Rorate Caeli

We are not here to criticize, we are here to maintain

Fr. J. Ratzinger as subdeacon, 1951 (NLM)
We are not here to criticize Bishops and priests. We are not here, as it were, to rebel against the episcopate. No! Absolutely not! This is absolutely not our intention. On the contrary, we would hope that the bishops and priests who see us would admit that, even in their youth, during the whole period before the Council, when they were priests, when they always celebrated the same Mass that we celebrate, when the Catholic Church was as faithful as we are today. Is what they did in their youth to be condemned today?

We do not believe this. Therefore today we want to explain in front of you, my beloved brethren, that we are not hostile to anyone. On the contrary, we are the most loyal servant of the church, the faithful servant of the Pope and of the bishops. We are deeply indebted to them. Precisely because we are determined to preserve the faith of all times and remain in communion with the Church of all times. This is also why we are here. We hope that all around us understand this so that they may pray with us for the Church. We hope that they are convinced that we are not, in any way, hostile to the Pope and to the bishops, but, on the contrary, that we want to help, to praise God, and to love the Holy Catholic Church we cherish so highly.

Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, at the inauguration of the Seminary of the Sacred Heart (Zaitzkofen, Bavaria), in 1978. (Quote of the day of the German District of the Society of Saint Pius X)

19 comments:

  1. Well said, Monsignor!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Elizabeth2:32 PM

    Amen. I truly believe these are Bishop Fellay's sentiments also.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brian2:47 PM

    we are the most loyal servant of the church, the faithful servant of the Pope and of the bishops. We are deeply indebted to them. Precisely because we are determined to preserve the faith of all times and remain in communion with the Church of all times.

    The Liberalism flowing through and from Vatican II has decimated the Church and it nearly destroyed my soul. I thank God that the Faith of all times was and continues to be preserved through the SSPX and other Traditional Catholic groups.

    It is not about criticism and anger; but rather, salvation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Currently there seems to be a "Quote the Archbishop Game" going on between the different districts.
    One can easily determine by the quotes they choose whether the district is in favor of an agreement with Rome or against it.
    So far:
    Germany: In favor
    France: In favor
    UK: Against
    US: Against

    So hardly a surprise in this regard.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Knight of Malta:

    If the Passover lamb were distasteful to a Hebrew, were lamb cookies an acceptable substitute?

    God can do what He will do, of course.

    That being said, I personally would have suggested eating the lamb.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Paramenti6:04 PM

    "France: In favor"

    It's not that clear-cut. There is a significant portion of the French SSPX that is against any reconciliation.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Gratias6:34 PM

    Wonderful photograph of Fr. Ratzinger assisting in Mass in 1951. He remained a friend of tradition for a long time.

    If one Googles "Ratzinger's Mass in Weimar" his 1999 mass (with picture) for the FSSP and Institute of Christ the King comes up in a nice article by Michael Davies that is stored, like many other Davies writings, in the Una Voce International website.

    ReplyDelete
  8. NO COMMENTS ON BAPTISM, BAPTISM BY DESIRE, BAPTISM DOCTRINE, ETC. ENOUGH. ON THIS AND ON ANY OTHER POST. GO ELSEWHERE.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Paramenti
    It's not that clear-cut. There is a significant portion of the French SSPX that is against any reconciliation.
    That's true, and I hesitated when I wrote it. However, those in charge of the Website and participating in the "Quote the Archbishop" game are in favor.

    ReplyDelete
  10. OutsideObserver8:51 PM

    And yet, the SSPX -- under Msgr. Lefebvre and the four bishops -- did criticize the hierarchy, often in very strong terms. Were they wrong to have done so? No, even though the language they used may sometimes have been imprudent or exaggerated.

    In the wave of euphoria over the upcoming reconciliation (which, let is be noted, has not yet come to pass -- we are still in the stage of hoping and praying) we should not so quickly fall into amnesia.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Picard9:20 PM

    I will only believe that there is an agreement if it is announced by the Vatican and the SSPX.
    I doubt there will be one. It is not sure. Wait - pray - and see!

    And I am also not sure what is resp. would be the best for the Church (and therefore I should wish). I am neither absolute for nor against such an agreement now. It´s a question of prudence (besides one of faith).

    May GOD´s will be done!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Melchior Cano12:35 AM

    B,

    I'm sorry to say you're wrong. You will find, if there is a regularization, the US District to be strongly in favor. I assure you, you're armchair reaction is not reality.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Peterman1:21 AM

    "The Liberalism flowing through and from Vatican II has decimated the Church and it nearly destroyed my soul."

    Agree 100% in that it nearly destroyed my soul because of what I just didn't know thanks to bad cetechersis. So blind I was and ignorant that I would love to see no more generations go stumbling through the dark in life like I did.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Here's something I haven't heard anyone mention so far:

    The SSPX has set a hard precedent. Any pope who decides to abuse his authority to create some artificial reconciliation with the world can expect a certain group of bishops to defy him to his face.

    The 20th century HAD to have at least ONE bishop do it after the council. Now we have four who won't even blink at doing it again if necessary. Pope Benedict XVI knows this, and he'll warn his successor about it in no uncertain terms.

    If the episcopal sons of LeFebvre receive demands to worship the Golden Calf from someone in Rome, we all know what they will do and say. And NOW...

    After tomorrow...

    If the agreement is actually signed...

    :)

    ;)

    Other bishops would go with them...

    Yes, the pope knows this all too well. The precedent will be SET IN STONE PEOPLE. NO POPE CAN ABUSE HIS AUTHORITY EVER AGAIN AND GET AWAY WITH IT LIKE POPE PAUL VI DID.

    Amen.

    --Zak

    ReplyDelete
  15. Barbara4:17 AM

    Instead a little amnesia might be quite helpful....don't you think?

    Peterman said

    "Agree 100% in that it nearly destroyed my soul because of what I just didn't know thanks to bad cetechersis. So blind I was and ignorant that I would love to see no more generations go stumbling through the dark in life like I did."

    This was my situation too as it is the status quo of the modernist Church. What a lot of ignoramuses as regards the faith in recent generations! Despite the literacy in so many other matters - many know nohting AT ALL about Real Catholicisn even if they have been baptised into the Church.

    The urgency for good solid traditional catechisis is more than past the "state of necessity stage" we are in an emergency situation which needs immediate "operations" and intensive care. I work with the young. Most know absolutely NOTHING about the faith apart from vague notions.

    The FSSPX fully active in the Church would be a real shot in the arm. It doesn't matter if they suffer more. They are priests of Jesus Christ. We are all suffering in one way or another - and 'twill be so until the day we die..

    As for the people who say that they should hesitate once again until things are clearer. Well you all certainly know more than I do about the Canon Law stuff etc. which is of importance. More importantly should be that the faithful should have greater access to the Tradtional Latin Mass which I don't think the Society, for one minute, will compromise on.

    The decision has already been made anyway - despite our lively and interesting conversations in this forum...

    ReplyDelete
  16. Melchior Cano:
    I would be very happy to be wrong!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Melchior Cano4:01 PM

    B,

    Then rejoice :)

    ReplyDelete
  18. The 20th century HAD to have at least ONE bishop do it after the council

    Dear Zak. Accrd to The Abbe de Nantes, eighty eight, 88, Bishops voted against Nostra Aetate during the Council whereas Mons Lefevbre voted in favor of all the documents of Vatican Two.

    (Fr Brian Harrison has noted other Bishops voting against other Documents)

    That the 88 Bishops were permitted to leave the Council without having been constrained to change their minds and votes is illustrative that this was a pastoral council that was not binding on the 88 Bishops or the SSPX or the Catholic family who owned the Bakery in Springfield, Vt.

    At least this is the common sense standard this Vermont Crank uses to judge the Council.

    If 88 Bishops can reject part of the Council and leave in union with the Pope, why'n'hell is the SSPX considered verboten?

    Because the 88 Bishops were sub rosa in their refusal to accept conciliar novelties whereas Mons Lefevbre was public in his repudiation of the the very documents he initially voted to accept.

    But this sort of political machination (You can refuse V2 if you remain silent) is not only scandalous; it is noxious.

    I mean no slight towards the great Abp Lefevbre by any means. He is 10,000 x's the man I can even hope to be

    ReplyDelete
  19. Pontificator11:38 AM

    I am Not Spartacus, I tend, with all due respect as a great fan of your posts, to think that your last statement here is not correct.

    My understanding is that, regardless of how many bishops voted for or against any document of any kind, when a document is officially promulgated magisterially by the pope, as all of these documents were by Pope Paul VI, in some technical material sense, then do take on a certain doctrinal authority if their content is clearly doctrinal in nature, however non-infallible and non-definitive that authority was and remains. The fact that these were not solemn infallible dogmatic definitions does not, I believe, automatically establish that there is no authority of any kind behind them.

    Perhaps, maybe, Nostra Aetate is not a doctrinal document. But Dignitatis Humanae clearly states that its content represents a development of doctrine. And this is disturbing for me because I find DH more problematic than NA.

    Also Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum are labeled as dogmatic constitutions, which I think speaks for itself on this subject.

    If you have more information, by the way, as to the number of bishops who voted against various Second Vatican documents, I would ask you to please post that here, as that would greatly interest me, and perhaps others.

    God bless

    ReplyDelete

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.

_______
NOTES

(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!