have the onus of defending their actions and opinions that defy and ignore the Church. Catholics who are not affiliated with the SSPX have no obligation to explain why they do not join the SSPX in their status of irregularity and disobedience.

    Anyway, I'm not going to get into this with you again. Martin Cruise expressed curiosity about just what the SSPX's crimes against the Faith were, so I simply listed the matters where the Church finds fault with them. The Church could conceivably reverse its position on those matters, but She hasn't yet.

    ReplyDelete
  116. John McFarland10:41 PM

    Anonymous 16:38,

    "Regarding the State of Necessity argument. It sounds very convincing and obviously exists on paper; however, I fail to see where it exists in reality. If it is up to the individual than it must be specific to the individual."

    The state of necessity is basically that the magisterium of the Church, including the magisterium of the Popes since
    1963, constitutes a gospel other than the gospel that has been handed down to us.

    It has nothing to do with yours or my particular circumstances. It has to do with the judgment that the highest authorities in the Church have been derelict in their primary obligation, to teach the Faith. All the other evils afflicting the Church are just the implications of that basic and horrific evil.

    ReplyDelete
  117. John McFarland12:22 AM

    Jordanes,

    We have been through all this only in the sense that I keep pressing you to examine the issue of whether the Benedictine magisterium is defective, and you keep coming up with excuses for not doing so.

    Of all the many words that we have exchanged, and that you have exchanged with those whose judgments are similar to mine, a minscule percentage has involved your undertaking anything resembling an affirmative defense of anything the Holy Father has said.

    The Church is falling down around our ears. The Holy Father keeps talking about the mutual enrichment of unbelief and belief -- and he clearly isn't talking just about Catholic belief. I have any number of times demonstrated that one can take a dozen lines of a papal address almost at random and find things that prima facie are not consistent with the spirit - nor, arguably, with the letter -- of the gospel.

    The hermeneutic of reform and continuity seems to be just a hifalutin way of saying that the Church must change with the times. Is that what the Church has always taught?

    So you have no justification in staying out in the tall grass.

    Whether you continue to fight with me or not is beside the point. Given the state of things, everyone has the moral obligation to take the measure of the magisterium of the current Holy Father.

    ReplyDelete
  118. "It is the SSPX and its adherents who have the onus of defending their actions and opinions that defy and ignore the Church. Catholics who are not affiliated with the SSPX have no obligation to explain why they do not join the SSPX in their status of irregularity and disobedience."

    This conversation has been hard to follow, as there are so many comments. For awhile, I thought it was some guy named Anonymous arguing with himself. But thanks to whomever wrote the above, as it represents how such a conversation must proceed in such a venue as this. I have to remember it the next time this subject comes up (and no matter what we talk about, it does).

    Meanwhile, at today's Solemn High Mass, I heard a very moving account of priestly courage that preceded the splitting of the Diocese of Arlington from the Diocese of Richmond in 1974. I hope to have either the transcript or the link to the recording on my blog this month. Stay tuned ...

    ReplyDelete
  119. We have been through all this only in the sense that I keep pressing you to examine the issue of whether the Benedictine magisterium is defective, and you keep coming up with excuses for not doing so.

    That's a serious distortion of the history of our interaction. You're leaving out your numerous unsuccessful attempts to show defects in the Pope's magisterium. If you keep trying and failing to convince me that the Pope is materially a heretic, then we can conclude one (well, at least one) of three things: 1) You're explaining things wrong, 2) I'm not intellectually equipped to understand your explanations, 3) I'm not psychologically disposed to consider seriously to your explanations, or 4) the examples of alleged doctrinal defects that you cite are not doctrinal defects. Perhaps I flatter myself, but I'm pretty sure that 2) and 3) are not the case, and it doesn't seem to me that your explanations are defective either. So . . . .

    Of all the many words that we have exchanged, and that you have exchanged with those whose judgments are similar to mine, a minscule percentage has involved your undertaking anything resembling an affirmative defense of anything the Holy Father has said.

    I have no burden to demonstrate that what the Holy Father said is in accord with the Catholic Faith -- rather, we are required to assume that it is, unless proven beyond all doubt that it is not. Nor have I any obligation to dig into the question of whether or not the SSPX's distinctive truth claims are really true. It is you who claim that what he has said is defective, and it is you who have taken the extraordinary step of removing yourself from the Roman obedience -- therefore it is you who have the burden to establish that the Church is wrong and the SSPX is right. So far you haven't shown me anything that convinces me, and with that track record, I'm inclined less and less to see you as an authority on these questions.

    The Holy Father keeps talking about the mutual enrichment of unbelief and belief

    See, here's another reason why you have been having such trouble in your efforts to convert me to your preferred version of Catholicism -- you misstate what the Pope says.

    I have any number of times demonstrated that one can take a dozen lines of a papal address almost at random and find things that prima facie are not consistent with the spirit - nor, arguably, with the letter -- of the gospel.

    No, you've never yet demonstrated it, only asserted it (repeatedly), as if the assertion alone were sufficient to prove your case.

    So you have no justification in staying out in the tall grass.

    I'm not staying out in the tall grass, I'm just trying to stay where Peter is, like all Catholics are obliged to.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Anonymous6:43 PM

    I'm with Peter, quick get Peter...

    http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-53647-Catholic-Examiner~y2010m7d11-Destruction-from-within-Georgiastyle

    ReplyDelete
  121. There are at least two ways of viewing these doctrinal discussions. One is that they will lead to a hopeless deadlock with both parties at a loss to recognize any good in the other's arguments. The second is they will lead to some sort of a meeting of the minds on what constitutes "obedience and communion". But the trumo card, if you will, is the intent of the Holy Father for he is the one person with the authority to reconcile the views of the participants. Does he want, for example, for his pontificate to end with another failure to reconcile with the FSSPX? Do the bishops of the FSSPX want to continue this unending dialogue with no real hope of success? I find these to be a ridiculous assumptions and I predict the Holy Father will act to avoid this outcome with all the considerable power and authority that he possesses. P.K.T.P. has explained how he could do this in great detail.

    I mentioned a trump card earlier but the one trump card everyone should think about is the Holy Spirit. Does the Holy Spirit want these talks to end in disagreement and disunity? I think not but our prayers may have a lot to do with the outcome. The fact that both sides are continuing to talk without accusations and acrimony is a hopeful sign and one that could have hardly been predicted a few short years ago. So, be of good heart and continue to ask the Holy Spirit to guide the participants in the right direction for Hope springs eternal in the human breast. Also, please remember the 20 million rosaries and the effect they may have or, may have already had, on these discussions. Nothing is as powerful as prayer, we are told, and no prayer more powerful than the rosary. I beg the Holy Father in his mind's-eye to think of those holy people on their knees praying those rosaries and I ask the FSSPX bishops to do the same. Can the result be anything but success?

    ReplyDelete
  122. John McFarland3:07 AM

    I noticed that DICI has announced that Father Escher (I suppose that he is no longer a canon) is in fact joining the SSPX, which led me to reread the original post.

    Summorum Pontificum Observatus seems to be spinning the departure as a Mass issue, and the post's headline seems to support that spin; but I'm skeptical that that's right.

    Many of the denizens of this blogspot demonstrate that it is possible to be very scandalized indeed about the implementation (if one can dignify it with that name) of the Motu Proprio and yet not move a millimeter toward the SSPX.

    I doubt that people seek to join the SSPX primarily because of the Mass, and I would be surprised if the Society would take anyone of whom it thought that was the case. For the SSPX, as is evident in its pamphlet "The Problem of the Liturgical Reform," the liturgical and doctrinal issues are of a piece.

    It would be interesting to see Father Escher's letter, or otherwise have an account of his reasons. I would imagine that sooner or later we will.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Jonathan10:06 AM

    God and most blessed Mother Mary bless and keep holy Canon Escher wherever in Holy Mother Church he decides is best for himself. Make him a great and true reformer of Thy Church in her Liturgy and her Doctrine. The Lord knows how we are all suffering from and in the confusion caused by the enemies of God and man and diabolical disorientation that Sr. Lucy mentioned. Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary Holiest is what we need.
    Deus incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine: et homo factus est.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Jordanes et al:

    My interest in this discussion was brought to a head with a homily given at a Solemn High Mass this past Sunday, where I am usually the MC. Its recording, I believe, has come at the perfect time for those who have followed said discussion. It is posted on my blog here.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Anonymous3:19 AM

    "The old Mass is around today, purely and simply, because Catholics disobeyed. There's no getting around it."


    Sorry. This is an absolutely ridiculous statement. And in the context of your other statements trumpeting the FSSPX as the sole panacea of our time, it is a laughable statement.


    You're mixing me up with another anonymous poster. I made the above statement, but I previously said nothing about the SSPX being the sole panacea of our time. I do not attend an SSPX chapel, but I have in the past, and I share the majority of their views.

    That said, I would say that you're obviously too young to know what actually happened in the years of the council and immediately following and thus you come to erroneous conclusions.


    If I am not mistaken, the Tridentine Mass was never abrogated.

    And you're correct. However, the fact that the Mass was never abrogated is irrelevant because that's not what the Vatican officials and our bishops told us during those years. They told us that the old Mass was illicit. Period. And we could not have it.

    In 1974, the Congregation for Divine Worship issued a notice stating that the Tridentine Mass could not be offered, and people like me disobeyed them.

    No contradiction of that notice came from Pope Paul VI.

    Consequently, a single diocesan priest saying the Tridentine Mass between 1969 and 1988 would completely shatter your argument in favor of the glistening grape.

    You're obviously too young to understand what happened during those years. By 1969, the Mass had been so altered, no one would call it "the Tridentine Mass."

    There was very little difference between the Mass of 1969 and the new Mass. My parish had Mass facing the people, all in the vernacular, standing for Holy Communion, et cetera, long before we ever heard of a "new Mass."

    This single, non-FSSPX priest would neither be disobedient, FSSPX, nor letting the Tridentine Mass die.

    Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Notices from the bishops and the Vatican said that the old Mass was outlawed. To offer that Mass in public was forbidden. It's a matter of history.

    Sorry, but that diocesan priest would have been disobedient. Do your homework.

    Fortunately, my argument does not depend on a single priest -- there were others.

    Tell us who all these priests were that had permission from the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship to offer the missal of 1962after the new Mass was promulgated.

    Once 1988 hit, your argument is ... well, just that much more ridiculous.

    1988? What has that got to do with anything?

    Again, you don't seem to know what happened. 1984 was the year of the indult, not 1988.

    Lest we forget, The Tridentine Mass may also be around today because some priests said the Novus Ordo "properly" and preached and heard confessions properly for 40 years keeping the faithful alive during the difficult times. How many of the new SP Masses are being offered by these types of priests?

    Well, since there are very few "new SP Masses," the answer to your question would also be "very few."

    In addition, I would like to know what "properly" offering the new Mass would look like.

    It is statements like yours that I find amusing because people who tend to harp about "obedience" are the very same ones who are silent when it comes to the last several popes' behaviour at Mass.

    Pope John Paul II permitted such things as a topless woman reading the epistle at Mass, and the present pope permitted topless men to dance at Mass.

    Is that an example of offering the Mass "properly"? If not, then we are in a very sad state when even the popes cannot offer the Mass "properly."

    I would venture a guess that nearly every, if not every, new Mass in the world entails false translations of Sacred Scripture, regardless of the language used.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Anonymous4:07 AM

    "To insinuate that the SSPX is not fighting the good fight from within the Church is to deny what is happening these very moments with the discussions on the documents of Vatican II"


    YOU: That is funny. Fellay is not in the ring along with with Burke and Rifan (for example). As soon as Fellay got close to the ring (i.e. the "lifting" and the "talks") we all saw how the Modernists reacted.


    Archbishop Burke in the ring?

    Are you familiar with Saint Alphonsus parish in St. Louis, which the archbishop had jurisdiction over and had the right and the duty to command adherence to the Catholic Faith from the priests and people there?

    The archbishop tolerated the most outrageous liturgies in that parish. Yeah, he was "in the ring" all right.

    And Bishop Rifan (who would not even be "Bishop" Rifan if it were not for the SSPX bishops) was "in the ring" and offering Mass "properly," I suppose, when he was at the Mass in the link.

    Obviously, we have very different views of what "in the ring" means.

    http://www.sspx.org/discussions/bishop_rifan_concelebration.htm

    If those are examples of someone fighting for the Faith, I would hate to see examples of someone who was fighting against the Faith.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Picard4:22 PM

    Oh, so many points.... and arguments... I´ll try to respond to some...

    ReplyDelete
  128. Picard4:24 PM

    annons of 15 July, 2010 03:19, 15 July, 2010 04:07.

    Very good -- but like all annons: USE A NAME (much easier for discussion!!!!)

    ReplyDelete
  129. Picard5:33 PM

    P.K.T.P. and Mc Farland

    re "perfect"/"imperfect" (comm)union I still argue that the terms can be reconciled with tradition.

    Well, perhaps better to use some other nomenclatura and speak of (only) "inchoativ", "ineffective", "passive" or "dead" .... union e.g. through the CHARACTER INDELIBILIS of BAPTISM.

    But in any case there is - also according to trad. canonistics - a difference between
    a) a not-baptized person
    b) a baptized but apostatic (heretic, schismatic) one
    c) a baptized not apostatic (heretic, schismatic) but excommed one

    c) is in some "fuller" union than b), b) in some "fuller" than a).

    And traditionally you also differentiate between a formal and a non-formal (pure material) heretic/schismatic, and between a grand and a little ban etc....

    So there are also some degrees and - SPECIFIC!! - differences between the different kinds of state of a person.

    So perhaps we can re-interprete the terms in this trad. way...

    ReplyDelete
  130. Picard5:49 PM

    re the"Sancta Sedes"/Rome falling into error/heresy (or totally apostate).

    It - or you say She (don´t you) CAN`T respective seing Her as part of the infallible magisterium (extraord. or ordinary) - but She CAN respective seeing her as the sedes of the Pope that can fall into error/heresy (or even apostate).

    Why would Holy Mother Church otherwise/elsewise pray:

    ut domnum Apost. in sancta religione conservare digneris ??!

    ReplyDelete