Rorate Caeli

A ''Roman-phile sermon"?

That is the way some characterize the lengthy sermon delivered yesterday by Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), in the Écône ordinations (audio in French provided by DICI) - we would not completely disagree with this. When we heard it yesterday, after a first half marked by the usual contrasts between traditional doctrine and the "Spirit of 1789",  its second half, in particular, seemed to be dominated by a need to justify dealings with Rome. "We are Catholic, Apostolic - and Roman," he emphasized, in the turning point of the sermon, adding that the crisis must be solved by Rome, and adding that "caritas Christi urget nos" (Christ's charity impels us) to deal with those in Rome. 

Now, our caveat would be that nothing of this is truly new: that the notion that the crisis must be resolved from the visible top of the Church is one that is quite traditional and that, it seems, the Fraternity has always defended (at some times, more clearly, at others, admittedly, much less). We are still, nonetheless, still very much impressed by the words delivered by the Superior General of the Fraternity, Bp. B. Fellay, in Minnesota (already linked twice here), and that, in a way, are complemented by the words delivered in the Valais yesterday: "I can guarantee you, my dear brethren, that if and when Rome finally corrects this canonical situation, the fight will start. It will not be the end!"

Let us pray.


Sixupman said...

BXV1 needs SSPX as another weapon in the armoury to counter the Conference's de facto creation of 'National Churches'. SSPX, together with the other Traditional Orders and like minded clergy, as a single unit, would provide an essential bulwark against the further Protestantisation within Mother Church.

Anonymous said...

The need for reenforcements is acutely clear.

Timothy Mulligan said...

This homily is the fruit of prayer and correspondence to grace.

Mr. Ortiz said...

The Roman Catholic Church needs SSPX to help in the battle for souls, with her, and for her...what reinforcements!


M. A. said...

"I can guarantee you, my dear brethren, that if and when Rome finally corrects this canonical situation, the fight will start. It will not be the end!"

This statement energizes me. Holy Father, the ball has been cast into your court! Let the battle begin with a thunderbolt from your mouth, with the voice of authority that would make all of hell tremble!

Father Anthony Cekada said...

We have been hearing statements like this from SSPX for decades.

As far as I'm concerned, it's all just an exercise in PR: Lots of TALK about attachment to the pope, "Rome," the Holy See, etc. — but lacking the unum necessarium for salvation: actual SUBMISSION.

SSPX has gotten several generations of Catholics used to the error that a Catholic need not actually submit to the Roman Pontiff, but need only "recognize" him. SSPX could therefore carry on in its present state of suspended animation indefinitely.

SSPX's position is what political experts would call perfectly "triangulated" — it is in the sweet spot between the "right" and the "left."

But what about the alternative?

As far as Bp. Fellay's statement that when "Rome" finally corrects the canonical situation, "The fight will start! It will not be the end!", it's nothing more than a cheap applause line.

Does anyone REALLY believe that "Rome" would let a reconciled SSPX conduct world-wide anti-modernist guerilla warfare?

How many fights have FSSP, ICKR, IBP and the Campos group started?

New Catholic said...

Fights for the salvation of souls, Father? These good priests do it every single day. Every single day.

Cruise the Groove. said...

Father Cekada,
Methinks thy words are sourgrapes.

With God anything is possible.

We must pray for the goodly outcome of this and the good will of both the SSPX and the Valid and Legitimate Supreme Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI.
Not engage in caustic and ill placed rebuffs to a good cause.

Father Anthony Cekada said...

New Catholic said:
"Fights for the salvation of souls, Father? These good priests do it every single day. Every single day.."

I don't doubt that priests would still seek to fight for the salvation of souls on a one-by-one basis, or through their sermons.

But what Bp. Fellay's words were meant to convey was that a deal would permit SSPX to undertake an INCREASE in public theological warfare against modernism.

We never hear about FSSP, ICK, IBP and Campos doing this, and their silence is the price of recognition.

I can't see how one could believe it would be otherwise for a reconciled SSPX. By allowing SSPX to continue to carry on about the "Cate-schism" (as they call the CCC), Vatican II errors, and the "intrinsically evil" New Mass, the Vatican would be sanctioning the foundation of a parallel magisterium to which Catholics would look if they were dissatisfied with what came out of "Rome."

The arrangement would work great on the level of the dialectic, but I don't see how one could reconcile the arrangement with even post-V2 canon law.

Father Anthony Cekada said...

Cruise the Groove said:

"Father Cekada,
Methinks thy words are sour grapes … [you] must not engage in caustic and ill placed rebuffs to a good cause.


What I've said is not really a "rebuff." A deal between SSPX and the Vatican would clarify things enormously in traditionalist circles.

What I arguing, rather, is that it is utterly unrealistic to expect that, should such a situation come to pass, SSPX would be allowed to up the ante in conducting a wildcat fight against modernism.

New Catholic said...

Fr. Cekada,

It is really hard for us to keep approving your comments if you maintain this direct link to the website of what claims to be a Catholic organization that does not even recognize the currently-reigning Pontiff. Some may falsely construe from it our approval of the linked organization itself.


rodrigo said...

I just listened to the sermon. It cuts off at 24:17, rather abruptly, and the "Roman-phile" statements described in the online reports don't seem to feature. Has the recording been shortened since it was first posted?

LeonG said...

Understand that liberal modernists who haunt Rome and its hierarchy have tried to de-Romanise Catholicism. In this they have aided and abetted the freemasons of the EU whose objective has been all along to dechristianise the west which is tantamount to the same disoriented post-conciliar course of affairs.

If we are not Roman also then the cause is lost.

Cruise the Groove. said...

Fr Cekada,
I have personally heard FSSP priests as well as IBP priests in their sermons and in person challenge and criticize the documents of Vatican II and expose modernism in the Church.
In fact I have been told personally by an IBP priest that written into their constitution is the right to critique VII.

Let us wait see and pray, but I think the SSPX, if and when they are regularised, will be able to continue their criticism of modernism in the Church today

ghp95134 said...

Fr. Cekada, you state,"...SSPX has gotten several generations of Catholics used to the error that a Catholic need not actually submit to the Roman Pontiff, but need only "recognize" him...."

Cannot your statement also be applied to some priests and bishops who are in communion with Rome?


Anonymous said...

The day is coming, dear friends.

Rob Collorafi said...

I understand Fr. Cekada's point, and it is certainly a legitimate one.

Our SSPX friends need to be in a canonically regular situation because that's what the law of the Church requires and Fr. Cekada is quite correct in pointing out that communion with the successor of Peter must be both effective and affective.

That being said, I'd have to respectfully point out to Fr. Cekada that it's quite inconsistent to attack one group's lack of canonical submission to the Pope as "uncatholic" when your own solution to the problem is to withdraw all submission to the Pope (and those bishops in communion with him) by somehow arrogating to yourself the competence to declare the See of Peter "vacant."

That's a little hard to take.

However, let me also say that as much as I believe Fr. Cekada's theological position to be utterly inconsistent with the traditional teaching of the Church, I would like to make clear that I have the fondest memories of growing up on Long Island, where I had the honor as a young boy to not only serve Mass for this good priest, but also to listen to his masterful organ playing, and other musical talents, as well as his very interesting sermons.

I'm certainly not trying to tell you what to do on your own superb website, New Catholic, but I would hate to see Fr. Cekada being asked not to comment here. While I believe it is perfectly appropriate to make clear that Fr.'s sedevacantist position is not in harmony with Catholic teaching, I also think he makes some very valuable points in his own right, one of which is that the SSPX needs to resolve this decades-old canonically irregular situation.

May I also say that we should pray very hard that Fr. Cekada will also consider making his own reconciliation with the Holy Father as we would all be better off for being exposed to his immeasurable gifts and scholarly talents.

There is no reason why Fr. Cekada, like other outstanding traditional priests before him, should not be allowed to carry on the exercise of the traditional priesthood while at the same time enjoying the same right granted the other approved orders to carry on an ongoing critique of the Council and New Mass as long as it is done respectfully, something Fr. Cekada has amply demonstrated he is quite capable of.


Rob Collorafi

Anonymous said...

Yes, it is a cheap line - but a necessary one. I see this as the SSPX leadership preparing the organization for regularization by reassuring everyone that a canonical structure will not equate to silence on modernism.

People claiming that FSSP, ICK, etc. don't fight modernism don't know what they are talking about. In newsletters, articles, talks, and, of course, in the sacraments, they battle against modernism every day. And they do so with a great and quiet humility, which I find refreshing.

New Catholic said...

Rodrigo, I think it started at around 32', but I may be mistaken.

Anonymous said...

Excellent good point pro and against Fr. Cekada. I humbly think everyone here knows pretty well Father's theological position. So, I would love Fr. Cekada continue posting here, he always makes good points, and after all, he does not hide anything but is very respectful and obviously, frank and direct.

Oliver said...

I concur with Fr. Cekada's familiarity with the pendulum swings of the Society's leadership; one minute tilting towards Rome to secure those large income flows, another minute tilting away from Rome for the sake of that essential independence. It is a bipolar prescription without a cure. Bp. Fellay should know by now that conciliarism is here to stay for well into the future dragging along the Society with it like a naughty child that refuses to obey.

John McFarland said...

I would suggest that one should not make very much of Bishop Fellay's reference to "this canonical situation."

Nothing that the Bishop said before or after this phrase has anything to do with the canonical status of the SSPX, and most of what he said focused on the mass of confusion, contradiction and infighting that is the present-day Vatican.

In the situation that Bishop Fellay describes, the notion that the Vatican would unilaterally regularize the Society is beyond bizarre. If the Pope is unable or unwilling to give the Old Mass without par. 19, what are the chances of his regularizing the Society?

I must also take exception to the notion that the SSPX has been less than clear in stating its position vis-a-vis Rome. Most of the unclarity is in the minds of those who persist in finding great significance in minor differences of expression and terminology.

Finally, I should mention that Father Cekada's "sweet spot" metaphor belongs in the same display case as his description of the SSPX's view of the current Holy Father as "mentivacantism." In each case, what he seems to consider a refutation is in fact a very well-turned epigram correctly describing the Society's position.

Meanwhile, his own position is servile obedience to the Church, which, as he describes it -- no Pope, no hierarchy -- is no longer the visible Church, and hence no longer the Church at all.

Anonymous said...

"Let us wait see and pray, but I think the SSPX, if and when they are regularised, will be able to continue their criticism of modernism in the Church today."

This just in...

...SSPX Critical of Modernism Within The Church... other news that will make you yawn, it was hot today in Texas.

Modernists couldn't care less as to what the SSPX, regularized or not, would have to say in regard to the state of the Church.

The Novus Ordo and attendant novelties enjoy concrete status at 99.9 percent of Latin Church parishes.

John L said...

I thought Bp. Gallareata's sermon was excellent. It made the point, not really addressed in the above comments, that communication with Rome is necessary as an essential part of the fight against modernism. Rome is where modernism can do its worst damage, so that is where it is most urgent to fight it.

As for the SSPX being disobedient; they can reply that in fact they are the only substantial Catholic body in the world today that is actually explicitly and completely obedient to the Holy See qua Holy See - as opposed to the whims of current and recent papal incumbents. They take the official teachings of the Holy See as a whole, state that they have to be followed, and do follow them. When popes in their personal capacity undermine or resist the teachings that popes in their official capacity have uttered, the SSPX follows the offica rather than the man. That is what you are supposed to do.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I immediately saw the similarity between the words of Bishop de Galarreta and of Bishop Fellay; also, Bishop Fellay has said this at least twice recently, and not just the once. I can't remember the first occasion but I am sure of it. The most obvious interpretation is that the S.S.P.X is waiting for some sort of action on the part of Rome, both doctrinal and juridical. Since Rome can not easily solve the doctrinal problems instantly, I wonder if it means that Rome might issue a declaration regarding the status of the Society both in terms of its beliefs and its present canonical situation. In the first case, Rome could assert directly that the Society's members are assumed to be Catholic. Rome could also vacate the suppression of 1975 and the suspension a divinis of 1976 and then present a canonical offer of an international and personal ordinariate. I would imagine also an invitation to the Society to fulfl a function to help clarify troubling recent teachings by forwarding series of questions.

After everything we've been through, we absolutely must not hold our breaths again. But we can pray that something is planned by the Pope. The Feast of SS. Peter and Paul has just passed. Something signed that day could be revealed very soon. More things are wrought by prayer ....


Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland, of course, will grasp on to No. 19 of U.E. in a desperate attempt to ignore the ten positive articles in that Instruction. But he's grasping at a straw. No. 19 refers only to those who petition for a Mass under S.P. (and in no way restricts those who actually benefit from its celebration). No. 19 refers to the validity and legitimacy of the New Mass. The S.S.P.X does not question the validity. That leaves "legitimacy", an undefined term. What does it mean? The Pope does not use the term liceity which one might expect. Legitimacy (well, at least in English), often suggests not just lawfulness but lawful process or procession (hence its reference to offspring). It might mean only that the New Mass was promulgated, instituted and celebrated by those who had lawful authority to do so. I think that the term was a knock against Abp. Lefebvre's speech about the New Mass being a bastard rite. That speech, as it happens, was reprinted in "The Angelus" only a few weeks before U.E. was published.

I've also noticed that No. 19 was clearly an attempt to restore a much more restrictive clause from "Quattuor Abhinc Annos" of 3 October, 1984. Q.A.A.'s restrictions were completely removed only in 2007, by Art. 1 of S.P. (q.v.). Some in the curia might have felt that the restriction should not have been removed.

Q.A.A.'s restriction applied not only to those applying for T.L.M.s but anyone attending them. That's a huge difference. It also used a different terminology, banning anyone who questioned the "doctrinal soundness" of the New Mass. "Doctinal soundness" seems to be to be both a broader term and yet a more precise one than is "legitimacy".

It is obvious that the clauses of U.E. reflect differing influences, as Bishop Fellay might put it: different 'streams'. No. 19, the bit about needing to know the meaning of the Latin words to say the T.L.M., and the bit about the ordinal--these came from the Liberal Cardinal from San Francisco and his Maltese lawyer, Msgr. Scicluna. The rest came from Msgr. Pozzo and the Pope himself.

Lastly, if 'legitimacy' means 'lawfulness' (or even 'liceity', a term including a moral component), few will have a problem with this. Most accept the claim that Pope Paul VI had a legal right to promulgate the New Mass. What most of us deny is that Paul VI had a right in Moral Law to abolish or suppress the Mass of the Ages. But we now know that the old Mass was never juridically abrogated and that its de facto suppression was therefore unlawful.


Anonymous said...

Fr. Cekada knows perfectly well that the Society use of the term 'intrinsically evil' is hyperbolic by playing on the extended used of 'evil' in English, where it carries a subjective meaning (viz. deliberate sin) as well as an objective one. The Society position, and my own, is that the New Mass is valid and can fulfil the four ends of prayer but that it is defective and SERIOUSLY so; in particular, it is defective in its catechetical end. This requires rectification, which is why the Pope wants to reform the New Mass.

Will Rome allow the Society to preach this? I suspect that Rome will ask that such objections be couched in careful terminology and be raised in private meetings with the C.D.F. I also suspect that the S.S.P.X will be alowed to forward its objections publicly but only 'avoiding all polemics' during a period in which Rome answers Society concerns one by one.

The Pope believes, rightly or wrongly, that guerilla wars against Modernists are not the best way in present circumstances to help Mother Church. The Pope wants to keep everyone together and correct the erring gradually and gently. Proving people to be wrong is not always the best way to bring them to the truth.

Please note that the Pope's apparent approach is not necessarily my own. That would depend in each case on circumstances. But I do think that the best strategy is not always the polemical one.


Anonymous said...

A quick note:

There is no such thing as the 'ICK.' It is the I.C.R. The postnominals of religious orders normally follow the LATIN proper name, not the English. This is especially true of orders which are international in scope. Hence the Discalced Carmelties are O.C.D., not 'O.D.C.' True, the Maryknoll Fathrs broke the rule but they exist only in one English-speaking country.

How many times must I remind people of this? Let's try to get it right.


Anonymous said...

Father Cekada should be allowed to express his opinion as it's nice to know what non catholics think about the Catholic Church.

Tom McKenna said...

Hmm, I always wonder what it is folks like Fr. Cekada and some SSPXers imagine orthodox priests ought to be doing to "wage guerilla warfare" against Modernism?

Staffing traditional parishes, devoutly dispensing the sacraments, leading people to holiness, preaching Christ and the orthodox Catholic faith... sounds like a pretty effectual apostolate to me.

Are these priests supposed to take time out from these duties to go down to the local NO parish, or the chancery office, and start reading Pascendi out loud?

It seems very nebulous to criticize the FSSP et al. of having "sold out" or some such when I have yet to hear what exactly it is that the naysayers believe these priests ought to be doing differently.

Personally, having grown up in SSPX and independent chapels, I find it refreshing not to have the priest launch into yet another diatribe against the NO, the Council, Modernism, etc. How about expounding upon the Gospel, and giving the Faithful spiritual nourishment? We don't need polemics from our priests, but spiritual food.

Mark VA said...

I believe that the longer groups like the SSPX, or various sedevacantists, remain in an ambiguous state of communion with the Catholic Church, or in actual schism, the more difficult their return will be.
Their current identity will tend to increase with each successive generation, the various criticisms of the Catholic Church will become increasingly institutionalized, and the memory of once being Catholic will tend to diminish. The SSPX Bishop Fellay's remark sums it up pretty well:

“How long do we have to wait? I don’t know; I have no idea! “

The lesson here for Catholic Traditionalists is this: Don't let yourself be manoeuvred out of the full communion with the Catholic Church. One can fall into a ditch on the left, as well as on the right side, of the narrow road.

Father Anthony Cekada said...

There are a lot of interesting comments on this thread that I'd like to discuss, but today will be rather highly-charged day here (Feast of the Sacred Heart), so I'll have to content myself with the following:

1. The problematic link was the result of my unfamiliarity with the combox identity procedure. In the future, I will use only the link to my blog about my book on the New Mass, Work of Human Hands.

2. Re Cruise and FSSP and IBP clergy criticizing the Vatican II documents and modernism: If this is indeed the case, they have been doing this only in their own circles — preaching to the choir, as it were. They certainly haven't been thundering against modernism in The Wanderer or National Catholic Register.

3. It was nice to hear from a former server, Rob Collorafi. His dad in particular was one of the stalwarts in my Long Island days, and generous with his time as a volunteer driver for our numerous airport runs.

4. For PKTP: I don't know anything about the SSPX's characterization of the New Mass as "intrinsically evil" being "hyperbolic," or about the problem with the New Mass being that it is "defective in its catechetical end." News to me.

PTPK's suspicion that SSPX would not be allowed to preach this hyperbole, or that "Rome will ask that such objections be couched in careful terminology and be raised in private meetings with the C.D.F.… 'avoiding all polemics'," of course, merely confirms what I maintained above.

While some occasional low-toned grumbling may be permitted, the price of "recognition" will be near total silence. So much for Abp. Lefebvre on "The Mass of Luther"!

Bottom line: If there's a deal, SSPX will go on a collective trip to the Waffle House.

5. As regards Mr. McFarland's statements about "servile obedience to the Church" and visibility, I reply that in the SSPX theological system, the very PURPOSE of visibility is defeated — the recognition of the Church as the "column of truth."

Instead, in the SSPX system, the pope and the magisterium become a "column of data," which SSPX's superiors are to subject to an ongoing process of "sifting" (Fr. Schmidberger's verb) in order to discover what is in conformity with tradition and what is not. Submission to the Roman Pontiff on any particular point is contingent upon its survival through the successful completion of the sifting process.

I maintain this cannot be justified in terms of standard ecclesiology

A blessed Feast of the Sacred Heart to everyone!

Anonymous said...

"...when I have yet to hear what exactly it is that the naysayers believe these priests ought to be doing differently."

Good question.


John McFarland said...

Dear Father Cekada,

Best case, your remarks about my remarks are a tu quoque argument.

You make no effort to refute my point that you've destroyed the Church in order to save it. I guess you've decided that appeal to Anne Catherine Emmerich as your authority isn't going to cut it, and don't have any better ideas so far.

As regards your appeal to "standard ecclesiology," the issue would seem to be whether standard ecclesiology (1) assumes that the Teaching Church is teaching the faith once for all delivered to the saints, and so does not apply if the Teaching Church is not so teaching, or (2) guarantees that the Teaching Church is doing so.

But (2) doesn't work, since the Teaching Church manifestly is not teaching the whole and unadulterated Faith. Hence either (a) the Church's indefectibility has been refuted, and hence the Church as you and I learned about it in the catechism doesn't exist, or (b) there is no visible Church, and hence the Church as you and I learned about it in the catechism doesn't exist.

So, it would seem, our choices are Lefebrevism, or being among those of all men most to be pitied.

A blessed Feast of the Sacred Heart to you.

Mark VA said...

Father Cekada wrote regarding the FSSP:

"They certainly haven't been thundering against modernism in The Wanderer or National Catholic Register"

The FSSP is, first and foremost, inside the Catholic Church. It is bringing the Traditional Latin Mass to an increasing number of Catholics, is offering training in this Mass to any priest who wants to learn it, and by its very presence inside the Catholic Church, is quietly and effectively dispelling malicious myths about Traditional Catholicism.

To me, this is an effective witness against modernism, but it is predicated on a very basic condition - one has to be inside the Catholic Church. Once a group is outside the Catholic Church, it becomes subject to increasing centrifugal forces, no matter how much it "thunders" in its sermons and publications.

Anonymous said...

BXVI doesn't need the SSPX at all. The SSPX needs him though.

If the SSPX is ever actually serious about returning to the Catholic Church, I would be shocked.

It will take them finally admitting that they were utterly wrong about the need episcopal consecrations. The Church (and tradition) would have survived just fine without that a stupid, unnecessary, and anti-Catholic act.

Cruise the Groove. said...

"If the SSPX is ever actually serious about returning to the Catholic Church, I would be shocked."

Actually the Holy Father and many Cardinals and Bishops and priests believe that the SSPX are Catholic.
Do you know something the Holy Father does not know?

Anonymous said...

"They certainly haven't been thundering against modernism in The Wanderer or National Catholic Register."

Father Father Anthony Cekada, in regard to the advancement of the Traditional Latin Mass and Holy Tradition, you favor newsprint to Traditional Catholic parishes staffed, for example, by the FSSP?


Father Anthony Cekada said...

Mr. McFarland brought up the question of "visibility," not I. The alternative he presents — that "(b) there is no visible Church, and hence the Church as you and I learned about it in the catechism doesn't exist" — does not represent my position. But as interesting as that topic may be, transeat.

More to the original point of the thread:

Anonymous Said:

Father Anthony Cekada, in regard to the advancement of the Traditional Latin Mass and Holy Tradition, you favor newsprint to Traditional Catholic parishes staffed, for example, by the FSSP?


Nice ritual and discreet preaching to trads who make your parish the church of their choice do not attack the root of the problem we all face. FSSP just becomes one point on a broad theological "spectrum" with Opus Dei, Communion and Liberation, LifeTeen, Neocatechumenal Way, the Theology of the Body folks, the Charismatic Renewal and others.

I favor saying out loud what most FFSP priests probably think: Vatican II was a total disaster that destroyed Catholic faith, discipline and worship; it cannot be saved by any "hermeneutic"; and it needs to be dumped.

That is not a fight I have heard any FSSP priest begin— and it is surely not one that SSPX could expect to "start" after a deal.

And finally, on a somewhat lighter note:


Anonymous said...

Father Cekada should be allowed to express his opinion as it's nice to know what non-catholics think about the Catholic Church.


What can I say, except: "Religious liberty — ya gotta love it!"

Anonymous said...

False dichotomy: "We don't need polemics from our priests, but spiritual food."

We need both, grounded in love and truth.

Anonymous said...

Fr. Cekada and other Sedes will do all that they can to scare those who are attached to the SSPX. I'm not sure why they do this, exactly, except that if and when the SSPX is given canonical status, it will only be the Sedes and independents left who want nothing to do with Rome. How many would then pay them any attention?

Anonymous said...

I once heard a holy priest say that Sedes are not Catholic but are Protestants. They are in the same position as the Anglicans and Lutherans were after the reformation when they kept the externals of the Faith but ditched the Pope, and like Protestants they fall out and split to start new orders. Louise

Anonymous said...


I suppose your "holy priest" also said that the NOM is absolutely fine too! Not attacking his "holiness" but his common sense! And besides he has no authority to make such a declaration - just more "scare tactics" by the NO establishment. And by the way, has the post- Vatican II hierarchy put out an official list of traditionalists who are going to hell?

Gratias said...

We have prayed here (and in Messa in Latino) that the Holy Father in one generous fell swoop will reintegate the sspx to communion with Rome. Benedict is a very wise pastor and at some point will do it (P.K.T.P even still holds hope it might have been signed already).

The SSPX, worthy as they are (never been to their Mass as obedience to The Vatican is essential), has a tinge of ingratitude. They asked for the right of any priest to offer the Latin Mass and for the excommunications to their four illegally ordained Bishops to be lifted. In return they offer strong words.

The Holy Father has set the Anglicans on the right path and will do the same with the SSPX invaluable priests. He seems to get little respect. Centanni!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, The priest I was speaking about has never said the NO. Our Lord said to Peter "I am with you always, even to the end of times." He is not going to leave the Church without a pastor and if you are a Catholic then you must accept the Pope. If you don't accept him then you are not a Catholic and Sedes are not Catholics! Louise.