Rorate Caeli

Grace of state or bargaining?

A guest-post by Côme de Prévigny
In recent times, some have bet, some have wagered, some have speculated. Will they sign? Will they not sign? Will they refuse? Some "Progressive" or Sedevacantist commentators, with graying hair, filled with animosity, believe they can whip up a rupture, and even surmise to image the reactions of the priests of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X regarding the preamble presented by Cardinal Levada on September 14. They go even to the lengths of presenting - with conditional clauses, naturally - estimates, in percentages, of what would have been the result of a hypothetical internal referendum, on the acceptance or non-acceptance of the Roman text.

The first problem with this is that this form of polling does not exist in this kind of religious society. It belongs to the Superior-General - who certainly takes into account opinions, advices, and the situation, but who is above all endowed with the graces of state for it - to undertake every important decision related to the life of the Fraternity. He was legitimately placed as head of the work founded by Abp. Lefebvre by the statutes put in place by the latter. The second problem with their scenario is that the Preamble, known by so few people, is modifiable, according to the words of both parties. What is there to sign when the text can change? What is there to refuse when the terms have not been fixed?

Outside commentators are often daydreamers. On the one hand, some cannot help but pretend to find within the Fraternity priests who would refuse the very principle of a regularization of their society, which would thus reveal itself as filled with Sedevacantists to the brim. On the other, their kindred find no limits to exaggerate the proportion of tired members, begging them to reach an agreement regardless of the price. The work founded by Abp. Lefebvre has been sufficiently swept, in its sides, by the winds of agreement at any cost and by those of despair so that both classes of men have already found the occasion to leave it in years past.

Those who have resisted both temptations  - and that is the totality of those whom we know - find themselves, consequently, in the state of mind that animated Abp. Lefebvre. They all ardently wish for a regularization of their society. This would make their daily chores easier! At the same time, they do not agree with obtaining it regardless of the price. The ability to profess the faith, without fears of unpleasant repercussions on the apostolate, poses a problem. Indeed, the confidence expected of the Fraternity cannot but be compromised every time one hears of a recently-named bishop who blesses remarried divorcees or who establishes a parish specifically for homosexuals. Prudence thus demands that the work should enjoy complete independence from a clergy that would allow their flock to pasture amidst thorns and nettles.

What situation will thus ensure the Fraternity that its apostolate does not risk weakening if it finds itself linked to these men currently named by the Apostolic See? Abp. Lefebvre used several expressions to name this phase: "when the situation returns to normalcy"; "when Tradition regains its rights in Rome"; "when Rome makes a strong move in favor of Tradition", etc.  And it belongs to Bp. Fellay, amid the graces of state which he receives, to determine this moment in which the Fraternity is perceived as a driving force for restoration in the Church, and not anymore as a caboose of laggards to be slowly placed on the rails of reformation. Since the situation remains complex, one will always find observers ready to remark, when that moment comes, that, from their subjective viewpoint, all has not changed and that, even in Spring, there is some wintry weather. Conversely, untill that moment comes, one will always find spirits with similarly subdued opinions, who will not understand that one cannot find Spring in each passing swallow. It belongs to the Superior-General to judge if the Motu Proprio and the removal of excommunications contitute this strong move, or rather if they are not enough to establish an atmosphere of confidence.

What is at stake is considerable, because regularization can open actual apostolates for souls who would never approach the Fraternity due to juridical obstacles. Preventing them from acceding to the graces delivered to this work by excessive prudence may be a grave error. Conversely, imprudently taking a road that would put in danger the integrity of the faith would be another mistake, with dramatic consequences. One can imagine the dilemmas of conscience with which Abp. Lefebvre was confronted and which the current Superior-General has inherited. The Archbishop, animated by a missionary spirit, adapted himself to complex and diverse situations. "It is this same road that his successor, Bishop Fellay, follows, after our founder was called by God," the superior of the South American District said recently. Whatever his decision may be, let us pray that it - an act that is prudent and uncompromising on the Faith  - will be understood by the largest number of people. Let us fervently pray that all may view, in the decision of the authority, the hand of God expressing itself through it, despite misunderstandings, in one sense or in another.


  1. "...- an act that is prudent and uncompromising on the Faith -..."

    "Prudence" and "Uncompromising" are the key words here, I think. Let us pray for Bp. Fellay and the decisions he must make.

  2. P.K.T.P.12:14 AM

    I must say that this commentary is unusual. On the contrary, I have found that, even in French commentary, the speculation is much less than I would have expected. Also, it is quite amazing that the text of the Preamble has not leaked out by now.

    There are some, I would counter, who would like to change reality to suit their own agendas. I would too, perhaps, but we should be realistic. In the Philippines, Bishop Fellay said no to the Preamble in no uncertain terms. Bishop Tissier de Mallerais has said no twice. Williamson? Well, we neen't even ponder. Other Society superiors have said the same thing, and they have said it emphatically. At. Albano Laziali, by all accounts, the response was a resounding 'non'.

    We must think more imaginatively. No to the Preamble might mean no regularisation at this time, but it also might mean a canonical *recognition* that the Society is Catholic, not schismatic, not heretical, not apostate, and that its Masses do indeed (as already indicated informally) fulfil the Sunday obligation, as the text of Canon 1248 would seem to suggest.

    That would be a victory in these circumstances, even if Rome tried to make it look negative.

    Let us not dream wild fantasies. On the other had, we hope and we use our brains and should be wary of misdirection.


  3. GQ Rep12:15 AM

    I think it is in the best interest of the SSPX to refuse at this time, as long as there are parts of this Doctrinal Preamble which state that the SSPXmust state allegence to Vatican II, its reforms, and the Magesterium of Vatican II as expressed by recent Popes. All of this represents a rupture from the Faith (best epitomized by the Novus Ordo of Paul VI) that must be repudiated.

    But if the Docrtinal Preamble DOES NOT include the embedded requirement that the SSPX must swear allegence to Vatican II, but rather that Vatican II and what it has produced is open for discussion in a critical way, THEN the SSPX should sign. It would be a violation of valid judgement not to.

    Unfortunatly, I believe the first scenario is more likely, therefore the SSPX would be wise to stand firm for the Catholic Faith, not back down, and refuse to sign/agree. To throw away Catholic tradition and belief in exchange for a post Vatican II Church built on nothing would be a case of misplaced/ misguided loyalty in the extreme.

  4. Perhaps the Preamble was rejected in the form it was presented and is now under revision. This seems pefectly logical being the give and take situation that has been going on for a long time. Did anyone really expect the first Preamble to just be signed off upon? I trust that Bishop Fellay has responded to the Pope and a revision is under way that favors the Church as a whole with the SSPX an integral part of it. Lord knows after the Preamble is signed alot of work will just be beginning.

  5. Bishop Fellay has kept the document secret.

    He is sick and tired of the whole world beating a path to Bishop Williamson's door every time they want to know the Truth about all matters.

    It is rare the world is correct in its assumption.


  6. Very well said!

    Saint Athanasius (and, possibly, Lefebvre) pray for us!

  7. Wizard of Aragon1:54 AM

    I attend mass with the FSSPX and can tell you that the folks I am with have entrusted this situation with Bishop Fillay and will follow his recommendations.

    My own opinion is that the preamble will be rejected in the current form (they have so much as said so) and there will be an amendment of some form or an outright rejection.


  8. As an aside, why can't the Pope, sua sponte just say that the priests of the FSSPX are no longer suspended a divinis? Just Do It Holy Father!

  9. Joe B2:25 AM

    And I say SSPX will not turn it down outrightly. The Vatican will have to be the ones to end the process. Even if SSPX disagrees with the preamble, they have everything to gain by using this process to keep moving the Vatican towards acknowledgment of their views as correct, which is precisely their mission, along with training a solid priesthood. Turn the preamble down flat and the channels and opportunity to address the issues close with it. They won't do it. They'll keep pushing and pushing.

    And if the Vatican decides SSPX is never going to acknowledge their views, I don't think they will declare them wonderful anyway. I think it more likely they will issue an ultimatum that ends in a formal declaration of schism or heresy or whatever, thus making SSPX's situation even more precarious.

    But since SSPX is theologically correct (since they only defend that which has been passed down), I have hope that the Vatican will ultimately accept SSPX's version. All in God's own good time.

  10. Peterman2:27 AM

    There's a great book on negotiation called "Start with No" by Jim Camp which I read years ago and has stayed with me. In it he says the first reaction one should have to a deal offered should be to scoff, making a disgusted like audible sigh (if in person). The object of course is to immediately put the offering party on the defensive about their offer and have them quickly revise their offer to much better terms.

    It sounds like the SSPX is doing some effective negotiating here and I trust they'll eventually come to an agreement.

  11. OutsideObserver2:52 AM

    "...I think it more likely they will issue an ultimatum that ends in a formal declaration of schism or heresy or whatever, thus making SSPX's situation even more precarious"

    On the contrary. Most of the members of the SSPX today joined it when the SSPX was still roundly condemned (without cause) as heretical or schismatic. These are chaps who are not afraid of being labeled.

    On the other hand, it is no secret that a large percentage of the "Ecclesia Dei" groups and some secular clergy who regularly offer the Traditional Mass quietly take their bearings from the positions of the Society, with or without the latter's knowledge. A formal declaration from Rome that the SSPX is "schismatic" or "heretical" will only trigger a massive migration of Traditionalists into the SSPX camp.

  12. Gratias4:21 AM

    It is good to learn that Bp. Fellay has the authority to rejoin without taking a vote.

    This is very important moment. What matters is the Catholic and Apostolic Church, not the SSPX. Benedict XVI has done much for tradition already. Two Lefebrian conditions have been granted: "when Tradition regains its rights" and "when Rome makes a strong move in favor of Tradition". Summorum Pontificum, lifting of excommunication for the four bishops, and Universae Ecclesia have happened. Vatican II also happened and it is a reality one has to live
    with to be in the Church. It did not create a new dogma so Traditionalists should be able to live with that.

    We need to jump start tradition right now, while Benedict is with us. SSPX joining would be the best booster we could have. And Benedict would give them the most generous
    deal possible. His whole pontificate has been geared towards this. The admission of the Anglicans was a test run for SSPX rejoining.

    I appreciate that if not for SSPX we would not have any Latin Mass at all. My wonderful 1962 Missal is from Angelus Press, which I think is affiliated with SSPX. We are in the same boat, yet I will not attend a Mass not in union with the Pope. Negotiate for improvements by all means, but submit to Rome at the end of the day. I did pray a rosary for a good outcome of this, and greatly appreciate reading to posts of the SSPX parishoners here. Rejoining the Church would be a wonderful liberation for those over 500 priests dedicated to the Traditional Mass.

  13. Bartholomew12:02 PM


    While I'm tempted toward your position, in the end I reject it. The post-conciliar Church has replaced principle with what amounts to legal positivism. "Reality is what we (those who hold the Sacred Offices of the Church) say it is!" So regardless of the fact that the New Mass, the New Theology (the accidents which are supposed to present the substance of the Faith) hide the essence of the Church's Faith and spiritual treasury, embrace them anyway. Why? Because, contrary to the evidence of our intellect and senses, those who have pitched the Modernist heresy into every nook and cranny of the Church's visible structure, tell us the opposite -- and we must believe that because they say so!

    If the SSPX gives up principle because because of fear that it's missing a narrow opportunity afforded by Pope Benedict, I think it caves to the type of pragmatism which it has resisted for 40 years.

    To assume that grace is leading Bishop Fellay to sign the preamble no matter what is an assumption without merit in this most serious crisis of the Church's history. Apostasy is everywhere -- and the only thing of which the SSPX is guilty is their refusal to particpate in it.

  14. The response can be none other than a rejection. Why all the futile speculation? Who would want to belong to a new church that demonstrates all the signs of its own self-destruction? SSPX must continue to do what it has been assigned to do without wasting any more energy on a lost cause. This papacy is almost a complete failure where The Faith is concerned while the SP contains its own problematic issues thorny to both The Confraternity and the NO. Its very lexical structure presents ultimate difficulties of its own for traditionalists who want to be faithful to the only liturgical rite befitting the western Latin Rite Church. These become increasingly manifest as time passes.

  15. "I appreciate that if not for SSPX we would not have any Latin Mass at all....'

    This is not so. As much as The SSPX has provided a crucial motive force to the traditionalist movement, The Latin Mass of All Times has been protected and propagated by independent priests devoted to tradition such as Fr Gommar De Pauw (RIP). Pope St Pius V and the Tridentine Councils have guaranteed it will never die out as long as there are those who are determined to keep it alive.

    When we talk about "jump starting tradition" the metaphor itself suggests a rather distorted view of the SSPX and the role the pope has in this entire affair.

    For Bishop Fellay to cede to the current situation would be a denial of the very basis upon which The Confraternity entered into the so-called talks with The Vatican in the first place. The Councils are a rupture with Sacred Tradition as objective evidence demonstrates amply. He has no choice in reality but to reject a characteristically modernist offer - agree to the hermeneutic of continuity or no deal. This is he best response to give.

    There is no other way than this.

  16. Art Thou Elias?1:33 PM

    As I understand it, the SSPX will not agree to the Doctrinal Preamble because it does not recognize that there is a crisis in the Church.

    BTW, Knight of Malta, the priests of the SSPX are not suspended a divinis, as Father Z keeps repeating ad nauseam. Their suppression by the Swiss bishop was invalid and illegal according to Church law. Only the Pope can suppress an order which extends over multiple dioceses. Yet, this illegal action has created the public perception that their priests are in this state.

    People who have an interest in this matter would do well to detach themselves from the party line and investigate the truth. And the truth starts with this: Tradition is largely anathema to the post-Conciliar hierarchy, which worships man, not Christ.

  17. Anonymous2:01 PM

    1. The "fears of unpleasant repercussions on the apostolate" are at the heart of what I don't understand about the SSPX's position. What exactly does the Society fear from these bishops? The FSSP and ICRSS are able to function, sometimes even in pretty liberal dioceses, without significant problems; in fact, their priests do incredible work in offering the Sacraments, evangelizing, preaching, and saving souls.

    Furthermore, every report we've heard about these negotiations holds that the Society would be given decidedly more independence than the FSSP and other orders (allowing them, probably, an ordinariate structure allowing them to go into the territory of those ultra-liberal bishops who don't allow the FSSP).

    With that in mind, what is the problem with being "linked" in some fashion with the Pope and the bishops (yes, even bad ones)? If the SSPX are in communion and Matthew Clark is in communion, it doesn't reflect badly on the SSPX and wouldn't harm their work. It only reflects badly on the Pope for allowing such an odd situation.

    2. What angers me the most about these pro-SSPX arguments are the assumptions that are so dismissive and derisive towards the FSSP, IBP, Campos, Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, etc., basically arguing that they all "wimped out" and joined Rome in an unprincipled fashion, unlike the firm-in-faith-and-always-right-on-every-judgment-call SSPX. Everyone who chose to reconcile just wanted "agreement at any cost," apparently. There's no way they could have just intelligently come to a different conclusion from LeFebvre, Schmidberger, and Fellay about the existence of the "state of emergency."

    3. The SSPX would be ridiculous not to see the significant steps made towards tradition. The traditional Mass is de jure free and voices like Bp. Athanasius Schneider, Msgr. Gherardini, and the Franciscans of the Immaculate are becoming genuine and significant contributors to the debate on the Council. Furthermore, if the SSPX were to rejoin the Church's structures, wouldn't this, more than anything else, serve as an impetus to drive the Church even more strongly towards tradition? One book by Msgr. Gherardini (who is within the Church's structures) did more than all the writings of all the SSPX'ers to move the discussion. It seems the SSPX want the situation to be resolved before they rejoin, but the situation won't be resolved without their assistance from within. They would be the "driving force for restoration in the Church, and not anymore as a caboose of laggards..."

    4. This attitude of extreme trust in Fellay as the "authority" endowed with the state of grace to make this decision is question-begging. The submission and respect owed to decisions of a superior is first dependent upon the jurisdiction and authority that that superior receives from the Church. Fellay has that jurisdiction and authority supplied to him only if a state of emergency still exists, and he lacks that jurisdiction and authority if it doesn't. To say we can simply trust Fellay if he argues that a state of emergency exists is to assume its existence.

  18. Bartholomew3:46 PM


    When I read a post such as yours, I know we're already approaching a point on this particular thread where the defenders of the SSPX and those like yourself are quickly reaching an impasse. We're already talking past each other.

    I've come to believe that this will be the permanent situation of those on different sides of this argument -- until the Good Lord provides the remedy.

    I don't think we'll like the medicine.

  19. Luther would love V24:36 PM

    Please read the original post again. Your concerns are no doubt being weighed.
    The FSSPX believes the state of emergency exists.
    I came to the FSSPX from the FSSP. Not everyone in the FSSPX thinks FSSP and others have whimped out.

    I left the FSSP because of bishop Fred cuts them off at the legs. The NO is a disgrace, very glad to leave.

    Mr. Clean

  20. No, Bartholomew Said. You are misinformed. Rather, it is the new church which is at an impasse. This is illustrated by serial disobedience amongst the episcopate and its prebyterate; the subversive horizontalism of the post-conciliar outcome and the disastrous chief indicators of the new church which worsen each week. The Confraternity must maintain its stance and it should continue with its mission. Less than this would be to betray Tradition in all its significance to Roman Catholics.

  21. Bartholomew6:09 PM

    Leon G:

    I think you misread me. I support the stance of the SSPX (see above 12:02). My point to John is that we who support the SSPX's position and people like John who do not have arrived at an impasse. Read every thread on every blog where this has been a topic for discussion over the course of the past several years and one reviews the evidence that positions are entrenched.

    I understand clearly John's point of view. I simply disagree with it.

  22. "They all ardently wish for a regularization of their society. This would make their daily chores easier!"

    Reading things like this makes me think that within the SSPX, there is an incomplete understanding of what jurisdiction is, or at least an idea of it not in line with tradition or common teaching before the CVII.

    It is "sententia communis" (or at least, it was before the Council, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia) that due to the monarchical constitution of the Church, every power exercised over her (or any portion of her) must emanate immediately from the Sovereign Pontiff (cf. Catholic Encyclopedia, "Bishop", "Rights and Power of the Bishops".). Our Lord Jesus Christ constituted the Church in such a way that each faithful would be under the jurisdiction of a Successor of the Apostles. Ordination to episcopacy confers the condition of being a Successor of the Apostles, but jurisdiction, the right to teach, govern and sanctify any portion of the Church, can only come from the Pope (again, this is not ex cathedra but it's the common teaching of theologians, specially before the Vatican II).

    In any case, jurisdiction is an essential element of the Church, established by Divine Right. It isn't a minor point of positive canonical right which can simply be disregarded if anybody privately judges that to do so would be better "pro salus animarum". It is true that the Church "supplies" jurisdiction for particular acts under certain conditions, but there is no such thing as supplied jurisdiction for a whole apostolate, mission or particular church.

    So, if the priests of the SSPX "ardently wish for a regularization of their society", it must not be simply to "make their daily chores easier", but in order to actually have the right to teach, sanctify and govern the people they minister... for them to be subject to a Successor of the Apostles in full communion with the bishop of Rome, as Our Lord established for every faithful. The SSPX may say that they recognize the jurisdiction of the local ordinary, but the problem is that the people they minister don't!


  23. (cont.)

    It is true that the fraternity could say "once the doctrinal problems are resolved, people will believe in their legitimate pastors again". That is true but, the problem is to determine what it takes to consider the doctrinal problems "solved".

    Rome may allow theological discussion of the CVII, and even could correct any problematic part if theology demonstrates it necessary/convenient, but those who are not willing to submit to their legitimate pastors unless Rome rejects the Vatican II "in toto" are wrong.

    Rome may allow theological and liturgical discussion of the Novus Ordo, and could also even correct any deficient part such as the offertory. But those who consider it illegitimate as if Paul VI did not have the authority to promulgate a new rite, are also wrong.

    So, many of the SSPX "battles" are to be fought in the theological field, but to be unwilling to accept regularization unless they "win" such battles would be failing to acknowledge that the only legitimate interpreter of previous magisterial pronouncements is the Magisterium (that is, the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him). IMHO, for the SSPX to be regularized, it would be enough for the Pope to acknowledge that their position is theologically valid, and for the SSPX to abandon any theory considered erroneous by the Holy See, such as the Novus Ordo illegitimacy.

    If the Doctrinal Preamble requires adherence to the Catechism of JPII (as some rumors suggest), the SSPX will probably notify Rome about which points of it they can not accept. If the objections are considered theologically valid, regularization can be immediate. After that, the fraternity can advance/defend its position as any theologian does. Maybe there will be a second round of theological discussions with the CCC as basis... Levada has been reported to say that they "will want to review the entire catechism of the Church with them", so this is a possibility. But rejecting regularization as if jurisdiction didn’t matter, waiting for the Vatican to say "we were wrong all this time, the SSPX is right", would be, at the very least, irresponsible.

  24. An unjust law does not oblige so if the doctrinal preamble contains unjust demands, it belongs in the trash heap. Why such a document as the preamble in the first place? So the FSSPX can be classified as being unreasonable and kept at bay by the Modernist scoundrels in the hierarchy. I really believe the Oath Against Modernism is the perfect answer to the preamble. But the only real answer is Divine intervention prompted by Our Lady's requests to Her Divine Son. Otherwise, we'll just keep going round 'n round, back and forth, with no real solution in sight.

  25. Bartholomew9:17 PM

    El Eremita:

    The Magisterial authority of the Church has approved the Neocatechumenal Way to teach heretical doctrines concerning the Eucharist. So, are they teaching heresy or are they simply not governing OR teaching?

    If you expect the SSPX and those of us who support them to adhere to a Magisterium which at this point is complicit in material heresy, I think your expectations will be greatly frustrated.

    If we ask Church authority to clarify: NOTHING, nada, no response.

    This is a different crisis -- both in kind and in degree. Expect the faithful to act differently in this Modernist revolution within the Church -- both in kind and in degree.

    I have no argument with your point about jurisdiction -- nor does the SSPX. But this discussion at this moment in history is akin to fretting that you left the stove on and your eggs will be burnt as you watch your home burn down in front of you.

  26. From what has filtrated by speculation from concerned parties, the Preamble demands that the SSPX acknowledge the documents of VII and the Magisterium of the post-conciliar Popes.
    I wonder how could Rome demand acknowledgement of VII accords, in the absence of infallibility due to its lack of dogmatic pronouncements, and the failure of unanimity of the Council Fathers to sign the documents, an exigence for infallibility of any Council. BTW, Archbishop Levebre did not sign all the documents, as was clarified in a thread posted in Angelqueen Org. The signature that has been produced of him about them was an acknowledgement of receipt that the bishops signed upon receiving such documents for study and their respective signing. Archbishop Lefevre himsel affirmed that he did not sign the Decree on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanis and the Decree on Oecumenism.
    Then, if according to the Hermeneutic of Continuity the VII documents have to be interpreted in the light of Tradition, and if according to some of their defenders it says nothing opposing past doctrine and magisterial teaching, but they say the same thing although in a different manner, the Society can demand that since the phrase "in the light of Tradition" expresses that Tradition has preeminence over VII documents then, in the face of evident contradiction or difference with past authentic Magisterium and Tradition, the latter should prevail.
    Trdition and the past Magisterium of the Church cannont be set aside, because it was declared solemnly by Trent together with Scripture as the authentic source of revelation.

  27. Archbishop Levebre did not sign all the documents, as was clarified in a thread posted in Angelqueen Org. The signature that has been produced of him about them was an acknowledgement of receipt that the bishops signed upon receiving such documents for study and their respective signing. Archbishop Lefevre himsel affirmed that he did not sign the Decree on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanis and the Decree on Oecumenism.

    That is incorrect. He signed the documents, even the ones he'd voted against -- and it was not just signing to indicate receipt of a document for study. Msgr. Lefebvre's memory on this point presumably was faulty.

    This comment is merely to correct a matter of fact in your statement. I have no other motive or intention in making this comment than that.

  28. Peterman3:13 AM

    "This is not so. As much as The SSPX has provided a crucial motive force to the traditionalist movement, The Latin Mass of All Times has been protected and propagated by independent priests devoted to tradition such as Fr Gommar De Pauw (RIP). Pope St Pius V and the Tridentine Councils have guaranteed it will never die out as long as there are those who are determined to keep it alive."

    I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Without Arch Bishop LeFebvre tradition and the Mass of all Ages would have been wiped out. As Fr. Malachi Martin said it "Archbishop LeFebvre" was the bone stuck in their throat that they couldn't digest and they couldn't cough up."

    This is exactly why I made a pilgrimage to Arch Bishop LeFebvre's tomb in May and I've never even attended a SSPX mass because they're not anywhere near to me. Without him and the SSPX during all those years of JPII, there would simply be nothing left.

  29. Peterman3:16 AM

    "I left the FSSP because of bishop Fred cuts them off at the legs."

    Agreed. I've seen it myself.

  30. Tradical3:20 AM


    If I remember correctly the Archbishop LeFebvre indicated that when he voted it was non-placeat.

    I have not read the link (yet) but to save me the time - does it indicate that this is a placeat signature as opposed to non-placeat?

  31. In answer to your question, Tradical:

    There is no doubt—or even controversy—about the fact that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre voted against the religious liberty schema with a decisive non placet right through all of its five successive drafts during Vatican Council II. During some of the voting sessions it was possible to give a vote in between "yes" and "no" namely, placet iuxta modum, which signified approval on the condition requested amendments, but Lefebvre never availed himself of that option. Thus, during the final vote on the morning of December 7 (when the fathers had to choose between a simple approval or disapproval of the last draft), he was one of the 70—about 3 percent of the total—who voted against the schema.

    Nevertheless, when the supreme pontiff himself put his signature to the controversial declaration an hour or so later, the French traditionalist prelate followed suit, presumably as an act of submission of his private judgment to that of the Vicar of Christ. So did his Brazilian colleague. (Oddly enough, there were some other fathers present—none of them as publicly associated with criticism of the document as he was—who did not sign it.)

  32. "...Nevertheless, when the supreme pontiff himself put his signature to the controversial declaration an hour or so later, the French traditionalist prelate followed suit, presumably as an act of submission of his private judgment to that of the Vicar of Christ..."

    I have always understood the Archbishop was compelled to do so.

    Just as he was compelled to engage the Supreme Law of Holy Mother Church: the Salvation of Souls.

    He did what he did not in disobedience to the Holy Father, he obeyed the Order of Holy Mother Church.

    He could have signed a million documents. His actions are what counts.

    He has helped save multitudes of souls and vocations.


  33. Gratias7:03 AM

    We are so few and divided we are even fewer.


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

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


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

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

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

Thank you!