SSPX Bp. Tissier de Mallerais: “we have the intention of converting Rome”

The fine Rorate has an English version of the interview SSPX Bp. Tissier de Mallerais did with La Stampa.

Here is, I think, the salient quote.

But do you think of turning back regarding your disagreements [with Rome]?

-"No, absolutely not. We do not change our positions, but we have the intention of converting Rome [to our positions], that is, to lead Rome towards our positions."

 

Remember in the days ahead that I have written again and again, that everyone who approaches the table for discussion of theological issues, must come with humility.

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.

56 Responses to SSPX Bp. Tissier de Mallerais: “we have the intention of converting Rome”

  1. Danilo says:

    That’s the result of the “fight, fight, fight” mentality!
    Fight!
    I think that’s the motu of the traditional “ninja” bishop of SSPX. But the Church does not collect winners or losers, only the faithful ones

  2. JohnB says:

    I think Bishop Tissier is the bishop to watch in this case. Theologically, he is more of a hardliner than Bishop Williamson.

    Despite the absolute arrogance of some of Bp. Tissier’s remarks, the fact that he said that the pope and the Roman Curia would determine the Society’s future is an immense statement coming from him. That, at least, shows (I would think) that he is not going to try and stop the direction that the Pope and Bishop Fellay are heading.

  3. Ann says:

    I think the Holy Spirit will have something to say about who converts who. I hope this Bishop learns his lesson in humility without too much pain. I hope and pray for restored unity–after all this is the will of God. And I like being on the winning side. :-)

  4. dcs says:

    Rorate Caeli had a comment on this:

    One should not be too worried with specific words used here, which were probably misunderstood by the interviewer (or lost in translation, if the interview was granted in French). For instance, it is clear from the context that Bishop Tissier de Mallerais uses the verb “convertire” in the sense of trying to convince the Roman delegates in the doctrinal discussions, so that they may be led to understand the positions taken by the delegates of the SSPX in the discussions.

  5. rob says:

    But of course, this is what they were taught:

    BISHOPS TO SAVE THE CHURCH
    Archbishop Lefebvre’s Sermon at the Priestly ordinations in Ecône, June 29, 1987

    [CUT by Fr. Z - too long. ]

  6. Confiteor says:

    No, Fr. Z., I think that THIS is the salient quote: [Fair enough!]

    La Stampa: And who will decide your future?

    Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: The Pope will decide it, with the mediation of the Roman Curia.

  7. John Enright says:

    This is hard to understand. SSPX is going to dictate to the Vicar of Christ? As far as I know, the keys were left with St. Peter and his successors, not a bishop who was ordained in violation of Church law.

  8. Steve Skojec says:

    Something I’m not seeing a lot of from the SSPX membership is humility. I’m seeing more along the lines of “Modernist Rome has realized her profound error” and that the society need make no concessions, that the excommunications were nullified, not lifted, and that the rest of the Church has to come to terms with the fact that the “schismatic traditionalists” were right along.

    It’s bitter stuff. Poison if you ask me. I trust the Holy Father, and I’ve prayed for this to happen, but I’m afraid it will be ugly as the reintegration takes shape.

  9. Joshua says:

    +Tissiers is the hardline bishop on ecclesial issues, this is not surprise. What is a surprise is what Confiteor quoted…if he is willing to say that the pope and curia will decide his future that is a giant step, even if it still has ulterior motives.

    +Tissiers has said before he would be obedient to even a priest as the superior general of the SSPX, that might save this.

  10. Tzard says:

    Any why should they not try to convince Rome of their position? If they believe themselves to be right, it’s only natural.

    I am reading humility in the snippet there. I also see prudent caution in his “I have no opinion”s in the rest of the article. These are good signs, no?

  11. The Other David says:

    This is the kind of thing I feared. A refusal to consider the possibility of error on their part, and the same defiance as 1975-88.

    Unfortunately, the SSPX seems to be moving towards a “In order to save the village, we had to destroy it” mentality. Despite their claims of supporting the real Catholic teaching, they are undermining the constant teaching of the Church on Magisterial authority, and it will have very real consequences down the line.

    To borrow from St. Francis de Sales, it is easier to believe the SSPX errs than the whole Church in communion with Peter errs.

  12. TNCath says:

    This is really weird–and scary. Oremus pro Pontifice!

  13. Corleone says:

    JOHN ENRIGHT – I noticed you posted very shortly after confiteor (less than a minute), so please read the post directly above yours. The SSPX has every right to attempt to “convert” certain members of the magesterium to the truth, as several of them have strayed very far away. And now that the SSPX is to be fully in union with Rome, they can do so from within, rather from outside the church: a MUCH better strategy.

    The SSPX (with the exception of Williamson) appear to be following the straight path and fighting the good fight at this point.

  14. Brian Mershon says:

    Steve, because our pastor was out of town yesterday (no weekly Traditional Latin Mass available at our home parish), we ventured out at 7 a.m. to get to the TLM offered by Fr. Kenneth Novak, SSSPX, in Mt. Holly (outside of Charlotte).

    As usual, my family, despite the 3 hours on the road roundtrip, experienced a God-centered liturgy, a humble plea to the Catholics attending (whose congregation has been growing the past two Sundays)from the pastor and a phenomenal sermon.

    I have been periodically attending this chapel since getting clearance from the PCED for the past 3 years on and off, and have found nothing but humility exhibited by the Catholics in attendance.

    However, in two Novus Ordo parishes, of which I am currently a parishioner and former parishioner, I have found Catholics who have repeatedly and harshly judged the Catholics who attend SSPX chapels and the priests and bishops of the SSPX.

    Suffice to say that I have found as much, if not more of this rash judgment, from supposed “obedient” Catholics as I have from those Catholics who have had to wrongly ensure the labels “schismatic” and “disobedient” over all of these years.

    The question is now “Who is more Catholic than the Pope?” Papalotry is obviosly dead now.

  15. rob says:

    If anyone wants to understand this issue they have to go to the source. That is why I attached the words of Archbishop Lefebvre’s Sermon at the Priestly ordinations in Ecône, June 29, 1987. It is the only way to understand why SSPX Bishops speak as they do. You have to understand the mind of Lefebvre. What he thought, they think. What he taught, they teach. One need not be surprised by comments made by such as Mallerais. Lefebvre and the SSPX challange almost everthing that has happened to the Church since Vatican II. They will not want to be united to the Church as it is. Bishop Fellay said himself a little over a year ago to SSPX laity that what Rome wants is a kind of MANAGERIE, a kind of CIRCUS TENT, where all the groups in the church have their little KIOSK. He said Rome wants SSPX to be part of that MANAGERIE, and then once they (SSPX) are “in”, “we will be told to shut up.” This is what Fellay believes because it goes back to Lefebvre. CAN A LEOPARD CHANGE ITS SPOTS?
    Perhaps, dear friends, but it will take a miracle. This is a very hard thing. I do hope people will study Lefebvre’s sermon above. How else can anyone speak with them if you don’t understand why they speak as they do. This is going to require an enormous amount of energy and determination to achieve results. This sloppy going back and forth in cyberspace is not the ultimate forum. The issues go vein deep. Only the Holy Father with Our Lord and Blessed Mother can do anything. If people think they are going to be “normalized” by mid February of this year, forget it. It’ not possible. If you get one of their bishops speaking here and another there saying what they believe is right, causing eyebrows to raise, how do you meet Attila the Hun at Mantua? They will say a lot more shocking things as time goes forward. Brace youselves. They will want to change the Church. This is why the SSPX titles Lefebvre’s 1987 sermon: BISHOPS TO SAVE THE CHURCH.

  16. Brian Mershon says:

    instead of: “who have had to wrongly ensure”

    “who have had to wrongly endure”

  17. ED says:

    This is what was called in years past THE CHURCH MILITANT, great comments Bishop we need to convert the entire world to the ONE TRUE FAITH , OUTSIDE of which there is NO SALVATION!!!

  18. Steve Skojec says:

    Brian Mershon,

    Glad to hear that you had a good experience. I certainly would not presume to say that what I’ve seen is universal – I certainly don’t detect this attitude from Bishop Fellay, for example.

    But there was a triumphalism in a personal conversation I had recently I don’t understand, and it fits the attitude I’ve seen over the years with a number of other adherents to the Society. The attitude persists that indult Catholics did nothing but sit back and enjoy the fruit of SSPX labors. That tradition wouldn’t even exist today if it hadn’t been for Bishop Lefebvre.

    Individuals who think this way want vindication, and seem incapable of gratitude. It’s questionable that they perceive the Holy Father even has the authority to do what he’s done – in their view, he merely acknowledged that which was always true, that they’ve been right all along.

    I don’t claim a wide exposure to SSPX attendees except through the internet; here in Northern Virginia there doesn’t seem to be a strong presence because of the wide availability of TLMs through various diocesan parishes.

    I expect a bad attitude from progressives; I would simply hope that I would see happiness instead of a desire for comeuppance amongst most of those who the Holy Father is trying to bring into perfect communion with Rome.

  19. mrsmontoya says:

    Fr. Z, perhaps you could post an explanation as to why this matters? I am rather unconnected and not very involved with or informed on church ‘politics’, so the implications and ramifications of these developments elude me. I would greatly appreciate a little background information as to why this situation is so important?

    Thank you,

  20. He uses the first person plural. Who is this ‘we’? Does he think HE’s the Pope? Or is he speaking on behalf of the Society? I thought that was Bp Fellay’ prerogative. The interview shows disagreement with the latter in other areas as well. I do wish they hadn’t put up that appallingly bad translation.

    Anyway, Fr., do you think the Society will split, with the the Felly suporters coning home, and the Tissierites staying out?

    ANOTHER MATER OF CONCERN. WAS THE POPE SUPPOSED TO CELEBRATE THE PRESENTATION MASS IN ST. PETER’S TONIGHT? I’D ASSUMED THAT HE WOULD, BUT HE’S NOT. ACARDINAL’S DOING IT.

  21. Henry says:

    dcs: For instance, it is clear from the context that Bishop Tissier de Mallerais uses the verb “convertire” in the sense of trying to convince the Roman delegates in the doctrinal discussions, so that they may be led to understand the positions taken by the delegates of the SSPX in the discussions.

    Anyone who’s attended Novus Ordo Mass in a variety of different parishes, or seen it celebrated by a variety of different bishops — or even a number of televised papal Masses excluding recent ones in St. Peter’s — knows that, whatever sense of “convertire” is intended, there’s quite a lot of it that needs to be done. Let’s hope the SSPX can help.

  22. V says:

    Well, I remember people getting worked up here by what the pope said in French about the traditionalistes in the plane on his way to France.

    I would love to see the French version and the context.

    I don’t deny that pride can get in the way, but we can also get lost in translation. Remember President Bush when he spoke about Crusades and Europeen being offended?

  23. Magdalene says:

    I “humbly” laughed out loud when I read this.

  24. LCB says:

    I would find it very helpful of the SSPX would formally release a list of the theological “issues” or “matters” that they would like to discuss. Many folks have many concerns, but I would find it helpful to know what– exactly–are the formal concerns of the SSPX.

    On a pastoral note, I know many whose theological view of Trent and Vatican I is, “That no longer applies.” Surely if the Church has room for clergy (and bishops) who outright deny the authority of any of the first 20 councils, it can find room for those who simply have concerns and wish to continue discussions about the precise meaning of the 21st council.

  25. Tomas says:

    Once again, a confusion between unwavering fidelity to Tradition and lack of humility. Who can possibly dispute that Rome – home of The Great Facade – needs to be led away from modernism and back toward Tradition? And why is a statement embracing this leadership role taken as lacking in humility? How would you improve on Bishop Mallerais’ statement, Father Z? [The first thing I will do is remove you for a while for the gratuitous insult flung at Rome.]

  26. Tomas says:

    LCB: the SSPX has published its list of theological issues for many years. Just consult their website.

  27. Tomas says:

    LCB: Sorry, meant to add, if you’d prefer a book, try Lefebvre’s “Against the Heresies.”

  28. Don Altabello says:

    The Vatican is in bad need of a modern press relations office to control the damage done and misunderstandings resulting from instances such as some of the whacky SSPX views. It may have been able to mitigate some of the vitriol unleashed by Jewish groups.

    Now, once again, by not getting the dog in the fight we let others brand not only the Holy Father but also the Church in general.

  29. LCB says:

    Tomas, that was then. Much has changed since SP and since even 2008. Hearts have been softened, and matters that once seemed mountains are now molehills. The question, \”What, in general, is keeping us from being united\” is very different from, \”What, exactly, stops us from being united at this exact minute?\” Dialog may need to continue for years after unity (indeed, dialog on the truths of our faith is almost always a good thing), but what exactly stops unity at this very minute?

    Obviously I ask this rhetorically on these forums, because the SSPX leadership would really need to be the ones to issue such a list. As for what else could Bp. Mallerais have said: how about, \”We place our faith in God Almighty and his Eternal Son Christ Jesus, who promised the Holy Spirit to the Church, and that same Spirit will guide all parties towards an ever deeper and fuller understanding of the Truth.\”

  30. jbpolhamus@yahoo.com says:

    First of all, I’m a 45 year-old diocesan Catholic (who remembers nothing of the old way of doing things and has had to discover his Catholic identity for himself), and this is merely my opinion. There is nothing of pride in this, only of the conviction of Catholic history, doctrine and Dogma. Plus, Daily Conversion is one of the doctrines of Opus Dei. Why shouldn’t it apply to the broder church as well? It seems to me they have alot to convert FROM, based strictly on their job performance in the last thirty-five years (the money’s flowing out alot faster than it’s flowing in in SOME notable hierarchies!).

    And then there is Lehman in Germany, expressing fear and astonishment that the SSPX might try to draw Rome to their interpretive position, as if that’s any secret or EVER HAS BEEN! Well it hasn’t. Barring heresy, EVERYBODY HAS AN AGENDA, and even a Pope can be convinced of another. The question is how does one weigh against the other. The SSPX’s agenda clearly has merit and the weight of history behind it; Rome’s – of the past forty years – had neither. The emporer has no clothes. Benedict is trying to dress against the cold.

    God SAVE the Pope!

  31. Confiteor says:

    Rob,

    Of course the SSPX resist Vatican II and its reforms, and for good reason. Look around. Once they are integrated within the structures of the Church (as they should be), they will continue that resistance. Unless I’ve misunderstood your comments, you seem to make that sound like a bad thing.

  32. John Polhamus says:

    I would also point out that to seek to convert the Vatican to their agenda is no less “patriotic” from a Catholic standpoint than to seek to “convert” the Government of the United States to our moral position on Abortion. Because we disagree with the government, OH and we do, we are no less American than the ascendent left. Similarly, the SSPX are no less Catholic for their belief that their viewpoint should be adopted – ONCE AGAIN, I might add – by the papacy. Frankly, I think the Papacy will need it to survive in the face of coming persecutions.

    Perhaps Benedict sees that already. Perhaps he would rather see the church persecuted by the coming Globalists, than have it labled for all time as having collaborated with what may amount to future genocides in the name of environmentalism and economics. That may sound like political science-fiction, but perhaps there are also a growing number of bishops one might talk to out there, who may not find it so much without the realm of possibility.

    God SAVE the Benedict XVI. I pray for him constantly.

  33. Confiteor says:

    Well said, jbpolhamus. I, too, am a 40-something diocesan Catholic who has discovered the merits of the SSPX position along with his own Catholic identity.

  34. DoB says:

    Well, discussions need to take place and tough ones at that. Regardless of how in keeping with tradition you or I or the Pope or Bishops may interpret Vatican II the sad and obvious fact on the ground is that the “vII spirit” has been defacing the Church right across the globe. SSPX may think the problem is the documents. Well, I really doubt that. You can have the most perfect document and still interpret it in an unfaithful way. Not only that, even when teaching is crystal clear there are plenty within the Church at all levels who happily ignore it and go their own way. So, discipline is needed and conversion. My prayers will be with them all at this decisive stage. May God bless and the Holy Spirit fortify and enlighten all people involved.

  35. Woody Jones says:

    As a unwashed Texian, I are confused here, sounds to me lak Bishop Tissier just wants to dialogue with his brethren in Rome about some thangs. Why is everyone reaching for his six shooter over that? Ah thought Rome liked to do this dialogue thang with all sorts of people, including that new bearded fella in Moscow.

  36. Corleone says:

    JPolhemus I along with confiteor agree wholeheartedly.

    However, I was thinking about this today; what if there is a Traditionalist caste system in the works. That is, FFSP and Society of St John at the top, then SSPX, then other wannabe “traditionalists” who only market themselves as such (Opus Dei *cough*). I remember there have always been historically fraternities and orders who have jockeyed for the #1 position with the Vatican. The Jesuits are probably the perfect example of here today and gone tomorrow (then unfortunately back a hundred years later).

    Interesting days.

  37. Gravitas says:

    I think Fr. Z is right in terms of humility. There must be humility on part of the SSPX during this process.

    However, the simple fact that it is moving this fast shows there’s humility. There aren’t demanding anything but the basics from Rome and Rome isn’t demanding anything but the basics from the SSPX. It’s the right combination.

    But the SSPX also has to appear not to “sell out” their hardliners also. So if he says in one breath that they will try to convert Rome (in a good way, towards tradition) and the rest of the interview shows the repect to the Pope that he deserves as this did, then what’s the real problem? There really isn’t one.

  38. Fr Hugh Somerville-Knapman OSB says:

    Bishop Tissier de Mallerais – his is hardly the voice of the prodigal son… I am all for the lifting of the excommunications, both as an act of charity (the SSPX has far more claim to Vatican efforts than the Wimmin Priestettes) and as a way of forcing the SSPX to make a decision for or against unity. There is much to talk about of course, but the door is open: will they enter or not? I hope so – we need them on our side, not outside.

    Pax!

  39. Bob K. says:

    Quote: This is hard to understand. SSPX is going to dictate to the Vicar of Christ? As far as I know, the keys were left with St. Peter and his successors, not a bishop who was ordained in violation of Church law.”

    They do seem to follow the teachings more of one Pope. Pope Saint Pius X in regards to tradition. When was the last time you read anything about Saint Pius X in a modern day Catholic magazine or bulletin. Progressivists hate Saint Pius X and what he stood for. Sure their not going to dictate anything, but they will give Rome, at least the progressivists and liberals a crash course in Catholic tradition, which they know nothing about.

  40. Bob K. says:

    Bishop Tissier de Mallerais is a very holy man.

  41. puella says:

    I will keep praying for the Church and our Holy Father.

  42. Itzik Janowitz says:

    Bravo Bishop, the insidious effect of modernism is the bending of the American Bishops to those who want everything easy.
    Our Parish Our Lady of Lourdes Massapequa Park L.I. , New YORK, has been the subject of attack by a TV personality Msgr, who has taken the stand that the people want change. He had left in charge a priest Fr Mathew Blockley, whom he had known for 8 years, who had his faculties suspended by Bishop Tomas Comacho of Chalan Kanoa Northern Mariana Isles, and knowing the situation that this priest was running away from his Bishop who was looking for him since 2000, took this priest in to St. Thomas Aquinas in Hempstead , N.Y. U.S.A. and allowed him to say mass, perform marriage, baptize, hear confessions….etc. Our Bishop (as he has done with pedophile priests) has tried to sweep it under the rug. To see the effect of what happens when you allow our Church to be run by MODERN THINKING CLERGY, please go to http://www.modernpriest.blogspot.com. This is what happens when you do not oppose heathen changes.
    Yours in Christ
    Itzik Janowitz

  43. Bob K. says:

    Quote: This is the kind of thing I feared. A refusal to consider the possibility of error on their part, and the same defiance as 1975-88.

    Unfortunately, the SSPX seems to be moving towards a “In order to save the village, we had to destroy it” mentality. Despite their claims of supporting the real Catholic teaching, they are undermining the constant teaching of the Church on Magisterial authority, and it will have very real consequences down the line.

    To borrow from St. Francis de Sales, it is easier to believe the SSPX errs than the whole Church in communion with Peter errs.”

    You know this is what erks me. What about the errors of the modern day Catholic bishops. You know the liberals, progressivists, etc.. We are so quick to point out traditionalist Bishops errors, but we should equally point out the errors of the modern day Catholic bishops. And just as sternly!!. These Bishops are trying to ally themselves with traditional Catholics everywhere. Not just those who go to SSPX chapels. Let’s stop criticizing them and seek their help. Or do you all still want to go to NO Masses and hear more about liberal politics and wisdom at your sermons vs traditional Catholic teaching.

  44. John Enright says:

    Corleone – Thanks for your comment. I don’t think, however, that the Bp. was speaking of anyone other than the Pope. When you want “Rome” to do something, you’re speaking of the Pope himself.

  45. Henry says:

    A measured view, quoted by The Tablet‘s Robert Mickens:

    A young professor at the Legionaries of Christ’s university in Rome, Fr Mauro Gagliardi, gave a clue of what to expect.

    “The Fraternity of St Pius X can offer the Church an important contribution in applying the ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ that must be applied to the documents of Vatican II,” he said.

    And Fr Gagliardi is not just any professor in Rome. He was recently named as consultant to the papal liturgical ceremonies office and mixes in the circles that are currently in favour in the Vatican. He said, “The ‘Lefebvrists’ have a spirituality and charism that can be a richness for the life of the entire Church.” This certainly is the view of Cardinal Castrillon and probably reflects, at least in some measure, the Pope’s thinking, too.

    http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?id=27F08DDE-1438-5036-4F8792220B462A90

    In particular:

    “The ‘Lefebvrists’ have a spirituality and charism that can be a richness for the life of the entire Church.”

    Sound like just the “convertire” we need?

  46. Bob K. says:

    What about the error of the ICEL copyrighting the future NO Missal. To me that is more alarming then what Bishop Tissier de Mallerais is saying.

  47. John says:

    The SSPX is no threat to the Pope or to Catholic doctrine. The threat comes from the heterodox. Leading the attack against the Church are, without naming names, Cardinals, Bishops, theologians, seminary rectors inside the Church. They remain and hope to institutionalize their corrupt doctrines. Already the destruction to the Body of Christ is immense. Several thousand Jesuits who ostensibly swear allegiance to the Holy Father do everything in their power to undermine the Pope’s rebuilding efforts. And they are not the only religious order who are disloyal or corrupt. Read the visitation report on US seminaries.

    Paul VI reportedly cried over the collapse of the Church and spoke of the smoke of Satan entering it under the cover of V II. JP II confessed to have not done an examplary job of governing its affairs during his Papacy. Considering the crisis of faith in the Church today, the SSPX with their commitment to Tradition will be a help to the Pope not a threat to the Faith. No one else with gumption among the hierarchy at large has been much help to the present Pope so far and many have done much to hinder. The reunion cannot come soon enough no matter what the detractors say.

  48. Steve Skojec,

    What about St Athanasius Church in Vienna? It has been there forever and is affiliated with the SSPX.

  49. ALL: I am not in a patient mood today.

    Please do us all a favor and temper your comments with some self-editing.

    If you are about to post something at which you think I may likely roll my eyes… then… for today especially … I ask you … don’t post it.  If you are creating more work for me, I’ll probably just take the easy road and pitch you.

    Just calm down.

  50. Fr. Anthony says:

    As an Anglican of the TAC, I have little to say about all this, except that I am saying Mass each day for the Pope, beseeching God to give him strength and resolve to press forward – for the good of the Church.

  51. Bob K. says:

    Bless you Fr Anthony.

  52. Brian Mershon says:

    Fr. Hugh: “we need them on our side, not outside.”

    With all due respect Father Hugh, back in 2005, after Bishop Fellay’s meeting with Cardinal Castrillon and Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Castrillon was interviewed by “30 Days,” in which he first said that the SSPX was “within” the Church.

    In public media interviews since that time, Cardinal Castrillon has said the same thing.

  53. “Something I’m not seeing a lot of from the SSPX membership is humility.”

    This was the same observation of the late Cardinal Gagnon, who was an early participant in attempts to reconcile the SSPX with Rome. Part of our belief as Catholics involves the nature of the Church herself, and the extension of the ancient rabbinical authority “to bind and to loose.” That is not a pass on every prudential judgment of the sacred pastors of the Church, but it is a component of the proper perspective.

    Were leaders of the Society to have every demand of theirs met, they would be left with the obligation to submit to someone outside themselves. That in itself, BY itself, would require a change of habit.

  54. A Roman Resident says:

    The worst part is that most people don’t know what is the real reason of all of this.

    And this recent order was so big, that half of Rome was ABSOLUTELY SURE that this was not going to happen. In fact, some were affirming that it will not, that they know for sure, but it was aired after the declaration.

    Rome was in an uproar… Not all the circles knew. Orders went through without…

    And the chaos after. Sure they lifted the excommunication. The same to the orthodox church.
    Does that mean they are in communion? Nope.

    But anyhow…

    The Jewish question….(Pun not intended)

    That is all part of the game…

    I fear for the safety of Rome…

  55. Piers-the-Ploughman says:

    I wish for a somewhat different verbage on the “convert” issue, but the fact he has said that the Pope and Roman Curia will determine the SSPX future is the big quote here. I can’t imagine him saying this a year ago. Still, it would be better for just Bp Fellay to speak for the SSPX now.

  56. Malta says:

    *we ventured out at 7 a.m. to get to the TLM offered by Fr. Kenneth Novak, SSSPX, in Mt. Holly (outside of Charlotte).*

    Brian, I was there too. The Mass was 2.5 hours which had my ten year old boy rather restless (my wife and I switch off with the kids since my wife is against going to TLMs but allows the children to go for their formation in tradition.)

    Mt. Holly is a beautiful Traditional community. For years they were connected with the local Benedictine Fathers, until the last died who could say the TLM. Typically, beaucratic solace set in and the community was listless, and thank goodness SSPX was available to give direction.

    Now, the community is vibrant and alive, and full of grace and love. I am not part of it (yet), but I did attend another mass since I’m a recent immigrant here. A Jesuit Church downtown Charlotte. Pretty brick building. I took my parents there (since they were with us on our move), hoping for a nice parish; instead, I got a bunch of junk about how family now includes two mommies and two daddies. Really, that was part of the sermon.

    Those who judge SSPX for not capitulating haven’t been in the morass of sin that is the modern Church, at least in America. Perhaps uniquely, I have been to novus ordo masses on both coasts, in Michigan and New Orleans, and many points cross-sectionally. Two years ago, in fact, I went to a wonderful SSPX mass in Phoenix, only to fall into the depths of personal despair at a mass in another diocese in Arizona (as a convert, I have fought a long time to only go to approved diocesan masses.) But I’m also friends with two wonderful Catholic priests who love the traditional latin mass, have fought for it, and one has been allowed to say it regularly (only one, despite Summorum Pontificum.)

    But, there is much hope for traditionalists out there. And perhaps, Brian, we’ll meet again at Mt. Holly!