Rorate Caeli

Do you wish to understand the Holy See - SSPX talks?

Then you could do much worse than read the actual words pronounced by the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) in his recent conference during the last Summer Studies promoted by the French District of that institute in August - and fully transcribed yesterday in its website (en français)

Most of what he mentioned there is not new - and much had already been said in the addresses of the past few months, particularly in his homily in the Mass of Ordinations in Minnesota -, but the context, the past recollections, and the general tone are most interesting. Unfortunately, we have no time for any translation; if any of our commentators wish to translate what they believe to be the highlights of the conference, we would all be most grateful (merci!). In the meantime, enjoy the brave attempted translation provided by Mr. Google Translate...

73 comments:

  1. I'm starting to view these talks as the talks between the Palestinians and Israelis. It seems as if neither side is willing to make any moves toward a solution. Every meeting is another exercise in diplomatic conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I understand Bishop Fellay’s position in terms of fearing the “progressive” bishops who, if the Society were to come back under Rome, would pressure the SSPX to “drink the poison” of modernism.

    Having said that, I must also say that the FSSPX is a Swiss corporation. About their finances: we know nothing. About how parishes are operated: nothing. How pastors are chosen: nothing.

    Bishop Fellay enjoys his independence, his wealth and power. How can he humbly submit to Rome under such circumstances?

    I have been associated with the FSSPX since 1978. Since that time I have seen it go from a loving and compassionate holding action against Paul VI and John Paul II’s excesses and abuses, to a hardened and yes, schismatic (mentality) of non-serviam to the pope, as if the grace of God played no part.

    My question to Bp. Fellay: is your saying no, no, no to Pope Benedict XVI not a case of lack of faith in the grace of God? This pope is not getting any younger. For the FSSPX to be put directly under the pope is the best arrangement possible. Where is your faith in God?

    Meanwhile the situation in FSSPX chapels deteriorates: tyrannical pastors and school masters, bitter and rancorous laity. The fruits of —dare we say it? — schism, are all too obvious.

    Bishop Fellay seems determined to run the FSSPX independent of the pope. Think what this means: no higher appeal beyond Bishop Fellay. No canon law court. If you have been wronged by Fellay no appeal beyond Fellay. This is Catholic? No, this is much more like a Protestant fiefdom.

    Dear reader, above all, consider the hidden power and wealth of the Swiss corporation that is the FSSPX about which nothing is divulged. What is the temptation to Fellay posed by the corporation? The temptation is the same as Satan offered Our Lord, “All of this kingdom will I give you.”

    Bishop Fellay is the autonomous head of a large kingdom.

    The traditional Catholic press does not address these issues or ask questions of Bp. Fellay along these lines!

    Perhaps some of you have the ability to raise these questions publicly before Sept. 14, so that His Excellency will be aware that he cannot forever continue as he has, in what was supposed to be a temporary emergency, and what has since become an institution that resembles more and more, a schism.

    Thank you, Rorate Caeli, for permitting the airing of these perspectives, so seldom aired anywhere else.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Where is concrete evidence to support the allegations that FSSPX is a powerful and wealthy Swiss corporation?

    This as well as the other allegations by Anonymous are just plain calumny

    ReplyDelete
  4. Regardless of his claims about wealth, the attitude of schism in many of the Society's supporters is obvious and his overall point remains. Anyone who speaks of the 'conversion' of Rome and the Holy Father has adopted a mentality of schism.

    ReplyDelete
  5. My opinion for what it's worth is that Bishop Fellay is dealing with curial offices and officials rather than directly with Pope Benedict XVI. IMO this is a mistake because certain curial offices do not share the judgments of the Pope himself. Why is the Pope not present at the September 14th meeting?

    I saw this many times during my military career where access to the top man, the boss, was restricted by those underlings who had their own agenda. It cannot and must not be that way with the Vicar of Christ especially on a matter of such great importance as the salvation of souls! And when you boil it all down to essentials, it is the salvation of souls that matters - nothing else

    PEH

    ReplyDelete
  6. There are all manner of liberal orders 100% acceptable to Rome and there is one 100% Traditional Order not acceptable to Rome.

    If Rome can not accept that The SSPX is fully Catholic - it teaches nothing that was not taught for 1965 years; it celebrates the real Mass that was unjustly denied to everyman Catholic after an Ecumenical Council, Vat Two, promised publicly it would preserve and promote that Mass - then it seems to me that it is Rome that is out of sync with Tradition, not The SSPX.

    I do not see that it is the case that Bishop Fellay says no, no, no. I do see it is the case that Bishop Fellay is finding it difficult to understand what Rome is saying because the Pope's own Curia is disobedient and says no no no to the Pope but does anonymous cite those Curial Officials as engaging in schismatic acts?

    No. No. No.

    THe Pope has declared that the sspx is not in schism so in claiming that they are, how is it that anonymous is not saying no no no to the Pope while exhibiting his own schismatic tendencies?

    ReplyDelete
  7. The first Anonymous made very important proposition. To tell the truth, the schismatic mentality among FSSPX members is really well developed. I do not know nothing about the FSSPX financial situation, therefore, I do not question this issue. However, the argument that there is no bishop higher than Felay for FSSPX members, is really a strong and alarming one. God, help us all.

    ReplyDelete
  8. With bishops legislating unholy restrictions like this one in Billings, it becomes very hard to argue the SSPX types back into canonical reunification. Most restrictions coming from bishops on orthodox preaching and traditional worship/devotion are unwritten, in my experience, and punishment for violating them is indirect, so there's no appeal to higher authorities. We want to be optimists, but the situation is simply not improving. I'm fed up with it. http://www.dioceseofgfb.org/userfiles/file/Policies%20New%202009/Extraordinary%20Form%20of%20Mass%20Guidelines.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  9. The SSPX is incorporated in Switzerland? How scandalous? And to think all this time I assumed they were changing donation money into Swiss francs and stuffing them into Bp. Fellay's mattress.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous 12:15

    Has it ever occurred to you that God's grace is cautioning Bishop Fellay against a hasty and ill-thought-out agreement? As the post-conciliar Church continues to implode (through the expanding environment of heresy within so many dioceses along with the concomitant paralysis of Rome's governing authority), I would think that such an argument could be made.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I fully agree with Anonymous :
    04 September, 2011 12:25

    Especially in these three points:

    "I have been associated with the FSSPX since 1978. Since that time I have seen it go from a loving and compassionate holding action against Paul VI and John Paul II’s excesses and abuses, to a hardened and yes, schismatic (mentality) of non-serviam to the pope, as if the grace of God played no part."


    "Meanwhile the situation in FSSPX chapels deteriorates: tyrannical pastors and school masters, bitter and rancorous laity. The fruits of —dare we say it? — schism, are all too obvious."

    I think of the Argentinian priest
    Juan Carlos Ceriani, very bright but he is just as arrogant and rude and simply lacks charity.
    May I add Ceriani is not part of the SSPX anymore.

    "Bishop Fellay seems determined to run the FSSPX independent of the pope. Think what this means: no higher appeal beyond Bishop Fellay. No canon law court. If you have been wronged by Fellay no appeal beyond Fellay. This is Catholic? No, this is much more like a Protestant fiefdom"


    I truly believe that the SSPX should return to Rome.

    The SSPX as keepers of Tradition would do a better service to Our Lord Jesus Christ if they return to Rome,there is so much work to be done inside the Church, these priests cannot just be only at the service of those groups of people who attend their chapels I don't care if they are 100.000 or a 1.000.000 of them, the Catholic Church needs them and there is 1.1billion of us Catholics who have not left Rome.

    The war against evil is fought from inside the city walls, it is not fought by hiding away in your chapels and practically asking people to leave Rome because they have abandoned TRADITION.

    No matter how rebellious some cardinals and priests and nuns get, there is no doubt in my mind that Christ wanted His Church to be ONE Catholic Church, not little groups of traditionalists of all sorts[ who by the way they don't even agree among themselves e.g. SSPV etc.]going around setting up chapels here and there and calling themselves catholics.

    Bishop Fellay I appeal to you, STOP the Schism, the Church needs the SSPX to work for the salvations of souls inside the Catholic Church NOT OUTSIDE OF IT.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This isn't really about SSPX, it's about Peter. Peter doesn't need SSPX. Peter needs to be Peter. SSPX in, SSPX out, neither one solves the church's problems. Only Peter can do that. And he isn't doing it, so nothing is going to work yet.

    Rome, Germany, and most of the collective bishops of the whole world are the ones in schism against the Holy Father, while SSPX prays mightily for him and does the work of forming good priests, so the Holy Father and SSPX are the true Catholics in this lot. But since Rome administers with the authority of the Holy Father, and since the Holy Father doesn't have control over Rome, then SSPX would certainly be marginalized and effectively silenced by being brought under Roman authority. That's not SSPX's problem to solve, that's the Holy Father's problem.

    It just won't work yet. SSPX needs to just keep on doing the work the rest if the church should be doing while waiting for an orthodox and courageous pope who will, among other things, at least be a pope over Rome.

    ReplyDelete
  13. One wonders why some people keep saying that FSSPX is in schism yet Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos repeatedly affirmed that the society is NOT in schism.

    Secondly, that the work of SSPX is divinely sanctioned can be seen by their fruits. For, by their fruits one can easily tell if they are of God, or not.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well if there is not a Schism then there is a separation of some sort the best word some of us can come up is Schism.

    My question to any of you is, if there is not some sort of division then why are we having these conversation?

    DEFINITION:
    Schism (religion), a division or a split, usually between people belonging to an organization or movement.

    I liked this explanation by Jordanes in an earlier post:

    "More precisely, the members of the SSPX are members of the Catholic Church. The SSPX itself, however, was formally suppressed in the 1970s and is therefore canonically irregular -- it is not at this time accepted by the Catholic Church as a Catholic priestly fraternity.

    31 August, 2011 13:10"

    ReplyDelete
  15. Whatever one feels about the S.S.P.X. the truth is, take the fight for Tradition to Rome and work within, the S.S.P.X. can do more good fighting for the Faith and the TLM by gaining more converts from not just the laypeople but can you imagine how many bishops can be converted? They must not be forced to have to perform the Novus Ordo that would be number one on their requests. I do find it strange that the Holy Father is not going to be present at these talks. Can someone please have some input to this???

    ReplyDelete
  16. I can't wait for a proper English translation! Please NC, don't keep us waiting much longer :)

    ReplyDelete
  17. "But the problem is there: when we speak of the council, we talk about some new problems, which we call mistakes...so far they have always tried to make us swallow the council."

    Why? What did the Council teach that has benefitted the Church; its decree on social communication? Its statement that the Church subsists in the Catholic Church? Its euphorious declarations about heretics such as Hindus, who, it says, are on "a loving, trusting, flight towards God" [capital "G" in the original document.]

    Why not allow the FSSPX to resume normal communion and just leave Vatican II out of the equation. It was a "pastoral" personal opinion council which declared no doctrine or dogma (except those previously declared); it can and should be ignored as some of the other rogue councils are.

    +Fellay also quotes my favorite theologian, within the walls of Rome, Gherardini:

    "In all truth Modernism hid itself under the cloak of Vatican II's hermeneutic..."

    That about says it all. There is an infection in the Church at present, and souls are falling into hell, like so many snow flakes on a winter's night, because of it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. As a Catholic who has had the benefits of living in community served by the SSPX for about the last ten years I can tell you that I have been listening to the cry of the Conservatives to come back home to Rome and work within the Church etc for the entire time. Who can deny the 'Good Fruits' that have come from continued resistance in that period.

    I am not sure how the Pope intends to settle things but surely there would be no discussions if the requirement for the SSPX 'unconditional' acceptance of Vatican 2.

    Most of us are busy raising 'Catholic' families among other like minded people who provide mutual support to each other. My wife and I have ten children most of our friends have a similar number, for many of us it is not enough to just have a token mass once a month from the diocese. We need 'Catholic' schools, families and community life.

    I thank God for the SSPX here in Australia no one else is providing what we need. It is a hard situation for a 'Catholic' to be labelled as disobedient to authority when we want nothing more than to serve the Church.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'm so tired of the whole debate. I simply want the Church of my father and grandfathers with all the traditions such as sacred music, processions, holy days, etc, etc. I would also like a group of kind, like minded and not standoffish, arrogant parishioners. I can't count all the dirty looks I've gotten with my family simply walking into one of the two Latin masses in my area on Sunday. Here's a tip to the dirty look givers, those folks coming into the mass who may be new to you are ALSO looking for the traditional Catholic Church, you might try some kindness as more numbers on your side can only help the traditional cause.

    Father Seelos and Father Solanus only celebrated the Latin Mass and they were the kindest, gentlest, most saintly priests in American history.

    Perhaps I'm just being idyllic but that's the Catholic Church I'm looking for. So when these guys want to come to some agreement and start this kind of Church free from modernism AND arrogant standoffishness, I'm there.

    ReplyDelete
  20. If only the FSSPX parishioners would invite a fellow Catholic to mass each Sunday, each day. Boy would the NO bishop be mad then - when more and more NO Catholics leave for tradition. Then there would be more 'understanding'.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I, too, agree with the hope that the SSPX will soon be fully reconciled with Rome. However, I'm bemused by the constant assertions that such reconciliation will suddenly result in large numbers of clergy and laity turning away from modernism and towards Traditionalism. I remind everyone that the FSSP already has full communion, yet are at least as ignored as the SSPX, if not even more so.

    ReplyDelete
  22. 'Why not allow the FSSPX to resume normal communion and just leave Vatican II out of the equation?'

    Good question.

    Another good question on this subject arises from the fact that Bp. Fellay has said that the SSPX accepts 95% of Vatican II. This is as a matter of fact a much higher proportion than the vast majority of Catholic bishops around the world, who reject much more of the contents of the Vatican II documents - because of the traditional assertions in these documents. Look for example at the Vatican II decree Optatam Totius on the training of priests. Abp. Lefebvre explicitly took it as the instructions for training the priests of the SSPX, and the SSPX still follows it; no diocesan seminary in the world does, though - consider e.g. paras. 6, 10, 13, 15, 16. Since Bp. Fellay and the SSPX are doing exceptionally well in the Vatican II fidelity rankings, how can their views on that council possibly be the grounds of objection to them?

    ReplyDelete
  23. It truly is amazing how short a timeframe a human's memory can contain.

    In 1984 the 'Traditionalists' were described as a 'problem'. The indult was because of the SSPX.

    In 1988 an attempt was made to resolve the problem. The explicit intention of the FSSP is a halfway house to the new Liturgy at all its attendant facets. The FSSP etc was because of the SSPX.

    Then the tide began to turn.

    In 2007 one of the positions of the SSPX is vindicated. The Tridentine Mass was never abrograted. Every priest can say it. Again because of the SSPX.

    In 2011 Another position of the SSPX is vindicated. The Bishops resisted the Motu Proprio (guess which one ...) so an instruction is issued (May 13th). Indirectly because of the SSPX - surprise the Bishops didn't comply with the Pope's directive.

    All the while the 'conservatives' are saying come back and help us fight.

    As if we aren't fighting right now.

    This fight extends from the top of the Church all the way to the pews (sans kneelers).

    The SSPX is fighting at the top level and the bottom level.

    The bottom: As a stopgap providing Sacraments to the faithful where needed. While important this does not solve the problem it is just a stopgap.

    The top: Rome - specifically the Pope.

    If the Pope doesn't make the change. No one else can.

    Pray for the Pope he has to overcome significant pressures both inside and outside the Church in order to re-anchor the Church of Christ to the Eucharist and Our Lady.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Just in case someone is offended and states that the FSSP are fighting at the same level.

    That is not a complete view of the reality. The FSSP are hobbled because they can't go into a diocese without being being invited by the Diocesan Bishop. Basically leaving the faithful in 'progressive' dioceses subject of liturgical abuse.

    At the Roman level, 19 years after the consecrations it took the SSPX to get the Pope to issue the statement that the Tridentine Mass was never abrogated.

    No offense but the truth is the truth.

    The truth is that we are not at the beginning of the end of this fight. But perhaps we are the end of the beginning of this fight.

    (Paraphrase of an old Brit)

    ReplyDelete
  25. As we have seen that the Tridentine Mass was never abrograted, we will also see (hopefully soon) that the SSPX has been in full communion with the Church. Daily Mass of All Times, recognizing the Pope as Supreme Pontiff, Rosary Crusades, proper catechesis, St. Ignatian retreats, lay apostolates, growing vocations, uncompromising . . . sounds like the Catholic Church to me!

    ReplyDelete
  26. TJ,

    You are correct. The effects of a reconciliation are exaggerated in the minds of those who think the SSPX is the center of the universe. A reconciliation will be a boon to both the SSPX and the Church but only one of many steps needed.

    ReplyDelete
  27. \\Its euphorious declarations about heretics such as Hindus, who, it says, are on "a loving, trusting, flight towards God" [capital "G" in the original document.]\\

    Heresy can exist only within Christianity.

    Hindus do not. They are pagans.

    Most holy Theotokos, save us.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Its euphorious declarations about heretics such as Hindus, who, it says, are on "a loving, trusting, flight towards God" [capital "G" in the original document.]

    As Jack has already pointed out, Hindus are not heretics -- they are heathens and idolaters.

    Furthermore, and even more importantly, you've already been informed that Vatican II never said that Hindus are on "a loving, trusting, flight towards God." This is what the Catholic Church at Vatican II said on that subject:

    From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense.

    Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language. Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust.


    Far from your ridiculous claim that the Catholic Church at Vatican II said Hindus are on a loving, trusting flight towards God, what the Church actually said is that in Hinduism men seek freedom from the anguish of the human condition through a flight to God with love and trust. The Church never said that Hindus in fact achieve freedom from the anguish of the human condition, or that their attempted flight to God is successful and reaches its destination. The context clearly and unmistakeably refers to ways that Hinduism attempts to respond to our innate religious nature, but doesn't say anything even remotely like what you claim. Contrary to your accusation, the Church did NOT teach the error of religious indifferentism or that false religions are salvific in any of her documents at Vatican II.

    Of course if one misquotes Vatican II documents, or lifts words out of context, one can make it appear that Vatican II said all kinds of horrendous things. However, that approach, which you favor, is invalid and dishonest. Interact with what the Church actually said, not with what you think she said or what you want others to think she said.

    No further comments falsely alleging that Vatican II said Hindus are on "a loving, trusting, flight towards God" will be approved.

    ReplyDelete
  29. No more clearer words spoken than those of Joe B. 9/4/11
    @ 20:34 pm. Simply put but intelligent. Thank you Joe B.! PS any one care to expand on this talk about geo-centricity and the SSPX?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Philothea said:

    "Most of us are busy raising 'Catholic' families among other like minded people who provide mutual support to each other...We need 'Catholic' schools, families and community life....I thank God for the SSPX here in Australia"

    We families of 10 children and more feel the same way in America and that's why we entrust our childrens' souls to the SSPX Schools, especially their Notre Dame De LaSalette! Their Motto...Contra Hostes Tuos!

    THE
    FORGE

    It’s not the teachers
    Their degrees,
    It’s about the priests
    Down on their knees.

    Not the classes
    Nor their size,
    It’s about the priests
    Destroying lies.

    Not the money
    Not the sports,
    It’s about the priests
    Saving the Forts.

    Not the alumni
    Nor their name,
    It’s about the priests
    Who led and we came.

    There is no unity
    With perverse,
    It’s about the priests
    Universal-diverse.

    There are no curves
    Based on the class,
    It’s about the priests
    Confecting the Mass.

    Of innocent souls
    There’ll be no heist,
    It’s about the priests
    Forging men for Christ!

    ReplyDelete
  31. "As Jack has already pointed out, Hindus are not heretics -- they are heathens and idolaters"

    Thank you, Jordanes; as an ex atheist, I appreciate this! CHeers!

    .

    ReplyDelete
  32. Some person wrote, "I understand Bishop Fellay’s position..." Do you say the same to the Orthodox?

    I don't think the nameless person really does? Further, what's with all the conniption fits about the Society? IMO, the Society stands for something more than the Orthodox ever will. They've been apart since 1054, the SSPX since the 1980s. Which group holds truer to the Roman Faith? Whatever dispersions one may cast against the SSPX, the same can be said against the actual schismatics with an even broader brush.

    IMO, the SSPX will be reconciled with the much sooner than the Orthodox will. Obviously the SSPX's dialogues with Rome show the effort of moving forward, which the Orthodox aren't really. Oh, they get invited to Rome once in a while and exchange Hallmark cards but how much fruit do we really see from that? If there is, let's point that out. At least with the SSPX, we actually see scheduled meetings.

    Matt

    ReplyDelete
  33. This is a very important moment in history.

    I hope both the SSPX and the Vatican are able to play their parts well for the common good of Holy Mother Church!!!

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Having said that, I must also say that the FSSPX is a Swiss corporation. About their finances: we know nothing. About how parishes are operated: nothing. How pastors are chosen: nothing.

    Bishop Fellay enjoys his independence, his wealth and power. How can he humbly submit to Rome under such circumstances?"

    I do not know about the wealth of the SSPX, and the truth of these allegations, but should it be like this anonymous remarks, I think beshop Fellay does well in protecting their assets, because Rome would demand if there should be an accord with the Society that they give up their posessions to them. So if bishops Fellay takes care of what they have saved over the years it is OK with me. I have heard before that the French bishops have demanded that the Society turn their properties over to the French episcopacy and that seems to me predatory on their part.
    CM

    ReplyDelete
  35. Wow. Joe B. really said it short and sweet. Yes, that's an actual dynamic real and true in the Church, sadly.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Though liberals are a problem in the Church, they don't usually do things that would incur automatic excommunication, which is what the consecration of bishops without approval from Rome does. Consecrating bishops without a papal mandate is VERY serious, and for good reason: there's always a chance that this action can lead to schism. Now the SSPX is not considered by Rome to be schismatic, of course.

    Anon at 12:25 raised some good points, but I have to wonder about the situation of the SSPX as having been a measure of temporary emergency. If a branch is partially severed from the tree, it may be healthy for a little while, but eventually it will become weak and diseased. The longer the Society is on its own, having no heirarchical Catholic authority over it, it will continue to get worse.

    The Pope wants the Society to reconcile because he's mainly responsible for unity among Catholics. Trying to bring back those who have strayed, for whatever reason, is one of the main duties of a pope. The Pope is not trying to sell the Society a bill of goods. I hope that Bp. Fellay would trust the Pope, and Cardinal Levada, with whom he will meet with on the 14th.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous 04/09/11 Para 4: reflects my own experience in the UK. Respected clergy are moved abroad and those of a particular persuasion shipped in, even +Williamson has been exiled here.

    In the old days diocesan clergy attended SSPX conferences and cordial terms were enjoyed between the parties. One SSPX priest Celebrated Mass in the Crypt Chapel of Liverpool Cathedral. But the movement was in support of SSPX, not away therefrom.

    There is a twofold problem: Vatican II opened the door to 'National {Catholic} Churches, de facto, independent of Rome and the Pope as nominal head, a la Canterbury; and, the nature of the Bishops' Conferences, where almost none have the courage to step out of line. These militate against SSPX.

    All that said, SSPX would be better working from within, rather than from outside - shouting epithets. Change will be slow, but BXVI, for all his contradictions, is the best bet.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I agree 110% with the commens of Anonymous at 12:25 on 4 September....

    There are many sides to the SSPX and a wide spectrum of opinion among SSPX clergy and laity. Take this from someone who is a regular attendee at SSPX Masses (and has been for 14 years) for want of an alternative Traditional Mass at least on a stable basis.

    Sure, there are some awful people, priests and prelates in the mainstream, possibly the majority. There is heresy, ruin, decadence, ignorance, you name it, running riot. So for many the SSPX is a kind of wonderful oasis.

    I, too, pray for regularisation....and a true reconciliatio too.

    For outsiders to the SSPX: what do you think of SSPX priests telling their faithful rather to miss Sunday Mass ALTOGETHER than attend Traditional Masses offered by diocesan clergy exercising their rights courageously in terms of Summorum Pontificum? Telling their faithful they must boycott the Masses of an all-Tridentine secular priest, still technically "in good standing" with his diocese (though long estranged from it) owing to his for a time being a member of the SSPX and then leaving? Even if it meant doing without Sunday Mass? Telling people to boycott their grandson's baptism as said baby was being baptised - old rite, no less - by the baby's uncle, rather than the SSPX? Even telling people (granted, in private) that in the hypothetical situation of the Pope offering the Traditional Mass and one being able to attend, one should boycott it, as the Pope still says the Novus Ordo? That the FSSP and other Ecclesia Dei communities must be considered traitors, quislings, liberals, conciliar Catholics and "our enemies"? That no good traditional Catholic should attend Fraternity of St Peter Masses?

    These are just some illustrations of what goes on in SSPX chapels.

    There is a deep-seated bitterness and "separatist" mentality among many SSPX laity, and a real suspicion of anything non-SSPX. For them - and above all the emerging generation who only know the SSPX - the SSPX IS the church, and though they may in abstract recognise the Pope and even the local bishop, for all intents and purposes, this means nothing. Bishop Fellay (or Williamson) is their bishop; their chapel is their parish; and the rest of the church does not exist.

    Please take off the rose coloured spectacles....the SSPX may well be an oasis compared to the average mainstream Novus Ordo parish, but all is not well in SSPX land.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "There is a deep-seated bitterness and "separatist" mentality among many SSPX laity,.."
    __________________________

    ...perhaps the result of being treated like lepers?? If one is treated as such, the natural tendency is to group together with others of like-mind.

    I knew an SSPX family who on occasions would attend the then diocesan indult to fulfill their Sunday obligation. They stopped coming after the pastor began addressing his sermons to them while referring to the "schismatic" SSPX. (I certainly do not believe he would have had the nerve to preach to his own NO congregation against having ladies in the sanctuary, receiving in the hand, etc.) The isolated, lone family was an easy target.

    We are suffering from a crisis in authority, and therein lies the main problem of our division. I pray for the day when Peter will confirm his brethern.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anon.08 September, 2011 07:50 said:

    "There is a deep-seated bitterness and "separatist" mentality among many SSPX laity, and a real suspicion of anything non-SSPX. For them - and above all the emerging generation who only know the SSPX - the SSPX IS the church, and though they may in abstract recognise the Pope and even the local bishop, for all intents and purposes, this means nothing"

    As a mother of 10, assisting at the SSPX Order's Masses for 20 years with 2 sons in Seminary and 1 daughter testing a vocation in a Traditional Convent I say you are speaking CALUMNY!!! Shame!

    UPON
    THIS
    ROCK

    Weary weary
    On this earth
    Shielding souls
    Beyond their worth.

    Few are grateful
    Some regress
    Others proud
    They won't confess

    When the waves
    Break on the shore
    Warning them
    What is before.

    Established
    You stand on this rock
    'Gainst the gales
    'Fore those who mock,

    Facing squalls
    They cannot see
    But all behold
    Your bended knee.

    Few will follow
    Some deny
    Oblivious
    They won't comply.

    Then a blue moon
    Saffron sun
    Come together
    As though they're one.

    Fingers blessed
    With Holy Oil
    You lift the Light…
    Sun moon recoil.

    Blinding many
    Opening eyes
    Contradiction
    Most despise.

    But on this rock
    Eroded-rife
    You stand your ground
    Opposing strife.

    Between the storms
    And sheep you block
    The tempest winds
    That hurt the flock.

    With outstretched arms
    The daily crux
    You nail the Truth
    Never in flux,

    Never will lie
    Only can free --
    Upon this rock
    Catholicity.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Thank you Anonymous :

    "Please take off the rose coloured spectacles....the SSPX may well be an oasis compared to the average mainstream Novus Ordo parish, but all is not well in SSPX land.

    08 September, 2011 07:50"

    This is exactly what I have stated over and over again here and in other place on the web and with people I talk to.

    Sadly many don't want to see it!!

    There is a real problem, I pray that this situation will get resolve soon!!!

    This division between the SSPX from Rome must come to an end.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Long Skirts I am not ANONYMOUS
    08 September, 2011 07:50, but I agree with him, please don't let your long skirts be so long that even cover you eyes.

    Some SSPX are almost fanatics, it has nothing to do with love for the Church and Tradition, it becomes mental illness.

    Rorate I know you won't publish it but that is fine.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anon. 08 September, 2011 19:11
    said:

    "This is exactly what I have stated over and over again here and in other place on the web and with people I talk to."

    Oh, you have "stated over and over" AND in "OTHER" places "on the web"

    Why then it all MUST be true!!

    "Sadly many don't want to see it!!"

    Sadly how MANY
    "men" have forgotten that it was the SSPX who held out all of these years (a second in Eternity) for the Pope to FREE the True Mass NOT just for them but for ALL Catholic Priests for the good of the WHOLE Church!

    This is a great time to live and stand up and be Catholic but it has also been terribly sad, for me as a woman, to have had to witness how many cowardly men are in the Church, both clergy and most certainly laity!

    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
  44. Long Skirts, the SSPX has problems, the fact that you don't see it or don't want to admit to it, is your problem, but don't attack some of us for disagreeing with you.

    For my part I hope and pray Fellay will end this situation as soon as possible, and what I mean by that is I hope SSPX returns to the obedience under Rome.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Long-Skirts,

    I have evidently hit a nerve, and I do apologise for offending you. I know many people who are deeply attached to the Society and deeply grateful for all it has done and continues to do to preserve the Traditional Latin Mass and to fight for the faith.

    It would not have been clear from my prior comment, but I share that gratitude.

    But this is part of the problem - I don't believe gratitude need or should be blind, unquestioning or uncritical. Don't think for a moment that I am saying you are these things, but I have to say your comments came across that way. It illustrates for me an extreme defensiveness among many SSPX supporters - the SSPX is above criticism, can do no wrong, etc. If a person states some cold, hard truths - or, even simply opinions - not 100% favourable to the SSPX, one is greeted with a lecture on how ungrateful one is, and we must run off to the Novus Ordo. How unhelpful.

    Perhaps in your parish and in the SSPX locales familiar to you, things are different; perhaps there is little or no bitterness, perhaps there is a respectful recognition that good is done for the church outside the SSPX milieu, and that there are many orthodox, faithful Catholic priests and people outside the SSPX milieu, perhaps younger generation SSPX faithful, while consistently supporting and patronising the SSPX and disagreeing with other groups, still have a sense of union with the Pope and the Bishops in union with him (while not condoning their errors)....indeed, I would be delighted to hear that is the case.

    However, please do not accuse me of calumny. That is a grave accusation to make. My own experience of the SSPX - admittedly only 14 years, less than yours - is very different. I may hold most of their priests in high esteem, and see them as an oasis in the Church today, and am grateful for all they do, but I do most certainly see incredible bitterness and even cultishness.

    Do you, Long-skirts, agree that we should rather not attend Mass at all on a Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation, than attend a "by the book" Traditional Latin Mass said by a non-SSPX priest? Do you agree with telling grandparents and uncles and aunts to boycott the Tridentine rite baptism of a child by his non-SSPX priest-uncle (on the other side of the family) BECAUSE it was non-SSPX? Do you agree that the Fraternity of St Peter are "our enemies"? If you had the opportunity to attend a Traditional Rite Papal Mass (granted, not happening, unfortunately), would in principle you refuse to attend it? Do you agree that it is scandalous for EVERY sermon in a chapel to contain at least one disparaging and insulting reference to the Pope?

    Perhaps this is worlds away from your own experience, and if so I am glad. But the undeniable good the SSPX do and have done I do not believe can justify this sort of mentality.

    And yes, to the person who commented at 15:04, often the poor treatment SSPX faithful receive and received and years of fighting ARE the reason for the bitterness and mistrust. Many have REASON to be bitter. But that does not mean one should now make bitterness, mistrust, and cultishness, the hallmark of a good Trad Catholic, to be sought as ends in themselves, or even justified as good qualitites.

    God bless

    ReplyDelete
  46. Anon. 09 September, 2011 06:40 said:

    "but I do most certainly see incredible bitterness and even cultishness."

    "He hath done all things well; He hath made...the dumb to speak." (Mark 7, vs. 37)

    HEARD
    IT
    THROUGH
    THE
    GRAPEVINE

    A word was whispered
    Bright one morn
    About a girl so young

    And the whisper spread
    Through out the town
    On woman’s wagging tongue.

    The wagging tongues
    Turned into snakes
    With sharp-like serpent’s tooth

    That slithered round
    And under rocks
    For it knew where to find the truth.

    But slithering
    Whispers under rocks
    Never seem to satisfy

    So the whispered word
    Was boldly spoke
    Out loud to passers-by.

    But the woman
    Knew it
    All along…

    “It wasn’t a surprise.” Said she.
    “And I’m sure that’s why
    That carpenter Joseph

    Took her away
    On that old
    Donkey!”

    ReplyDelete
  47. Rorate's Top Post says:

    "Can one be a diocesan priest and
    celebrate the traditional Mass exclusively?
    A true motivational example"

    ...when the Priest was asked:

    "Why have you refused the so called “biritualism” in contrast to other priests who have welcomed Summorum Pontificum?"

    ...he answered

    A. I shall be brief. I find the obligation of biritualism absurd. If one has found that which is authentic, which is best, that which expresses the Catholic Faith more completely, without dangerous ambiguities, why would there be the need to celebrate something much less? With biritualism, in actual fact, one rite dies and the other stays. With biritualism, the priest gets weary, with the sadness of a sort of schizophrenia, and the people are not edified, instructed, consoled in the beauty of God. I shall avoid discussing the theological liturgical aspects - an interview is not the place for that. I will say only that whoever stays with biritualism sooner or later abandons the Old Rite and manufactures reasons to stay in the world of the reform, lived perhaps in a conservative way, but with an interior sadness, like one who has betrayed the love of God since his youth. I have to add that it was very helpful for me to read “The Anglican Liturgical Reform” by Michael Davies – a fundamental text which is very clear: the ambiguity of the rite leads to heresy in fact. Is it not this that has happened?"

    Now isn't that SPECIAL.

    "If one has found that which is authentic, which is best, that which expresses the Catholic Faith more completely, without dangerous ambiguities, why would there be the need to celebrate something much less?"

    This priest sounds "bitter" and "cultish" if you ask me, may God reward him abundantly for the Truth!

    ReplyDelete
  48. Long Skirts wrote:

    "Sadly how many "men" have forgotten that it was the SSPX who held out all of these years (a second in eternity) for the Pope to Free the True Mass NOT just for them but for ALL Catholic Priests for the good of the WHOLE Church!"

    Long Skirts, It's good that you can see that the freeing of the Mass is good for the Church, but the SSPX says that it's wrong to attend a TLM that's outside of the SSPX. The SSPX believes that its wrong to attend any Mass in a diocese that is a result of Summorum Pontificum, or was in place before Summorum Pontificum. You are aware of this, right?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Long-skirts, I am not saying biritualism is the answer, or that one must agree with priests settling for biritualism, or that "Tridentine only" is not the way to go...but the SSPX tells people not to attend non-SSPX Masses! Rather miss Mass altogether on a Day of Obligation than attend a TRADITIONAL Mass...this isn't even simply a question of them counselling people to support the SSPX instead of the FSSP or biritual priests, but telling people they are exempt from Mass if there is no SSPX Mass, even though there is a TLM around the corner. In fact, even publicly instructing people to SHUN non-SSPX Masses. Even getting little old ladies who had previously happily attended the TLM to cease going and go to Sunday Rosary instead. Simple pious old ladies who say they'd best no longer go "because Father said we shouldn't go to other Masses as they can't be trusted".
    And parishioners saying they couldn't care whether Summorum Pontificum is implemented as it doesn't affect them, they only worry about what happens in the SSPX.
    Does none of this strike you as misguided?

    ReplyDelete
  50. "Can one be a diocesan priest and
    celebrate the traditional Mass exclusively?
    A true motivational example"

    ...and this DIOCESAN Priest said:

    "...the ambiguity of the rite leads to heresy in fact. Is it not this that has happened?"

    ReplyDelete
  51. My experiences with some parish-indult resp. summorum-pont.-TLMs (all in Germany):

    In one of those Masses (in Wiesbaden) Joh. Paul II was praised for his ecomenism and f.e. for his praying at the jewish wall in Jerusalem.

    In another (Frankfurt a.M.) the priest preached that hell perhaps could be empty.

    In two other places, during TLM you have distribution of HL. Comunnion into the hands. (Asking the priests not to do so they said that they do not like it themselfes but the bishop... [of Speyer]).

    Could go on!

    So I can understand very well that the SSPX warns the people in the pew to go there!

    Not to mention what one poster mentioned before that in many TLMs the people will be told not to go to the SSPX, not to confess there because their confessions were invalid, they werew schismatics etc.

    And in many such TLMs you will hear that that rel. freedom is totally ok or at least you will not hear anything edifying about the Social Kingship of CHrist etc. etc.

    So how can you wander that the SSPX warns their people to go there?

    ReplyDelete
  52. "They can´t be trusted"

    Sorry, but in deed that is the case - after 40 years of heterodox formation and praxis you can not just trust them (priests in modern parishes) only because the say a TLM. It is not only about the TLM. It´s about the whole, integral Catholic doctrine and life!

    And I am not saying that these priests are all bad boys -- as I reported above some do bad things out of fear of their bishops (Hand-Communion in the TLM), others say heterodox or problematic things because they were not formed in a Catholic way in their seminary and lived in a non-traditional atmosphere for years etc... but others also are still modernists reading the TLM because the bishop "hired" them....

    How can you think from one to another day there is no problem anymore if you read (some times) the TLM??

    ReplyDelete
  53. The following are the final remarks in the SSPX's FAQ on attending the motu Mass, which is posted on www.sspx.org, the website of its U.S. District.

    ***

    "Here is a summary of the dangers to which the faithful might easily be exposed by imprudently attending the traditional Mass celebrated today under [the circumstances of motu Masses]:

    "the teaching of the Faith can still be defective,

    "the priest might be ill-prepared for the pre-conciliar liturgy,

    "the risk of a mixing of the new and old rite remains,

    "and there is the danger of a confusion which could be very misleading.

    "In doubt, the faithful should ask their pastors for advice."

    ***

    I will leave it to my fellow denizens of this blog to draw their own conclusions about the relation between the Society's position and some of the comments that have preceded this one.

    I would also suggest that an appropriate condition of criticizing the Society is to inform oneself of the Society's actual views.

    ReplyDelete
  54. So, Long-skirts and Picard, is it a case, in your view, of "extra SSPX nulla salus"? Is the SSPX the one ark of salvation? Must the Catholic faithful boycott all and any Masses save those of the SSPX and those whom it condescends to approve? Is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church reduced to the SSPX and its supporters? Do no other Masses but theirs fulfill the Sunday obligation? Do you believe that only at SSPX Masses is one guaranteed a truly Catholic TLM?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Anonymous 09 September, 2011 20:54

    Well said!!!

    ReplyDelete
  56. Picard,

    Excellent points. The TLM has been celebrated in my very liberal diocese here in Florida for years. The bishop's right hand man/theologian says the mass and this has always been the "bone throw" mass. The "I gave you one Latin mass per week for the entire diocese now shut up" bone throw.

    During a recent homily the priest mentioned that Jesus had brothers. Instantly my alarm bells start going off inside my head. I looked at my wife to see if she heard the same thing I did. Then I looked around to see if anyone else heard the same thing I did. Two weeks later, he mentions the same thing again. He wasn't talking about the fact that in Aramaic there apparently isn't a word for cousin, he meant Jesus HAD brothers.

    I also noticed the Vat2 communion table which is pushed up to the wall for the TLM consecration is made of wood and not stone.

    I haven't been back since.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Anonymous 20:54, Why do you - and others like you on other occasions - extrapolate things from the words of Long-Skirts and Picard - an others like them on other occasions - that go WAY BEYOND anything they said. Why the zeal to pin down and put the other party into a strait-jacket according to your personal requirements? Why the need to examine their motives with surgical precision? Is this charity? Is it not rather a sign of your own insecurity and imperfection?

    Don't you realise that your behaviour in doing thus is very similar to the very behaviour of which you accuse the SPPX and which you find so objectionable?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Mar to answer your comment:

    No, I don't think so.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I could be wrong, but I have to wonder if the reason that the SSPX says that the Catholic faithful should not ever attend any Masses (other than a Mass at an SSPX chapel) is possibly to due having to keep up the presumption that there's a crisis. If the SSPX were to admit that the diocesan- approved TLM's are alright to attend, then it might give the impression that the crisis is over. And if the SSPX were to admit or announce this, then their argument for supplied jurisdiction might fall apart.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Enoch said:

    "If the SSPX were to admit that the diocesan- approved TLM's are alright to attend, then it might give the impression that the crisis is over. And if the SSPX were to admit or announce this, then their argument for supplied jurisdiction might fall apart."

    Dear Enoch...the crisis over?
    Have you read the two latest entries by Rorate Caeli?!!!:

    "They are expelling Jesus from the churches..."

    AND

    "Sodom in the Diocese"

    God's sake man!!!!

    BTW, Mar, thank you for trying to help me, I will say a Rosary for your intentions.

    ReplyDelete
  61. An SP Mass just started up in my city and I was at the meeting with the Arch-Bishop were he went on a length about 'judgement upon others' and the divisions caused by thinking that the TLM superiour to the NO.

    Even more to the point: The priest saying the Mass said the following in an interview: "Even though we're celebrating the liturgy of 1962, we're not theologically the same as 1962," ... "My homily will take in all the developments since 1962.

    I can think of a few "theological" developments that would be detrimental. Hopefully, he won't go down those wide paths.

    There's some food for thought.

    ReplyDelete
  62. @Enoch,

    Anyone who thinks the crisis is over is (imho) delusional.

    Based on what's happening in Austria and with the priestesses / Maryknoll Fathers in the USA (Fr. Bourgeois et al), it's just starting to warm up.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Oh this crisis isn't over, I wouldn't say it's lessening in any way. A window has been pryed open for the TLM and that's it. In fact most of the saints who were prophets said we've got some serious chastisement ahead before the Church is reborn.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Dear Long-Skirts,

    I did read the last few paragraphs of the article, "They are expelling Jesus from the Churches." I was sad to see the last sentence, which reads as thus:
    "He would never have met the Word Made Flesh in a church nowadays - only idle prattling."

    Long-Skirts, are you sure that this last sentence is true? That the Word Made Flesh does not exist in Catholic churches nowadays? Are you sure that only idle prattling is heard in all of the Catholic churches of today? I would beg you to please not take the word of others for this; but instead, go and attend a diocesan TLM, or even an Novus Ordo, and see for yourself if it is really true. Please, please, see for yourself. I saw for myself that the Church isn't nearly as bad as I had been led to believe; in fact, there is much goodness even in the parishes where the Novus ordo is celebrated - but I had to see it for myself - rather than accept the word of others. God bless you, and may you endeavor to seek the truth of the matter, as I had done.

    ReplyDelete
  65. I would agree that to assert that the crisis in the church is over would be delusional. However, the question may well be not whether the crisis is over...it is FAR from over and as one poster said, is really just warming up as far as dissent is concerned...but whether the SSPX is justified in operating independently from Rome, in an state of self-sufficient ecclesial autonomy without reference to the Holy See. If it is possible to lead a fully Traditional Catholic life AND be in full visible juridical commununion with the Successor of Peter, how can it be justified to remain aloof?

    I think people are perhaps confusing the issue: they point to the crisis and its symptoms and use these as a reason not to be in formal and visible union with Rome. But if one can indeed practice the Faith unhindered and unrestricted, then how is it justified to refuse formal union with Rome? If the SSPX were offered an Ordinariate that gave the independence from the bishops and allowed them complete freedom and did not gag them, how is there a necessity to insist on operating unlawfully? The severity of the crisis cannot be minimised...but does the mess the Church is in mean one must refuse to be part of the Church? I know the SSPX insists it is part of the church, but I cannot see how formal and full recognition and regularisation can be refused where it does not entail loss of control of their apostolate to hostile bishops or a gagging of sorts. Also, the church will NEVER be crisis-free.
    Perhaps what Enoch meant was that if the SSPX admitted one could fulfil ones Sunday obligation outside the SSPX it would make it seem that the SSPX was not absolutely indispensable for the salvation of souls, and that souls might be sanctified and saved outside the SSPX, heaven forbid, in churches in full visible formal and juridical communion with the Holy See.

    Now a question that Long-skirts has not answered: Long-skirts, do you agree with the SSPX telling its faithful in no uncertain terms they must on no account attend Tridentine Latin Masses said by priests "in good standing", even if it means missing Mass altogether on a day of obligation? Rosary at the chapel on Sunday rather than a Traditional Latin Mass? And please, remember this is unqualified - it is NOT advice ti stay away from abusive TLM's or Masses of hostile priests, or to attend the Novus Ordo, or to attend SSPX instead of other TLM's - its a case of "if you don't have an SSPX Mass you are not only exempt from Sunday Mass, but you MUST NOT go elsewhere - even a TLM". For that is what we have been instructed and told. It may not happen everywhere, and I'd be pleased to hear you've never heard it.
    Let me amplify: some follow this instruction, others (yours truly included) do not and feel if we have a TLM we must go if its Sunday. The TLM is offered by a very orthodox and sympathetic priest, well aware of our SSPX associations. The Mass is totally by the book. It is that or no Mass at all. And the SSPX here is adamant that its faithful rather miss Sunday Mass than attend a non-SSPX Mass, whatever the circumstances. The advice is unqualified, unconditional. Now, Long-skirts and others, is that right?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Another question for Long skirts and others:
    Our SSPX priests have also told us in no uncertain terms not to go to confession except in danger of death (and some of our faithful...my in-laws to be precise, refuse even that) to a non-SSPX priest.
    This NOT ONLY as in..."Come to us rather, don't have a modern NO priest as your confessor, they are so unreliable and unsound"...but even telling us not to approach a priest for absolution in the case of being conscious of mortal sin, but to await an SSPX priest's visit. This is in response to some of us having recourse to a conservative elderly Irish monsignor who has resumed saying the TLM since Summorum Pontificum, still alongside the Novus Ordo, in between SSPX visits.
    We are advised rather to make an act of perfect sorrow and wait out the 2-3 or more weeks (in our case...in some places its 2-3 months between visits!) Rather than go to confession.
    Think about it: would you, conscious of mortal sin, wait for weeks for confession, when one might receibe absolution from a conservative elderly priest who says the TLM? Refuse absolution from him?
    I know my answer to that.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Long-Skirts said: BTW, Mar, thank you for trying to help me, I will say a Rosary for your intentions.

    You're most welcome, L-S. Your Rosary is much appreciated and will come in handy for a special intention right at this time.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Anon @ 8:36,

    I agree that the Catholic Church will never be crisis-free. The types and severity of the crises have differed somewhat through the past two-thousand years, of course. A non-SSPX traditional priest once put it this way: When Judas betrayed Our Lord, did the other Apostles then decide that the faith had been compromised and the gates of Hell had then prevailed? No! In fact, Our Lord didn't even say who it was, exactly, that betrayed Him. He could have given Judas the boot at the last supper, but He didn't. He allowed Judas to stay. The wheat and the chaff will remain together until the harvest. There have always been bad men and women in the Church - are we going to leave or stay away our dear Holy Mother Church because of them? How great can our faith really be if we allow them to keep us away from the visible Church? When I left the SSPX, I was told by a good and well-intentioned SSPX priest that he feared that I would lose my faith if I attended a diocesan TLM. But I haven't lost my faith; in fact, it has been strengthened by my diect connection with the Church founded by Christ. And I occasionally even assist at an NO. Imagine that!

    The priests of the SSPX will be a boon for the Church - the visible Church - if and when they decide to end the separation. Or, they can continue to keep their distance from the Church. The ball is in their court.

    ReplyDelete
  69. I will try to fast and pray, for the next three days, for the intention that Bishop Fellay would seek, above all, the Will of God in this matter of the meeting with Cardinal Levada on the 14th.

    I would hope that Bp. Fellay would humbly submit to the Will of God, through prayer, on this important matter. And that he not pay attention to the words of men on either side of the divide - but rather he would seek only God's Will.

    When Our Lord suffered His agony in the Garden at Gethsemane, He asked if the chalice could be taken away, but that if it couldn't, that the Father's Will be done. "Not my will, oh Lord, but thine." Our Lord then completely and humbly submitted to the Father's Will, rather than worry about the opinions of men.

    I would ask others, too, to fast and pray for this intention, and that we not be like the Apostles in the Garden who kept falling asleep when Our Lord asked them to watch and pray.

    God bless you all!

    ReplyDelete
  70. @Enoch,
    "I occasionally even assist at an
    NO."

    I'm certain that the hackles are raising on a number of the readers when they see this part of your post.

    I'm curious if you would share your sentiments upon the experience of a NO Mass.

    Beyond that, while the Mass is an important visible aspect of the crisis, it is not the core.

    The NO Mass is quite simply an expression of the post-V2 Magisterium. From the position of the theology it is a rupture. To say otherwise is to deny the explicit statements of a number of the innovators who 'created' the NO Mass.

    The core is doctrine. More specifically, it is the contradiction of the pre-V2 Magisterium by the post-V2 Magisterium.

    Before someone jumps all over me on that one I'll give a quick background to the approach the SSPX has taken in this long course of years (from cfnews):

    1) He (Archbishop Lefebvre) and the SSPX would accept anything in Vatican II that is clearly consistent with Tradition;
    2) Any ambiguous texts of Vatican II must be interpreted strictly according to Tradition; according to the consistent teaching of the Church throughout the centuries;
    3) Anything in the Council that cannot be interpreted according to Tradition should be revised.

    When a Pope agrees with these three statements (uncertain of Pope Benedict XVI at this time but these seems to be cause for hope) and undertakes a true reform. Then you'll see the SSPX for certain regularized.

    Given what has happened to the various organizations that have taken up the invitation of the Vatican in 1988, 2002 etc) - the SSPX is wise to be prudent - much is at stake.

    Last thought: Archbishop Lefebvre had a guiding thought that was related to my wife when she was a novice in an SSPX convent.

    "I do not precede providence, I follow it".

    (written in haste - sorry for any inconsistencies in structure)

    ReplyDelete
  71. May God bless you anonymous :
    11 September, 2011 08:36

    EVERYONE READ THIS, BECAUSE IT IS AS I SEE IT FOOD FOR THOUGHT.



    "The severity of the crisis cannot be minimised...but does the mess the Church is in mean one must refuse to be part of the Church?"

    "I know the SSPX insists it is part of the church, but I cannot see how formal and full recognition and regularisation can be refused where it does not entail loss of control of their apostolate to hostile bishops or a gagging of sorts. Also, the church will NEVER be crisis-free.
    Perhaps what Enoch meant was that if the SSPX admitted one could fulfil ones Sunday obligation outside the SSPX it would make it seem that the SSPX was not absolutely indispensable for the salvation of souls, and that souls might be sanctified and saved outside the SSPX, heaven forbid, in churches in full visible formal and juridical communion with the Holy See."



    I THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD.

    GOD BLESS YOU AGAIN!!!

    ReplyDelete
  72. In response to anonymous
    11 September, 2011 08:36


    My friend I agree with you IT'S NOT RIGHT, I know what you say is true because I have heard priests from the SSPX say to the members of their chapels not to attend DIOCESAN TRADITIONAL MASSES and warns them of being around any catholics who don't attend the SSPX chapels as if the grace of God is not on those Catholics who are in communion with Rome.

    This is wrong and this way of thinking is being install in the minds of the young who have grown up in the SSPX mileu.

    I unite my comment to all those who believe the SSPX MUST RETURN TO OBEDIENCE UNDER ROME.

    ReplyDelete