I received a tip via e-mail.
Before reading this, I am getting it second hand and also I have no way to get separate confirmation. So, we have to take this for what it is worth. It’s up to you.
Here is one sentence of the three sentence message I edited it to fix the English:
I´m back from Econe. I spoke with some people. Rome has accepted a response and wrote back positively. All is going well … this was said by Castrillon.
Remember that Card. Castrillon Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei gave Five Conditions to Bp. Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX.
These five points were conditions for continuing dialogue about closer unity between the SSPX and Rome.
The conditions did not concern explicit doctrinal issues about Vatican II or the Novus Ordo of Mass.
They focused on the public attitude of the SSPX toward the person of the Roman Pontiff and about unity.
Important factors to keep in mind:
- Twenty years ago, 30 June 1988, the split took place with the illicit consecrations of bishops.
- Pope Benedict has been a key figure, history, in the dialogue of the SSPX and Rome.
- Pope Benedict is the Pope most favorable toward the goals of the SSPX the SSPX is like to see.
- The longer the split continues, the harder it will be to heal it.
- After all this time, there are now followers of the SSPX who have never know anything other than this serious state of division and conflict.
- Card. Castrillon Hoyos is approaching 80 years of age, when he will more then like step down as President of Ecclesia Dei.
- Bp. Fellay will be under tremendous pressure to placate the hardcore followers of the SSPX who give financial support in an increasingly expensive world.
- Bp. Fellay is likely the least hardcore of the four excommunicated SSPX bishops.
- Bp. Fellay has been a bit cagey about the response he sent to Rome, neither saying that he accepted the conditions nor saying outright that he refused them.
I pray that the rumor/report I received is true.
I provide this so that you can motive to PRAY! PRAY NOW! that before the end of the month, Rome and SSPX can take these mutal steps toward each other.
Loading ...
Just one question! Why even print a “rumor or second hand” information.
All this does is get people all upset. And with some of the comments I have
read, just plain mean and nasty..Why not just wait until we hear directly
from Rome or Bishop Fellay with their answers. [As I said, take it for what it is worth. I clearly identified what it is and I explained by reason for posting it (which you might pay attention to. So, everyone, pray rather than getting your skivvies in a twist. – Fr. Z]
The consecrations of the four auxiliary bishops for the FSSPX occurred on June 30, 1988, not June 28. [Right. I made the correction. Fatigue.]
I remember that day very clearly. Although I was not at Econe that day as I was preparing to enter the FSSPX’s North American seminary newly moved to Minnesota, I still remember all the news articles and broadcasts. Three FSSPX seminarians were staying the evening at my family home. I seems like only last week.
Anyway, that was then and now is now. Let us pray that this Econe affair moves forward in unity and peace with the universal Church in submission to the Holy Father!
As Fr. Z mentioned in his last paragraph, he posted this to encourage people to continue praying rather than give up. It might be reasonable to disagree with his decision, but it seems rather silly to ask “why?” right after he gives his reason for doing so.
JESUS, I TRUST IN YOU!
The Catholic Church needs the SSPX. And the SSPX needs the Church. They know it and we know it. The talks will continue even after full communion is reached. And that’s a good thing.
Well, I guess we’ll know for sure in a day or so, won’t we.
Those of us who have always maintained the bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine, and Authority are fond of saying the SSPX can be very helpful in the war against modernising elements within the Church.
That is a much kinder way to put it than to note that it was the sspx and their supporters who abandoned (deserted) the ecclesiastical field of battle and who are now demanding the Commanding General address them in prim and proper words (and at a time of their own choosing, thank you very much) before they, very reluctantly, agree to, finally, faithfully discharge their duties as members of the Church militant.
If Pope Benedict decides to issue a general amnesty (much like Jimmy Carter did for those who hid-out in Canada during Vietnam)men like me will keep their yap shut publicly but it would go against human nature to expect all of us to suddenly great the amnesty with naught but great joy.
I would be very much pleased if the reconciliation (amnesty) happened after the sspx’s public apology for perfidy. But, I sure as heck don’t expect it.
Whatever the Pope decides is fine with me but men like me will need just as much help from the Holy Ghost if the reconciliation happens absent any public apologies by the sspx.
>I would be very much pleased if the reconciliation (amnesty) happened after the sspx’s public apology for perfidy. But, I sure as heck don’t expect it.<
And while we’re into not apologizing, the ICEL shouldn’t bother apologizing for their less-than-faithful translations of the Latin texts, which probably had much more damaging effects upon Catholics.
BobP, since the ICEL seems to be in better hands now, I don’t think they need to apologize for their predecessors’ faults. If the 2002 version ever gets approved, then we might look at it again. :-) Meanwhile, I will be praying for a quick death to the NAB. “I have competed well.” Pardon my vomit!
The Eastern Orthodox churches will not come back to unity until something is done to return the Roman Church to its traditions and to heal the rift with the Society of St. Pius X —
They fear (rightly) that what happened to the Roman Rite could happen to them as well — so the Romans need to get their own house in order before anything can move forward…
Since this is Rumor Sunday (in Ordinary time) I am guessing that simply responding to the letter is quite sufficient to bring the Society back to Regular status — It’s Bartholomew’s fault (praised be Jesus)
Stop harping on about how hard it is for a man to take this on the chin and get with the programme. Please God we are very close to a momentous decision which will greatly help our Holy Father to rescue the Church from 40 years of disaster.
Spartacus,
I don’t believe that you will need any divine grace to understand. All humans, Christian or not, are able, through their own intellect, to understand and appreciate the cardinal virtue of justice.
On the one hand, if SSPX apologizes and receives forgiveness, then Rome will be rightly seen as having been a just judge 20 years ago and a merciful judge today.
On the other hand, if Rome annuls the excommunication absent any apology by the 4 bishops still living, then Rome would be seen to have been in the wrong for the past 20 years. This is possible if Rome has judged that the consecrations were accepted out of necessity, or at least perceived necessity, due to the crisis in the Church (which crisis, even according to Cardinal Ratzinger, existed and was due primarily to the “disintegration of the [new] liturgy”.)
We’ll only know to the extent that the two principals, Cdl. Castrillon and Bp. Fellay, allow news to be divulged.
In my last long comment, I mentioned the underappreciated role the Society’s internal subculture plays in situations like this. It’s a point that deserves particular focus.
As I mentioned, the Society took on a more reactionary posture once it found itself in a state of siege, owing to its legal suppression under most dubious circumstances in 1975. Over time, this posture came to encompass more than just liturgical and theological issues, growing into an interconnected set of attitudes regarding every aspect of contemporary life. These may be summarized thus: “have as little to do with modern ways – and modern people – as possible, and to the extent this can’t be avoided, hold your nose.” (It’s not a principle to which every last SSPX Mass-goer wholeheartedly subscribes, hence there have been some legendary controversies over certain derivative issues within the milieu.)
That principle will surely be the foundation of the rather serious misgivings that the hardline ideologues within the Society will harbor towards any sort of “deal” so long as Rome continues to see anything of value in the paradigm-shift that Vatican II precipitated and refuses to brandish the sword against the well-entrenched miscreants (in terms of both doctrine and morals) that still dominate the Church’s institutions. These are people who do not want any sort of “big tent” coexistence with cardinals like Kasper and Mahony, or with any of those elements of ecclesial life that distinctively originated with or since the Council, whether this be lay “Eucharistic ministers,” altar girls, parish councils, or the way people generally dress for Mass these days … and so on.
That’s not all. Implied in their stance is a fear I’ve not heard any of these ideologues state, but it’s got to be in the back of their minds: that the Society’s being regularized will undermine and even dissipate the domination their approach has had within the Society’s own sphere. For them, “cross-pollination” with other spheres within the Church would amount to that much adulteration of a vision they insist is the “Catholic way.” Hence, they have considerable incentive for preserving the Society’s insularity.
And yet, for the very reason that such “cross-pollination” would serve to mitigate the neo-Jansenism in the Society’s milieu, it would actually be the best thing for the Society to be regularized. So long as it remains in practical isolation, the internal dynamics of its subculture will eventually eviscerate and sterilize it, as once happened with Tertullian and the “petit Eglise.”
Given what I just posted, then, the rumor reported here would be good news, if true … I was concerned that Bp. Fellay had been persuaded to “hold out for a better day,” as certainly his own remarks earlier this month (let alone those of some of his confreres) seemed to indicate.
BobP Your response typifies much of what is wrong with the schism and its supporters. Your response was but a deflection of the target of my post – the sspx and its shirked Confirmational Duties.
The Hitler-was-worse is an old saw that can’t cut it in this instance.
The sspx ought take responsibility for its own willful actions. And, yes, it would be helpful if they did apologise for their perfidy. You know,it is not as if those like myself are demanding – (although in Justice we could) – acts of profound public penance in keeping with actual Apostolic Tradition – all some of us are asking for is a responsible bit of self-critical thinking and self moral accounting for I do not think I am the sole Christian Catholic in Communion with my Bishop and the Pope who thinks it bizarre the sspx demands all enemies be cleared from the scene of battle before they consent to rejoin we weary warriors.
Spartacus, you could just sign “Older son”
I don’t mean to stir up a hornet’s nest: the Orthodox have far less trouble with the Pope than we do with the Vatican intrigue. Remember it was a Vatican pompous cardinal who got the schism rolling. Gee, where have I heard this before?
Interesting. I expect that any such response from Cdl Castrillon would need to be ‘run past’ His Holiness.
Why is it that the FSSPX is always pictured as the “Prodigal Son” in this drama and why are many demanding they be “taken to the woodshed” and that they own up to their crimes? I am almost 67 years old and the liturgy and catechesis that was instilled in me during the 40’s and 50’s, was taken from me and replaced with substitutes when I was trying to raise my family and fight for my country during the TeT Offensive in Vietnam in 1967-68. Yes, that’s right, I said fighting for my country because I was obeying the legal orders of my superiors who said we were fighting the evil of communism.
Do any of you people have any clue what this did to me after 16 years of traditional catholic schooling before 1963? Do you realize that I did not, and do not now, advocate open defiance and disobedience to the Holy Father? Do any of you realize that persons within the church are guilty of using Vatican II as justification for imposing modernist theories and practices in the church and suppressing the traditional mass?
Come on, folks, have a heart. I, for one, hope the rumor is true and will continue to PRAY, PRAY and PRAY HARD for a good outcome where both sides can retain some semblance of dignity and respect. On this feast day of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, we must pray for unity and seek it with all our hearts.
I don’t believe that you will need any divine grace to understand.
Mr. Kastel. I do not need the help of Divine Grace to understand. I need the help of Divine Grace not to nurture anger bitterness and resentment if what I fear may happen will happen.
If a general amnesty/reconciliation happens before any apology or acknowledge of guilt on the part of the sspx I am not the sole Christian Catholic who will, at least reflexively, think the whole exercise of reconciliation would have been farcical.
Too seldom acknowledged publicly is the enormous anger and resentment we Christians have, I think justifiably, experienced. And if the Prodigal Son is to be the model for our approach to the amnesty/reconciliation it is imperative the sspx acknowledge their sins publicly.
This is possible if Rome has judged that the consecrations were accepted out of necessity, or at least perceived necessity, due to the crisis in the Church (which crisis, even according to Cardinal Ratzinger, existed and was due primarily to the “disintegration of the [new] liturgy”.)
That is impossible. Even before the attempted consecrations by Mons Lefevbre it was made clear to him, in writing, that Pope John Paul II did not recognise any necessity, even a perceived one, existed.
And, it is fairly well known that Pope Pius XII had previously held there is never a case of necessity justifying unauthorised consecrations of Bishops.
Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts
However doubt cannot reasonably be cast upon the validity of the excommunication of the Bishops declared in the Motu Proprio [Ecclesia Dei] and the Decree [of excommunication against Lefebvre]. In particular it does not seem that one may be able to find, as far as the imputability of the penalty is concerned, any exempting or lessening circumstances (cf. CIC, canons 1323 and 1324) As far as the state of necessity in which Mons. Lefebvre thought to find himself, one must keep before one that such a state must be verified objectively, and there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff., Head of the College of Bishops. This would, in fact, imply the possibility of “serving” the Church by means of an attempt against its unity in an area connected with the very foundations of this unity.
Therefore, one sees that a state of emergency cannot be invoked against the expressed judgment of the Holy Father, especially on such an important issue as the consecration of bishops. One also sees that the mind of the legislator does not favor the Lefebvrite argument. Furthermore, because this interpretation comes from the Pontifical Council entrusted by the Holy Father for the interpretation of canon law, it is binding in its interpretation of how canons 1323 and 1324 apply to the excommunication declared against Lefebvre.
Finally, because this interpretation was simply declaring what was already known through canonical tradition, thus ruling that the Lefebvrite movement has not raised any legitimate doubt of law, the above enjoys retroactive force. Hence, in having recourse to the mind of the legislator, Pope John Paul II and those entrusted by him to interpret the Code of Canon Law, one sees that canons 1323 and 1324 cannot legitimately be invoked by Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers to avoid the automatic penalties of excommunication incurred by his act of schism in consecrating bishops against papal mandate
Thank you, Father Z, for posting this. It is indeed an issue that all Traditional Catholics should be following vigorously. I for one would WELCOME the SSPX members back into the church if they acted in accord with the church and behaved like LOYAL Catholics. It makes no sense to have them back if they continue to snipe at our beloved Pope (may God bless him and grant him 100 years!) or continue to create dischord. I pray they, and all other wayward groups within (and outside) the church will set their egos and errors aside and follow the true church.
If Benedict XVI can pull this off he should be called “Benedict The Great”. One wonders who will be back first SSPX or the Orthodox.
An interesting paragraph written by Joseph Ratzinger July 10, 1977 that seems to have SSPX in mind and may give some historical insight into Pope Benedict’s mind in this matter. I came across this in “co-workers of the Truth: Meditations for Every Day of the Year” by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Ignatius Press page 208 – The Meditation for June 29th somewhat appropriate. [This is very good!]
H. I can’t sign older son because,as I have repeatedly written, I will keep my yap shut and accept the decision of my Father.
It is clear the sspx has no intention of acting like the real Prodigal Son.
Rather, the sspx perverts the Parable by acting as the Prodigal Son whose hectoring and badgering of our Father, rather than confessing his perfidy and guilt and asking the Father for forgiveness, is thought to be defensible by an appeal to Tradition.
“I don’t mean to stir up a hornet’s nest: the Orthodox have far
less trouble with the Pope than we do with the Vatican intrigue.
Remember it was a Vatican pompous cardinal who got the schism
rolling. Gee, where have I heard this before?
Comment by Hieromonk Gregory — 29 June 2008 @ 12:49 pm”
Hiermonk Gregory,
Wasn’t that Pompous Pilate?
;>
Paul, I just read your post and had to respond. I was born long after Vatican II and knew nothing but the deteriorating conditions of the Novus Ordo for the better part of my formative childhood. The abuses I have seen would curl any traditionalist’s toes. Yet I always knew there was something better. I read the old missals at age 10, immersed myself in art and architecture from the early church onwards, studied Latin and sought out the Tridentine mass offereeed in ANY location I might possibly attend. So, while I share your sentiment that the Tridentine liturgy was indeed a jewel that was viciously, horrendously and illigitimately suppressed and indeed stolen from us, I UNEQUIVOCALLY DO NOT share your Macchiavellian
“ends justify the means” solution. As someone who chose to REMAIN within the church and struggle, work, write, enlighten those around me to the errors of those oppressing us (and bearing the brunt and ridicule by MANY clergy in the process), can YOU not see how we feel ab out SSPX? The fact that you lot took the easy way out and simply up and left to participate in an ilicit liturgy, leaving the rest of us to continue the struggle alone does not
seem in the least disrespectful (if not cowardly) to you? You make a point to say how you fought for your country. Are we to assume fighting for your church simply wasn’t as important to you?
I guess my point is, rather than adopt a victim “have a heart” stance, maybe you should take a more contrite, “what we did was wrong. we should have stayed and been there for the church. we’re sorry, may God forgive us.” stance. Then you’d see we Traditional Catholics who have always remained loyal to the magesterium would have much MORE of a heart.
Dear I am not Spartacus,
If we are going to demand apologies and public penance then where do we start and wher do we end.
In fact surely it is the faithful catholics of the 1960’s and 1970’s, who had their lives shattered and Faith broken by the disorientating novelties introduced in the wake of VII and whose children, deprived of a proper Catholic formation, became the lost generation of the great apostacy of the 1980’s and 1990’s, it is they who deserve the biggest apology and it is the Church hierarchy who should be doing the penace.
My faith, and the faith hundreds of thousands of others, was saved by the
Grace of God and the bravery, vision and lack of human respect of Archbishop Lefebere.
Why can you not acknowledge the enormous contribution his grace and the fraternity he founded has made in keeping alive the traditional Catholic Faith and nourishing the spiritual lives of countless individuals? If you can acknowledge it why does it make you so angry?
Perhaps the Holy Father will not push for an apology because he realises, in humility, that he, as an architect of VII and the post VII settlement, has much to apologise for as well.
JMJ
In this current parable it was the father who was intent on squandering his patrimony and therefore kicked out the sons because they wanted to preserve that patrimony, that inheritance.
May these sons be gracious and courageous enough to come back to their father bringing with them the fullness of that inheritance they have so faithfully preserved, even though they know they will suffer from their other brethren (as evidenced by some of the posts herein).
Why is it that we have so many disparate neo-trads hell bent on pushing the Society into the arms of modern Rome and modernity? Do they feel so naked and vulnerable on the margins of the Novus Ordo world that they need its presence to make life more comfortable for themselves? Also noted is a heavy reliance on a few expressions of conservatism delivered by Ratzinger to form the mistaken impression that the conciliar era is winding down. Nothing is further from the truth; the evolving church evolves further and so must the revamped Latin Mass. That is why the Society will stay clear of a church that has lost its way for some time to come. [Pretty disrespectful to the person of Pope Benedict, I think. – Fr. Z]
A Protestant is a Protestant is a Protestant.
“I don’t mean to stir up a hornet’s nest: the Orthodox have far less trouble with the Pope than we do with the Vatican intrigue. Remember it was a Vatican pompous cardinal who got the schism rolling. Gee, where have I heard this before?”
Hieromonk Gregory, I warn you that you when you write such things you may be putting hot-headed
papists like me in a near occasion of the sin of intemperance. For instance,
your first sentence is well taken. The second, which does not seem necessary
to explain the first, is simply provocative. Most of the other readers here
are Catholic, some of them have heard of Photius and Michael Cerularius, etc.
In other words, such statements are likely to start a new debate here. And
then the “schism gets rolling” here, again.
Oliver: martyrs love company, and any trad (paelo, neo, or otherwise) should want to be a martyr.
I just re-read Hieromonk Gregory’s remark — I read right past the “hornet’s
nest” part. If your intention is not to stir up a hornet’s nest, I suggest
your comment does not reflect your intention very well.
Dear Deusdonat,
I personally have great respect for those who managed to keep a Traditional Faith in tact in a ‘normal parish’ during the last 40 years. [Amen!] I would love to know how you did it, deprived, as you must have been, of many of the means of grace traditionally available to Catholics. Do you have a family? Do they still practice?
Please accept that each of us had (and has, as the crisis is far from over) to take a decision regarding what was (is) best for ourselves and our families – vis-a-vis the salvation of souls. Having chosen the FSPX nearly 20 years ago I am still absolutely convinced that my decision, by the grace of God, was right for me and my family. I am perhaps not as naturally holy or as spiritually strong, as you and I certainly need every possible help and support the Faith can provide.
Please be a little more understanding of your weaker brothers and sisters in Christ.
JMJ
I would be very much pleased if the reconciliation (amnesty) happened after the sspx’s public apology for perfidy. But, I sure as heck don’t expect it.
As we know from the Good Friday prayer for Jews, perfidy is out.
Whatever the Pope decides is fine with me but men like me will need just as much help from the Holy Ghost if the reconciliation happens absent any public apologies by the sspx.
Comment by I am not Spartacus
Can you recall a public apology by Paul VI for causing the mess in the first place?
Did he ever apologize for the persecution of those who wanted Latin liturgy? Did he–a Francophile–apologize for absolutely wrecking the Church in France?
I don’t mean to stir up a hornet’s nest: the Orthodox have far less trouble with the Pope than we do with the Vatican intrigue. Remember it was a Vatican pompous cardinal who got the schism rolling. Gee, where have I heard this before?
Comment by Hieromonk Gregory
And it seems the Russian Orthodox had far less trouble with the KGB than they did with the Vatican.
SARK,
Your comments (see: unwarranted snipe) about His Holiness prove beyond a shadow of doubt that you are indeed not holy or spiritually strong as you yourself state. My “understanding” about your ilk comes from an old proverb “chi camina con lo zoppo impara zoppicare.” To which I will say in all humility, that if you are going to claim to be Catholic, then start acting like one.
Pope Benedict (may God bless him and grant him 100 years) is visibly and substantively trying to correct the wayward course that the opponents of the true church have taken. Rather than use petty insults and dislplaying infernal sentiment towards him, you would do well to realize there is nothing so UN-traditional as insulting our supreme pontif.
With that, uniless and until you apologize for your disgusting and unsubstantiated comments, our conversation is done. [GOOD! As is this line of thought and rhetoric. This needs to be dropped. – Fr. Z]
Deusdonat,
I think you read that quote very differently than I did. I think it fits with other sermons and writing we have from BXVI. I believe he is dedicating much of his pontificate to rebuilding unity both within the visibly unified Church and with those separated Church’s closest to Rome. Besides being an impassioned plea for unity, I see Ratzinger’s quote from Augustine as a pointed criticism of those who separate themselves.
Just so you know, I am not and never have been SSPX. I was born in the midst of VII. I also am able to resent (if I allow myself) that the glory of the Church and the Splendor of the Truth were (?deliberately?) hidden from my in my childhood. I am 100% on your side.
However, the scandal of schism within the Church bothers me as least as much as the 2 going on 3 generations we are losing to this crisis. I think unity with SSPX first, and hopefully TAC and maybe more Orthodox Churches is possible, and that the miracle of that unity just might save many who are currently wandering in darkness.
I am praying constantly for Pope Benedict
Paul in the GNW
Our priest (SSPX) this morning mentioned nothing about the situation but his sermon was very strongly instructing the faithful that we have a pope, he is the pope God has sent us and regardless of any errors he speaks (when not speaking on faith and morals) he and his position demand respect etc….
Wondering if it was just because of the feast day or setting up for something coming….
I pray, pray, pray it is preparation for announcement of reconciliation.
I have a hard believing this…
If the letter was sent by Bishop Fellay on Thursday, the soonest it would get to Rome would be Friday, which means that Cardinal Hoyos would have had to sent an immediate reply for it to get there Saturday. This just seems way to fast. Does the European mail system work this quickly? Does Rome work this quickly? I guess Cardinal Hoyos could have sent a fax to Econe, but that doesn’t seem like the way to do this sort of thing.
I guess the Bishop Fellay could have faxed Rome, but that seems odd to me to.
How are these type of communications handled Fr. Z? [I am pretty sure it would be sent by fax, or, perhaps a copy brought into Rome from the SSPX seminary in Albano, in the Castelli Romani. Hard copy to follow. – Fr.Z]
SARK,
Being ever-so-humble yourself, you’ll forgive me if I temporarily forget that some representatives and adherants of the SSPX are less than temperate in their remarks.
However, could I ask you if you can think of the possible reaction if the kind of comments that have been levelled at you were levelled at the Orthodox or Protestants? If someone called the Ecumenical Patriarch ‘provocative’ or demanded that the Traditional Anglican Communion should apologise for chopping off St. Thomas More’s head if they wanted to come into the Church we’d probably dismiss them as integrist nuts.
Maybe you’ve noticed that ANYBODY but the trads is given the kid-glove treatment these days. It’s a position that still works as you move across the spectrum. For the neo-cons, it’s anybody but the trads, for the trads, it’s ANYBODY but the SSPX deserves the soft shoe shuffle.
Darn those Priests who wouldn’t abandon the Rite that was never abrogated. A bas the men who were guided by the finest missionary of the 20th century into being ordained Bishops when there was hardly a Diocese that would pass muster at a confirmation catechism examination of a generation before. How dare those men thunder against heresy winked at or abuses rewarded. Who do they think they are? Sons of Athanasius and Peter Damian? Tisk and pshaw at the men who fear embracing the same set of cardinals who will embrace a Methodist and a Calvinist and say “we’re really very alike, you know,” or the institution that smiles at the diplomacy of a Pope who has himself ‘exorcised’ by Pagans and gives over the Sanctuary of Saints to the worship of idols. Truely, these guys should crawl on their bellies for trying their best. Couldn’t we bring back public scourging on Ash Wednesday as a traditional gesture for them? No fatted calves here, thank you very much! My father may be rich in mercy and snappeth not the broken reed but I’ll be darned if I’m going to let him pay the latecomers as much as the vinyard workers who have been here all day!!!
Maybe I’ve mixed my metaphors but, at least, I’m not like the Pharasee!
Honestly, guys, where’s your Ecumenical spirit?
Paul,
No, my friend. The post was not directed to you, but to Paul HALEY, who posted prior to you. Mea culpa for not being more clear.
Mom,
My parish Priest preached a much more forceful homily than usual – on the subject of unity. In a way very unusual (unfortunately) for our parish he called on us to leave aside our conservative and liberal labels and embrace unity in the Church. I am over simplifying in summary so please don’t anyone start a argument over justification of means. My point is that I was quite surprised and very pleased that my Pastor delivered such a strong and welcome message about unity at this time.
Maybe the Holy Spirit is moving?
Paul in the GNW
Spartacus, thank you for your response, showing that the Church, for 20 years, has continually maintained that these excommunications are valid. But, we all knew that already.
Don’t forget, for 30+ years, the highest authorities in the Church maintained that the traditional mass was disallowed, suppressed, and replaced by the new mass; and that special permission was required for a priest to say the traditional mass.
The Holy Father, I am sure we are all aware, in 2007, has stated that the traditional mass never was “legally abrogated”, and that therefore, it was “always permitted.” The highest authorities in the Church have begun to admit to mistakes with regard to tradition. The first thing Lefebvre got in trouble for was being, according to Pope Paul IV, “disobedient to the new liturgy” in insisting on saying the old. This “disobedience” triggered the suppression of the SSPX, his suspension from ordaining his seminarians, and his suspension from all priestly duties. 30 years later, we see that he and his priests were “always permitted” the old liturgy, even though the whole Church was told otherwise all that time.
I’m not saying the Church will annul the excommunications, absent an apology from SSPX. I’m saying that if it does, then we have to conclude that the Church was wrong. It has been wrong before and it will be wrong again…It just can’t be wrong in doctrines regarding faith or morals. It certainly can be wrong in matters of discipline, or in making canon law, or in interpretation and implementation of canon law.
Re: “I’m not saying the Church will annul the excommunications, absent an apology from SSPX.”
Does anybody recall the Patriarch of Constantinople apologising for anything prior to the lifting of excommunications?
Dear Deusdonat,
I certainly did not intend to insult his holiness – I don’t think I did.
I did not intend to upset you – but rather to congratulate you.
But are you suggesting that he was not a major force within the Vatican during the years of desolation in the Church. If he was then surely either by ommission or commission he was in someway responsible. He is a man of insight and so I suspect he recognises this. That is all I was saying. This all seems self evidence to me. I don’t think that’s a snipe – just an obvious point to discuss. I thought thats what blogs were for.
I would be interested in your answer to my other questions. How did you keep your fath alive? Do you have children? Do they still practice?
My judgement was that these two things would have been put in danger had I stayed in a ‘normal’ parish. It would be good to know how you did it?
JMJ
Deusdonat, First of all, I presume your comment was meant for me and not for Paul in the GNW. Allow me to say that I have never attended an SSPX chapel and have not separated myself from Rome. The chapel I attend is an independent chapel, staffed with priests who have been validly ordained by bishops in communion with the Holy See. I have attended traditional masses all over the country, one of which in Moodus, CT, has as its pastor, a priest who is firmly attached to the diocese of Norwich. So, I take your comments as not knowing enough about my situation as you might have liked and, therefore, with no ill intent.
Now, with respect to the FSSPX all I’m saying is that they have fought long and hard for Tradition, not only with respect to the Mass but with correct interpretations of doctrine and dogma. Though I do not attend their chapels, I understand where they are coming from and sympathize with their position. Where we part company, if in fact we do, is with the illicit consecrations. As I said in my initial post, I did not, and do not now, advocate open defiance and disobedience to the Holy Father. What I do advocate is both sides coming together in a spirit of mutual understanding and respect to discuss the weighty issues that now seem to divide them.
I was born a Roman Catholic in loyalty to the Vicar of Christ on earth and, please God, I shall die the same way. You said: “Then you’d see we Traditional Catholics who have always remained loyal to the magesterium would have much MORE of a heart”. I have always been loyal to the magisterium and my heart is with loyal catholics wherever they may be, whether in the FSSPX or the Novus Ordo or Eastern Orthodox in communion with Peter, or in the pews of diocesan traditional masses. You might visit my personal website at http://phaley.faithweb.com before you chastise me any further.
Dear Tom,
I have tried to deconstruct your message. I must admit I failed despite a my track record in in post-modern literary critcism (not).
If you are saying that the FSPX has been harshly treated by all and sundry then this is obvious.
I don’t think it bothers most tradis anymore. I think if you are concerned about human respect and don’t like being ridiculed then you wouldn’t be a tradi. I’ve got used to dealing with it at a personal level – I try offer it up and move on – placing my trust in Providence.
Family matters are the most difficult of couse my parents (both modern Catholics) have been to none of my children’s holy communions, confirmations or communion solenelles. This hurts but I simply accept it as the way it is now and one of a sacrifices I have to make.
JMJ
“I don’t mean to stir up a hornet’s nest: the Orthodox have far less trouble with the Pope than we do with the Vatican intrigue. Remember it was a Vatican pompous cardinal who got the schism rolling. Gee, where have I heard this before?
Comment by Hieromonk Gregory
And it seems the Russian Orthodox had far less trouble with the KGB than they did with the Vatican.”
Em, Fr Gregory is Bulgarian Orthodox.
Here are some important excerpts from
A Book Review by Michael Davies
The Ratzinger Report,
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
IF ASKED WHICH PRELATE the liberals who are destroying the Church dislike the most and fear the most it is probable that most traditional Catholics would answer, “Archbishop Lefebvre.” They would certainly be wrong. The answer the liberals would give in at least 99% of cases is Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
The Ratzinger Report is the text of a protracted interview with an Italian journalist named Vittorio Messori. A weakness of the book is that it is not always clear on a first reading whether Messori is quoting his own opinions or quoting the Cardinal. The book contains several derogatory comments concerning Mgr. Lefebvre and traditional Catholics, but these come from Messori. The Cardinal does not accept the traditionalist position, so well expressed by Mgr. Lefebvre, that our future lies in our past. But he speaks of traditional Catholics in a manner that is USUALLY COURTEOUS AND CONCILIATORY. On p. 31 Messori refers to that “integralist traditionalism quintessentially symbolized by the old Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.” He claims that “if Rome has intervened with respect to the ‘left,’ it has not yet intervened with respect to the ‘right’ with the same vigor.”
In his reply the Cardinal states: “The followers of Archbishop Lefebvre assert the very opposite. They contend that whereas there was an immediate intervention in the case of the respected retired Archbishop with the harsh punishment of suspension, there is an incomprehensible toleration of every kind of deviation from the other side.”
Messori objects that the Archbishop has ordained priests and continues to do so. The Cardinal answers that the Archbishop’s young men are true priests, although in an irregular situation, and that many have been motivated by disillusionment with the present-day Church and the “unsatisfactory situation that has arisen in the seminaries in many countries” (p. 33).
I stated earlier that 99% of Catholic liberals would certainly regard Cardinal Ratzinger as their greatest enemy. Firstly, they cannot forgive him for providing an analysis of the state of contemporary Catholicism which coincides almost exactly with that put forward by Archbishop Lefebvre. According to the liberals we are in the midst of an unprecedented renewal, a second Pentecost which makes the first one appear to be no more than an insignificant non-event. This was the view put forward by the bishops of such countries as Britain and the U.S.A. at the 1985 extraordinary synod in Rome. Cardinal Ratzinger will have none of this. “It is incontestable that the last ten years have been decidedly unfavorable for the Catholic Church” (p. 29). He adds that: “It must be clearly stated that a real reform of the Church presupposes an unequivocal turning away from the erroneous paths whose catastrophic consequences are already incontestable” (p. 30). Incontestable? I am sure that almost every bishop in the English-speaking world would contest this statement. Erroneous paths and catastrophic consequences? If the Cardinal is correct then all these bishops have been living a lie for the past twenty years. The response to the Cardinal’s analysis has been furious and frequently abusive. Professor Fergus Kerr, O.P., an English Dominican theologian, has termed it an example of a “long boring tradition of hyped-up panic mongering hyperboleian oratorical fantasy populated with straw men and bugaboos.” In somewhat more polite terms The Tablet attacked him for his negative and pessimistic attitude to the post-conciliar “renewal.”
Cardinal Ratzinger deals in great detail with many of the erroneous ideas concerning faith and morals which have become the prevailing orthodoxy for the contemporary liberal establishment. He has no doubt that Satan is at work in the Church today, and that Satan is a “real, personal and not merely symbolical presence. He is a powerful reality (‘the prince of this world,’ as he is called by the New Testament, which continually reminds us of his existence)” (p. 138).
available for The Angelus
And it seems the Russian Orthodox had far less trouble with the KGB than they did with the Vatican.
Em, Fr Gregory is Bulgarian Orthodox.
Comment by Conchúr
He mentioned the Orthodox in general, which is a category which includes the Russian Orthodox.
BTW, about 15 years ago there were accusations within the Bulgarian Orthodox that some had been too close to the KGB.
I thought that traditionalists traditionally criticized the Vatican for being too
lax. If the Vatican takes a hard stance with them, this is not “fair” in
comparison to the stance taken vs. liberals, but it is in keeping with the
traditionalists’ own criteria. If traditionalists pine for greater discipline, isn’t
it only fair that such discipline should start with them? Just a thought.
If we are going to demand apologies and public penance then where do we start and wher do we end.
We are discussing the sspx. Let’s begin, and end, with them because it is Fellay and they, and not men of hay, who are the object of the conditions.
In fact surely it is the faithful catholics of the 1960’s and 1970’s, who had their lives shattered and Faith broken by the…
My Faith was not shattered.
My faith, and the faith hundreds of thousands of others, was saved by the Grace of God and the bravery, vision and lack of human respect of Archbishop Lefebere.
You are obliquely crediting a schism as a source of Salvific Grace. That is not Tradition. That is a delusion.
Why can you not acknowledge the enormous contribution his grace and the fraternity he founded has made in keeping alive the traditional Catholic Faith and nourishing the spiritual lives of countless individuals?
Because a schism is never a source of Tradition or Grace. It is true that God can draw good out of the evil of schism but I have never ever read any Saint making the claim a schism is a source of Grace.
A schism is a terrible evil and it rips apart the Body of Christ. How in the world can that ever be thought of as either something Traditional or a source of Grace is, literally, beyond me.
If you can acknowledge it why does it make you so angry?
I have been far more charitable than the Saints when it comes to describing a schism. I’d be happy to post a few of their teachings vis a vis a schism if you’d like me to.
Perhaps the Holy Father will not push for an apology because he realises, in humility, that he, as an architect of VII and the post VII settlement, has much to apologise for as well.
Of course. It is the Pope’s fault. It is the Church’s fault. It is always the fault of somebody else. That is an idea proving just how liberal some soi disant traditionalists are.
My point is a refection on a 2 and 1/2 hour talk given by Bishop Fellay. Of course the MP was overly involved with the KGB at times and so was the Bulgarian Church. Both churches admit it and have repented of their sins. It is unfortunate that people can’t distinguish the sins of church members from the divine image of the Church. My point is the human faqce of the church.
I would be interested in your answer to my other questions. How did you keep your fath alive?
By maintaining the Bonds of Unty on Worship, Doctrine, and Authority.
Do you have children?
Yes. And I was active in my Church. Still am. I used to attend the Lenten Retreats/Book Discussions where I defended Tradition against the ideas in books chosen for the Lenten Group – ones of such high quality as those written by Fr. Richard Rohr.
I suspect that because of what I said in that group my positive response for a request for CCD Volunteer Teachers was refused by my Pastor.
When that Parish tried to teach my children first communion came before first Confession, I visited my Pastor with all necessary documentation and I took my own children to Confession (with HIM) before First Communion and then they went to 1st Communion with their class.
I purchased by own Texts and taught my kids the Faith. That is my responsibility anyways.
I could multiply such examples by the dozens.
As the head of the Domestic Church I would have been guilty of perfidy if I had quit the field of battle. What sort of example would that have been for my children?
“Ok, kids,. Here’s the deal. Just because we are Christians does not mean we will be persecuted just like Jesus was.”
Is there some Tradition that teaches – If the going gets tough, the tough get schismatic?
In fact, staying on the field of battle meant it became necessary for me to become an autodidact in re Tradition and the battle made me a better Christian than if I had had it easy or if I had joined those who became deserters during a time of war.
Do they still practice?
Yes. Even my Daughter whom I told she could not be an altar girl when the Parish recruited her. And even when she was at College and Grad School, when nobody else was going to Mass, she was.
The schism/schismatic act occurred less than three yeares before Archbishop Lefebvre died. For many years before that he was a sign of hope. In the midst of anarchy he stood firm. Even after 1988 quite a few Traditionalists attended Indult Mass and the SSPX Mass. The true Integrists?
Dear I am not Spartacus,
There is no point in us rehearsing the “yes they are – no they aren’t in schism” debate or the “yes they were – no they weren’t legal excommunications” debate. Which is where you post would logically lead us. Obviously I am convinced of legitimacy (if not normality) of the FSPX’s position and you, I guess, are not. At this point the argument becomes stale. Can we agree to differ on this and pray for the other.
God bless you for keeping the faith through the wasteland 70’s, 80’s and 90’s. How did you do it?
God bless
JMJ
Habemus Papam. I have been lax in not publicly crediting all of the great works of the great man, Abp. Marcel Lefevbre. And he was a great man and a great leader and a charismatic individual and I can well understand why he was an inspiration to many.
What I will never understand is why so many of those he inspired were willing to follow him when he walked the plank off the Barque of Peter.
To leave the Church, to die excommunicated, is the worst possible example any Bishop of the Catholic Church can ever set.
FWIW, I do not think he was culpable for his actions but my personal opinions about the state of his soul are immaterial. I am just talking objectively about creating a schism.
No matter how great an ArchBishop he was, he had no justification for ever doing that. It is our Triune God, not willful men, who will ensure the survival of the Divinely-Constituted Church established by Jesus who promised he would be with until the end of time.
If we do not believe in the promises of Jesus, we have lost the Faith.
“The conditions did not concern explicit doctrinal issues about Vatican II or the Novus Ordo of Mass.”
In other words, a lot of meaningless handwaving…. Sure wallpaper it over … no one will “notice.”
Dear (I think you actually are) Spartacus,
What a wonderful achievement – Deo Gratias.
JMJ
Please people, stop the bitterness! You might as well complain about all the families who left their home parishes and travelled to the orthodox parish in the diocese, or those families who attended FSSP churches, etc. This isn’t really an SSPX issue. I am not Sparticus and deusdonat seem to be implying that attending your parish, no matter how bad it is, is a moral obligation, so that one can fight heretics and so forth. Other people would rather escape from heretical zones and find places of sanity in the Church. This is the same debate about whether to send kinds to heretical schools or homeschool them. Some parents think they have a duty to act as leaven to the bad schools, and homeschoolers are abandoning Catholic institutions, etc.
I suppose you might as well complain that I chose to go to an authentically Catholic college, instead of a Catholic school heavily influence by modernism, precisely because I didn’t want all those battles to interfere with my education.
The tone here has too much rage, bitterness, and perhaps some sort of resentful envy. I’ve had to deal with heresy and diocesan priests persecuting me, and you should have too!, one seems to hear. Why weren’t you suffering with me at my parish! Well that same charge could be labeled at anyone who leaves their local parish and finds an oasis of sanity WITHIN the Church. You might as well attack cloistered religious from withdrawing from the world too. Everyone contributes in their own way. Try to be a little more gracious of the decisions of others, and less judgmental of them!
As a general perspective on the whole SSPX issue – there is a well-defined sociological scenario of “the radical critic”. Such generally go beyond the accepted norms of polite behaviour. A few join in, more stand back to watch the outcome, many are vehemently hostile. Then, if they begin to make headway in their campaign, a ‘moderate’ group rides in on their coat-tails. ‘History’ judges with 20/20 hindsight. If the radical group are completely or mostly successful, they are acclaimed as daring heroes. If they fail, they are just another ragbag of troublemakers. There are numerous examples from ancient and modern history: voting for women perhaps; the American Revolution [maybe?? I’ve never crossed The Pond to find out]; the Luddites, who tried to prevent crushing monopolies; homeschooling, in which the liberals and New-Agers have ridden on the backs of both Fundamental Protestants and Trad Catholics: and the case at point.
A difference is that Catholic theology does provide a theology of State of Emergency or State of Necessity – a subset of the Principle of double Effect. My perception is that the Indult movement is at least 95% derivative of the radical stand of the SSPX. As such I could not in conscience avail of the attractions of an Indult parish while leaving the SSPX to slog it out in the wilderness. Even if my local area established the Tridentine Mass, there would not only be the question of the entire ethos & background of the Faith, but a debt of loyalty & gratitude to the SSPX: “We were thirsty and they gave us to drink” when nobody else would do so.
This is not to impugn the personal motives of anybody in this set of circumstances, merely to point out that it is a classic human situation.
I hope that CSPX doesn’t come back. They will be more trouble and more distraction than a broading of orthodox, Catholic believers. Orthodox Catholics have fought too long and too well to bringing these mean spirited, misguided people back in the flock to jeopardize the gains we have made in the past 40 years. I do not want to have to be an apologist for them.
Frankly all of the orthodox, “conversative” bishops, like Archbishop Burke, are a beacon of what it means to be an Apostolic successor. We can look at them and feel pride that these men are leaders of today’s Church. I don’t want to have expend time or energy defending the ramblings of Excommunicated Bishop Williamson and Excommunicated Bishop Felley upon their coming into full communion with Rome.
I will pray for a conversion of their hearts, minds and spirits but not for unity.
From the standpoint of “fighting within the Church,” what’s the practical difference between an SSPX chapel and an “indult” community or dedicated FSSP parish? Apart from the important jurisdictional question, not much! Often those communities will act as a magnet to draw those seeking orthodoxy and a place to bring one’s children. You see a lot of young families with crying babies at these areas. The arguments being thrown at people who attend SSPX chapels could equally be thrown at these individuals. For they’ve chosen to remove themselves from heretical book reading groups, arguing with confused pastors, etc. God bless those people who fight the good fight in the parishes, but why should missionaries like that be belittling those who don’t have that calling, and instead need to focus on saving their own souls before saving the world?
Dear Matt of South Kent,
We know – you’ve said it once or twice before :-).
Non Sparticus,
Do you consider anyone who has left their home parish, and gone to the orthodox magnet parish in the diocese, or to the FSSP, or to the Byzantine Rite, to have “quit the field of battle”?
Brier, What you describe are the fruits of schism. Which is why schism is so feared and dreaded by the founders and leaders of the Church. It is alot easier to break the egg than put it back together.
It is unjust and unfair to throw out all these military desertion language. It reminds me of people attacking cloistered orders who withdraw from the world rather than lead active lives within it. Again, this is not an SSPX/schism issue. It is just as possible to “withdraw” from the heretical depradations of a bad diocese by going to the orthodox parish, the FSSP, etc. The effect is practically the same as going to an SSPX church. If the SSPX were regularized tomorrow, the effect would still be totally the same.
Face it, the problem is not with “schism” or lack of jurisidiction, it’s with people “abandoning” their parish and finding an authentically Catholic environment removed from the Modernism so many good Catholics have to suffer through. I don’t think it is fair to begrudge the good of others, just because your experience has been different than theirs.
JMJ – Would you not warn a friend again and again, if they were about to make the worst mistake of their life?
Do you know why you do not get the same response from CSPXers? Because they like to cause trouble and be the center of attention.
Matt,
There is nothing schismatic in choosing to attend a different parish in your diocese than your geographic parish. There is nothing schismatic in attending the Byzantine Rite or a Mass of the Fraternity of St. Peter. Or do you call such things “the fruits of schism”?
Breier, my comment was on the bitterness statement. I think if your home parish needs work, you should work on it first. You should always leave a something better than you found it.
Can we agree to differ on this and pray for the other.
Yes. The fact I am dogmatic and right and you are dogmatic and wrong ought not stop us from praying for one another :)
God bless you for keeping the faith through the wasteland 70’s, 80’s and 90’s. How did you do it?
I am an Irish-Injun Catholic.I love to fight. Had I not lived during a time of a testing of Faith, I’d prolly have just spent my life in the Church fat dumb and stupid and an easy prey for Satan and his legions.
Pressure can either harden and create sharp edges (useful for cutting-through boiler plate propaganda)in us or it can crush us to powder. It is solely through the Grace of God that I have desired to follow Jesus and so my previous slovenly approach to the Faith was annealed and sharpened and the fact I relished the fight is attributable to the genes of recalcitrant Corkies I carry within me.
IOW, I have kept the Faith because Jesus chooses fools like me to confound the world.
God Bless, brother,
Dear MoSK,
Sorry I was not trying to cause trouble or be the centre of attention – I was just trying to make you (and perhaps one or two others) smile.
JMJ
A difference is that Catholic theology does provide a theology of State of Emergency or State of Necessity ..
No matter how many times that claim has been addressed and proven to be false it is simply repeated as though it had merit.
Judging by the comments posted so far, I think I am a
relative newcomer to the controversy surrounding the SSPX.
Would anyone mind highlighting the key doctrinal matters
in dispute?
My point is a refection on a 2 and 1/2 hour talk given by Bishop Fellay. Of course the MP was overly involved with the KGB at times and so was the Bulgarian Church. Both churches admit it and have repented of their sins. It is unfortunate that
Comment by Hieromonk Gregory
When you say that “people can’t distinguish the sins of church members from the divine image of the Church”, are you referring to your own comments about Vatican intrigue?
Do you consider anyone who has left their home parish, and gone to the orthodox magnet parish in the diocese, or to the FSSP, or to the Byzantine Rite, to have “quit the field of battle”?
No. I can tolerate roaming Catholics and while I think one normally ought stay in the Rite one was born into, with the right permission, I can see that too.
As for the FSSP, the Jebbie who celebrated the Indult in Portland, Maine, the wonderful Fr. Calvin Goodwin, got permission to quit the Jebbies and join the FSSP.
He was the spiritual advisor to our trad study group . And we had Mr. Wilson of the St. Joseph Foundation come to address us etc.
I think St. Thomas More set a wonderful example of doing, under the law, all tgat one can to survive but throwing-in with a schism is never defensible
I am not Spartacus: the explanation would be that the followers of Lefebvre just stayed put after 1988. The excommunications were not considered valid due to a perceived State of Emergency. Difficult as it may be to believe now, for some these excommunications were no big deal, hardly worth the paper they were written on. As I said qyuite a few went to SSPX and Indult Masses, holding the view that the Traditional Mass had never been abrogated. Now is the time for Trads to unite and support the work of Benedict XVI.
To get down to details. Where I have lived, I could not possibly have raised my family, with Catholic sermons every single week, full catechism support, good example of conduct in Church, and all the Sacraments as prescribed by the Church and guaranteed \’in perpetuity\’, had it not been for the SSPX.
On the human level, the Indult was a direct response to the SSPX. It is a statistical fact that the opening of Indult Mass Centres correlates far above random with the previous opening of SSPX Mass Centres. Why is that now? I chose to live near a SSPX – run church because I knew, on the human level, that I had the best chance of secure continuity for the years to come while I raised our children: my right as a parent in Natural Law, let alone Canon Law. There has been no running around for the \’least worst\’ Mass. I do not denigrate the heroic work done by Indult & MP supporters who, terrier-like, never let go of the bishops & hierarchy who place every conceivable obstacle in the way. Just yesterday I was glad to lend concrete support to a TLM offered in an ancient city for the first time in 40 years – against the most incredible obstruction tactics of the bishop – yet to his credit he did submit to the MP out of obedience. I congratulated the organiser. But today I attended the SSPX Sunday Mass, and will continue to do so. See tradwiki website for discussions of schism etc, which to my mind have not a shred of credibility – yet the question is abstruse enough that those of goodwill still find themselves differing.
To return to the main point, we owe the SSPX at the very very least a debt of gratitude. To avail of the TLM while castigating the SSPX is, to my mind, exactly like the Protestants who take up the Bible and curse the monks who spent 1000 years copying it out for them.
Hieromonk Gregory
Both churches admit it and have repented of their sins. It is unfortunate that people can’t distinguish the sins of church members from the divine image of the Church.
A important distinction is that the Eastern churches are by their nature under the jurisdiction of the civil authority, be that authority the emperor or the Politburo. Of course this is necessitated by their rejection of the Roman Supreme Pontiff.
While some Catholic prelates may have collaborated with the KGB they did so as enemies of the Roman Catholic Church. The Russian Church, on the other hand, didn’t just collaborate, but was an organ of the KGB, which was made possible by their being an organ of the Tsar, which was made possible by their being an organ of etc…, which was made possible by their being an organ of the Emperor, which was made possible by their being cut off from Peter, the head of the Church.
SPARTACUS If the going gets tough, the tough get schismatic?
I laughed so hard at that. Good on ‘ya, mate. That made my day.
HABEMUS – MANY people I know regarded Lefevre and the SSPX movement as extremely beneficial to the restoration of the traditions of the church. It was only when Lefevre’s ambitions and ego b roke with the magesterium which was the problem. Saddly, this is often the case (witness the Jesuits and Legionaries of Christ; great ideas at the time, bad outcome).
As St John Chrysostom said, “The road to hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their signposts.”
It is unjust and unfair to throw out all these military desertion language. It reminds me of people attacking cloistered orders who withdraw from the world rather than lead active lives within it.
Breier. You are wildly conflating things to the point of serious confusion.
Those called by God to live a life of prayer and contemplation are living out that vocation in religious orders approved by the Church.
There is never any such vocation to the life of a schismatic (that is a call from one who masquerades as an angel of light) and the Church has specifically and pointedly refused to approve of the sspx.
Guadalupe,
Have you read church history, and not the polemical type? Why do you think Pope John Paul the Great went all over seeking forgiveness for the sins of Roman Catholics in the past? That is why he is the great one, a man of prayer and humility. We could all learns this lesson from him.
OK, this has been fun but it is time to drink some quality cabernet with The Bride. Good night all.
I hope I have not personally offended anyone. That is not my intent. To live as a Church Militant is a blessing beyond all telling.
314. A difference is that Catholic theology does provide a theology of State of Emergency or State of Necessity ..
315. No matter how many times that claim has been addressed and proven to be false it is simply repeated as though it had merit.
On the contrary, “I am not spartacus”, I directed readers to an irrefutable proof of it.
On the tradwiki website I posted the copy of my letter that was published in at least one Irish newspaper:
Replies to false claims about Mgr Lefebvre
We are grateful to Pope Benedict XVI for affirming in his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum that (contrary to a widespread misconception) the Traditional Latin Mass was never abrogated.
This would be an opportune moment to scotch, once and for all, some common false accusations against Archbp. Lefebvre: that he was excommunicated by Pope Paul II and is in schism, and that he declared the New Order of Mass to be invalid.
On 1st July 1988 Cardinal Gantin – not Pope John Paul – declared Mgr Lefebvre excommunicated under Canons 1382 & 1364 New Code of Canon Law, that forbid consecration of a bishop without papal mandate. This Canon was promulgated in the 1950s in response to the schismatic Chinese Patriotic Church (CPA), a stooge organisation established according to classic Marxist principles: these bishops declare publicly & loudly that The Party over-rides the pope. Strangely, however, none of the 150+ CPA bishops has ever been excommunicated. Before consecrating his bishops, Mgr Lefebvre gave a public sermon in June 1988 clearly explaining that he was invoking Canons 1321-4 of the New Code of Canon Law, which provide for emergency situations by indemnifying from any sanction if one genuinely believes an emergency has arisen. The emergency was the spreading of false doctrine, and the illegal attempt to suppress the traditional liturgical life when it had not been abrogated. Significantly the Vatican has never refuted this correct usage of Canon Law by Mgr Lefebvre.
The SSPX insist that this alleged excommunication by Cdl Gantin – which Pope John Paul referred to in Ecclesia Dei but never issued on his own authority [in classic Conciliar style] – is not legally binding: you cannot invoke one law while ignoring another. That would be like prosecuting a motorist for parking on a yellow line, while ignoring that it was a Sunday afternoon.
Likewise, Mgr Lefebvre categorically refused to declare the 1969 (Novus Ordo) Missal invalid (which would mean that the priest was holding a piece of bread after the Consecration instead of the Body of Christ) and he disciplined those of his followers who made such judgments which, he insisted, can be made only by a Pope or an Ecumenical Council. What he did assert is that the New Mass glosses over many important truths of the Faith that are clearly stated in the Old Mass, and that it breeds a certain casual irreverence, dangerous to keeping the Faith. Unlike the CPA bishops, Mgr Lefebvre at no time rejected the authority of the Pope. He insisted that the widespread promotion of error and the de facto suppression of the Traditional Liturgy was illegal, and refused to comply. That is saying, “Father, in this case I cannot give in to your demand!” He did not add, “And therefore you are not my Father”. This was brilliantly demonstrated in the Holy Year of 2000, when thousands of “Traditional” religious and lay Catholics, organised by the SSPX, processed into S. Peter’s Square, to the feet of the Holy Father, who was visibly impressed, “and all Rome with him”. It was after this that Pope John Paul II began in earnest to find a way to normalise the position of the SSPX established by Mgr Lefebvre. They are among the Papacy’s most loyal supporters.
Is mise le meas,
in JMJ & St P., [numealinesimpetar]
p.s. this might not be the moment to mention it, .’ach tå cønaˆormsa i gCorcaigh’ – and it was in ‘The Rebel’ Co Cork – Fermoy – that the MP Mass was offered yesterday. I don’t know what Injun tribe you descend from, but we have never forgotten the Choctaws, who under the most inconceivable oppression and attempted genocide, actually sent us a donation to help us during the Famine.
316. Comment by I am not Spartacus — 29 June 2008 @ 4:52 pm
317. Judging by the comments posted so far, I think I am a
relative newcomer to the controversy surrounding the SSPX.
318. Would anyone mind highlighting the key doctrinal matters
in dispute?
319. Comment by Inquirer — 29 June 2008 @ 4:58 pm
Inquirer- perhaps the best source is the SSPX websites. tradwiki website provides some external links to the american, Irish & other branches of the sspx. Please look at their own side of the story.
Hieromonk Gregory
Essential difference: Catholic sins are individual sins, the Eastern sin is a corporate sin of schism. Please read my reasoning again.
Speaking of history maybe you should let it judge whether JPII was “great” or not.
We are talking about the Pope who kissed the Koran and ‘presided’ over numerous Open air Masses where the Holy Eucharist was trampled into the dust. Lok at Church documents and you will see that in previous Canon Law, a priest who allowed the desecration of the Sacred host was sentenced to nine years penance for each and every infringement. i’m not judging the pope, merely quoting objective facts.
I am not spartacus,
It is very easy to understand why so many followed Abp. Lefebvre, for those whose ears are not shut tight. He preserved the practice of the Catholic Religion for them at a time when their own local parish and diocesan bishops abandoned it in favor of the abuses which, I would think, you also condemn.
I can tell you for sure, my mother started attending SSPX when the parish priest announced that there would be no more kneeling for communion. You maybe should be less judgmental of SSPX, especially when charging them with schism, which, as Father Z has pointed out, is not at all clear from the statements of the Vatican.
numealinesimpetar said
numealinesimpetar
“To get down to details. Where I have lived, I could not possibly have raised my family, with Catholic sermons every single week, full catechism support, good example of conduct in Church, and all the Sacraments as prescribed by the Church and guaranteed ‘in perpetuity’, had it not been for the SSPX.”
Not to mention finding families that live a counter-cultural traditional Catholic lifestyle. And you will still not find that anywhere except in the SSPX, except for the rare isolated families that are exceptions to the rule, in any of the regularized traditional chapels.
Re. communication – sent by fax? Come on, its 21st century now. Couldn’t they just Skype one another? :) :) :) :)
Thank you, Guadalupe Guard.
We got rid of the TV until the children were grown up, and homeschooled them past the Age of Reason. Then we gradually prepared them to go out into the World and carry on the Fight.
We have no right to use our own children as battering-rams against the World; we have a duty to raise them in security and tranquillity, while training them to fly the coop when their time comes. Then the world is theirs to convert. Only the SSPX have supported the likes of us in this project during those dreadful 80s & 90s.
the Indult parishes did play their part, but they were riding on the SSPX coat-tails.
Breier writes:
There is nothing schismatic in choosing to attend a different parish in your diocese than your geographic parish. There is nothing schismatic in attending the Byzantine Rite or a Mass of the Fraternity of St. Peter. Or do you call such things “the fruits of schism”?
Actually it is a material mortal sin to abandon the rite in which one is bornand adopt another.
This was introduced to protect the non-Roman rites, before the clergy attempted the extermination of the Roman Rite itself.
As I have said to my friends who have ‘escaped’ into a Uniate Byzantine rite, against the Laws of the Church: firstly, you also are being disobedient. If there is no grave emergency in the church, you ought to be going to your local parish like everybody else. if there IS am emergency, Mgr Lefebvre is exempted from each and every sanction by Canon Law. You have no legal right to be adopting a holier-than-thou attitude to his legally-anticiated emergency procedure.
‘We carry a treasure in earthen vessels’. The Church is the Bride of Christ, but her members are living individuals who have family ties, history and a culture.
The Universal Faith is nevertheless transmitted culturally. This is enshrined in the different authorised Rites of the Church. We can no more genuinely join a Uniate rite than we can become genuine Assyrians or Chaldeans if we are born in Western Europe or the New World.
If you go to the Uniates, one of two things will happen: sooner or later, they will be pressurised to Update in line with the alleged directives of Vatican II. If they follow this path, another Lefebvre will arise to preserve their Traditions, which are sanctioned by the immemorial laws of the Church. At this point, you must ask yourself what you gained by deserting your own Rite and your own Faithful Prelate in the first place. You should have stayed at home and fought to defend it, not run down the road.
On June 30, it will be official: SSPX is Protestant.
If they cannot accept these conditions for heavens sake, they will not accept any.
Perhaps Fellay thinks it good ecclesiology for the Pope to submit to him.
I AM NOT SPARTACUS: “Therefore, one sees that a state of emergency cannot be invoked against the expressed judgment of the Holy Father, especially on such an important issue as the consecration of bishops.”
And why don’t we get every bit of flesh as long as we have the chance. What purpose does it serve to bring up a 20-yr old issue at this point? We want to move forward. Go and sin no more.
I really do not expect an “apology for perfidity”. That won’t happen. But I do prayer
for a “just” reconcilliation. As for increasing my prayers for this event, I’m afraid
12 Rosaries a day is my maximum. (time-wise)
By the way, look for FSSP in the Seattle Archdiocese by this October. A little bird told me.
I AM NOT SPARTACUS writes:: “Therefore, one sees that a state of emergency cannot be invoked against the expressed judgment of the Holy Father, especially on such an important issue as the consecration of bishops.” Christ never promised that Peter or his successors would never make a mistake, only that they would never succeed in imposing an error of Faith or Morals on the whole church (cf Vatican I). Therefore he can do it. The Pope can indeed provoke a state of emergency by injudicious acts, which because of his great power & authority are all the worse when they happen. The TLM has Collects for the Pope praying that he be preserved from failing to lead his flock. It is morally and logically impossible to pray for the impossible. Therefore these things can happen. when they do, a state of emergency ensues – as was discussed at some length in the later Middle Ages – and the appropriate sections of Canon Law are activated. Mgr Lefebvre acted with complete propriety in Canon Law.
Several years ago, living in an area thousands of miles from any Tridentine Mass except for SSPX,(the group which eventually went into the Pius V “society”), some of us homeschooling trads met to discuss what we should do. After prayer and consultation with our consciences, we decided to continue to attend liberal but valid novus ordo Masses and take the responsiblity of teaching our children the Truth regarding doctrine, liturgy, etc. Our decision was based solely on two pillars; the first, that obedience to the Church was the greatest good, and second, that our sacrifice was an offering to God to change the then very anti-traditional Mass atmosphere.
I believe that our obedience and that of perhaps millions of other stranded trads unable to ever get to a Tridentine Mass because of distances, has been rewarded by the motu proprio and now this overture to the SSPX. That our children love the Tridentine Mass is truer than ever, and that they were taught the Baltimore Catechism and other traditional approaches to education has produced some vocations and young Catholics able to stand up to heresy and confusion.
I would have loved to have attended illicit Tridentine Masses, but my decision was based on a great love of the Church, despite problems. Is not the Holy Spirit with the Church until the end of time? No emergency bolting into safe holes seemed to be the correct answer as the children needed to see parents who were willing to place their preferences aside for staying in the mainstream Church. This has been an extremely painful time, but we shall get our Mass and hopefully, a new start for Catholic culture, in our area in a few weeks, when the motu proprio comes into effect in our diocese. Patience is a virtue, and obedience, perhaps the greatest. And yet, we love dearly our friends who joined SSPX parishes and hope they will join us all soon.
Matt of South Kent writes:
Breier, my comment was on the bitterness statement. I think if your home parish needs work, you should work on it first. You should always leave a something better than you found it.
My home parish needs a lot of work and if I didn’t have any children perhaps I could stay there and try to do something about it. But I can’t go there and have my children scandalized in the meantime.
numealinesimpetar said: “As I have said to my friends who have ‘escaped’ into a Uniate Byzantine rite, against the Laws of the Church: firstly, you also are being disobedient. If there is no grave emergency in the church, you ought to be going to your local parish like everybody else.”
Actually, that’s wrong because of the following provision contained in the 1983 Code of Canon Law:
Can. 1248 §1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.
Likewise, Canon 991 allows one to choose his or her own confessor freely, even among Catholics from a different Catholic rite. Canon 923 allows any Catholic from any Catholic Church sui juris to receive the Eucharist in any Catholic rite.
Thanks, John Enright.
While not a Canon Lawyer, I maintain that the Canon you mention allows a one-off attendance at Any Catholic Rite (which by definition includes the SSPX), but that is not the same thing as attaching oneself wholesale to the spiritual life of a Uniate Rite, which is, I think, still forbidden inthe New Code.
Best wishes, supertradmom. Yes, in the present State of the Church we are all in a fix. The SSPXers are in a fix because their unresolved canonical positon hampers their apostolate: the pre-MP Indult groups were hamstrung by petty and meaningless regulations from bishops; the post – MP people still have no real recourse if their pastors are intransigent; the Reverent Novus Ordo people are in constant uncertainty; others feel morally obliged to support and praise the pope regardless, hence are manoeuvered into defending the indefensible; all are in a pickle. The SSPX can be accused of hiding in a cosy corner; the others, of wasting their energies and exposing their children to scandal at an impressionable age. Only the pope can sort this out, and even he cannot do it without our prayers and sacrifices. This, I believe, is the Message of Fatima. I would have avoided the SSPX as a Temptation if I believed that they were unjustified in their stand. But in the end I accepted that the attempt to deprive our children of a childhood within the traditional spiritual and liturgical structure was illegal and invalid.
On the whole, the tide seems to be turning. Barring some miraculous intervention, however, it will be decades yet before order will be restored. But our children need our help NOW. There’s the rub. I hope your own path will bear fruit in a new, Faithful generation. I have no cause to regret our own. We pray nightly for the fulfilment of Our Lady’s requests. Only when individual Catholics merit enough Graces, I believe, will God the Fathet deem that it would be ‘right’ for this crisis to end.
Bishops allow the movement into the Uniate Byzantine Rite, even temporarily, if a situation is such that a valid Latin Rite Mass is not to be found in certain remote areas. Such permission has been granted in Canada, for example, where in rural areas the Ukrainian Rite is more prevalent than the Latin Rite, and where some Latin Rite Catholics are hours away from a valid Mass. Not every family with children, or the elderly, have the luxury of traveling three hours, or more in the winter, one way to Mass.
Here is a question for Father Z or any expert. What is the canonical status if a person is baptized in the Latin Rite, but chrismated in the Byzantine Rite with a Bishop’s permission? Is such a one “bi-ritual”?
numealinesimpetar said: \”I maintain that the Canon you mention allows a one-off attendance at Any Catholic Rite (which by definition includes the SSPX), but that is not the same thing as attaching oneself wholesale to the spiritual life of a Uniate Rite, which is, I think, still forbidden inthe New Code.\”
I\’m not sure what you mean by a \”one-off attendance at any Catholic Rite.\” I assume that you mean that Roman Catholics can occasionally attend the Divine Liturgy in Eastern Catholic Churches but shouldn\’t make a habit of it. By frequently attending another rite, you believe that constitutes a forbidden transfer from one rite to another.
You are confusing two different things. Can. 112 says:
Can. 112 §1. After the reception of baptism, the following are enrolled in another ritual Church sui iuris:
1º a person who has obtained permission from the Apostolic See;
2º a spouse who, at the time of or during marriage, has declared that he or she is transferring to the ritual Church sui iuris of the other spouse; when the marriage has ended, however, the person can freely return to the Latin Church;
3º before the completion of the fourteenth year of age, the children of those mentioned in nn. 1 and 2 as well as, in a mixed marriage, the children of the Catholic party who has legitimately transferred to another ritual Church; on completion of their fourteenth year, however, they can return to the Latin Church.
§2. The practice, however prolonged, of receiving the sacraments according to the rite of another ritual Church sui iuris does not entail enrollment in that Church.
My first point is that transfers may be rare, but they are not at all forbidden. Second, and more importantly, Sec. 2 expressly recognizes that attendance at the liturgical services of another rite does not make the attendee a member thereof. This section is important since it establishes that one is free to attend another rite as often as he or she desires. It\’s also important since it clearly states that a Roman Catholic cannot claim membership in another rite by prescription or through accident. In short, a Roman Catholic will generally remain subject to the Latin Church throughout life even if he or she spends a lifetime worshiping in an Eastern Catholic fashion.
Other cases can arise where a person petitions his Ordinary to change to another rite. If the Ordinary agrees, and the Ordinary of the other rite agrees, the Holy See will generally allow the change in rites. That, of course, is again very different from the question of where a Catholic chooses to worship and what liturgy he or she likes to attend.
Supertradmom,
I don’t think that happens a whole lot since the Eastern Churches administer Chrismation, (what the Latins call Confirmation), immediately after a child is Baptized, while in the Western Church’s tradition, the Sacrament is administered after the age of reason is reached. In any event, once a Roman always a Roman absent circumstances mentioned in Can. 112. About the only Sacrament where there presents difficulty is Holy Orders while Baptism, Holy Communion, Penance, Confirmation and Extreme Unction can be received at the hands of a priest from any rite, and it will not result in a change in rite. Marriage, as stated in Can. 112, can result in a change, but it has to be willful. There are special rules governing circumstances when a Latin bishop can ordain an Eastern priest and vice versa, generally depending on the availability of a bishop of the rite into which the priest is being ordained.
Thank you, John Enright, although, someone I know personally was chrismated in the Byzantine Rite as an adolescent and, obviously, not at birth, being in the Latin Rite, and having permission for a Tridentine Baptism! I was curious, as a priest indicated that the said young man could either choose to be a priest in the Latin or in the Byzantine Rite, given the unusual but permitted circumstance of his “confirmation” in the Byzantine Rite.
Supertradmom,
I don’t understand what you’re saying: (1) what is a “Tridentine Baptism?” Do you mean Baptism in the Latin Church according to the ritual as it existed in 1962? (2) Was this a case where the person converted to Catholicism? In that event, the situation would be governed by Can. 111 §2 which states: Any candidate for baptism who has completed the fourteenth year of age may freely choose to be baptized either in the Latin Church or in another autonomous ritual Church; in which case the person belongs to the Church which he or she has chosen.
I also wanted to say something about this comment: “Bishops allow the movement into the Uniate Byzantine Rite, even temporarily, if a situation is such that a valid Latin Rite Mass is not to be found in certain remote areas. Such permission has been granted in Canada, for example, where in rural areas the Ukrainian Rite is more prevalent than the Latin Rite, and where some Latin Rite Catholics are hours away from a valid Mass. Not every family with children, or the elderly, have the luxury of traveling three hours, or more in the winter, one way to Mass.”
There really is no movement between rites, even temporary. Its just a case of a Catholic bishop caring for Catholics who have no access to priests from their own right. For example, Latin Bishops are subject to this canon:
Canon 383 §1 In exercising his pastoral office, the diocesan Bishop is to be solicitous for all Christ’s faithful entrusted to his care, whatever their age, condition or nationality, whether they live in the territory or are visiting there. He is to show an apostolic spirit also to those who, because of their condition of life, are not sufficiently able to benefit from ordinary pastoral care, and to those who have lapsed from religious practice.
§2 If he has faithful of a different rite in his diocese, he is to provide for their spiritual needs either by means of priests or parishes of the same rite, or by an Episcopal Vicar.
Although I haven’t looked at the 1990 Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches, I know that it expresses the same thoughts.
Thank you for your information. I think my choice of the word “movement” was unfortunate. However, permission for the reception of sacraments in one rite, because of aberrations in the other, has been given. I am sure this happens because of pastoral care. The bishop was not providing a priest of the other rite, but allowing the persons to worship, and indeed receive chrismation in the Byzantine Rite although baptized in the Latin Rite. By Tridentine I mean in Latin using the older form, and the person is not a convert but was baptized as an infant. This is all, of course, off the topic of the SSPX, but such questions of sacramental validity and baptisms will arise, once some of our brothers and sisters join us. The question of marriage will be of immediate concern, will it not?
Supertradmom,
My whole point is that permission is not needed to receive any of the Sacraments from a different Rite with the exception of Holy Orders. As far as Matrimony is concerned, no permission is needed there either. However, where the participants are members of different Rites, then one may change to the Rite of the other if he or she chooses, but is not required to do so. The Bishop has nothing to do with it.
Several of the posters at this site had some comments about the Orthodox and our over involvement with government. I want to address this through the writing of Metropolitan Hilarion of ROCOR at the recent Bishops’ Council of the Moscow Patriarchate:
“The government’s function in this circumstance is to create or
preserve the necessary conditions for the free existence of the
Church. Throughout history, there have been particular temptations
for governing powers: attempts to influence the Church on behalf of
its own, not always seemly, interests. Having survived various
totalitarian regimes, our Church must recognize the necessity of
defending its God-given freedom from any regime, to recognize the
necessity of being above changing political conditions.
Unfortunately, church leaders in various times have faced their own
temptations to use the government to supposedly “defend” or
“strengthen” or, most absurdly, “save” the Church.
Today, many speak of the “symphony” of the Church and government,
forgetting, that the very understanding of this, preceded by and, in
theory, based on the pious Byzantine emperors, is, first of all, an
implied symphony (that is, harmony, agreement) between an orthodox
leader (and not just any leader)and an orthodox patriarch, and,
secondly, that this remains an actually unrealized ideal. The history
of Byzantium and the history of Russia alike witness the fact that,
frequently, instead of the expected symphony, what results is a
soul-destroying cacophony. It must not be forgotten, that government
and Christ’s Church are not at all equal “partners,” inasmuch as
there is no equality between what is temporary and what is eternal,
or what is earthly and what is heavenly. The spheres of
responsibility and assignments belonging to the Church and differ
than those of government. The Church is called to lead its children
to salvation, to the heavenly home, while government must devote all
its might to the earthly prosperity, peace, comfort and flourishing
of its citizens.\par
\par
Yet this does not mean that Churches may always distance themselves
from cultural occurrences and movements. The Church must clearly
express itself on questions affecting its children. In the
“Fundamental Social Concepts,” accepted at the Council of Bishops in
2000, we see a worthy example of a revelation of the Church’s
positions on various issues, such as civil obedience, euthanasia,
abortion, organ transplants, etc. Likewise, when it comes to such
issues, the Church must constantly be aware, in that laws and
regulations change, and as they are debated in societal forums, it is
vital that the Church makes its voice heard.\par
\par
In many nations, our Church has jurisdictional status. This permits
the Church to run its internal affairs independently while
maintaining authority in debates on societal problems. Undoubtedly,
the Church must strive to maintain this right in Russia and in the
nations abroad, near and far.”
My point is that we are aware of the sins of the past on our side, just Pope John Paul was aware of the sins on your side.
That’s a nice bit of news after the pretty negative tone of Bishop de Galarreta’s sermon in Econe. Thank you, Father, and let’s hope it’s true.
Thank you, Hieromonk Gregory, for that quote. One of the best brief statements on this matter I’ve seen, in east or west!
People here still don’t realise we have two churches in the frame; the Catholic church and the conciliar church. Repeatedly attending the latter as a duty and obligation makes no sense unless you are of the modernist mindset and want warm sickly expressions of humanism and a jolly sing-song. The SSPX will never associate in any way with this nonsense and will continue criticising what Rome has become with her reformed pseudo-religion. Witness the series of heretical ecumenical orgies that now preoccupy those in the Vatican.
Oliver wrote: “People here still don’t realise we have two churches in the frame; the Catholic church and the conciliar church.”
It almost sounds as if you want as schism. Remember: “Et unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam”. Your statement seems to contradict this. Read Matthew 16 as you like, but I find it rather ridiculous to apply it to the SSPX instead of Rome. There’s one Church. You may like what she does, or not. But to say that she isn’t the one church is the root of protestantism: ‘I / we know better’.
On the contrary, “I am not spartacus”, I directed readers to an irrefutable proof of it.
numealinesimpetar . Your claim is in opposition to Catholic Tradition, Catholic Dogma, and Catholic Canon Law. Other than that, it is fine :)
I quoted from The Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts but that is reflexively gainsaid by an appeal to personal judgments re Canon Law (never mind that – Canon 16 – the Pope is the authentic interpreter of Canon Law not Lefevbre or his supporters ) that “justify” any and all willful acts of Lefevbre. He was so loved that anything he did had to be the apotheosis of Tradition actualised even, or worse, especially, if the Pope decided otherwise.
It is ideas like that which illustrate the probability of a reconciliation is like the number of goals scored by Germany in the Euro Finals – nil.
C’est la vie.
What purpose does it serve to bring up a 20-yr old issue at this point?
Bobp Because at least one gentleman in here is claiming just the opposite and that false claim has been used to try and justify schism.
Hieromonk Gregory said:
“My point is that we are aware of the sins of the past on our side, just Pope John Paul was aware of the sins on your side.”
But you continue to miss my simple point: the Eastern schismatic churches’ sin of caesaropapism and its vicious results are defects intrinsic to, emanate from, those churches, the Catholic Church has no intrinsic sin or defect, only the sins of men in her ranks who in sinning betray her.
In any case, for one of the Eastern churches to semi-repudiate Casearo-papism is a step in the right direction.
Guadalupe Guard,
I don’t think that comment is fair, or really helping the cause of unity. You might argue that of the Anglican church, perhaps, but I don’t see caesaropapism as
intrinsic to the being of the Churches in the East. Many of them
long existed under non-Christian regimes, so if caesaropapism was
intrinsic to their fundamental indentity, that would be impossible.
Moreover, being baptized, all the Eastern Christian are, in some sense, members of the Catholic Church. Are not all the baptized subject, technically, to the Church’s jurisdiction? I think it more appropriate to speak about the
sins of the members of the Eastern Churches. That those Churches
do not have complete unity with their Western Brethren, particularly the Holy See, is a sorrowful privation, and certainly a defect. But I don’t see
the point in being so polemical.
>Bobp Because at least one gentleman in here is claiming just the opposite and that false claim has been used to try and justify schism.<
Otherwise you wouldn’t argue?
Breir,
Thank you for your kindness. Don’t be too hard on Guadalupe. Her views hopefully come from an ardent faith. Plus I am used to such zealous persons in Orthodoxy who would Catholics an instrument of the anti-christ or some such unflattering remark. That is not my view at all but simply pointing out that we have such views on both sides.
By the way a number of my Roman Catholic and Byzantine Catholic brothers and sisters have email me privately, to apologize which isn’t necessary. Now we keep in contact. Good to have new friends.
John Enright: My whole point is that permission is not needed to receive any of the Sacraments from a different Rite with the exception of Holy Orders. [No.] As far as Matrimony is concerned, no permission is needed there either. However, where the participants are members of different Rites, then one may change to the Rite of the other if he or she chooses, but is not required to do so. The Bishop has nothing to do with it.< .b>
No. This is not correct. Eastern Catholics are subjects of the Eastern Churches and Latin Catholics are subjects of the Latin Church. They cannot simply be married or confirmed, etc., in another Church without permission.
Traditionally canon law requires the wife to take the rite of her husband upon marriage.
Matt: *I don’t want to have expend time or energy defending the ramblings of Excommunicated Bishop Williamson…*
Have you ever heard his “ramblings?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOYETE5Co38&NR=1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=seZrX5qu4gM
Off topic but thanks for the video links. Will be sure to pass on to a few friends that are interested.
Thank you, Father Z for the simple clarification. Should we open the can of worms concerning sacraments in the SSPX? If there is a reconciliation, will all the sacraments already given be automatically valid-specifically confirmation and marriage?
Fr. Z said “No. This is not correct. Eastern Catholics are subjects of the Eastern Churches and Latin Catholics are subjects of the Latin Church. They cannot simply be married or confirmed, etc., in another Church without permission.”
I don’t think I was entirely clear in my meaning. I was speaking about the circumstance where Latins are subject to the Ordinary authority of an Eastern Bishop as in the example given by Supertradmom. Under those circumstances, seeking approval of a Latin Bishop to receive any of theose Sacraments simply is not required under Section 2 of Can. 383.
Otherwise you wouldn’t argue?
Bobp If you, or others, were not around to argue with I’d argue with myself.
And, rightly so.
Well, that was a bit harsh, no?
Bobp It has been 20 years since the excommunications initiated the schism and I still have not posted my Parody of Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band (It was twenty years ago today…)
So, things could be a lot worse :)