The intrepid Andrea Tornielli of Il Giornale, an Italian daily, has this piece on his blog. My translation, emphases.
I have learned from a certain source that, contary to what has emerged in certain articles, the response of the [SSPX] to Card. Castrillon’s letter has not been at all negative. The Cardinal was pleased with it, responded to Fellay, and immediately passed the SSPX’s letter to Benedict XVI. Beyond the dead line of the end of June, the Lefebvrites asked for some time – it seems – to seek a way to adhere to the five points.
This is very good. It is consistent with what my own sources have sent me.
However, I am not sure why it should take more time to sign off on things like, "don’t pretend to have a Magisterium above that of the Pope." Bp. Fellay affirmed that he doesn’t think that way and, in a sense, that begins to fulfill that condition.
We wil only know in the future what the SSPX intends to do about the conditions.
If we hear and read harsh rhetoric about the Holy Father, or overarching judgments about the Pope’s ordinary Magisterium, or constant negativity about reunion, that will tell us what they think about the conditions and about dialogue.
But I wager that we are not going to see the SSPX continue according to the status quo ante.
I suspect that if they need time, they are going to use that time to try to muster together the whole leadership of the SSPX into the same orderly rank. I suspect that they are talking intensely, arguing, discussing, persuading on this side and that, how they are going to speak and write in public for the foreseen future.
The SSPX’s negotiations are not just with Rome, but also amongst themselves and with their base of followers.
Pray for them! Pray now!
The old Enemy, the father of lies and divisions will attack them with subtle fury.
Loading ...
“The old Enemy, the father of lies and divisions will attack them with subtle fury.”
St Michael, pray for us all in this time of uncertainty!
There is great hope for the SSPX, however, I can see why the need for some time to drive internal alignment within the society. I suspect that debate will be vigorous and some will unfortunately see in this a “compromise” against the defense of the faith.
Perhaps it’s not entirely a matter of some people changing their minds – because I really don’t know how you can negotiate your way back from some of the things I’ve heard the SSPX say – but a matter of sorting out how to avoid salvage anything good in the SSPX and take that back to Rome, but letting go of those who can’t fall into line.
I’m sorry. I made a stupid typo. I meant to say “sorting out how to salvage anything good in the SSPX…”
I will continue to pray for a good outcome and for the unity of the Church. I do have a small disagreement with the translation. The original piece has the following Italian: “lefebvriani chiedono tempo ma – sembra – cercheranno di attenersi ai cinque punti.” Literally translated, it says “the Lebebvrists call for time but – it seems will seek to adhere to the five points”. I could be wrong, but I don’t see that the SSPX is asking for time ‘to seek’ but rather they declare that they WILL seek to adhere to the 5 points, i.e., they will follow them. Maybe this is an idiomatic phrase with which I am not familiar. At any rate, it is a good sign.
Does this mean that Bp. Fellay published comments and the SSPX Press Release don’t reflect the contents
of the non-response response ?
They are saying in public that they won’t be shut up by the Holy See (condition 1 and 2).
The press release doesn’t mention condition 4, concerning the Pope’s authority.
And concerning condition 3, we can’t really be sure what they mean.
So, in public, they seam to have evaded the pre-conditions (maintaining the status quo). And on top of it
they try to bargain with the Holy See: the lifting of excommunications in exchange for a swifter process.
But in private, they seam to have complied with the pre-conditions (otherwise, how could Cd. Castrillon
“be pleased” with the SSPX answer ?
but a matter of sorting out how to avoid salvage anything good in the SSPX and take that back to Rome
Paging Dr. Freud, your slip is showing.
I mean come on.
Jo, it is a bit confusing. Perhaps at this stage Fellay must tailor his message to his audience. Maybe he wants to let the SSPX know that adherence to the points does not in fact muzzle the SSPX on everything. There can still be diologue…but it must procede with truth and charity and avoiding public polemics…
Jo,
As I mentioned on the other combox, that’s just how they roll. We shouldn’t be surprised. They will do everything they can to give their followers the impression that Rome has come to them, instead of the other way around.
Patrick, IANS, et al,
Are you deliberately attempting to scuttle the efforts of the Holy Father or were you collectively appointed “bad cop” to the Pope’s “good cop”?
*boredoftheworld: Paging Dr. Freud, your slip is showing. I mean come on.*
LOL – it does look like a freudian slip, doesn’t it.
But, I was trying to something about avoiding a complete internal collapse and then changed to something entirely different. I think there are good things in the SSPX, but I think they’re being held hostage by, well, crazy people.
Bored,
It’s pretty laughable to think that anything I do or say is going to affect the Holy Father’s efforts in any way.
I have merely been offering my insights on the situation, which last I checked, is what we have all been doing in these comments.
And for the record, I hope that the SSPX will come home. I just think that, right now, there is far too much hatred of Rome (or rather what they think Rome is) for them to accept coming home.
Just to clarify, the five conditions were for Bishop Fellay, and probably more broadly the other bishops. I think it’s likely (human nature being what it is) that we’ll hear stories of individual priests making intemperate comments, but that should not hold back progress.
Continuing prayers are in order.
Perhaps, the SSPX wants stricter terms in order to demonstrate their catholicity.
It shouldn’t be just Hans Kueng that would have problems signing.
I’m no doubt asking a question that’s been handled umpteen times on the many other threads about this, but here goes. What about the conditions was new for the SSPX, that they haven’t considered before and come to a decision about? apart from a deadline….
So then, let’s give them time.
And during that time let writebackers exercise custody of their keyboard fingers. Let us also all imitate Holy Father and Cardinal Castrillon on one side and Bishop Fellay on the other and approach each other not with the clenched fist but rather the open hand.
And while we wait, let’s put to good use our imaginations to conceive what the MEF situation would look like with the SSPX on board. So imagining, I myself am unable at this point to smell anything other than roses.
Father Z,
Are you going to offer Mass again for Unity?
From the perspective of a Catholic who has never been associated with the SSPX, I want the SSPX to return to full communion if the SSPX will be willing to reach out and help with the reform of the reform. My concern is that even if they become regularized they will still try to remain isolated from the rest of the Church – which may do more harm than good.
The fact that Bishop Fellay has had to seemingly give one type of statement to Rome and another to SSPX worries me. It\’s not that I think he\’s being disingenuous, instead it\’s that it reveals that there is a contingent within the SSPX that seems to prefer to remain irregular. I think this is why so many people on this board are ambivalent, with opinions changing on each bit of information that comes out. We\’re wondering which faction within the SSPX will win out – it seems like each news release hints at a different outcome. Will it be the faction that sees unity with Peter as the first priority, followed by the continued fight for their beliefs from fully within the walls of the Church? Or will it be the faction that only wants union with Peter after the Church exactly agrees with the SSPX. I hope that Bishop Fellay will be able to unite the SSPX so that they can move forward with dialog with Pope Benedict and Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos.
RBROWN, I applaud you on your Italian translation. Just a minor point: “cercare di…” inmodern Italian means “try to (do something)”. I believe this was what the author is saying: they are trying to adhere to the five points.
con i saluti più cari…
Kradcliffe:
Your statement was one big stupid typo.
Cheers
AP
Why make a problem? SSPX responded positively to the ultimatum and Cardinal Castrillon was pleased with this response. It will be alright.
I wouldn’t be surprised if those who are hostile to Rome will make public statements purporting to speak for the whole society, in order to scupper any closer ties with Rome. I believe Fellay when he asks for more time. He wants to bring as many as possible with him. There are some who will never accept unity, that’s just how it is.
I don’t know why people see the need to post sharp retorts on threads concerned with the SSPX. Surely it was clear what Kradcliffe was saying. Anyone who has been paying attention will know where she stands. Please try to remember that not everyone who posts here is retired or with a lot of time on their hands; some are very busy running households with small children, etc – tiredness plays a part in the way one posts. I think all of us of goodwill want to see Rome and the SSPX find a way forward. Some of us pray and fast.
Brian Walden makes a good point about the danger of a re-united SSPX remaining a church within a church. The Anglican Communion is threatened with disintegration over Gafcon. This must be a warning to us. SSPX could surely be like Opus Dei and any religious order that has its own buildings, schools, etc.
Father Z:
Last night, I offered Mass for the Unity of Christians, and my intention was the Holy Father’s efforts toward the Orthodox and the SSPX.
As I am sure you can appreciate, as a parish priest, I don’t often have opportunities to offer Mass for intentions of my choosing, so it may be awhile before I can do this again. Happy to help!
P.S. “IKEA”?
“Or will it be the faction that only wants union with Peter after the Church exactly agrees with the SSPX.”
Don’t forget about the faction that sincerely wants union with Peter — but only after the Roman authorities acknowledge the problems of the post Vatican II era, and agree to discussions about fully restoring Holy Tradition to the doctrine and daily life of the Church.
After the horrific experiences of the last 40 years, is that really too much to ask??
Calleva, you are correct and I apologize to
Kradcliffe.
Best regards
AP
Fr. Fox: Thanks for your generous spirit!
In your charity I seek your prayers for the repose of the soul of the servant of God Fr. David Lynch, whose funeral will take place tomorrow in Palatine, Il. May his memory be eternal!
Patrick writes:
It’s pretty laughable to think that anything I do or say is going to affect the Holy Father’s efforts in any way.
No, of course not – but your comments certainly won’t help fence-sitters in the SSPX who might be reading this blog.
#
I will continue to pray for a good outcome and for the unity of the Church. I do have a small disagreement with the translation. The original piece has the following Italian: “lefebvriani chiedono tempo ma – sembra – cercheranno di attenersi ai cinque punti.” Literally translated, it says “the Lebebvrists call for time but – it seems will seek to adhere to the five points”. I could be wrong, but I don’t see that the SSPX is asking for time ‘to seek’ but rather they declare that they WILL seek to adhere to the 5 points, i.e., they will follow them. Maybe this is an idiomatic phrase with which I am not familiar. At any rate, it is a good sign.
Comment by Jrbrown — 2 July 2008 @ 11:58 am
————————————————————
What does Tornielli really say? ;P
About the translation, Jrbrown is absolutely right!
[I’m Italian]
Finegan, what are the problems of the post Vatican II era that haven’t been acknowledged? The Church acknowledges that the alterations to the NO Mass which are all too common are abuses. The Church acknowledges that the implementation of Vatican II was hijacked in the name of the Spirit of Vatican II. Which abuses are not currently acknowledged as being abuses?
I was born after most of the destruction had already taken place, so I don’t know a time when the Church wasn’t full of all the muck and mushiness and heterodoxy that is common at many parishes. For some reason the whole world went crazy in the 60’s and unfortunately the Church didn’t weather the storm very well. But She will recover. We’re all victims of the revolution that took place; instead of demanding an apology, let it go and help with the recovery effort. We all want the SSPX to fight for “fully restoring Holy Tradition to the doctrine and daily life of the Church” – but please do it from within rather than straddling the fence of the Church.
“The SSPX’s negotiations are not just with Rome, but also amongst themselves and with their base of followers.”
How right you are Father!
Off-topic-but-nice.1 :
http://www.traditionalcatholic.org.uk/CorpusChristiProcession29June08/Introduction.html
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Update on the Transalpine Redemptorists
by Gregor Kollmorgen
The German edition of Radio Vatican today has the following news item from KNA, the German Catholic News Agency (NLM translation):
The Traditionalist Order of the “Transalpine Redemptorists” Seeks Reconciliation with the Pope
So far, three priests of the schismatic association had turned to Rome and, after several talks, had obtained a lifting of their ecclesiastical censures, the competent Vatican Commission “Ecclesia Dei” confirmed upon enquiry on Wednesday. Thereby, however, the Community as such had not returned. This were merely a “first step” of a longer process of negotiations, it was said in the Vatican. The aim of the Order were a papal recognition of the institution to which belong about 20 members.
Posted by Gregor Kollmorgen on 2.7.08 – (NLM)
http://thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com/2008/07/update-on-transalpine-redemptorists.html
[Auf Deutsch:
Vatikan
Der Traditionalisten-Orden der „Transalpinen Redemptoristen” sucht die Aussöhnung mit dem Papst. Bislang hätten sich drei Priester der schismatischen Vereinigung an Rom gewandt und nach mehreren Gesprächen eine Aufhebung ihrer Kirchenstrafen erhalten, bestätigte die zuständige vatikanische Kommission „Ecclesia Dei” am Mittwoch auf Anfrage. Damit sei allerdings nicht die Gemeinschaft als solche zurückgekehrt. Es handle sich nur um einen „ersten Schritt” eines längeren Verhandlungsweges, hieß es im Vatikan. Ziel des Ordens sei, eine päpstliche Anerkennung der etwa 20 Mitglieder zählenden Einrichtung zu erreichen. Die „Transalpinen Redemptoristen” haben seit 1999 ihren Hauptsitz auf der schottischen Insel Papa Stronsay, die zu den Orkneys gehört. Sie sind mit der „Priesterbruderschaft St. Pius X.” verbunden, einer Gründung des exkommunizierten Traditionalisten-Erzbischofs Marcel Lefebvre (1905-1991). (kna) ]
Are you deliberately attempting to scuttle the efforts of the Holy Father or were you collectively appointed “bad cop” to the Pope’s “good cop”?
I realise it is prolly just my arrogance at work but I think the Pope is trying to get the sspx to fish or cut bait and the SSPX is quibbling about the condition of the dock and whether or not it ought be painted.
I think the response of the SSPX to the minimalist conditions proposed by the Pope indicates the gap twixt The Church and the sspx is galactic sized and it is unjustified to think that what has, so far, transpired is an indication of a move towards reconciliation.
But, it is merely a personal opinion;although, there is a tradition that those of Irish-Algonquin extraction are born with a preternatural inclination to afflatus.
Jes saying…
The response of the SSPX to the conditions has pleased Cardinal Castrillon. Do try to get with the programme.
Calleva – SSPX could surely be like Opus Dei and any religious order that has its own buildings, schools, etc.
Or any other order, for that matter. Nothing new. Jesuits have for centuries been a “church within a church”. And yet they still “grace” the church with their ubiquitous presence. And they too were disbanded at one point in history, then reinstated. So, there’s a definite parallel here.
Father Martin – Last night, I offered Mass for the Unity of Christians, and my intention was the Holy Father’s efforts toward the Orthodox and the SSPX.
Bless you for your efforts. I end my nightly prayers with a request for the restoration of the Tridentine liturgy and the reunification of the true churches of the councils. The former seems to be bearing fruit. If the latter occurs within my lifetime, I will indeed be one happy camper, to say the least.
Spartacus, Spartacus, Spartacus…. : )
Will the FSSPX have to be given status as a personal prelature? After all, what are bishops going to do with them?
“Finegan, what are the problems of the post Vatican II era that haven’t been acknowledged?”
Part of this issue relates to the fact that the current Vatican officials do not recognize some critical issues as real problems. Examples: their growing acceptance of religious liberty, ecumenism with non-Catholic faiths, failure to crack down on liturgical abuses (i.e., Cardinal Mahony), etc.
I know it sounds strange to some of you who hail the positive developments out of the Vatican, but there are many of us in the traditional Catholic community who still think there are major differences that must be resolved before any “regularization” can take place. Yes, by all means, let’s agree to be charitable and eliminate the destructive rhetoric coming from all sides. But we cannot ignore the fact that Novus Ordo and traditional Catholics often have very different views on the modern church, and what our faith really means.
As far as supporting the Church “from within,” I’d simply say: we never left it! We can debate all day long about the effectiveness of working from within the “approved” structure of the church, but please accept the fact that those of us enduring the pains of an “irregular status” HAVE had a major influence on the ongoing reform of the reform. Incredibly, some people on this forum refuse to acknowledge that fact!
I’m sure I’ll be harshly criticized for standing by my position, but I feel one must have the courage of their convictions. I truly hope and pray for improved relations between the SSPX and Rome, but please, let’s exercise due diligence and make it a real, meaningful agreement — not a hastily approved deal based on political expediency.
Fellay is walking a tightrope. As a bishop, he is responsible not only for the fate of his own soul, but for all those whose spiritual father he is. Within the SSPX he has at least dozens of priests and perhaps one fellow bishop who would not follow him were he to move back to the Church too precipitously. He cannot abandon them. At the same time, he must act quickly, while the opportunity presents itself, to reconcile. Who knows how long this papacy will last?
One thing I think people miss is that Fellay may have participated in the issuance of the ultimatum itself. In other words, he set a small obstacle to get the SSPX to turn a little bit away from it’s previous path. It’s always been the official position of the SSPX that they do not present an “alternative magisterium” or competing church. Treating the Holy Father with charity, well, some will have difficulty with that, but it’s so obviously a requirement for any Catholic that it must be agreed to. The time limit is the key one. It requires that the SSPX make up it’s mind whether it really wants to reconcile.
The trick is to get the members that haven’t hardened into a polemical position to start down the correct path. Too large a step and Fellay will find himself without followers. So small steps mus be presented.
Castrillon:”Treat the Pope with respect”
SSPX: “Of course we will, but what do you mean exactly by that? What are we committing ourselves to?”
Castrillion:”No attacking his orthodoxy or good intention.”
SSPX:”Of course we will never attack the person of the Holy Father, but we do reserve the right to critique his statements.”
Castrillon:”Disagreements and critiques are one thing, but no polemics and keep it out of the papers”
And so on, each step is one that any reasonable Catholic could make. After a few years trust begins to build and real progress can start.
Regarding “factions” within SSPX…There are surely more factions within the Vatican itself than there are within SSPX. Fellay being diplomatic and Williamson using polemics doesn’t qualify as factions. Within the Vatican and the college of bishops worldwide, there is a range from those who absolutely hate the traditional mass and doctrine regarding faith, morals, and liturgy to those who believe just about like SSPX regarding the big problems with the new liturgy (including the pope himself!) and who of course hold to historic Catholic doctrine regarding faith and morals.
It is the Vatican who has to worry about “factions” There is a good chance that Rome leaked this initially to show the liberals that they are forcing SSPX to grovel, so to speak, while at the same time, giving assurances to conservatives that thinngs are going well. Probably there is some of this on both sides.
Finegan, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but I simply don’t buy the “when the going gets tough, the tough get schismatic” argument (kudos to Spartacus for this line, which I am happy to cite : ) In my book, someone who “cuts and runs” is a coward and a traitor. However you have rationalised it in your mind, you have to face one fact: you are no more or less guilty than anyone else who has left the church; Luther, Malingo, Hitler etc. All had their own reasons, as did you. And all felt their reasons sound, as do you. And all will be held accountable for their actions on judgement day. As will you.
“In my book, someone who “cuts and runs” is a coward and a traitor.”
Pretty strong words. But then again, it’s a lot easier to go with the flow — even as you help bail water out of a sinking ship. Isn’t it better to swim for shore, grab some wood, and come back and repair the ship? Some might view that as “cutting and running;” others might see it as recognizing a problem, and choosing to be part of the solution.
You’ve made a lot of very cutting remarks about cowardice, joining the protestants, etc. With this kind of “charity,” is it any wonder many traditionalists wonder what kind of reception we’ll receive once “regularized.”
I’ve stated my position in good faith, without personal malice expressed towards the majority on this board who no doubt disagree with me. Why can’t you return the favor?
Less than two years ago the SSPX offered a 2million Rosary Bouquet to the Holy Father for his intention of freeing the Traditional Mass. Now thats what I call charity.
So who/what started this fight and when?
Habemus,
I always thought the 2 million rosary thing was kind of odd.
I imagine it went something like this:
“Your Holiness we got you this great gift…2 million rosaries!”
“Wow, thank you! Does this mean you’ll obey me now and come home?”
“No, we won’t obey you or anything, but hey, 2 million rosaries. Pretty cool, huh?”
“Whatever.”
Might not this also apply to posters in this forum? What does it matter who started this? Let’s end it, shall we?
Patrick: Take a nap man. You sound hysterical.
Finegtan it’s a lot easier to go with the flow—even as you help bail water out of a sinking ship.
The Barc of Peter is not sinking. Were that the case, the gospels would be in error, which they of course are not. I’m not going to dignify the rest of your analogy, other than to say you are dilluding yourself if you believe you are “part of the solution”. You are at best a spectator, and at worst a road-block to any real solution until you are back within the church.
You’ve made a lot of very cutting remarks about cowardice, joining the protestants, etc. With this kind of “charity,” is it any wonder many traditionalists wonder what kind of reception we’ll receive once “regularized.”
On that I take extreme umbrage in that I am a hard-core traditonalist. And there is nothing more un-traditonal than turning your back and being disloyal tio the magesterium. So, you don’t get to use that term. Let’s call a spade a spade and substitute the word “schismatic” for the purpose of the conversation.
I’ve stated my position in good faith, without personal malice expressed towards the majority on this board who no doubt disagree with me. Why can’t you return the favor?
I bear you no malice. I pitty you, as I do all who have thumbed their nose at the church God crated for us. I thank God daily for this gift, and wish everyone to receive it. But you cannot expect a warm-and-fuzzy “awe. Well, your’e just doing what you think is right. It’s all the same in the end, isn’t it?” from a traditionalist, such as myself. You can’t have it both ways.
Habemus,
If by “hysterical” you mean funny, then right on.
It is a funny idea for a scene. Come on, don’t you sometimes get your wife, what you think is the perfect gift, only to find out later, there is a profoundly better gift that you could have given? No offense intended.
“No, we won’t obey you or anything, but hey, 2 million rosaries. Pretty cool, huh?”
For the love Pete, do you really believe the Holy Father would be undertaking this effort if he didn’t think the SSPX had some redeeming qualities?
finegan,
Joke. Lighten the mood, etc.
Of course they have value, that’s why they’re working so hard to bring them home.
“Let’s call a spade a spade and substitute the word “schismatic” for the purpose of the conversation.”
Okay, Deusdonat, you win. You’ve succeeded in driving off another SSPX supporter who wanted nothing more than to explain his position and seek some common ground. According to your logic, there’s really no point in all the effort the Pope is making to arrive at an agreement with the SSPX. Why should Father Z offer all of his Masses and prayers for this cause? We (those sympathetic to the SSPX) are just horrible, schismatic monsters who’ve contributed nothing to the restoration of the faith and Mass. Nothing at all.
Only one question: Are you still going to hate us when Pope Benedict announces a fair and equitable agreement with Bishop Fellay? How are you ever going to reconcile all of your anger when (not if) this occurs? No, I don’t pity you — I pray for you, and I hope one day you’ll soften your heart and pray for us, too.
Finegan the Holy Father is undertaking this effort because HE IS JUST THAT! Regardless of your lot’s view of him, he is the Vicar of Christ and it is his duty to “preach to all who will listen”, even if he has to suffer disobedience in the name of Christ.
I attended SSPX chapels almost exclusively for about 10 years–over the last three years I started to pull away from the ideas that the Vatican II documents contain errors and that the ordinary form is intrinsically evil, and just recently made a final break with my local SSPX parish. Now I’d say I’m fully on board with the reform of the reform and “hermeneutic of continuity” outlook. I really hope and pray that these current negotiations bear much fruit, and that the SSPX is fully reconciled.
I’ve stated my position, and tried to seek some consensus. This forum illustrates the formidable issues faced by the Church, and why only God can solve them. I came here to have an open and charitable discussion, and ended up being compared to Hitler.
I see no benefit in continuing this discussion, if the only outcome will be greater distrust and acrimony.
Take heart, finegan. Deusdonat and his chums will be eating crow soon enough. I think you were treated shamefully.
Isn’t it better to swim for shore, grab some wood, and come back and repair the ship?
Is it never permissible to abandon the Barque of Peter. It is The Ark of our Salvation for Heaven’s sake.
Some might view that as “cutting and running;” others might see it as recognizing a problem, and choosing to be part of the solution.
Heaven forfend a schism ever be thought a solution.
With all due respect, from the get-go, the schism has trafficked in dishonesty deception and duplicity.
In his Sermon on the day of infamy, Mons. Lefevbre was either boldly dishonest or of such incompetence as to not be culpable (my position – as if that means anything) for his actions.
He began by opposing the interpretation of Canon Law accrd to The Legislator – The Pope – and even provided to his listeners tendentious and false propagandistic pamphlets attempting to defend his perfidy.
He referenced – without naming it – the Encyclical AD APOSTOLORUM PRINCIPIS by Pope Pius XII and intimated it applied solely to the Bishop of China and not him when, it fact, it expressly states it is applicable to every one every where.
We mean that discipline which has been established not only for China and the regions recently enlightened by the light of the Gospel, but for the whole Church, a discipline which takes its sanction from that universal and supreme power of caring for, ruling, and governing which our Lord granted to the successors in the office of St. Peter the Apostle.
Mons. Lefevbre claimed he was trying to call Rome back to the attitudes of, among others, Pope Pius XII, immediately after he had issued an absolutely false intpretation of one of Pope Pius XII’s Encyclicals.
Madness.
He then places before his listeners an explication of the apparition of Our Lady of “Buen Suceso, and then says the prophecy does not refer to him (such modesty) but he knows his listeners will make the right connection between the prophecy and his actions as he gives them permission to draw their own conclusions. (How could they conclude otherwise having been so clearly manipulated?).
And he references the condemned putative part of Our Lady of LaSalette message that Rome will lose the Faith.
Of course it is true that was what MARTIN LUTHER said. Not Mary. To believe that Jesus would let Satan gain control of the Church is to surrender to the idea the promises of Jesus have failed.
However, for the sake of argument, even IF the Pope were an antiChist you’d still be under his authority.
And so, as any Institution can be said to be the ever-lengthening shadow of its progenitor, we can see the very same, ahem, errors sown by Mons. Lefevbre on that day of infamy have grown into entire impenetrable forests some of whose trees have been cut down to serve as material to erect a petit ecclesia in opposition to Divinely-Constituted authority and from these petit ecclesiae come petty propaganda ceaselessly repeating the errors sown that day by the malign actions of a willful Mons. Lefevbfre.
With a twenty year public track record such as the sspx has established and when that public track record includes not a single public repudiation of the, ahem, errors upon which the schism was erected, I truly wonder why so many think a reconciliation is imminent, to say nothing about even being possible.
As things stand now, Siamese Twin Girls, named Miko and Kiko, will be elected Pope before any reconciliation twixt Rome and the SSPX will be accomplished.
FWIW, here is the Sermon on the day of ecclesiological infamy…
http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/appendix_v_1988_consecration_sermon.htm
Um…how will be “eating crow”? The best thing that can happen is if the SSPX rejoin the church in respect and humility. The only way I would be “eating crow” would be if the gospels or oru blessed Pope Benedict were to some how be invalidated. I don’t follow your logic (if there is any).
I hope finegan and any other SSPX supporters who may be lurking here won’t be put off by an internet forum. We do sometimes sound passionate but IMO it’s because we really want unity and for all orthodox Catholics to work together to rid the church of modernist tendencies, shoddy catechetics and liturgical abuses, etc.
That there are people of goodwill from the SSPX side, such as finegan and Marie, is very uplifting and encouraging. OK, we’ve a way to go, but dare one hope that we are getting there?
Fr Fox: IKEA is a very useful retail chain selling self-assembly Scandanavian furniture; stylish and low-priced, it’s enormously popular in Europe and here in the UK.
Right! I’m off to Saxony very early tomorrow morning for a week’s break in the home of Bach and Luther. In the afternoon we will be at Wittenberg, home of the famous ‘door’ which we will inspect. Not at all a bad place to pray for unity, and a ‘coming home to Rome’. God bless!
This entire discussion about the SSPX status, with its finger-pointing and hard feelings, has become an occasion of sin. I haven’t changed your views, and you haven’t changed mine. All any of us can do is pray for an outcome in accordance with God’s plan.
I will have nothing more to add.
Finegan,
I appreciated your contribution. I apologize that you were treated with such venom and rancor. I understand your position, but wasn’t the irregular status always a result of necessity? Something that the SSPX was forced to do by way of circumstances, not a desired end in itself? It seems to me we’re seeing separation and irregularity becoming a good for its own sake, which is very dangerous.
For example, the SSPX was originally founded as a canonically regular society. This was in the 1970s! Certainly there was a vast crisis in the church then. But there was no desire for irregularity.
It was only because of persecution, and the suppression of the Mass, that the SSPX branched out.
I take it that the SSPX thought that its suppression was unlawful, that it was wrong to suppress the Traditional Mass and for there to be modernism everywhere, that people had a right to receive the traditional faith and sacraments, etc. If noone was going to provide them, than the SSPX, like St. Athansius, would step in the hole and fill the breach.
Persecution and a state of necessity for the welfare of the faithful caused the SSPX to perhaps disregard the niceties of canon law. The salvation of souls came before legal obstacles that would lead souls to hell.
Similarly, there were orthodox parish priest who were persecuted and became independent priests in chapels because they didn’t want to abandon their flocks, etc. Others obeyed and were sent off for psychiatric evolution or some distant chapel in a cemetery crypt, etc. Force of circumstances led to irregular circumstances.
I can understand that, even as there is hearty disagreement about it!
But now the situation is different. Where is the necessity for being irregular in order to work the salvation of souls? Canonical regularity is being offered to the SSPX without conditions. It’d be like if a new bishop decided to make reparation to the independent priest by regularizing his parish? How he refuse the justice being given to him?
To disobey something sinful has to be commanded. What’s the sinful requirement here that’s keeping the SSPX from being regularized? I might understand if they were being told to destroy their apostolate or something, but as far as were know there are no conditions except those vague presuppositions. I can understand suspicion, but that isn’t enough for preferring the odd situation one finds onself in!
Do you understand my view? It seems to me that a regularized SSPX would have everything it has now, and much more. I don’t see anywhere that the SSPX has to celebrate the New Mass, stop its criticism, etc.
The idea that we don’t want to be in communion in Rome because there are modernists in “communion” with Rome that we wish were excommunicated is not a good argument against the Papal primacy. How long was Luther around before he was condemned?
Anyhow, I’ll stop, but your thoughts were very much valued.
‘The caption on this tract, “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of Antichrist,” is actually by Martin Luther, and was developed at great length by one of his first disciples, Flacius Illyricus, in his “Centuries of Magdeburg.” This preposterous theory was ably refuted by St. Peter Canisius, Baronius, and others.
http://jloughnan.tripod.com/salquote.htm
And now I am turning-off the computer. It is no fun to have to repeatedly raise and refute these lies but such lies are alive and well inside the schism and they must be repudiated before any reconciliation will occur.
Oh, and for those who think a reconciliation will occur absent an apology and repudiation of errors, recall that on that day of Infamy, Mons. Lefevbrfe complained that a repudiation of his errors had been requested via Cardinal Ratzinger.
Only magical thinking entertains the idea of an apology-error repudiation-free reconciliation.
Good night
On occasion, I’m tempted to regret that dueling is an excommunicable offense… Thanks for the light Finegan, I’m sorry all you met was heat!
Breier:
You sound like a very classy and intelligent person. You make some excellent points, and I’d like to discuss them with you, but I’m afraid this would only lead to more head-butting (just look at some of the most recent posts).
No, sadly, it’s gotten to the point on the Web where SSPX supporters have to keep to their own forums, and SSPX critics have to keep to theirs. There’s just not enough good will to keep mixed conversations civil. The fact is, people like yourself, who can see both sides of the issue, will lose out on the opportunity for an intelligent exchange of opinions.
As I indicated before, I really need to break off from this thread. I have nothing more to contribute. Adios…and God bless you.
Finegan,
Thanks for your witness.
I hope and pray that all my SSPX friends will come into full communion with Rome. They have beautiful families, great children, and a reverence for the Liturgy. That some are confused is primarily the fault of an inconsistency from the pulpit, within the order. I have witnessed this .myself, with some priests in our area even telling their congregations that if they are traveling and not near an SSPX church, the people are NOT to go to the n.o., as the n.o. is not valid. I have also personally witnessed, sadly, a bitter invective against the Pope and the Roman Church by Bishop Williamson AT CHRISTMAS MIDNIGHT MASS. We went to attend one Trad Mass for Christmas, as our n.o. priest was making things up in the rubrics of the Mass. However, some of my friends, regulars, apologized for the so-called homily after Mass. Many people were embarrassed for the children there and for guests, such as myself. The speech was not only highly inappropriate, but extremely uncharitable.
I think the SSPX will split, with some following the hard-line position of Williamson, and some accepting the “terms” as reasonable and long-awaited.
Again, let us be charitable and pray for reconciliation.
I can understand why the SSPX bashers here are bitter. After all, the SSPX will end up with four bishops in the process and are unappreciative about it. But then as the parable goes, the last shall be first and the first last.
I agree with Supertradmom – there won’t be 4 bishops even if everything else goes swimmingly. Does anyone really believe Bishop Williamson will submit?
I too was privileged to hear a homily/speech by Williamson once. Pretty jaw-dropping in its open invective, along with a glowing reference to what he calls The Protocols of The Sages of Sion. Followed by some regret for the tone expressed by those who brought me and their friends, and some fawning adulation by a few others who were regulars.
Deusdonat,
When you examine your conscience this evening you many want to review the following:
The 3 Theological Virtues, the 4 Cardinal Virtues, the 7 Gifts of the Holy Spirit, the 12 Fruits of the Holy Spirit, the Spiritual Works of Mercy, The 8 Beatitudes, the 7 Deadly Sins & their Contrary Virtues.
It may serve you well to focus and reflect these: Charity, Temperance, Patience, Benignity, Mildness, Giving Comfort the Afflicted, Humility, and Brotherly Love.
Ora pro nobis
MARK – thank you for the advice. And I will point you towards the same. We could all use a bit of reflection, can’t we?
Supertradmom – The experience you stated sent a chill down my spine, as I had experienced something very similar. Back in 1986, I was taken to an SSPX church/chapel (before the excommunications). Although I was pretty young at the time, I remember vividly how the priest went into a firey rant, saying how the Catholic parish 2 blocks away would “burn in hell”, pointing to them for emphasis. He then calmed down and said in a quieter tone, “will they be in hell?” then shrugged. I sincerely felt, “this is not my church.” It was as if the priest and many of the people wagging their heads to his vitriol had gone mad. I had seen this same madness on the other end of the spectrum time and time again. It was very uncomfortable.
Anyway, to those here who have judged me uncharitable, a big-meanie etc, for defending the church, our Holy Father (may God bless him and grant him 100 years) and Catholic dogma, I will bid a very pleasant evening. And as always, I will be praying for a speedy end to the madness.
I want to add my voice as someone who was shocked by the venom directed toward Finegan.
Thank you, Mark, for reminding us of what really matters in our day to day acts.
And I am sorry, Finegan, that you and your desires have been treated so poorly by the Church’s shepherds that you had to seek refuge among the SSPX. That prelates and priests have behaved so poorly is a great scandal for the Church. I hope and pray there there may be reconciliation and fraternal love as soon as can be.
And pseudo-Spartacus et al., slow down fellows. Every time you post I have more and more sympathy of the SSPX.
My 2 cents, if they are worth anything: about the time of the SSPX excommunications, there was appointed to our parish a homosexual priest who ranted about the fact the the pope would not tell him what to do and that he owed his allegiance to the bishop alone. He stated that there was no hell, that the words of consecration were optional, that nobody would correct him on how he celebrated Mass, that the church next door was as good an option as his present assignment. His first homily was short he said (verbatim) “Hello, I am Fr. *****. I have come here to change things and I promise you this: Half of you will like me and the other half won’t and one year from today almost 1/3 of you will be gone. Some will go to our protestant neighbors and others will find homes elsewhere. Thank you.” After a couple of months, I wrote to the bishop stating my concerns about this priest’s orthodoxy. The priest confronted my family, pulled out my letter and the bishop’s accompanying letter. It had been “corrected?” in red ink and the bishop’s letter stated he backed the pastor. As the pastor handed us a copy of the bishop’s letter he TOLD us that we were no longer welcomed in our own parish (my family was one of the founding families) since we were so uncharitable and that perhaps another Catholic parish might accept us. We were admonished not to be flaunting the bishop’s letter since it was private correspondence.
Well, the bishop got promoted and we got the boot and the word went around the deanery who we were and what pastors should expect from us. I wrote to the nuncio in DC but was told to make amends with the bishop and gave up from there.
BUT, we did find a good conservative parish that did preach the gospel and did not monkey around with the rubrics of the Mass; a pastor who was gracious, loving and charitable. It was a SSPX chapel. The only “Catholic” church that would take a family of 11. Any regrets? Nope. The modern church “excommunicated” us for pointing out irregularities and for not going with the spirit of VII. We were shown no “Charity, Temperance, Patience, Benignity, Mildness, Giving Comfort the Afflicted, Humility, and Brotherly Love” by the NO bishop nor his priests.
I am happy to say I have a grandson with the FSSP and another with the SSPX, and a daughter in a Traditional convent. All of my family (71 grandchildren) has somehow kept the faith and feel equally at home at an Indult parish Mass and at a SSPX Mass. If you hear that there is much rancor between the priests of the FSSP and the SSPX don’t put much stock in it. You’ll find crackpots in the SSPX, the FSSP and many in NO parishes. Is it time to regularize the situation? Yes, it is and it will be done in a charitable way and the Holy Father will embrace the SSPX bishops as brothers–without rancor or accusations. I might add that both my grandsons received a blessing from Benedict XVI during an audience (and the Holy Father knew the one is a priest with the SSPX). If the Holy Father can be so full of grace and love how can we be any different?
Is my story that unique? I am sorry to say it probably is not. How many families have been shattered and how much vitriol spewed just so that one side can say I am right and you are wrong. Besides, I don’t remember Jesus only going out looking for just one kind of lost lamb. If Jesus doesn’t care why should we?
My 2 cents, if they are worth anything
Two cents my eye, that was a ten dollar post, and worth every penny. Thank you for that post, I can’t begin to explain how important it was for me to see that right now.
rljfp,
No, it is not. In fact, I could second it with a very close account, but I won’t because I don’t write nearly as well as you do and my prose would only undermine your message rather than reinforce it.
Each time I read yet another such account of a
which I have also heard personally, it only puzzles me even further regarding what such priests think, and how they can carry on with their lives while facing such a logical inconsistency, that is, to be Roman Catholic priests while proclaiming such things. It is truly incomprehensible to me.
The above comment by rljfp is spot on. The majority of posters on this blog were not born or were very young during the height of the Pew Wars — and so did not experience first hand and up close the spiritual horrors of the modernist mindset.
I sympathize with the SSPX bishops if they and a some of their parishioners have a touch of post traumatic spiritual stress syndrome and while I believe it is time for traditional Catholics like rljfp who heroically lived their Faith to come in from the cold — I am very glad not to be Bp Fellay.
rljfp,
Amen. Thank God for Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Thank God for the Traditional Latin Mass. Thank God for the SSPX and the FSSP.
I just read this article:
http://www.lemonde.fr/opinions/article/2008/07/02/le-pape-benoit-xvi-et-ses-integristes-par-henri-tincq_1065385_3232.html
in the daily \”Le Monde\”, which, as gross approximation, can be said to be the French equivalent of the NYT.
Just in order to summarize the background here: Henri Tincq is one of the \”reference\” religious journalists in French — and more generally, across the Francophone world. He is a \”progressist\” and as such is in charge of regular religious columns in Le Monde but also in other publications such as La Croix.
Of course, he is very friendly to the secularist elite, who in turns is also quite friendly to him indeed. In particular, he has been awarded the \”Légion d\’Honneur\” a few years ago, the highest distinction of the French republic. His point of view, since several decades, has been in symbiosis with that of the mainstream French, Francophone Swiss, and Belgian bishops, and as such, it is really instructive. Ecône, as everyone here knows I\’m sure, is located in Francophone Switzerland.
I found this article very interesting, even though it is hateful diatribe against the Holy Father, Monseigneur Lefebvre, and of course the FSSPX Bishops by association. Very interesting, because:
1. it should illustrate to the youngest here, who have not known the \”Pew Wars\” (excellent expression, Nick), how hateful the \”tolerant\” modernist elite can be, and why there are some real reasons for Bp. Fellay to act with great prudence. Remember, the tiny (500 priests?) FSSPX does not have good lawyers, and as Mr Tincq illustrates so well, their enemies will use anything, including blatant lies (for instance, inducing the uninformed reader that Msgr. Lefebvre would have deemed VII heretic);
2. it will demonstrate the logical inconsistency so prevalent amongst those who rabidly chastize the FSSPX for being disobedient, but yet shamelessly write derogatory comments against a Holy Father who is not willing to implement the Sandalista\’s agenda.
Although I encourage anyone who understands French to read the original, I am providing my own translation here (with the assumption that Fr. Z will simply delete my post if the resulting text is too long). I did my best to try to preserve the outraged tone, and I had to bite my tong when translating the blatant lies (like the 0.1%… very similar to what we hear in the US). So, fasten your seat belts, here is the text:
=====
The pope Benedict XVI and his integralists [intégristes], by Henri Tincq
Le Monde, July 2, 2008
Twenty years ago, on June 30 1988, Marcel Lefebvre, a narrow-minded disobedient French bishop, flouted the authority of pope John Paul II. In his seminary of Écône, Switzerland, bastion of catholic integralism, he consecrated four bishops to ensure the posterity of the \”tradition\” against the \”heretic\” council Vatican II. Years of negotiation with the Roman Curia (especially Josef Ratzinger) or with \”friends\” such as the philosopher Jean Guitton were anihilated.
It was sunny, that morning, in Ecône. The holy oil was shining on the foreheads of the young prelates. The faithfuls were kneeling in front of their crosiers and were kissing their rings. At the same time, a decree fulminated by Rome excommunicated Mgr Lefebvre (dead in 1991) and these new bishops become \”schismatics\”.
Two decades later, and despite the successive failures of \”reconciliation\” attempts conducted by John Paul II and especially by Benedict XVI, traditionalism, if it has not yet won in the texts, has won in the heads. Those who had confused — and they then were numerous — this episode of the consecrations in Ecône, twenty years ago, with the expression of an obsolete folklore promised to the dustbins of history, of an enraptured nostalgia for incense, cassock and the Latin mass, were mistaken.
The \”tradis\” are still here. Mostly French at its beginnings — because of the nationality of Mgr Lefebvre and of the tensions in France surrounding the modern liturgy — the phenomenon has become globalized. The boundary is becoming increasingly porous, with manifestations of faith and devotion encouraged by a Benedict XVI, a young clergy, and some communities labeled \”new\” which advocate for a return to the tradition as a mode of resistance against modern secularization.
The seminaries of the Fraternité saint Pie X, hard kernel of the schism, have spread in Germany, Australia, United States in Minnesota, Latin America. The generations of priests (almost 500) which they produce and of faithful (600,000 according to the Vatican), heirs of this dissidence, have reproduced. They have settled in more than thirty countries. Typically European, this model of an authoritarian, intransigent, anti-oecumenical, and anti-modern Church, dominated by the figure of the priest in charge of the sacred, has exported itself. It is, for the traditionalists, the guarantor of this part of mystery, of emotion and of beauty that is proper to every tradition and that the \”new mass\” would have sacrificed. In an shattered world, Latin would retrieve its universal language status, while the borrowings to cultural traditions, in India or Africa, would be pushing towards \”tradition\” the faithfuls attached to a unique liturgy and catechism.
The traditionalists found an ally in the German pope. The faithfuls are surprised by the audacity taken by Benedict XVI with respect to liturgical matters, against an entire evolution recorded since Vatican II. The master of ceremonies of John Paul II was replaced. Benedict XVI has reestablished the gold-edged crimson throne of the pre-conciliar popes, renounced the \”pastoral stick\” of his predecessors, symbol of a more humble Church, and uncovered the greek cross-shaped \”ferule\” of the most reactionary pope of the XIXth century (Pius IX). He restored the use of administering communion kneeling and in the mouth, \”intended to become the habitual practice of pontifical celebrations\”, as was declared in L\’Osservatore romano by Mgr Guido Marini, his master of ceremonies. France risks being astounded during the visit of Benedict XVI next September.
THE ROME OF THE XIXTH CENTURY
One year later, the motu proprio (papal decree) of July 2007, freeing the use of the ancient rite in Latin has indeed not unchained the passions. In France, the rally to the \”ancient mass\” would be concerning only… 0.1% of the faithfuls. The number of parishes where it is celebrated has increased of only 40 in a year, adding to the 132 that were already proposing it. But the traditionalists have not abandoned their war of attrition against the \”modernist\” bishops, priests, and Curia. They have rejected the agreement protocol proposed by Rome with the aim of resolving the schism, which was only asking them to commit to respect the authority and person of the pope. Victim of an endless escalation game, Benedict XVI is summoned to lift the excommunications of June 1988 and to attribute a custom-made status of \”nullius prelature\” to the traditionalist priests, which would offer them the double benefit of being recognized by Rome while remaining independent from the bishops.
Can Benedict XVI go that far? Would he really be this pope who would never have managed to free himself from his Bavarian model where the mass, the family, the angelus of the countryside and the music of the cities where are the center of everyday life? From his past of a theologian scared by the magnitude of the drifts that followed the latest council, by the \”nihilism\” of May 1968, and by the inexorable rise of \”relativism\” of mores and ideas, religious ideas included? One has a hard time thinking that this philosopher, who dialogued with prominent figures of the secularist thought (Florès d\’Arçais in Italy, Habermas in Germany), who mended fences with Hans Küng, his former theologian colleague become his best enemy, who prayed in a mosque (Istanbul), who visited synagogs, who wrote modern-toned encyclicals on love and hope, could tomorrow open the door to the schismatics of 1988 braced to the Rome of the XIXth century. The one which was fighting the ideas of freedom and human rights, which was the bastion of the most rigid dogma, the citadel of the sole legitimate Catholic faith, hostile to any dialogue with separated Christians and with non-Christian religions.
His taste for the traditional liturgy was known, and those who are scandalized by it should reread the books he dedicated to it. Moreover his papal mission, guardian of unity, his forcing him to resume negotiating with the traditionalists, negotiations in which, while in charge of the doctrine in Rome, he had put the price twenty years ago, but whose rupture he still lives today as a personal failure. In all religions, liturgy is always the expression of a faith. It cannot be dissociated from doctrine. Nonetheless, the direction was set, more than four decades ago, during Vatican II, maintained by Paul VI et John Paul II. Today, some neoconservatism reigns in Rome, encouraged less by the pope than by groups who never relinquished the authoritarian and narrow-minded Church of Yesterday. The return to a traditional liturgy, the reintegration of the schismatics risk be done at the cost of browsing forty years old gains.This would be the triumph of Mgr Lefebvre.
=======
Don\’t you love that? [I don’t like these long cut and paste comments. – Fr. Z]
All the clichés are there. But methinks that such a prose reveals great panick amongst Mr Tincq and his ilk,
Dear Father Z:
Please accept my apologies. I realize my post above is quite long.
Persecution and a state of necessity for the welfare of the faithful caused the SSPX to perhaps disregard the niceties of canon law. The salvation of souls came before legal obstacles that would lead souls to hell.
Brier. If you can concede the propriety of a schism, against the 2000+ years history of Orthopraxic Tradition, then what is it you can not concede?
The idea any schism, let alone this one, is justifiable is absolutely indefensible.
You appear to be writing that were it not for the schism, the Catholic Church, in following Canon Law, was leading souls to hell.
That is, flat-out, as bad as any idea I have ever read.
Fr. Finnegan, who has a great website, is right when he observes the great chasm separating the Church and the sspx. However,the need to maintain different websites is just one, of the many, realities existing which inform all of us as to the true nature of the sspx.
It exists apart from the Church and as it supporters continue to try and justify schism one can easily recognise there will be no reconciliation.
And souls will be lost and the loss of souls can not be attributed to The Ark of Salvation.
It is indeed sad beyond telling that the schism appears to show no signs of a desire for a reconciliation.
“More time”
Having just turned thirty I`m beginning to wonder if I`ll ever see reconciliation
happen in my lifetime. I`m happy about the return of the Transalpine Redemptorists and
I suppose the way forward is bringing on board bits and bobs of the SSPX and its
aligned movements rather than the seemingly un/not very repentant SSPX itself.
I think it’s an illusion to hope for ‘corporate’ reunion as Williamson and Tissier
de Mallerais have nothing to gain and much to lose. It is extremely unlikely that
in the event of reconciliation Williamson’s episcopal orders will not be canonical
ly surpressed.
No amount of repetition seems to convince people here that the SSPX will never ally itself with modern Rome. It may from time to time state its unchanging position to Vatican officials whose raison d’etre is to have a jolly ecumenical party but things will not change until Rome divests herself of her conciliar mentality. In other words, Vatican 2 must be revised and the Novus Ordo removed. Otherwise things will stay the same.
RBROWN, I applaud you on your Italian translation. Just a minor point: “cercare di…” inmodern Italian means “try to (do something)”. I believe this was what the author is saying: they are trying to adhere to the five points.
con i saluti più cari
Comment by Deusdonat
Wrong Brown–JRBrown did the translation.
The idea any schism, let alone this one, is justifiable is absolutely indefensible.
Comment by I am not Spartacus
You’re right it is indefensible. But so was the Protestantization of the Church by Paul VI–and the concomitant persecution of those (not just the SSPX) who opposed the policies.
Spartacus,
I did nothing of the sort. It’s pretty clear my post is an attempt to understand adn express the view of the person I was speaking with, not an attempt to express my own
thoughts viz a viz resistance in the 1970s. That’s something that would be helpful to you. This, a time of reconciliation, is not the time and place for polemic.
I understand your position, but wasn’t the irregular status always a result of necessity? Something that the SSPX was forced to do by way of circumstances, not a desired end in itself?
Brier. I really do not know what you mean or in whose name you are writing because I am sure you know that BEFORE the attempted consecrations, the Pope, in warning Lefevbre not to do what he intended, made it clear his assertion of “necessity” was nugatory.
And there is the Tradition cited in the Encyclical by Pope Pius XII I have recently posted.
I do know that since these recent negotiations have begun it has been Fr. Fellay who has publicly acted unjustly and engaged in polemics. It is he who went out of his way to criticise the Pope when he visited America and it was Fr. Fellay who called the Pope a perfect liberal. And now I am to think the idea the schism will “heed” the five conditions amount to anything more substantial than, as Raymond Chandler wrote in describing something numinous, “like a thought trying to form itself on the edge of consciousness.”
Like many of its ideas, the idea about how to act during a negotiation is unique to the schism. They want their schism and communion too.
BTW, the reality of Pope Benedict puts the lie to any assertion by the schism that one could not remain in Communion with the Church and yet retain a traditional approach to the Faith.
Pierre Hountet: Thank for that perspective which brings home the realities of Bishop Fellays extremely difficult position as much as the fact that the European dimension which is sadly lacking from many US based commentaries. “France risks being astounded during the visit of Benedict XVI next September”. A reference to H.H. pilgrimage to Lourdes on 14th September. Interesting.
Not once, in twenty years, has either Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict spoke disparagingly about Fr. Fellay yet over the past twenty years he has made nasty and repeated personal attacks against Our Sweet Jesus on Earth.
And the execrable and savage attacks by Mons. Lefevbre against Pope John Paul II are infamously vile and equal to any vulgarity Luther directed against the Vicar of Christ.
I know the Popes are willing to suffer scorn and abuse to be heaped upon them by this venomous schism but they will only do so, in my opinion, if there is a chance of a reconciliation and the words and deeds of Fr. Fellay are, so far, indicative of a continuing inertia away from, not towards, reconciliation.
Only magical thinking, dismissive of all objective observation, can conclude otherwise.
But so was the Protestantization of the Church by Paul VI—
Every Wednesday, in the Hall of Pope Paul VI in Vatican City, Pope Benedict conducts his General Audience.
Why would the sspx even desire reconciliation with one so obviously in league with the protestantising Pope?
IANS wrote: “the attempted consecrations”.
I was under the impression that your repeated use of the title “Fr.” when referring to Bishop Fellay was just mean spirited, now you appear to be suggesting that the consecrations did not in fact take place. Was there a defect in form, matter or intention to which you are privy but no other person, even the Pope, is aware?
Consider the case of Bishop Rangel of the Society of Saint John Mary Vianney who was consecrated a bishop by three of the bishops of the SSPX, if they are not bishops then neither was he and yet he was… so too must they be.
BTW, pay attention to the Campos settlement details, if anyone knows if Bishop Rangel apologized for receiving episcopal consecration without a papal mandate I’d like to see the apology because to my knowledge he never did. I’m rather hoping that he did because that would shore up my rapidly collapsing belief that there was anything to all of this schism talk in the first place.
The fourth law of blogodynamics, the law of blog-post entropy, provides that all combox threads deteriorate over time, usually in the vicinity of 100 posts. An early sign is the first time someone hurls the word “Hitler” at someone else, in any context whatsoever.
This thread is far down the road.
May 16, 2007
A month after the election of Pope Benedict, Fr. Fellay publicly describes the sspx attack against The Pope, “One of the lines of attack is to say We don’t trust you.”
He even goes out of his way to disparage the FSSP as “expiremental animals.”
The reality his demeanor (smiling) is not consistent with the disparaging words he speaks illustrates an incongruent affect that, frankly,is a bit unsettling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gLKTyyO4q4
Please, anyone, if you can, post any public statement by Fr. Fellay that indicates he is wiling to recant any of these positions, such as, oh, I dunno, a public statement by him that Pope Benedict is trustworthy.
Today was my first day on this website and after reading some of the attacks on Fr. Finnegan and some of the other traditionalist, it left me with a feeling of anger very much like the feeling I got when I went to a NO mass and saw that it was similar to an Episcopal service. Some of you are so righteous! You need to take a chill pill. This situation between the Vatican and the SSPX is out of your hands! Thank God! You can quote scripture and canon law till dooms day to justify your stance and it won’t amount to anything. Was this website establish to bash traditionalist? Or to try to understand each other and offer a difference of opinion. We have suffered so many indignities by bishops, priests, friends, and family that,we have developed thick skin. I keep thinking of the words of Our Lord “if the world hates you, remember it hated me first”. More importantly to justify your stance I ask you; are your seminaries full, are your convents full, do your children believe in the real presence?. “By their fruits you will know them.” Think about it.
spartacus,
The sometimes off-the-cuff remarks of Fellay, et al, stem from a history of abuse against their Society (which has been at the forefront of preserving tradition for over 35 years.) Sometime, when you have time, google the struggle the society had with arch-liberal Cardinal Villot, a man close to Paul VI (but who duped Paul VI with respect to SSPX.) In the meantime, here is an interesting piece by Michael Davies, outlining one theory why the Society had to exist in “disobedience”:
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Case_for_Defence.htm
btw., rljfp, great post!
I was under the impression that your repeated use of the title “Fr.” when referring to Bishop Fellay was just mean spirited, now you appear to be suggesting that the consecrations did not in fact take place. Was there a defect in form, matter or intention to which you are privy but no other person, even the Pope, is aware?
There are three threads of doubt for me that, knit together, appear to form a ball of confusion.
First Thread:
In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4)
Second Thread:
VATICAN CITY (CNS) — (SECOND UPDATE) Sep-26-2006 By Carol Glatz Catholic News Service
Recent ordinations made without papal approval have placed Zambian Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo and the four prelates he ordained under automatic excommunication, the Vatican said.
“Starting with his “attempted marriage” in 2001 until his Sept. 24 ordinations of four bishops in Washington, Archbishop Milingo’s actions have led him to “a condition of irregularity and progressive breach in communion with the church,” said a written statement by the Vatican press office…. “Because of the unapproved ordinations, “both Archbishop Milingo and the four ordained men are under a ‘latae sententiae’ excommunication, according to Canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law,” the statement said. A bishop who consecrates a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives
the consecration from him automatically incur the penalty of excommunication.
“The Vatican statement also said “the church does not recognize nor does it intend to recognize in the future such ordinations and all the ordinations derived from them.” It also added that the canonical status of the “four presumed bishops is the same in which they found themselves before ordination” by Archbishop Milingo.”
Third Thread:
N AN “INTERVIEW” given by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais (one of the bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre and by Bishop de Castro Mayer) in the French magazine of the Society of Saint Pius X, Fideliter, (n. 123, pp. 25-29), candid and baffling admissions were made. Bishop de Mallerais confronts one of the first difficulties, which is that of jurisdiction. Bishop de Mallerais admits that his consecration was “accomplished against the will of the Pope” and that he has not received jurisdiction either from Archbishop Lefebvre (“he was not able to give it to us”) neither from the Pope (“the Pope refused to give it to US”). He claims to have jurisdiction from the Church. “It is the Church which gives it to US” as if there could be opposition between the Church ( which concedes the jurisdiction) and the Pope (who denies it), or as if the hierarchical Church were not, in the ultimate analysis, the Pope.
Nevertheless, for Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, there is a problem yet more serious than that of jurisdiction. Let us hear Bishop de Mallerais speak: “Are these bishops who are not recognized by the Pope legitimate? Do they enjoy formal apostolic succession? Are they, in a word, Catholic bishops?” This problem, Bishop de Mallerais explains, “concerns the very constitution of the Church, as all tradition teaches: there cannot be a legitimate bishop without the pope, the head by divine right of the episcopal body. Therefore the answer is less clear, and in fact it is not absolutely clear…” Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, therefore, ten years after his consecration, does not know whether his consecration or his being a bishop is a legitimate act!
For a moment, he seems to evoke the sede vacantist “solution.” “…unless one were to suppose…it is necessary to recognize that if we were able to affirm that owing to heresy, schism, or some secret problem in the election, the pope would not be truly the pope, if we were able to pronounce such a judgement, then the response to the delicate question of our legitimacy would be clear…” If, according to Bishop de Mallerais, ”sede vacantism” is the only clear explanation to justify his own consecration, we would expect a public adherence to sede vacantism, or a reasoned refutation. But such is not the case. Sede vacantism is refuted only because Archbishop Lefebvre refused it: “The problem, so to speak, is that neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor my confreres, nor I myself, have been or are sede vacantists….Archbishop Lefebvre was not of this opinion, nor did he have the sufficient principles in order to make such a judgement. It is very important to take this into account.”
At this point, even the interviewer is a little baffled: if we cannot make bishops against the will of the Pope, and if John Paul II is the Pope, and if John Paul II was against the consecrations done by Archbishop Lefebvre, and if there are no other “clear” solutions,… “Then how did Archbishop Lefebvre solve the dilemma…?” Bishop de Mallerais, who has no theological or doctrinal responses, baffles once again the reader with a response which we could term ”charismatic”: “…Our founder confronted the problem from above and resolved it at the same time in a manner more concrete than it is here. It is the sign of supernatural intuition which was proper to him and of an action in him of the gift of wisdom, the gift of the Holy Ghost…Only Archbishop Lefebvre was able to make such a judgement [that is, Pope John Paul II is no longer Catholic]! He was also the only one who had the moral authority to decide ‘I will do the consecrations.’ There were no others. Thus it was not according to my own lights that I accepted the consecration, my consecration, understand! Only Archbishop Lefebvre was able to decide this consecration, he alone received grace to decide. We had the grace to follow him. And it is with these very simple and very beautiful words, which belong to one of my confreres in the Society of Saint Pius X, that I must conclude: they represent my most intimate conviction, my most firm security of being on the right path.”
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, in his sincere and moving affection for Archbishop Lefebvre, does not realize how erroneous his thinking is. He substitutes a bishop for the pope as a criterion of catholicity. He condemns those who are blindly submissive to the Pope, who has the charism of infallibility, and then follows a bishop in a decision contrary to the Pope, without finding any other motive for the decision than the charismatic infallibility of this bishop. In this way, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais overturns completely the divine constitution of the Church, by opposing the charism of a (presumed) sanctity to that of papal authority.
++++++++++++++++ end quotes +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thus, I am left with a ball of confusion to kick-around Mt. Dora over this Holiday Weekend. Have a great Independence Day
KOM A Bishop discharging his duties in his own Jurisdiction. The nerve of some men
spartacus,
With all due respect, I wouldn’t call presiding at charismatic intercommunion services a “discharge” of “duties.” See, that’s the problem, many Bishops, like their Arian forebears, do not adhere to their primary duties of preserving and teaching the faith, but are revolutionaries. In the words of Lefebvre:
*We are not rebels, we are not schismatics, we are not heretics. We resist. We resist this wave of Modernism which has invaded the Church, this wave of laicism, of progressivism, which has invaded the Church in a wholly unwarranted and unjust manner, and which has tried to erase in the Church all that was sacred in it, all that was supernatural and divine, in order to reduce it to the dimension of man. So we resist and we will resist, not in a spirit of rebellion, but in the spirit of fidelity to the Church, the spirit of fidelity to Our Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of fidelity to all who have taught us our holy religion, the spirit of fidelity to all the Popes who have maintained Tradition. That is why we have decided simply to keep going, to persevere in Tradition, to persevere in that which has sanctified the saints who are in heaven. Doing so, we are persuaded that we are rendering a great service to the Church, to all the faithful who wish to keep the Faith, all the faithful who wish to receive truly the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ.*
Of course, this is Lefebvre, not any of the four appointed Bishops, speaking. I do think it is time for SSPX to take the hand offered to them by Pope Benedict XVI. But the quote above, I think, illustrates the good-faith belief among most (not all) in SSPX.
IANS,
You’re just not thinking this through, the bishops of the Society have been ordaining priests (and even consecrated a bishop for Campos) and there hasn’t been even as much as a peep from any Roman that any of those Sacraments have been invalid. If the bishops of the Society were not bishops then a great number of the priests of the Society would not be priests and Bishop Rangel would not have been a bishop.
It really is that simple, and it bothers me that you’re so dogmatic on something so easily resolved.
Dear Father
… but it was not cut and paste, I spent an hour or so translating the rabid prose of Mr. Tincq…
We need a reform of the reform of the reform! What the Church desperately needs is a reappraisal of the role and ministry of Peter and, in its wake, a reappraisal of the role and ministry of the bishop of Rome. Let”s embrace a trult authentic scriptural foundation.
Every Wednesday, in the Hall of Pope Paul VI in Vatican City, Pope Benedict conducts his General Audience.
Why would the sspx even desire reconciliation with one so obviously in league with the protestantising Pope?
Comment by I am not Spartacus
It seems to me that BXVI is not exactly in league with Paul VI’s liturgical reform.