Rorate Caeli

Interesting words

From an interview granted by the Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX/SSPX) to the Caledonian newspaper Les Nouvelles Caledoniennes (Dec. 27, 2010):
The goal of your Fraternity is still to integrate the Catholic Church?
Yes, we have always maintained that we do not wish to go our own way. We maintain that we are Catholic and that we remain so. We wish that Rome will recognize us as true Bishops. Otherwise, the word schismatic is not used any longer regarding us. Now, if we are not schismatics, nor heretics, then we are truly Catholic. Otherwise, the Pope says that there is solely a problem of a canonical nature. An act of Rome suffices to state that it's over and that we reenter the Church. This will happen [Ça viendra.]. I am very optimistic.
[Source: Le Forum Catholique; tip: Le Salon Beige]


  1. Anonymous12:44 PM

    Re-enter the Church, Yes. But not at the expense of giving up the Tridentine Latin Mass, accepting Vatican II and all the "deforms" that came from it.

    Entering the Church with all Catholic Tradition and the Tridentine Mass intact and with the ability to spread this vast treasure and heritage of the Faith to all Cahtolics unimpeeded by Bishops, YES.

    To enter the Church as a capitulation to Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, and all the reforms of Vatican II and accept the "new vision" born from Vatican II...NO WAY!

  2. At this current time, the Society could have no better captain then Bishop Fellay. A brilliant man, and a true warrior of God.

  3. Anonymous2:26 PM

    God speed that day.


  4. He hits the nail square on its head and one only hopes the Holy Father will act so that no one can say: "they exercise no valid ministry." It is one of the most incredible injustices in the church today.

    "Dear St. Joseph, Protector of Holy Church, inspire your namesake Joseph, now Benedict, to govern the Holy Church with a firm and resolute hand, to remove those who openly preach and practice against the Holy Faith, to reject any and all heresies, to welcome without delay those who have for years fought to retain Tradition in practice and belief, to render Justice to those who have been mistakenly identified as outside the church, and to provide for the continuation of Holy Tradition in liturgy, practice and belief among all those who your Son has won for His Father in Heaven."

    "Sit beside Joseph, now Benedict, and watch and inspire his every move that he may accurately and faithfully govern the Church here on earth. Give him the courage to do what must be done as you did when you left everything and went with your beloved spouse Mary and the Holy Infant, Jesus, to the safety of Egypt. Do not allow the enemies of Holy Church to influence Joseph, now Benedict, in any way with the heresies of Modernism so accurately described by the saintly St. Pius X in the encyclical Pascendi Domenici Gregis, a warning given to us over 100 years ago."

    "Inspire all our spiritual fathers to do what must be done to set on proper course our Holy Church on earth and together with Joseph, now Benedict, to proclaim the truth throughout the world and gain many souls for your Beloved Son. St. Joseph, you have never failed us and we ask for your special attention and concern now with the enemy of the Cross at our doorstep. Together with the Holy Angel, St. Michael, fight those enemies with every weapon in the heavenly arsenal and preserve us in our faith now and forever," Amen.

  5. \\Re-enter the Church, Yes. But not at the expense of giving up the Tridentine Latin Mass, accepting Vatican II and all the "deforms" that came from it.\\

    Are you saying that the Roman Church should enter the SSPX?

    ||heritage of the Faith to all Cahtolics unimpeeded by Bishops, YES.||

    Sorry, but the structure of the Church as given by Christ is hierarchical and episcopal.

  6. \\Re-enter the Church,\\

    BTW--You also seem to be saying here that the SSPX is OUTSIDE the Church presently.

  7. Please, avoid stupid comments. Caledonian can and should be used for anything related to New Caledonia.

    We don't use funny words here for no reason, and do not call French newspapers Gallic or Irish newspapers Hibernian, so if we wanted to say Scottish we would have written Scottish. Any other idiotic comment of the same nature will be deleted, derided, ridiculed, and, as far as possible, the commentator will be banned. Please, do not waste your time and ours.


  8. To Anonymous at 12:44:

    The next exchange in the interview says:

    Q. So you would accept the decisions of Vatican II ?

    A. No, not like that. We ask that the great ambiguities of Vatican II be dissipated.

  9. Anonymous4:06 PM

    Paul Haley. . . Amen!

  10. Thank you, Paul, for that wonderful prayer.

  11. thomas tucker4:46 PM

    It always sounds to me like the SSPX is saying that they will only "re-enter" the Church on their own terms.

  12. Catholic5:01 PM

    Stay out of the Church and stay out of Grace.
    They are wreaking havoc in their cultish communities and the families are the victims.
    I have seen enough damage caused by SSPX to last me a life time.
    ENOUGH !

  13. Anonymous5:20 PM

    Thomas Tucker said...
    "It always sounds to me like the SSPX is saying that they will only "re-enter" the Church on their own terms."

    Doesn't sound that way to me, Thomas, either objectively or subjectively.

    Thank you Bishop Fellay!

  14. I am confident that Bishop Fellay here is only speaking of complete and normal canonical recognition by the pope, since the FSSPX are already in the Church.

  15. Anonymous6:16 PM

    I am of the opinion that its time for the SSPX to reconcile now, or real soon. I am afraid the next Pope may not be so friendly to tradiition. If they are given normal status they can do so much good for the Church working inside the strucure of the Church. Can you imagine the day that happens, the day that the SSPX chapel in an area is listed on the Diocese phone directory of "Catholic" churches. I'd like to be a fly on the wall at the first diocese meeting of priests and see what happens when young men in cassocks walk in!

  16. Anonymous6:24 PM

    "Are you saying that the Roman Church should enter the SSPX?"

    No, Jack. The Roman Church must return to its own Tradition, jettisoned in the wake of VC2 and saved for decades by the fidelity of the SSPX.

    Anyone who honestly believes that many bishops have not for forty years and continue still to actively impede the heritage of the Faith must be living in an alternate reality.

    Are there really none so blind as those that will not see?


  17. Cruise the Groove6:29 PM

    It sounds as if very soon now the FSSPX will be given a ministry in the Church.
    Very optmistic indeed!

  18. I would welcome the SSPX "reintegration," because as a practical matter it would considerably clarify the line between different groups in the traditionalist camp.

    It is another question whether professing "filial submission to the Holy Father" and finally facing the real prospect of having to put it into practice (Bp. Fellay having to step down at Rome's request, say, as Fr. Bisig of FSSP had to do, because some priests might be willing to celebrate Mass in the "Ordinary Form") would prove to be too much for some SSPX clergy to swallow.

    Does anyone with good SSPX connections (mine, alas, have been out of service for awhile) have any insights to offer on the latter point?

  19. Anonymous6:54 PM

    When Bishop Fellay states that the time for a normalization of canonical status for the SSPX *will* happen, I am very hopeful. He is stating not that this will happen *soon* (which is a subjective term) but merely that it *will* happen. It is a certainty. Something in what the Pope has told him or in what the Pope's men who are in charge of the theological discussions have conveyed to him leave him with a sense of *certainty*. This is significant from a man who is not given to wishful thinking and who has demonstrated a very prudent and mature approach to media roll out in general.

    And to me this will be the news of 2011. We know that in many parts of the world, national bishops' conferences have, for whatever reason, and in general, been reluctant or vehemently opposed to applying the mandates of SP in their dioceses. While a small number of bishops have been faithful to the Pope's SP dictates the large and overwhelming majority have not. We have even seen some bishops publicly call the Pope on hsi desires here almost as if they are challenging the Pope in public.

    Which makes me seriously wonder that *when* the Pope does normalize the SSPX's canonical status within the Church, will the schism of the SP-opponents also become concrete? The schism is tangible today but the bishops and bishops' conferences still feign a sort of loyalty to "Rome".

    When SSPX is normalized, do they ditch even the sheep's clothing and do we see the formal undertakings of a new Western Schism? Or will they wait until Benedict XVI dies, and foist the schism at the election of the new Pope, if the latter continues Benedict's XVI plans for harmony and development in accord with Sacred Tradition?

    I wonder if NC, CAP and PKTP can comment on this. Speculative certainly but I see this as the looming news of 2011.


    PS A Blessed, safe, healthy and prosperous 2011 to all the readers on Rorate Caeli. God bless.

  20. Anonymous7:10 PM

    And yet another good question would be how long it takes for sedevecantists to swallow their pride and sumbit to some (any) type of authority after the FSSPX's hard work pays off and Rome steers back onto the proper course.

    Or will they continue their illicit operations from the sidelines hoping that it will all comes crashing down again?


  21. thomas tucker7:57 PM

    If you read on in the interveiw, you will see that he continues to deny doctrine that is now taught by the Church- for example, he wishes to deny that people in other faiths and churches can enjoy eternal salvation. He refuses to accep that men should be free to choose thier religion. THe SSPX is going to have to give on these issues in some sort of compromise of understanding before they are re-integrated.

  22. Anonymous8:15 PM

    To Anonymous at 12:44:

    "The next exchange in the interview says:

    Q. So you would accept the decisions of Vatican II ?

    A. No, not like that. We ask that the great ambiguities of Vatican II be dissipated."

    Exactly. That's fine then. I prayed and hoped that the SSPX would not be so stupid as to capitulate to the Vatican just in the name of full integration and accept the disasterous reforms of Vatican II .

    The reforms of Vatican II, both in and of themselves, and also the multitude of deviations, experimentations and abuses coming from them or inspired by them in any way should be totally repudiated, either in one act of this Pope or the next, or very gradually.

    Most would hope for one quick rejection of it all, but it will probably be the later rather than the former.

  23. Anonymous10:55 PM

    This is an odd turn of events. Until now, Bishop Fellay has been saying that the S.S.P.X will not accept a canonical structure until Conciliar Rome has renounced her errors. The subtext was that Rome would offer a structure and the Society would consider it once the theological problems were resolved.

    Now he is speaking as if the structure will not be offered but conferred or, perhaps, Rome could remove the impediments, resulting in a return of the Society to the status of a pious union. But since that form is now obsolescent,, she would then correct it and, presto!, we have a society of apostolic life.

    Of course, that would create a tiny little problem, since such a society would only exist in the four sees where it was in 1975, when it was abolished; or it could be updated to include the sees it presently functions in. But how would it expand? Under law, it would then need the permission of the local bishops. It always comes back to the local bishops and they are usually the enemy of anything true and just and good. Just consider the bishops of Quebec? There is hardly a decent man--or a real man--among them.

    Once again, then, an international particular church would be needed to embrace the clerics, non-clerical religious, and lay supporters of the Society. So a new structure would be needed for the Society and its affiliated religious orders. A personal prelature won't do, since it specifically excludes religious who are not clerics; it also excluces lay subjects.

    A personal diocese or personal apostolic administration would be needed, or more than one (owing to deals betweent the Holy See and some countries in corcordats). But a new structure of some kind would be needed if the Society is to expand and get around the local Marxist bishops and their Bolshevik Vatican II supporters, like the Belgian peritus who was raping his own cousins. Liberals and child molestors don't like tradition and they don't like the Traditional Latin Mass.

    What to do? If it's a choice between these liberals and real Catholics, what must Rome choose. Don your tiaria, Benedict XVI (not just 'Benedict': that's not his name). Don your tiara and make a choice!


  24. Anonymous11:07 PM


    There is a Vatican II document (cant' remember which one because I avoid reading them on principle) which actually *recommends* that some dioceses, for special reasons, should be personal rather than territorial. The Code of Canons supports this in Canon 372.2 and we now have our very first personal particular church, the personal Apostolic Administration of St. John-Mary Vianney in Brazil. We have a precedent.

    So while the Church is hierarchical and episcopal, not all dioceses need embrace all those living in a certain territory. In other words, the S.S.P.X and its affiliates could be given their own international and personal diocese. If concordats between the Holy See prevent this (in the cases of Austria, France, Poland and Argentina), we could have more than one, all under S.S.P.X bishops. It can be done.


  25. Anonymous11:23 PM

    Dear Non-Catholic:

    The members of the S.S.P.X and its supporters are already in the Church, even if most Vatican II liberals are not. We are only discussing whether or not this group of Catholics will be organised as such. The only damage I can see is that done by the New Mass, which is Protestant in conception and Protestant in spirit.


  26. It's always good to hear from Fr. Cekada. I remember as a young boy having the privilege of serving Mass for him and the other priests of the northeast district of the SSPX, known now infamously as 'The Nine.'

    Back then, those talented young priests were accomplishing such marvelous work on Long Island that people were flocking to the Society, and there was a tremendous sense of growth and excitement in having a united opposition to the liberal and out-of-control policies of +John McGann.

    Sadly, in 1983, when these good priests decided to leave the Society and establish their own society, many of us were broken-hearted, as the momentum in favor of Tradition came to a screeching halt here and what was set up in its place was division and acrimony, which only ended up leading many good people back to the reservation or into sedevacantism.

    So it's pretty clear that in the end, the work that these nine good priests had begun and so carefully built upon was destroyed by their own unwillingness to submit to any living authority greater than themselves.

    That being said, while I passionately disagree with the choice they made, I will always be grateful to both Fr. Cekada and the rest of the 'Nine' for their devotion, generosity, and goodness to me and those I knew and loved.

    I wish him nothing but the very best.

    Rob Collorafi

  27. "unwillingness to submit to any living authority greater than themselves."

    1. That was a generous post.

    2. I hope the SSPX learns to maintain their fidelity to Tradition, and be loyal to the Holy Father, and be, yes, a little more astute in how they go about spreading love for the TLM.

    3. The devil can feign every virtue except obediance.


    Scroll down to True Believers.

    It is the best telling of the SSPX story with His Excellency Bishop Fellay and the Superior of the U.S. District commenting.

    I am not a fan of Bishop Fellay, but he does a more that great job in this documentary.


  29. Anonymous1:29 AM

    " their own unwillingness to submit to any living authority greater than themselves."

    The SSPX? I agree.


  30. Fr. Cekada, however -- unlike Bp. Fellay -- will not soon be in a position where a man he regards as Pope can replace him if he doesn't keep his subjects from denouncing V2 or the New Mass too stridently, or if he discourages other subjects from fraternally aiding diocesan bishops by occasionally celebrating the New Mass.

    Sooner or later, the Bisig-ization will begin, and the silence will descend.

  31. Anonymous4:16 AM

    "Sooner or later, the Bisig-ization will begin, and the silence will descend."

    There are fewer places more silent these days than Holy Name of Mary Church in Rochester, NY. This reality, however, has nothing to do with the mistrust and deceit that eminated from the post VII church but everything to do with the mistrust and deceit which eminated from people who were unwilling to subject themselves to an authority which did not suit their needs (or desires some have argued).

    Has any sedevecantist group ever outlined any realistic conditions under which they would subject themselves to Rome? Instead of prognasticating a desired outcome how about picking up a sword and joining the battle?


  32. Why not a personal ordinariate?

  33. Thomas Tucker, the SSPX "denies doctrine now taught by the church". Yes it is now taught but of course previously it was not, and this is the problem. How can doctrine on faith and morals change? The truth is that it cannot. "Outside the church there is no salvation" is a truth and also God did not predestine any soul to be damned. Quite simply anyone who is saved is saved by being "in " the church. This may happen only by baptism, a sacrament of the only true church, which can be administered even by non-believers or by baptism of blood or desire. How does God accomplish this? In the case of protestants "invincible ignorance" suffices to allow them to be saved provide they have perfect contrition for their sins. In the case of heathens without contact with any christian we must leave it up to "God's privatee". It is a mystery. As regards freedom to choose a religion people are free to choose to sin and go to hell because they have free will but morally they must always choose the true and the good, not to do so is evil, hence the only religion you can choose without objectively sinning is the true one. St. John Newman explains this very well in his "Apologia". Your view is unfortunately pure Liberalism.
    Robert Kennedy

  34. Anonymous12:46 PM

    2011 will be the year of total normalization.

    FSSPX is in the Church and the FSSPX Bishops are Catolhick Bishops.


  35. PJL said:

    "Instead of prognasticating a desired outcome how about picking up a sword and joining the battle?"


    When Fr. Bisig decided to pick up a sword and join the battle over the New Mass, a cardinal picked up the phone, and it was auf wiedersehen, Herr Generaloberer

    We don't hear Fr. Bisig's voice thundering across the Great Plains against the New Mass and Vatican II, now, do we?

    Don't kid yourselves. The same thing will happen sooner or later (probably sooner) with a reintegrated SSPX.

  36. Jack O'Malley2:21 PM

    Would indeed that 2011 be the year of total normalization! The FSSPX returned and Bishop Fellay created Cardinal.

    Who in the present College would be more papabile? Who better to continue the work of Benedict XVI to rebuild the Roman Church? Who more able to pilot the Barque of Peter through the coming tempests when the future of the world is at stake? Who more fitting to begin the process of canonizatoin of the worthy Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre?

    Saint Marcel, priez pour l'Église du Bon Dieu qui est tombée en ruines.

  37. With respect to Bishop Fellay's remarks quoted as being: "Besides, the pope said there is only a problem of canonical order. Just a note from Rome to say that it's over and we enter the Church. It will come. I am very optimistic"

    There is another opinion on what "canonical order" means. I interpret it to mean that doctrinal differences, if there really are any, must be solved as part of the movement towards "canonical order". In other words, to be practicing as Catholic requires that one believe what it is that a Catholic must believe, as opposed to what one wishes to believe or is suggested to believe, otherwise one is practicing fraudulently. This applies not only to the SSPX but to every order, indeed, every individual who claims to be Catholic from the Pope on down to the lowly parish priest and the pew-sitter in the local church.

    Now, the problem is that Rome has not laid down the law on what it is that a Catholic must believe as opposed to all the new-found ambiguous theories emanating from Rome since Vatican II. I'm speaking here of "freedom of religion," "salvation outside the Church", "other churches leading to salvation," etc.

    Prior to Vatican II the Baltimore Catechism was the one source document that specified these things. After Vatican II it was not possible to say that with any degree of certainty. That degree of certainty is what the SSPX and, by extension, other traditional orders/groups of faithful seek from Rome. Without that, the whole matter of "canonical order" becomes diffused in a sea of doubt. And I say this with all due respect to the editors of the CCC who, though well-intentioned, have not IMO succeeded in the "must believe" category. A little "Si, Si, No, No", would be welcome there.

    And, it is not enough IMO to say that "canonical order" means those bishops in "union with the Pope" for those very words are not discernible in action today. To deny that, it seems to me, is to be unrealistic in the extreme.

    Now, as Vicar of Christ and Head of the Universal Church, the Pope has the authority to say "the SSPX holds no doctrinal positions that are in conflict with the Catholic Faith and from this day forward they are free to practice as a Society of Apostolic Right without territorial boundaries in a worldwide Apostolic Administration under the guidance of their bishops." Will he do this? It's anybody's guess. There isn't any doubt in my mind, however, that it would be good for the Universal Church. And, I might add, the matter of territorial boundaries should not be viewed as an infringement on the authority of the Vicar of Christ to govern his church in the manner deemed appropriate for these times.

  38. Father Anthony Cekada said...

    I would welcome the SSPX "reintegration," because as a practical matter it would considerably clarify the line between different groups in the traditionalist camp.

    It is another question whether professing "filial submission to the Holy Father" and finally facing the real prospect of having to put it into practice (Bp. Fellay having to step down at Rome's request, say, as Fr. Bisig of FSSP had to do, because some priests might be willing to celebrate Mass in the "Ordinary Form") would prove to be too much for some SSPX clergy to swallow.

    Does anyone with good SSPX connections (mine, alas, have been out of service for awhile) have any insights to offer on the latter point?

    With all due respect, Father Cekada, nothing would prohibit the Society from practicing according to their beliefs whether shared by the hierarchy or not. Their beliefs will not change; therefore, neither will their practice of the Faith. 40 years of living in the desert have given them the will and the purpose to carry on.

    If they desire to be in union with the proclaimed Successor of St. Peter, so be it. If they do not, so be that too. My belief is they will appeal ultimately to a Higher Authority much as you appear to be doing. In the meantime, if they choose to ally themselves with Pope Benedict XVI, I think that would be a good thing for the whole church - emphasis on the whole church.

  39. Fr. Cekada wrote:

    "We don't hear Fr. Bisig's voice thundering across the Great Plains against the New Mass and Vll, now, do we?"

    You keep mentioning Fr. Bisig. Perhaps your real beef with Fr. Bisig is that he's always been very much against sedevacantism.

  40. Cruise the Groove4:36 PM

    "When Fr. Bisig decided to pick up a sword and join the battle over the New Mass, a cardinal picked up the phone, and it was auf wiedersehen, Herr Generaloberer"

    With all due respect, Father Cekada,I believe it is a cop-out to say that since Fr Bisig has not spoken out strongly on the drawbacks of the Novus Ordo Mass, or has not been allowed to, that you would not be able to if you come back to the Church, the Church that officially has stood for all time and still stands under Pope Benedict XVI at the present time.
    Perchance Almighty God is calling you to speak up in the Official Church, whereas Fr Bisig is not called to do so.

  41. thomas tucker5:09 PM

    RobertK- three words for you, especially since you are referencing Newman: development of doctrine.
    Agreed, the truth does not change, but our understanding progresses and deepens. Thereby, our understanding of "extra ecclesiam" does develop over time, with regard to Protestants, heathens, etc.
    With regard to choosing one's religion, nothing you said contradicts what Vatican II said about freedom of religion.

  42. I thank Messrs. Haley, Enoch and Cruise for their comments.

    First, I have no rancor whatsoever against Fr. Bisig. He was an ordination classmate of mine, and was unfailingly pleasant, kind and gentlemanly. And I am well aware of his rationale for accepting the Ecclesia Dei solution — if someone is indeed the pope, a Catholic must be subject to him. No argument on that principle from me!

    That said, I brought up Fr. Bisig's case only because I think it portends what will happen to a "reintegrated" SSPX.

    Is it likely that "Rome" or a diocesan bishop would tolerate an SSPX priest denouncing the Novus Ordo as "the Mass of Luther" or "the great sacrilege"? Or condemning it publicly as a "poison to the faith" or "evil in itself"?

    The cardinal would pick up the hotline to Menzingen, and discreetly indicate to Bp. Fellay that it would be in his best interests and that of his Society to put a stop to such intemperate criticism of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, which is, after all, celebrated by the Holy Father himself.

    And at such a point, would Bp. Fellay play the role of "Bishop of Iron"? Or instead, would he play the role of "Bishop of Mush," by sending the intemperate priest a rocket?

    With the precedent of Fr. Bisig before him, Bp. Fellay would know in advance the consequences of trying to play Bishop of Iron -- replacement as Superior General and relocation to somewhere like Winona.

    So which would he choose?

    One can envision a scenario like this playing out on any number of controverted issues, and it's one that SSPX priests and supporters should take the time to contemplate.

  43. A few words, if I might, on the "development of doctrine" and what it truly means to me. Doctrine is what it is; it does not change in the sense that what was once before held as true is now altogether seen as untrue. That doesn't mean that there won't be new ways and means of explaining doctrine in conformance to the needs of the faithful, always in faithful adherence to what Holy Mother Church has prescribed down through the ages. To say otherwise would be to fail to give credit to the Holy Spirit who penetrates the hearts and minds of we simpletons here on earth.

    On the other hand, to say that what was once before held as doctrine is not now so is to equivocate on the most highly regarded tenets of our Faith. That we cannot and must not do. Indeed, there are theologians at work at this very moment attempting to resolve the matter (Rome/SSPX). Let's hope and pray they will be successful.

  44. thomas tucker8:43 PM

    Paul- I certainly agree with that. And I don't think there is anything in the documents of VII that are demonstrably incompatible with the historical Faith. Even the idea that non-Christians may enjoy the bliss of Heaven is something that has been held as possible in pre-Vatican II days.

  45. Dear Fr. Cekada,

    You may be right but consider, if you will, the possibility that you may be wrong. None of us I suspect in this forum would like to see you on the outside, looking in, when all is made clear on Judgment Day. Just a thought from one that truly wishes you well and one whose Father Superior was with the Archbishop in 1973.

    You have much to offer the Church in its most drastic hour of need; never forget that! Others may call you a crank or troublemaker and forget the talents that you offer, but I know better. There are quite a few of the original SSPX seminarians that chose a different path than the SSPX as it exists today. Whose path will be vindicated in the end? Need we know that at this point in time? Methinks only that we need to "press on", as the saying goes, press on with the salvation of souls, the primary law of the Church. May God Bless and Keep you close.

  46. Anonymous11:34 PM

    Dear Fr. Cekada:

    I imagine that a reconciled S.S.P.X would institute certain policies 'as prudential practice' and then impose them with an iron fist.

    I agree that any reconciliation, even one imposed by Rome, will result in the exit of some Society priests. Look at what has recently happened with the incoming Anglicans. Some are moving across, some are leaving the Traditional Anglican Communion and joining other 'continuer' groups, some will come across but as laics rather than clerics.

    Whenever there is any sort of reconciliation between parties that have been hostile to each other, some members of at least one party will pack up and leave. The question is whether the départistes will be numerous or not. In the case of the S.S.P.X, a reconciliation would likely mean the departure of many and the outright expulsion of a few. But I suspect that most would adopt a 'wait and see' policy.

    I'm not favouring one course of action or another here. This is a prediction, not a recommendation.


  47. Anonymous11:43 PM


    Rome takes into account precedents in praxis and various jurisdictions have particular associations. Ordinariates tend to be attached to episcopal conferences (and usually to single countries) like crazy glue. Prior to 2007, all of them were confined to single countries, and none of them may extend beyond an episcopal conference's territory.

    A personal diocese or apostolic administration would be more approparate (cf. Canon 372.2). But the problem is that all these structures violate the terms of concordat between the Holy See and certain countries, especially France, Austria, Poland and Argentina. So there might have to be separate structures for those countries. Imagine several regional personal dioceses for tradition and the S.S.P.X as a society of apostolic life that works in them. Perhaps other traditionalist societies and orders would also work in them.


  48. Anonymous1:06 AM

    Mr. Tucker:

    Reading through the plethora of writing throughout the history of the Church on the subject of the salvation of the non-baptized, the only obvious conclusion is that the Church holds it to be possible; probability is another matter.


  49. Anonymous1:29 AM

    Thos. Tucker writes:

    "If you read on in the interveiw, you will see that he continues to deny doctrine that is now taught by the Church- for example, he wishes to deny that people in other faiths and churches can enjoy eternal salvation. He refuses to accep that men should be free to choose thier religion. THe SSPX is going to have to give on these issues in some sort of compromise of understanding before they are re-integrated."

    No, it does not follow that the Society will have to 'give' on these issues; nor does it follow, in the near term, that Rome will have to 'give' on them. It is possible that Rome will allow the Society to hold all its views as postions 'not incompatible' with required beliefs. Then, over time, Rome could exclude one by one those heresies formulated by liberals during and after the Council. It is possible that, in certain matters, more than one view will be tolerated by Rome on some subjects. This, I think, is the plan now being hatched.


  50. Joe B3:44 AM

    "It is possible that Rome will allow the Society to hold all its views as positions 'not incompatible' with required beliefs."

    That is also what I was thinking, P.K.T.P. Yes, I know that doesn't bode well for you, but if VII was only pastoral and not dogmatic, as the VII pope stated, then the formal barriers seem surmountable by an authoritative statement in that direction.

    But the question is, how close is the other side (the liberal bishops) to schism such that this might be the final straw betrayal of this pope to the letter and spirit of VII? The SSPX solution, whatever it is, may well be harder on the liberal side than on the traditional side. And I suspect the Holy Father has these same concerns, so he might not do what is recommended to him from those in the discussions if he senses it will push the liberal side to act.

  51. Anonymous3:49 AM

    Father Anthony,

    I have not the slightest concern about the "bisig-ization" of the SSPX or whether SSPX will even come back into the Church (are they out?. Saint Anne Catherine Emmerich, Mary Julie Jahenney, Sr Lucia and hundreds of other Catholic Saints have predicted a hellstorm of civil wars and revolutions to take place in France, Italy, England and just about everywhere else followed by a Great Catholic French Monarch and a Holy Pontiff who "rules with an iron rod and restores everything." Okay, sure I'm just a kook that believes in Catholic Prophecy. But take an honest look around, things are looking mighty shaky. How long do we expect this mortgaged to the hilt, morally bankrupt global facebook world will hang on before imploding? Everything as we know it will change including the Church, right back to what it was but yet to shine even greater. Deo Gratias.

  52. Anonymous4:10 AM

    Catholic you said:
    "They are wreaking havoc in their cultish communities and the families are the victims.
    I have seen enough damage caused by SSPX to last me a life time.
    ENOUGH !"

    Could you please list some damage caused by the SSPX? And no reports about Bp Williamson's statements. One man's words are hardly remembered for a minute in this day and age.

    On the other hand, I have experienced the new mass my whole life (born in 1970, what a present they changed the mass for me!)and have seen first hand the damage.
    1. My childhood novus ordo style Church build in the 73 closed due to lack of attendance.
    2. Apostasy of the faithful (50%) in both my large Catholic family and the US/Globally.
    3. Very little belief in the true presence of our Lord in the Holy Eucharist.
    4. Divorce, abortion, depression, falling apart of families, etc, etc, etc
    5. Continual degradation of the reverence in and for the mass. Drum kits on the alter, dance, hugging/kissing within the mass.
    I could go on and on, I guess that would be enough damage to last several billion people several lifetimes and unfortunately for many, and eternity in hell.

    Now, please do get back to me with those reports of "damage caused by SSPX to last a life time."

  53. Anonymous4:53 AM

    What did the Vatican do to the SSPX before the excommunications of 1988? What I'd like to know is did Rome suspend its priests, order it dibanded or what? I assume it started up and there was no problem and at some point they were deemed "nuts" and " trouble makers". Were they being punished by Rome before 1988? Thanks

  54. Anonymous6:17 AM

    The Holy See may well permit the SSPX to hold the theological views it does as "not incompatible" with Catholic doctrine. Naturally. But how can there be regularisation/reconciliation where the SSPX actually condemn viewpoints and conclusions at variance with their own (e.g. hermeneutic of continuity) as erroneous? And officially tell people rather not to attend Mass than attend the Ordinary Form Mass? Or, for that matter (as is the case in my country, certainly, and probably elsewhere), tell people they should rather not attend Sunday Mass at all, than attend any non-SSPX Traditional Mass - ie telling people to boycott "official" TLMs totally. I really battle to see how a regularised SSPX can continue to do that.

  55. thomas tucker6:23 AM

    Joe- here's my question. If what you say is correct,why does it matter if the liberals go into formal schism? Does it really matter whether they are in schism informally, which they are, or formally? And if so, why?

  56. Anonymous11:48 AM

    Rome indeed needs to return not to a frozen place in time, but to The Faith and Tradition held for us by The SSPX. They did not turn away; Rome did. Politics do not belong in The Church and Faith. "By their fruits you shall know them."
    God Bless and preserve The SSPX and may they continue to preserve The Faith and Traditions against compromise for us all.

  57. Re the posts of PKTP, Anon 3:49, Tridentinist and Adrienne:

    I, like PKTP, am inclined to think that "a reconciled S.S.P.X would institute certain policies 'as prudential practice' and then impose them with an iron fist."

    Why go through all the endless negotiations over doctrinal/canonical issues and sell the deal to SSPX supporters as a great triumph, only to have some turbulent priest who denounces, say, the Ordinary Form cost you good will coupons in Rome or the local chancery office?

    So, "prudential practice" would be the most appealing course — no more talk about the NOM as Mass of Luther, doctrinal poison, irreverent, a bastard rite, evil in itself or the other negative judgements Abp. Lefebvre and countless other trads used to characterize it.

    But by following this course, one ends up reducing the issue of old-Mass-vs.-New-Mass to merely one of "feelings," "enjoyment," "affection," "cultural diversity," "richness," etc. as various Vatican pronouncements have done since the 1984 Indult.

    The old rite is allowed to exist on grounds of "diversity" and "inclusion," and the doctrinal and moral problems intrinsic to the new rite (even in Latin) are ignored.

    So in the long run, the modernist camp wins — for one of its goals has ever been to establish a dogma-free religion, one where the primacy of immutable doctrine is replaced with the warm feeling of your personal religious experience, whether you get it from perfectly executed Solemn Pontifical Masses at the Throne, Life Teen celebrations, the rite of EWTN, standard suburban Novus Ordos, or Mariachi Masses.

    In such a situation, how many SSPX frogs will realize that they are being slowly boiled?

  58. In such a situation, how many SSPX frogs will realize that they are being slowly boiled?

    I don't know the answer to that question, Father, but I assure you that we, though not technically "SSPX frogs" are properly catechized and will resist to the death any attempt to accept the modernist Kool-Aid summarized as believing other than what Holy Mother Church has always held, taught and professed to be true from Apostolic times.

    I say, that, hoping and praying that the Holy Ghost will continue to assist us in deflecting the attacks of those out for our destruction. And, you know, now that I think about it and Modernism being the "synthesis of all heresies", it could be said that it has been with us since day one, ever since the first heresy got started in the Church.

    It is our humble opinion that the laity from the 1960s on accepted the poison without really thinking of the consequences. In effect they trusted the holy hands that were to give us the Bread of Life and received, instead, a banal substitute. They did this after being told that ordained priests always deserved our respect and filial devotion.

    They were the leaders, we, the followers. That is, until some of us said: Hold on, that cannot be; it's against the Faith and we sought out the traditional priests that truly give the Bread of Life. That there were then and still are such holy priests is something for which we can never be thankful enough.

    Having said that we are reminded of the Holy father's prerogatives regarding disciplinary matters in the Church and we accept all that we can without condoning that which is obviously evil, sacrilegious and against the Faith. There is no power on earth, No, not even Satan, that can override our free will to choose that which is right and proper. He will try with all his power and strength but he will not succeed as long as the Holy Spirit is on our side or, perhaps better said, as long as we are on His side.

  59. Very, very interesting statement.

  60. Anonymous2:06 AM

    I think the Holy Father realizes that the nature of Vat II's official authority is NOT INFALLIBLE, except when repeating already infallible teaching. You can hardly then claim that the THEOLOGICAL OPINIONS AND ATTITUDINAL DIRECTIONS OF SOME VAT II DOCUMENTS ARE REQUIRED OF ALL CATHOLICS.Thus, those not swallowing the non-binding opinions of ambiguous texts can hardly be outside the Church by that reason alone!
    FURTHERMORE, Paul VI had NO APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER TO RESTRICT PRACTICALLY THE TRADITIONAL RITE (cf St Robert Bellarmine on the limits of papal authority of which one is changing radically the received LITURGY OF THE CHURCH!) and tp IMPOSE an entirely newly concocted one on the bishops was an abuse of authority and extraordinarily imprudent. He got away with it because the overwhelming number of bishops LET IT HAPPEN, and THAT seems to arise from an exaggerated idea of papal authority coming from the left over Vat I's one-sided statement of a doctrinal truth, which in practice diminished the apostolic role of bishops partially usurping the apostolic tradition of worship in fact.It also meant that the bishops were not so resistent to such disruptive change because they really did not have at the time a liturgical spirituality themselves --which mainly survived in monastic religious life. Let's face it: Paul VI's motu proprios remaking of the ENTIRE Liturgy, caused great spiritual harm to the Church. In this he was NOT guaranteed infallibility. If the Bishops at the time had pushed back and got involved there could have been a generation of real studies and slow, modest adjustments where the continuity would have been obvious and the result truly an advancement of the
    Traditional Rite. You can't say that it's heretical to discern that the papacy of Paul VI BLUNDERED HOPELESSLY AND NAIVELY ALL THOSE YEARS AGO. Humility means that one admit one mistakes and Paul VI made blunder after blunder that was an earthquake and like Haiti we are still much in the rubble. Pope Benedict HAS TO RECONCILE THE TRADITIONALISTS. They will have to accept Vat II, but that allows one to call a spade a spade and identify the lack of depth and ambiguity in MUCH of the documents and wait for a greater degree of authority to clarify VERY problematic texts vis-a-vis the Tradtion.

  61. Anonymous2:39 AM

    Anon. 4.53:

    The S.S.P.X was erected canonically in 1970 and suppressed in 1975, and Abp. Lefebvre was suspended a divinis in 1976.

    So it existed canonically for five years. Hence, if the Pope were to reverse past papsl actions . . . it would suddenly re-materialise. The talks will supposedly end in the spring. I wonder if Rome will make a declaration thereafter?


  62. Anonymous2:43 AM


    The question is whether or not the Society condemns anything which Catholics are bound to accept.

    On the matter of counselling people not to avoid NewMass, the Society could not continue to say that it is sinful to attend NewMass but it could recommend that people avoid it.

    Without question, some Society priests would want to depart from a reconciled S.S.P.X; others would be thrown out. But most would likely stay, at least for an initial period.


  63. Anonymous2:51 AM

    "the rite of EWTN"

    Good one Fr. Cekada, you made me smile. Having visited there and watched for years, I often wonder where they get their mass inventions from and why they don't just do a low mass in their Chapel every day. Whose permission would they need? We've even had it out with one of the religious there when they revealed their ignorant notions about Abp LeFebvre and traditionalists.

    Seriously, as I stated in my post above, this is all basically rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic at this point compared to what is coming down the road. The 100th anniversary of Fatima is approaching and the 500th anniversary of the protestant reformation. Does anyone here really believe that everything now will just progress as is? Radicalized muslims taking over Europe, praying in the streets, the global financial economic house of cards, the complete objectification of women, gay marriage and civil rights, triumph of communism globally, youth with no innocence whatsoever? Our Lord made the sun dance at Fatima, do we really think he's now an absent landlord unconcerned with the affairs of men? I sure don't, this world is at the edge of a cliff. I'm no prophet of doom but you would have to be a hermit not to plainly see how the drum beat is marching faster and faster. There is going to be a lot of tough times for the Church within the next ten years but it will bring about Her triumph on the Earth so we can thank SSPX for keeping the faith alive until this difficult time ahead forces the entire roll back to all the former disciplines for Her greater glory. Deo Gratias!

  64. Anon @ 2:51,

    Regarding the EWTN mass, I've not watched it for years as you have, but I have tuned in twice to the radio version in the last month, and I was surprised at how reverent it was. Being used to the TLM, I couldn't follow everything and understand it, but some of it was in Latin. The "Domine, non sum dignus..." was exactly the same, though, as the TLM. For some here to say that the OF is evil or poisonous, IMO, is an affront to Our Lord, as He was the focus of this mass.

    I agree that things in the world are getting a little crazy. But back when the world was a little smaller, population wise, there were times when the end of the world may have seemed eminent, such as the horrible and grisly persecutions of Christians in the first three centuries in Rome. Then there was the Crusades. And the Reformation. The worst was probably the last century, with the two world wars and the advance of atheistic communism. But through it all the Church survived. I, for one, believed everything Our Lord said about His Church...that he would be with His Apostles until the end of time, and that the gates of hell would not prevail.

    Regarding our Lady of Fatima, I have to wonder if we've done enough prayer and penance for sinners, as she requested. As for myself, I have not done so. Sadly, I prefer to post on internet forums such as this one.

  65. Anonymous10:43 PM


    I agree the EWTN mass is reverent but again I'm not sure where they invent some of the things they do and since they do use Latin, I wonder why not just go to a low mass? In reality I know it's because the libs would be scared and offended by a daily Latin mass.

    Now, as to current events, I have no thought at all that it's the "end of the world" such as all the protestants obsess on. A "minor" chastisement, global conversion, and a promised age of peace must occur before the end.

  66. Anonymous12:23 PM

    If the Jesuits can be in the Church... why would anyone be offended if the Society was simply normalized in some canonical manner?


Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.


(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!