News developing about the Transalpine Redemptorists

I got this via e-mail:

Father Zuhlsdorf,
 
You might be interested to know that the Transalpine Redemptorists, a group affiliated with the SSPX and refounded in the 1980s at the request of Msgr. Lefebvre, has issued a statement in support of the revised Good Friday Prayers.

Not only that, but the superior, Father Michael Mary, has responded to rumors that he is in negotiations with Rome.

His words show a very positive outlook on the future of both the Transalpine Redemptorists and the SSPX in regards to reunion with Rome.

Father Michael Mary makes some excellent points about the need for full communion with Rome and submission to the Holy Father.
 
The text of Father’s reponse can be found here:
 
And the statement in regards to the use of the revised Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews can be found here:

I suspect this will arouse goofy reactions from a very few spittle flecked zealots out there, but I applaud any positive discussion of unity with Rome and the Roman Pontiff.

 

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to News developing about the Transalpine Redemptorists

  1. Trevor says:

    His comments also seem to indicate SSPX is also committed to negotiations, but they have to move at a slower pace.

  2. schoolman says:

    Father Michael Mary deserves our prayers and support as he seeks full communion with the Holy See — in his words “asap.” Perhaps his hopeful attitude will rub off on traditionalists who desire *full* unity (not only theory but also in practice) with whe vicar of Christ. God bless the TR’s!

  3. Vox says:

    Laudate Dominum omnes gentes!

    Surely, the HOLY SPIRIT is moving Father Mary!

    What an example!

  4. Jonathan Bennett says:

    Just to point out a few interesting parts from the article:

    “When I recall the day of the Consecrations in 1988 there were numbers of young children playing on the grass around the canvas cathedral. Do you know, now 20 years later, most of those girls and boys will be married. The 3rd generation of 1988 Tradis is on its way: that is, a generation that does not know normal Catholic life, that has no real contact with their juridical bishops, parishes and clergy. Already there are possibly 2 generations of people who are isolated from the Catholic ‘wheat and chaff’ that makes up a diocese. This is a serious situation unless we want to become a separate Church fitted out with our own bishops, parishes and clergy. We need a reconciliation asap.”

    “So the idea of ‘holding out for more from the Pope’ is not an idea that any of us should think is very appealing; only it does sound clever. As the old French saying says so well: “Qui mange du pape meurt du pape –he who eats the Pope dies of the Pope.” In this case we would be considering eternal death and none of us knows how long he has got. ”

    “No, I won’t be a trade unionist against the will of the Pope. Up until now we have not been trade unionists. We have been men of conscience ostracised by our own fellow Catholics and higher superiors because we clung to the ‘Faith of Our Fathers’ and the Holy Mass ‘in spite of dungeon fire and sword.’
    In confused times we continued and happily we paid the price for it. But now Peter has spoken. He has spoken to all and he has spoken to us. The Vicar of Christ wants it known that the old Mass has never been abrogated. He demands that we be permitted to celebrate it freely. He says to us: ‘Our heart is open to you…’ “

  5. Father Z,

    Are you good friends with any of the priests of the SSPX?

  6. Jamie says:

    Jonathan Bennett: “that is, a generation that does not know normal Catholic life”

    Until I went to an SSPX parish, I had never known a normal Catholic life – I grew up in the novus ordo and went exclusively to Catholic schools. The SSPX has more of a Catholic life than any novus ordo parish I have seen.

  7. woodyjones says:

    I earnestly pray that the Transalpine Redemptorists are able to realize their desired regulariztion with Rome soon, and the SSPX as well. And going further, the Traditional Anglican Communion has submitted their letter requesting full communion–let us also hope that they will soon be united (not absorbed) with Rome.

  8. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    The news about the Transalpine Redemptorists is really old news by now. I was a little suprised when Fr. Z. didn’t mention it earlier, but, of course, he covers so many stories and nobody could possibly treat of them all.

    About two months ago–before the unfortunate and damaging change to the Good Friday Prayers–Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, in an interview in Italy, revealed that a group affiliated wih the S.S.P.X was in negotiations to make an arrangement with Rome. At the time, I couldn’t inmagine what group he might be referring to. There was a small group at Barcelona (Oasis of something) but it had already been regularised at the time of this statement.

    What makes the news from the Redemptorists particularly surprising is all the controversy it has caused in its work in Eastern Europe, particularly in the Ukraine. This finally resulted in Lubomyr Cardinal Husar, the Major Archbishop, excommunicating the Transalpine local superior there. I believe that the Transalpine Redemptorists offer the Byzantine Divine Liturgy mostly but they do so in a ‘traditionalist’ way rather than the ‘archæologist’ way being favoured these days in the Ukrainian Catholic Church. Concretely, this means that Redemptorists insist on retaining all the latinisations which have crept in over the last five centuries and many of which are dear to the hearts of older Ukrainians in particular. These latinisations are ‘traditional’ (handed down over many generations) but depart from old practices which are still retained by the Ukrainins Orthodox. Much of this has to do with those who want a rapprochement between Catholic and Orthodox Ukrainians versus those who regard the Uk. Orthodox as heretics to be avoided (and overlaid on this is regional division in the Ukraine: let’s not go there).

    When I saw the Redemptorists surprising reaction to the Good Friday Prayer a few weeks ago, I immediately guessed that this was the group the Cardinal had been referring to. I say that this development is surprising because the Redemptorists have depended on the S.S.P.X for their orders for some years now, and because the Redemptorists have a rather widespread reputation for controversy and contrarianism.

    I am hoping that the S.S.P.X will react to the Holy Father’s offer (suggested to it in 2000) of a jurisdiction which is ordinary, personal, international and exempt, buy requesting, instead, that this be done not for the Society alone but for all of us. This would show a charitable diposition on the part of the Society, much as did its request for S.P. for all Latin priests. The Society could then simply become a society of apostolic life having the 1962 Liturgy as its normative liturgy (cf. the I.P.B. situation) and being able to work both in this new structure and under local bishops, in accordance with convenience in particular local conditions.

    Should the Society not accept the regularisation being urged very emphatically by Rome, not only will such an ordinary and personal structure become less likely, but the Society will be more likely to be decimated by the effect of S.P. in the future. According to my figures, the S.P. Masses are growing exponentially, and this is likely to continue at least until the summer and should then be resumed, but at a declining rate. Be careful what you ask for: you just might get it! At the current rate of expansion of S.P. Masses, there will be little need for the S.S.P.X in the future. Most people will choose tradition with the Pope’s blessing over tradition without it.

    P.K.T.P.

  9. Anonymous in Michigan says:

    P.K.T.P,
    Just a point of clarification but you said:

    “About two months ago—before the unfortunate and damaging change to the Good Friday Prayers—Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, in an interview in Italy, revealed that a group affiliated wih the S.S.P.X was in negotiations to make an arrangement with Rome. At the time, I couldn’t inmagine what group he might be referring to. There was a small group at Barcelona (Oasis of something) but it had already been regularised at the time of this statement.”

    This is contradicted by what Fr. Michael Mary said on the Papa Stronsay blog:

    ==============================

    William continued: Some time ago, a number of your readers commented on a statement made by Cardinal Hoyos after some/the majority of the people associated with the traditionalist group, Oasis, in Spain rallied to Rome. Cardinal Hoyos said that he was also in negotiation with another traditionalist order which was seeking to “reconcile” itself with the Holy See. Some of your contributors said that they did not believe this, that Hoyos was lying in order to promote more fractures and doubts in Tradition. I say, now, that I am only paraphrasing this from memory, but I am sure the substance is correct. To be honest, I was in two minds as to whether or not this was true.
    #
    [Fr. Michael Mary responding to the above] William if you want clarity why not state the sources and get the facts right? Cardinal Hoyos could not be speaking about us since he said:
    ‘Here in Rome we have a community that has asked to return and we have already begun mediating their full return’. At least that is what Zenit said in its report given on 13 January 2008 (ZE08011305 – 2008-01-13 http://www.zenit.org/article-21481?l=english).
    #
    Now as everybody knows we do not live in Rome. Why are you only paraphrasing from memory? Is just anything good enough for an international post on Angelqueen and to be read by hundreds of people?

    =======================================

    Nevertheless, let us continue praying for the Transalpine Redemptorists.

  10. Fr. Michael Mary, C.SS.R. says:

    Dear Father Zuhlsdorf
    In reply to the post of Mr Perkins I should clarify:
    1) Cardinal Husar did not excommunicate the Superior of the Transalpine Redemptorists in the Ukraine. He excommunicated the Superior of the Society of St Josaphat, Fr Kovpak, who is directly accountable to Bishop Fellay. The Transalpine Redemptorists have nothing to do with the Society of St Josaphat in any direct way although we did collect alms for them before the excommunication. The Society of St Josaphat was erected by Bishop Fellay and the SSPX teach in their seminary.

    2) The Byzantine Rite that a minority of Transalpine Redemptorists follow is not at all the rite followed by the Society of St Josaphat. Rather it is the classical Byzantine rite without latinisations.

    3) Regarding the statement of Cardinal Hoyos, Mr Perkins seems not to have not read my Passion Sunday statement.

  11. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    Dear Fr. Michael Mary:

    I apologise for making statements from memory. I simply confused the Transalpine Redemptorists with the Society of St. Josaphat. I should have checked before posting but it was not a case in which I wondered about the facts and was then negligent and did not check them. This was simply an honest mistake in which I confused the two.

    To clarify further, do the Transalpine Redemptorists have an apostolate in the Ukraine at all or is it only the Society of St. Josaphat that has one there? Also, you say that the Transalpine Redemptorists use the ‘classical’ Byzantine Rite, without latinisations. Is this also the case for the Society of St. Josaphat? I want to get the facts straight on this. I remember hearing about this issue of latinisation. I am assuming, then, that it only applies to the Society of St. Josaphat.

    P.K.T.P.

  12. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    Dear Fr. Michael Mary:

    I have now read your dialogue with ‘William of Norwich’. I can see why there was some confusion. You write that Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos could not possibly have been referring to the Transalpine Redemptorists when he spoke of a group in the process of reconciliation, since your organisation is not based at Rome. But I can see how there could be confusion over this. Here is the quotation, which I also saw some weeks ago:

    “Here in Rome we have a community that has asked to return and we have already begun mediating their full return.”

    Well, the “Here in Rome” phrase could refer to the location of a community, which is how you have interpreted it. That is certainly the more likely meaning. However, it could also refer to the place where negotiations are taking place; that is, it could mean, Here in Rome, we are negotiating with a community that has asked to return. I am not sure what the original language was here but this might be a faulty translation. I can see how some people could have thought that it might refer to your community, even though it is not based at Rome

    Thank you for the clarifications. They are very helpful.

    P.K.T.P.

  13. David says:

    For those who have not seen the 17 minute video showing the life of the Transalpine Redemptorists I will provide the link:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d20nzljVYPM

    it’s well worth watching.

  14. woodyjones says:

    Dear Fr. Michael Mary,

    I have been meaning to send some small donation to you all for some time but have not been able to negotiate the process. If Fr. Z will permit, could you let us know how we may send something to the Transalpline Redemptorists? And mindful of your discussion with “William”, no strings attached, of course.

    Wishing you all the very best,
    Woody Jones

  15. woodyjones says:

    Dear Fr. Michael Mary,

    I have been meaning to send some small donation to you all for some time but have not been able to negotiate the process. If Fr. Z will permit, could you let us know how we may send something to the Transalpine Redemptorists? And mindful of your discussion with “William”, no strings attached, of course.

    Wishing you all the very best,
    Woody Jones

  16. woodyjones says:

    Sorry for the double send, I was trying to correct one glaring typo, but this combox is difficult for us klutzes to handle.

  17. Jordan Potter says:

    Jamie said: Until I went to an SSPX parish, I had never known a normal Catholic life

    If you’re a member of an SSPX parish, then you still don’t know “normal Catholic life,” since SSPX parishes have no juridical standing in the Catholic Church and are not in communion with her.

  18. Jamie says:

    Jordan Potter: The fact remains that in the SSPX parishes I have seen, the people know their faith, they regularly attend all the sacraments that apply to them, they behave as the Church has always said we should behave. Show me a new church parish that can be compared to the parishes before VII and I will concede my point – until then, I stand by what I said – going to an SSPX parish is like going to a Catholic parish from before the liberals took over – not even the most conservative NO parish can boast that.

    And for the record – I do not believe the SSPX were excommunicated due to the need in the Church. I am just pleased for you that you (and other conservatives) can now enjoy the benefits of what the SSPX has done. It is just a shame that now that we have the motu proprio, so many of you are willing to forget their efforts and are now attacking what is probably the most holy group of people in the Church. Without the SSPX there would never have been an Ecclesia Dei to grant (begrudgingly) the traditional Mass in a few areas, and without them there would never have been a motu proprio. Maybe you should be thanking God for the SSPX rather than condemning them. History will certainly be much kinder to them than you are.

  19. Gabriel says:

    Well said Jamie. How quick some forget. I thank God daily for the braveness of Archbishop
    Lefebvre – because without him we would not have had any tradition. It is much easier to follow the crowd than stand alone. May he rest in peace.

  20. chiara says:

    Bravo, Jamie and Gabriel!! I completely agree. I went to a Novus Ordo funeral last week and after having been back to the Traditional Rite for about two years, believe me, it was culture shock. Just about everyone walking in and sitting down (no genuflection to Our Lord in the tabernacle)chatting beforehand as if a show was about to start, the priest walking around the church beforehand in a suit and tie. At least the congregation was asked to stand for the Gospel but no such instruction to kneel for the even the consecration, the vast majority just sat down. I had been to Mass in a traditional Oratory that morning and I couldn’t wait until the next morning to be back there. I also thank God daily for Archbishop Lefebvre.

  21. Franciscus says:

    I think Lefebvre had the right principles in mind, but he threw them out the window when he showed gross defiance to the Holy Father. Had the SSPX not gone the road of Econe, we may very well have had the renwal of the TLM earlier, averting the 40 years in the desert earlier. Instead he chose to defy Rome, to defy Peter. Say what you will about the Ordinary Form, but at the very least a great deal of them had the requsite orthodoxy to stay with Peter.

    As far as I’m concerned, the SSPX are schismatics – well-principled schismatics, but still schismatics who ought to return to Rome as soon as possible.

  22. Joe Catholic says:

    The justly excommunicated Lefebrve who consecrated bishops without a pontifical mandate in direct defiance of the Holy See, helped turn the traditional worship of the Church into a mark of self-righteous bigoted sectarians. Read the above comments and you will see that this is true.

    This helped prevent the reappropriation of our tradition by the vast majority of Catholics. His followers at Econe cannot bring themselves to denounce the Anti-Semitic bigotries of one of their “bishops” who is now peddling the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

    I, who happily attend the TLM, thank him for nothing. God bless Pope Benedict XVI who would overlook such sectarian stupidity and bigotry and restore Catholic worship!

  23. Michael says:

    A promise to “obey with submission” is not the same thing as statement in “support of the revised Good Friday prayers.” Like all Catholics must, they will obey, but with submission, not enthusiasm.

  24. Jordan Potter says:

    Jordan Potter: The fact remains that in the SSPX parishes I have seen, the people know their faith, they regularly attend all the sacraments that apply to them, they behave as the Church has always said we should behave.

    Well, except for that part about avoiding unauthorised, illicit religious services, and the need to stay in communion with one’s bishop and with the Pope, yes, they probably do behave a lot like pre-Vatican II Catholics.

    Show me a new church parish that can be compared to the parishes before VII and I will concede my point

    You don’t need to concede your point for you to be wrong. It is as I said: If you’re a member of an SSPX parish, then you still don’t know “normal Catholic life,” since SSPX parishes have no juridical standing in the Catholic Church and are not in communion with her. By participating in a non-Catholic parish, you are attentuated if not severing your communion with Holy Mother Church.

    going to an SSPX parish is like

    The key word here is “like”

    going to a Catholic parish from before the liberals took over

    That’s not necessarily a good thing, as things were far from perfect before the liberals took over.

    And for the record – I do not believe the SSPX were excommunicated due to the need in the Church.

    I agree. First of all, “the SSPX” has never been excommunicated. Rather, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and his four bishops were excommunicated, and the reason was they did not have any authority for the consecration of the four bishops but they went ahead anyway, thereby cutting themselves off from the Church. The priests of the SSPX are all suspended a divinis, and therefore have no right to celebrate the sacraments, but they are not excommunicated unless they adhere to Archbishop Lefebvre’s schism.

    But of course what you meant to say is that the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre and his four bishops is not valid because the Church allegedly needed Archbishop Lefebvre’s consecration of those bishops even without papal mandate. The Church, needless to say, does not agree with you, as there is never a need to consecrate bishops outside of communion with the Pope. But these are the kinds of arguments and rationalisations to which one must resort when one is a participant in a group that has broken, or severely weakened, its ties with the Catholic Church.

    I am just pleased for you that you (and other conservatives) can now enjoy the benefits of what the SSPX has done.

    Thanks — though I’m not a “conservative,” just a Catholic who sees the importance of communion with and obedience to the Holy See. Indeed, it seems to me that only those whose communion with the Holy See is unimpaired can enjoy the real benefits of any good that the SSPX may inadvertently have been instrumental in bringing about.

    I spent most of my life alienated from the Church and beyond the safe walls of the sheepfold. Sorry, but I’m not getting anywhere near the SSPX.

    It is just a shame that now that we have the motu proprio, so many of you are willing to forget their efforts

    I haven’t forgotten their efforts — that’s why I don’t support the SSPX and will never frequent any of their chapels until they are reconciled with the Holy See.

    probably the most holy group of people in the Church.

    . . . if you don’t say so yourself ;-)

    Without the SSPX there would never have been an Ecclesia Dei

    Yes, and without Adam and Eve’s sin, we would not have so great a Savior. So it sure is a good thing Adam and Eve disobeyed God.

    Wasn’t there some guy named Luther who said, “Sin boldly”? I mean, sin has got to be a good thing, or else God wouldn’t have any way to show us how merciful He is. So let’s all thank God for sin.

    Maybe you should be thanking God for the SSPX rather than condemning them.

    Maybe. Maybe not. I suppose if St. Paul counsels us to glory in our infirmities, we could probably be a little grateful for Archbishop Lefebvre’s disobedience and schism.

    History will certainly be much kinder to them than you are.

    We’ll see. I’ve no reason to believe that you have the gift of foretelling the future, though.

  25. Joe Catholic says:

    God bless you, Jordan Potter. What you write is true and Catholic, and more infused by Charity than I can accomplish when dealing with sectarians. Although I cannot pray for people like Lefebvre who rent the unity of the Church, I pray daily for his followers who are “married” by priest with no authority to do so (since they have no delegation from a canonically appointed pastor) and for those who go to “confession” to their priests, since those priests have to no faculties to absolve them. May God in his great mercy preserve these sectarians from Hell. Since their marriages are invalid as are their absolutions in confession.

  26. simeon says:

    So many papal positivists around here. May heaven help you all when we get another bad pope.

  27. Neal says:

    Joe Catholic wrote: “The justly excommunicated Lefebrve who consecrated bishops without a pontifical mandate in direct defiance of the Holy See, helped turn the traditional worship of the Church into a mark of self-righteous bigoted sectarians. Read the above comments and you will see that this is true.”

    I did, and I don’t see it. It’s pretty obvious that the derision is directed at the SSPX supporters here (even in the same quote that mocks their supposed self-righteousness), and not by them. So much for post-Conciliar dialogue. You guys might show a little gentleness.

    Pax.

  28. Antiquarian says:

    So we’re supposed to be grateful that Lefebvre siphoned those most opposed to abuse, and in favor of tradition, out of the Church? That he made the strongest voices of support for the TLM irrelevant? That he fostered an attitude which even now blinds his followers to the truth of their position?

    Balderdash. Rebellion is rebellion. Disobedience is disobedience. To play the game of “if this evil thing hadn’t happened…” is just that: playing a game. The SSPX leadership know it, and rely on the gullibility of their adherents to keep the game going.

    God bless those, like the Transalpine Redemptorists, who have begun to see the light. Let us pray that the rest of the victims of Lefebvre’s arrogance do likewise.

  29. Joe Catholic says:

    Dear Neal,

    Before you engage in name calling, which saddly you have already done, tell me two things:

    1. From what (unexcommunicated) Catholic Bishop do SSPX (Lefebrvite) priests get their faculties to hear confessions? If they do not have faculties they cannot absolve. RIGHT FATHER Z?

    2. From whom, who truly has authority to do so, do Lefebrvite (SSPX) priests get their delegation to perform marriages? They are not canonical pastors and they don’t get it from the local ordinaries or local pastors where they pertend to perform the marriages. RIGHT FATHER Z?

    So those married by SSPX priests are actually living in sin. Those who “go to confession” to SSPX priests are not absolved. They may have invincible ignorance and not go to Hell, but the “priests” who perform these fake rituals surely know better. RIGHT FATHER Z?

  30. schoolman says:

    Joe Catholic, as far as I know the Church accepts the validity of SSPX sacraments — even marriage and confession. For example, after certain traditional groups reconciled with Rome (FSSP, Campos, etc.) there were no conditional confessions or marriages performed for the faithful. Yet, those receiving such sacraments with a schismatic spirit can hardly benefit spiritually by them.

  31. Jordan Potter says:

    Simeom said: So many papal positivists around here. May heaven help you all when we get another bad pope.

    It’s not “papal positivism” to abhor the bad odor of schism, and to accept the Catholic doctrine that says the Faith cannot prosper or continue where there is not full communion with the Pope.

    Nor would breaking communion with the Church be justifiable even if we had a bad pope. The popes in St. Catherine of Siena’s day weren’t exactly paragons of holiness, and yet she is renowned for her strong emphasis on the need to obey and keep communion with the Holy See.

  32. Jordan Potter says:

    Schoolman said: Joe Catholic, as far as I know the Church accepts the validity of SSPX sacraments—even marriage and confession. For example, after certain traditional groups reconciled with Rome (FSSP, Campos, etc.) there were no conditional confessions or marriages performed for the faithful.

    I’ve heard of convalidation of irregular marriages, but this is the first I’ve ever heard of “conditional confessions.” How exactly would that work?

    Also, the FSSP is not a traditionalist group that had to be reconciled with Rome. It has always been in communion with the Church. It’s not surprising that there would be no convalidated marriages for members of the FSSP, which is a fraternity of celibate priests. I think many FSSP members are former SSPX members, though.

    I don’t know what the Church would do for SSPX confessions, which would not normally be valid, since the priests are suspended and do not have faculties, which usually are needed for a priest’s absolutions to be valid. Of course there is ecclesia supplet, but I couldn’t say when and whether that would apply with those who confess to SSPX priests.

  33. I post things with a measure of hope that some decent conversation can take place.

    Instead, we get a pie fight.