Third SSPX Rosary Crusade: 12 million rosaries for….

From the "Letter to Benefactors" of the SSPX from SSPX Superior Bp. Bernard Fellay.

Some of the usual stuff, some very good points and finally a great idea.

My emphases and comments.


Just as we were launching a second Rosary Crusade at our Lourdes pilgrimage last October, we hardly expected such a swift answer from Heaven! As for the Vicar of Christ’s Motu Proprio liberating the traditional Mass, our second entreaty was answered even more swiftly by the Blessed Virgin, because on the very same visit I made to Rome in January to put in the Sovereign Pontiff’s hands our bouquet of 1,703,000 Rosaries, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos put in my own hands the decree lifting the “excommunications” of 1988!  [Well… that’s what the "were".  But this is how you write to benefactors.  So… the first Rosary Crusade was for the Holy Father and Summorum Pontificum.  The second was for the lifting of the excommunications.  For what will the third be?] 

That is something we had asked for back in 2001, as a sign of good will on the part of the Vatican towards the Traditional movement. [And good will is sought from the SSPX… which is why Card. Castrillon gave them some points to sign off on last year.] For, ever since the Council, everything Traditional or seeking to be Traditional in the Church has been undergoing one vexation after another, up to and including our being cast into exile. [Sorry… but that was also partly their choice.] Naturally that undermined partially or even totally, ones trust in the Roman authorities. As long as that trust is not partially restored, as I said at the time, the relations between Rome and ourselves will hardly exist. Trust is not just a nice feeling, it is a fruit that grows all on its own when one can recognize in the Roman authorities shepherds who have the interests of everything Traditional at heart. [And it is a two way street.] That was the meaning of our two preliminary requests. It is impossible to understand our present position and attitude towards the Holy See if one does not take into account the state of crisis prevailing in the Church, which is no superficial matter, nor just a personal opinion. It is a reality quite independent of our way of looking at it, which is admitted now and again by those authorities, [more and more frequently, as a matter of fact] and verified all the time by the facts. There are numerous and varied aspects to the crisis, some profound, some merely circumstantial, but everyone suffers from it. What strikes the faithful above all are the updated liturgical ceremonies—very often scandalous, alas! and the day-to-day preaching from the pulpit of positions on moral questions in direct contradiction to the age-old teaching of the Church and the example of the Saints. Very often parents have been grieved by their children’s losing the Faith, after having been entrusted to Catholic schools, or by their almost complete ignorance of Catholic doctrine, thanks to the lack of any proper catechism. A countless number of members of religious orders, through their Constitutions having been re-written and their minds re-trained according to Vatican II, show that they have lost the spirit of the Gospel, in particular, self-renunciation, poverty and sacrifice. [Don’t forget that there will bea  two-fold "investigation" of women religious coming up soon.] This loss has almost immediately resulted in such a falling off of vocations that a number of Orders and Congregations are closing their houses one after another, or disappearing altogether. The situation of many dioceses is just as dramatic.

           All of which forms a coherent whole that did not happen merely by chance, [this implies that it was by design] but arose out of a Council setting out to reform everything, and claiming to bring even the Church up to date. [Which has ever been the way the Church has handled herself in the view of the world.  The problem comes when what the world has to say is given logical priority over what the Church has to offer.] Yet we are accused of either seeing a crisis where there is none, or of wrongly blaming the Council for a disastrous and enormously serious situation which anyone can recognize, or again of profiting by that situation to justify a wrongful attitude of rebellion and independence.  [No one denies that some injustices have been committed, but …  I suppose this is how one writes to benefactors.]

         On the contrary, pick up the writings of the Church Fathers, or the Magisterium, or the Liturgy or Theology down the ages, and you find a unity of teaching and example to which we cleave with all our heart. This unity of doctrine is in practice heavily contradicted, thwarted and attacked by present ways of doing things. We are not imagining things when we say there has been a break. The break is all too real. To observe how the Bishops of certain countries treat us even after the “excommunications” were withdrawn, is enough for one to see how deeply the up-dated churchmen reject anything that smacks of Tradition. [On the other hand, the lifting of the excomm’s didn’t resolve the other problems of status in the Church.  Are all bishops everywhere simply now to see these SSPX bishops as, what… equals in the ministry of the Church?  I nonetheless applaud what the Card. Archbp. of Bordeaux did at Holy Thursday.  That is the sort of example we need to follow.] The only name that can be given to such an occurrence is a break with the past.

   For again, as surprising as was the appearance of the Decree of January 21, just as astonishing was the violence of the reaction of the progressives and leftists in general with regard to ourselves. [Of course.  They are terrified by the implications.  There might actually be progress toward reconciliation!]  By Bishop Williamson’s unfortunate words they may well have been handed a golden opportunity to smear the whole Society of St. Pius X and to treat it as a scapegoat, but the truth of the matter is that we were merely an instrument in a much more important struggle, the struggle of Mother Church, truly called the Church Militant , against the evil spirits prowling through the atmosphere, as St. Paul says. It is no presumption on our part to say the Society has just now been playing a part in Church history, the history of the titanic struggle for the salvation of souls, announced in the Book of Genesis and described so dramatically in the Revelation of St. John. [An apocalyptic view.] Normally this struggle confines itself to the spiritual domain, but every now and again it flows over from words and souls into the bodily domain, and then it becomes visible, as with open persecutions. 

           In all that has happened these last few months we should see a particularly intense moment of this struggle. [We ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.  But this is how you write to benefactors.]  It is clear as clear can be that the main target being aimed at is the Vicar of Christ as he attempts to undertake a certain restoration of the Church. [Note that qualification of "certain".  I wonder if they couldn’t actually give the Holy Father even more and manifest support.] A coming together of the Head of the Church and the Traditional movement is much feared, [As the old phrase goes "Rem acu tetigisti", or as ICEL would have put it "Winner winner, chicken dinner".] as is any going back on the novelties of Vatican II, so everything possible is done to prevent it. What does the Pope truly think? What position is he taking? Jews [Some… not all…] and progressives [All… not some…] want to force him to choose between Vatican II and ourselves…. to such a point that to re-assure them, the Secretariat of State could find nothing better than to lay down as a necessary condition for our canonical re-instatement the complete acceptance of what we consider to be the main source of the current problems we have always been opposed to!….   [Yah… that wasn’t a good moment for the Secretariat of State.  The enemies of a future reconciliation are very well placed, after all.]  Yet those churchmen are bound, as are we all, by the Anti-modernist Oath  [those old enough to have taken it… and many did…] and all the other Church condemnations of modern novelties. [This is a very sloppy phrase.  He qualifies it as you read on, but it wasn’t well phrased.  But this is how you write to benefactors.]  Thus we refuse to approach Vatican II from any other angle than that of the Solemn Declarations (Profession of Faith and Anti-modernist Oath) drawn up before God and the Church. And if the Council is incompatible with such Declarations, then it is the novelties that must be wrong. We are relying on the up-coming doctrinal discussions to clarify these points as much as possible.  [Indeed, this is our great and sincere hope.]

Profiting from the new situation arising from the withdrawal of the “excommunications” which has actually left the canonical status of the Society unchanged, several Bishops try to square the circle by demanding that we obey Canon Law to the letter on every point, as though we were perfectly in order, at the same time as they declare we have no canonical existence! [Hmmm… wait a minute.  Just because they are not in a good canonical situation doesn’t mean that the Church’s law doesn’t apply to them.]  One German Bishop has announced that by year’s end the Society will once more be out of the Church… Nice of him! In fact the only possible solution is the one we already asked for, namely an intermediary status, necessarily incomplete and canonically imperfect, but generally accepted as being intermediary, without our having to be constantly accused of disobedience and rebellion, without our having ridiculous prohibitions thrown at us. [Ridiculous prohibitions?  Was it a  ridiculous prohibition for a local bishop to say that there could not be ordinations within the confines of the diocese entrusted to his care by Supreme Pontiff?   What it was – impolitic, etc. – it wasn’t "ridiculous".  The fact remains that the SSPX bishops are suspended a divinis.  They should not ordain without faculties, with dimissorial letters (which won’t be coming from any bishops for men who aren’t part of an approved group.  So… it wasn’t ridiculous, though it may have been inflammatory to make such demands public.]  When all is said and done, one more proof that the Church finds itself in an abnormal state, which we call a state of necessity, [Ah… the famous "state of necessity" which is the justification for their lack of obedience to the Roman Pontiff.] is the present words and deeds of certain Bishops with regard to the Pope and Tradition.

           So how will things develop from here? We have no idea. We stand by our proposal to accept our present imperfect situation as being temporary,  even while we enter into the doctrinal discussions that have been announced, in the hope that they will bear fruit.

           But on this difficult path, in the face of such violent opposition, we ask you, dear faithful [here we finally get to the meat] , once more to resort to prayer. It seems to us that the moment has come to launch a major offensive, firmly anchored in the message of Our Lady at Fatima, where she promised us success, announcing that in the end her Immaculate Heart will triumph. This is the triumph we are asking her for by the means she herself requested, namely the Consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart by the Supreme Pastor and all the Bishops of the Catholic world, [An awful lot of well-informed people have not been able to square the claims of other that this was actually performed.   I say… even if it wasn’t…. even if it was… couldn’t itbe done again?  I suppose the Russian Orthodox would have something to say about that.  I suppose one could argue that the repetition undermines the previous acts and therefore credibility of the previous efforts.   But… well.. why not just remove the doubt?] and the spread of the devotion to her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. So for this purpose [HERE IT IS…] we wish to offer her by March 2010 a bouquet of 12 million Rosaries, like a crown of 12 million stars all around her, to be accompanied by a similar quantity of daily sacrifices to be drawn above all from the faithful accomplishment of our duty of state, while we promise to spread the devotion to her Immaculate Heart. We are firmly convinced that if we take care to do what she says, we will obtain much more than we could ever have hoped, and above all we will make sure of our salvation by benefiting from the graces she has promised us.  [I think this is a good approach.  God will not be outdone in generosity.  If we pray, each according to our state in life and zeal, God will give us graces.]

      So we ask also of our priests a special effort to make this devotion easier of access for our faithful, [and there is no reason why regular diocesan priests and religious can’t do this too…] by putting the accent not only on the Communion of Reparation of the first Saturdays of the month, but also on living very close to Our Lady through the consecration to her Immaculate Heart. It would also be good to know better and to deepen the spirituality of Fr. Maximilian Kolbe, the great herald of the Immaculate.

      Our Society was consecrated to the Immaculate Heart 25 years ago this year. We wish to renew this happy initiative of Fr. Schmidberger by wholly devoting ourselves to that Heart and by reviving our own hearts in this spirit. Obviously we are not going to tell Providence what it should do, but we have learned from the examples set by the Saints and in Scripture itself that to have great desires can bring forward the designs of the good Lord in a remarkable way. [Sincere prayer according to the mind of the Church is never raised in vain.]  Thus today we make bold to entrust this intention to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, by asking her to take you all under her motherly protection. May God bless you abundantly!

On the feast of the glorious Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ,

           Winona, Easter 2009

           +Bernard Fellay

Good points, interspersed with the usual pep-talk points for the holders of the check-books. 

But that aside, the project proposed is a good one.

Whether or not there is an explicit consecration along the lines Fellay describes, who can say that 12 million rosaries for this intention wouldn’t be a splendid accomplishment and motive of graces.

I will leave the combox open with a cordial and sincere warning to anyone who might lack self-control in speaking about the consecration requested by Our Lady, about the Holy Father or his predecessors, or about the righteousness of the SSPX.  

Go over the line… what you can probably guess my line is, not yours … and I will lock you out.  Your choice. 

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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


  1. Massachusetts Catholic says:

    It was my understanding that Sister Lucia herself stated that the consecration had been accepted by heaven. Here is a timeline at the website of EWTN, for those interested:

    However, no rosary is ever said in vain. Twelve million would certainly make a dent in the world situation.

  2. Trevor says:

    I think overall, Bishop Fellay’s rhetoric has muted somewhat (and its gradually getting better). Its good to see they’re still calling for Rosary Crusades (Lord knows we need more of them).

  3. Call me dense, but I don’t understand the basis for doubting the validity of the consecration. Sr. Lucia said the consecration had been carried out as per Our Lady’s request. On the other hand, if married people and religious can renew their vows, and an individual’s De Montfort consecration can be renewed, then why shouldn’t Russia be re-consecrated? In fact, why not renew the consecration periodically? We all stand to benefit from constant reminders.

  4. LCB says:

    All in all, the 3rd secret and consecration business is rather troubling.

    At the same time, I am deeply moved by the effort of a 12 million rosary crusade. I often wonder, why do our Bishops and our National Committees not lead us in such efforts for– an end to abortion? For Church unity? And so on.

    I am 100% committed to the Holy Father and am not an adherent to the SSPX, yet I find a deep and alluring beauty in the call to prayer and conversion. Perhaps because I hear it so little from other quarters.

  5. LCB says:

    I guess what I’m really trying to say is that I’m sad that our Bishops don’t do the same thing, in calling us to prayer.

  6. schoolman says:

    It wonder wonder whether this new prayer intention will only serve to distract from the immediate goal of the success of the doctrinal talks. It would seem more appropriate to pray that the talks are fruitful. This new “crusade” comes off as putting another condition on the Pope (a consecration according to our criteria and liking?) — indeed, on the Blessed Mother herself! It would seem that a “state of necessity” will exist and justify actions so long as “Russia is not properly consecrated” and there remains turmoil and struggles in the Church. But this has always been the case since day one.

  7. mary says:

    After John Paul II comsecrated the world (not Russia, like our Lady asked for) in 1984 Sister Lucy said in an interview that it did not sayisfy Our Lady’s requests. Also, during that comsecration His Holiness asked Our Lady to “enlighten the people still awaiting our consecration and confiding.” These statements were reported in L’Osservatore Romano the next day.

  8. mary says:

    Consecration, not comsecration! Sorry.

  9. Rachel says:

    I was expecting the Rosary crusade to be for the success of the doctrinal discussions, leading to the lifting of the SSPX’s suspension. Is anybody else surprised that Bishop Fellay is calling for the consecration of Russia instead? I’m trying to understand his reasoning– maybe something like this:

    1)There are problems in the Church, including the persecution of the SSPX and tradition in general
    2) Our Lady of Fatima warned of turmoil to come and also gave the means of triumphing over it
    3) Rather than focus on just the SSPX’s canonical situation, we should fight the whole fight for tradition, using Our Lady’s battle plan and not our own
    4) And that may be the best way of getting the SSPX reinstated too.

    Does that sound right? I don’t know much about the whole long history of the SSPX.

    Maybe the consecration of Russia by the Pope would be such a huge and obvious sign to the SSPX of his friendliness to them that they would then find it easier to accept his interpretation of Vatican II as contradicting nothing that came before. Could that be on Bishop Fellay’s mind?

  10. Clement says:

    Dear Father Zuhlsdorf,

    May I make two points on your accessment of Bishop Fellays letter?
    I do not mean any offense towards you and the dear time you took in commenting on His Excellencys letter, so please, dear Reverend, do not take it in that manner.

    Firstly, I have had the great joy to meet His Grace, Bishop Fellay and have spoken with him on several subsequent occasions, and I think that I have a bit of an understanding on the way he speaks and writes.
    When Bishop Fellay refers to “Benefactors”, he primarily is referring to those who give of their spiritual substance, ie: prayer, corporal sacrifice, etc.
    Yes, he is extremely grateful for financial contributions, for they are the only means to keep their many apostolates running, but The Bishop is a very pious man and understands that he would be nowhere as a priest if it were not for prayers.

    I believe that is what “Friends and Benefactors”, means to him primarily.

    Secondly, When His Excellency states that His Holiness has a “Certain”, care for reestablishing tradition and Catholic Identity, I believe he means, “certain”, as opposed to “uncertain”, in other words The Holy Father is certainly and definitely making salutary moves in the Church.
    Thank you Father and God bless.

    I just finished my first rosary for the Consecration.

  11. prof. basto says:

    I don’t understand why people don’t consider the consacration accomplished since the Apostolic Letter Sacro Vergente Anno issued by Pope Pius XII in the 1950’s, which contains explicit mention of the consacration of the peoples Russia, Russia being mentioned by name.

    That was a formal papal act of consacration that is registered in writting for an everlasting record.

    And, if one could argue that that was not an act of all the Bishops as requested by Our Lady, it can be countered that the initial consacration done by the Roman Pontiff Pius XII was later supplemented by the consacration of the human family performed by Pope John Paul II in conjunction with the College of Bishops in the 1980’s, with special mention, even if not by name, of the countries that most needed that consacration.

    Even Sister Lucia confirmed that the consacration corresponded to Our Lady’s wishes.

  12. mary says:

    Prof. Basto,

    John Paul II himself,during the consecration of the world in 1884 asked our Lady to “…enlighten especially the people still awaiting our consecration and confiding.” So, His holiness admitted our Lady’s requests have not yet been fulfilled.
    Do you believe him?

  13. Antiquarian says:

    I think that Bishop Fellay is walking upon a knife’s edge. The fear and anger so often mentioned, of those progessivists who oppose any backing off from what they think of as Vatican II’s reform, is matched on the other side by fear and anger on the part of those whose identity has become folded into the isolation and disobedience of the Society’s past. So I read his statements with a certain (not a “certain”) amount of sympathy for the good I believe he is trying to accomplish. And I wonder about these “benefactors” and their attitudes toward the possibility of reconciliation.

    I do, however, cringe a bit at the broad brush he uses in citing “Jews and progessivists” as pressuring the Holy Father. That statement seems impolitic at the moment.

  14. ckdexterhaven says:

    I have been thinking “rosary, rosary, rosary” over and over again. Then I even thought of a “Rosary Bowl”. I would love it if Russia was “definitively” consecrated to Russia. If we all contribute to our share of the 12 million Rosaries, we can change the world! I hope diocesan priests and bishops get on board with this.

  15. Geoffrey says:

    Is it me or doesn’t the SSPX lose a bit of its credibility by focusing so much attention on private revelation and consipiracy theories? Just food for thought…

  16. Paul says:

    It is noteworthy that the release of HE’s Letter to
    Friends & Benefactors today, April 25, the Feast of
    St. Mark the Evangelist, is the the 18th anniversary
    of the death of Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer of
    Campos, Brazil. The Bishop passed to his eternal reward
    exactly one month after the death of Archbishop
    Lefebvre on March 25, 1991.

    Also, we can commence the devotion of the First Saturday Communion of
    Reparation to the Sorrowful & Immaculate Heart of Mary
    this coming Saturday, May 2.

  17. Jacques says:

    Let’s say the facts like they truly were:
    The last purported consecration (there was no further one until now) of the Russia was made by JPII but, sorry to say, the Pope lacked of courage since he didn’t dare to utter the word “Russia” and moreover it wasn’t performed in union with the world’s bishops. And logically Sr Lucy declared after that it wasn’t made according to our Lady’s will … until she suddenly changed her mind years later probably because she was ORDERED to do so by her hierarchy: The Abbé de Nantes even wrote later in the English CRC website that the local bishop of Leiria confided him that he had been entrusted to convey this order by the Vatican.
    The virtue of obedience of Sr Lucy (that of the true saints) would be worthily given as an example to the nun’s orders currently investigated in the U.S.
    On another hand, the suggestion of Bp Fellay to ask the Vatican to perform again the Consecration of Russia in a non questionable way this time (namely consecration of Russia, not of the world, requiring the world’s bishops cooperation in the same moment) is not new since this idea was already launched by Cathy Pearson in the 2008 Aug-Sept issue of “Inside the Vatican”.
    In my opinion, Russia hasn’t converted to the Catholic faith until now: The Consecration of the Russia to the Immaculate heart of Mary would certainly bring a lot of graces on this country. Anyway the Vatican’s investment would be very small compared to the benefits it would yield the Church and the world

  18. EDG says:

    I thought this was great and I can’t imagine why anybody would object or get nasty about it. As for the consecration, it certainly wouldn’t hurt for it to be done again…publicly. It would not only set minds at rest, it would be a great statement to the world at a very crucial moment.

  19. schoolman says:

    Notice how the discussion has already devolved into whether the cosecration was done properly or not, whether the “real” third secred was fully revealed, etc. I am afraid this new “crusade” will be huge distraction from the needed doctrinal discussions. In fact, it may only serve to raise another obstacle to reconciliation that has no direct bearing on the doctrine of the faith.

  20. Ann says:

    I think that the idea of lots of Rosaries is a good one.

    I think that the society has a problem with their understanding of Vatican II. That the good council was abused by the modernist/progressive/heterodox movements in the Church is not the fault of the council documents but the fault of the people perpetuating the abuses and the lack of leadership by the heirarchy in correcting those abuses.

    Vatican II is a marvelous set of documents which, like Scripture, MUST be read in the context of the Traditional teachings–if the documents are read with the traditional teachings in mind it becomes clear that these are very good documents.

    I think the society confuses the bad actions done by people who either willfully or ignorantly abused Vatican II as their excuse for doing what they do and did with the actual Documents as they are intended in the context of our Tradition.

    Vatican II did not do away with Trent–it suggested a means to implement Trent and our other ancient Traditions more fruitfully in our modern day. Sadly, the reform got hijacked and the Bishops did nothing to rein in the hijackers.

    I so want to see the society back in the fold. I want to see their influence in parishes across the globe. But I fear that this will not be possible until they see that Vatican II is a very good thing which should be their help–so that they can help carry the Vatican II reform into the churches without losing the Traditions Vatican II was intended to bring into greater relevancy and action in all our lives.

    As long as they reject Vatican II –as it is supposed to be used and understood– they will thwart their own desire to do good in the Church.

    I pray for them and us that the whole be made unified under the Pope and in proper relation to the documents of ALL councils including Vatican II which in proper unity with our ancient Traditions.

  21. mary says:

    Private Revelation? The miracle of the sun at Fatima was not private! What would have happened to France if Joan of Arc had not obeyed her voices? If the Dauphin would have refused to listen to that “private revelation”?
    Our Lord asked the king of France (through St. Margaret Mary) to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart.Do you know the consequences of their disobedience?
    Saint Thomas Aquinas addresses this question (I think)in the Summa when he writes on prophecy. Is this a consipiracy theory?

  22. Ruben says:

    You can count my Rosaries in. Imagine what would happen if all our bishops initiated a major Rosary crusade. We need much more of this kind of simple fervent approach.

  23. schoolman says:

    Yes, by all means let’s pray Rosaries. But there is a statement being made with this new crusade “intention”. Reconciliation now has another pre-condition — consecration of Russia according to “our” criteria. Reconciliation is now something we look to in the future — when the have sufficient evidence of the “triumph” of the immaculate Heart of Mary and the end of the crisis and state of necessity. This is the undercurrent.

  24. Jacques says:

    Benedict XVI himself recently said that Vatican II must be interpreted (I emphasize his words) “in the light of the Tradition” probably meaning that it hadn’t been until now thus leading to the fantasies and abuses that everyone could witness during these 40 last years, made in the name of that so-called and hollow term “spirit of the Council”.
    The “Light of Tradition” is the surest mean to bring back the Church in the continuity of her history which the abusers wanted to get rid of
    In my opinion the SSPX will certainly accept VatII in this way but it will be harder to be swallowed by a lot of people inside the Church.

  25. Malta says:

    Dear Fr. Z,

    I’m not too gummed-up by the “benefactors” point. SSPX, nor you, would not survive sans “benefactors.” The Apostles depended on homes of benefactors; Jesus rode a donkey provided by a benefactor. Of course SSPX needs and counts on benefactors to survive, as does the Church in general. FSSPX is single-handedly cleansing aspects of the Church. God grant them the humility to persevere!

  26. Geoffrey says:


    Please consult the Catechism regarding the difference between public revelation and private revelation. Public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. Private revelations are apparitions and the like. It has nothing to do with public manifestations of miracles (the Miracle of the Sun, etc.). Private revelations and apparitions, even Fatima, are not required to be believed by the faithful.

    Conspiracy theories are a different thing all together.

  27. Paul says:

    “It would also be good to know better and to deepen the spirituality of Fr. Maximilian Kolbe, the great herald of the Immaculate.”

    Saint Maximilian Kolbe, M.I., explained that ecumenism is the enemy of the Immaculata for, insisted, “There is no greater enemy of the Immaculata and her Knighthood than today’s ecumenism, which every Knight must not only fight against, but also neutralize through diametrically opposed action and ultimately destroy. We must realize the goal of the Militia Immaculata as quickly as possible: that is, to conquer the whole world, and every individual soul which exists today or will exist until the end of the world, for the Immaculata, and through her for the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.”

  28. Anthony English says:

    I’m glad Bishop Fellay recommended following in the footsteps of a great Marian saint, but I wonder whether it was deliberate that the Bishop referred to him as “Fr. Maximilian Kolbe” and not “Saint Maximilian Kolbe”.

    Is it a concession to some of the SSPX supporters who may not recognise canonisations since Vatican II?

  29. Jacques says:

    I was aware of this quote of St Maximilian Kolbe, and I always wondered how it didn’t prevent John Paul II to make him a saint, probably he didn’t know this phrase.
    Furthermore, what shall we do if St Maximilian Kolbe warned us against the post VatII’s Ecumenism years before the Council?

  30. prof. basto says:

    Mr. English,

    That would be absurd.

    Even if there is room to question St. Maximilian Kolbe’s status as a martyr (given that the decree on martyrdom in not infallible, and that Fr. Kolbe was beatified as a confessor before being declared a martyr, there is no room, no room whatsoever, to question his status as a Saint.

    The act of canonization is an infallible definition declaring one’s sainthood. It is a matter of faith solemnly announced by the Roman Pontiff, as Pastor and teacher of all Christians, to the Universal Church.

    Even to sources as traditional as the Catholic Encyclopedia, rank the act of canonization as a “dogmatic fact”. Surely acts of that nature are not questioned by the SSPX.

  31. Antonio says:

    Perhaps we could think about the Russia consecration as something that has not been “completed”. I just can not doubt that many graces were conceded to the Church and to the world after John Paul consecration.
    I say the same about Our Lady of Kazan icon being returned to the Russian Church (the holy icon of Our Lady of Kazan was in… Fatima for a number of years, then it went to the Vatican, and John Paul sent it back to Russia).
    Does anyone see anything wrong about “consecrating” (once again?) Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Our Mother? I think this would be an act of extreme humility, something like saying: “Most Holy Mother, you told us to do something, this world is crazier every day, we come to you once again, Please, HELP US”.

    PS: I apologize if my English is not clear enough. I’m from Argentina.

  32. Geoffrey says:

    Regarding the quote from Saint Maximilian Kolbe, remember that there is “true ecumenism” and “false ecumenism”.

  33. mary says:


    I knew I should have made the distinction between public and private revelation. I know the difference,I was just trying to keep it short. Sorry. What I ment when I said they are not private is that they were not ment only for the three children, but for the Church at large.

    Public revelation(which ended at the death of the last apostle) requires divine faith but legitamate and Church approved “public prophetic revelation”,if you want to call them that,obliges us to obey. Our Lady worked the miracle of the son with 70,000 witnesses for a reason.

    Do I make myself clear?

    Again consult St. Thomas Aquinas. He can explain it better than I.

    “The Message of Fatima imposes an obligation on the Church.”, said His Holiness John Paul II.

  34. Stephen Camidge says:

    Portugal was consecrated to the Immaculate Heart in the early 1930s by all the Bishops of that country. The result was a Catholic government, protection from the war with the Communists that swept the neighbouring Spain, and protection during World War II. People in the country adopted Catholic moral and mindsets.

    If Russia had been consecrated in the way that Our Lady requested, the errors of Russia would not still be present, Russia would not continue to have eight abortions per woman, Religion would not be seen as an enemy of the state, etc.

    Previous Popes have attempted the consecration, but not the way it was requested. Either Russia was not specifically mentioned or the Bishops did not consecrate with the Pope.

    We have to do as Our Lady requests, not how we think she might be willing to settle for.

    Let’s do the Rosaries so the Pope (and the Bishops) will get the graces to comply with Our Lady’s request.

    There is controversy over what Sister Lucy has or has not said, books have been written on the subject. Whatever your opinion, the evidence of the effect is clear. Russia has not yet been converted, therefore more graces are needed. Therefore, say the Rosaries. Please!

  35. Geoffrey says:

    In May of 2006, Zenit had an interview with Renzo Allegri, journalist and author of “Il Papa di Fatima” or “The Fatima Pope”. In this interview Allegri made some fascinating points regarding the consecrations, secrets, etc. Personally, I lean towards these findings, which reveal some very interesting coincidences.

    Interview, Part 1:

    Interview, Part 2:

  36. Tomas says:

    I approve wholeheartedly and gratefully of everything Bishop Fellay wrote, despite the repeated negativity about “benefactors.” For those of you who are not clear about the Third Secret, read “The Devil’s Final Battle.” It is online here:

  37. Jennifer Boyance says:

    I speak as a concerned and loyal traditionalist with a few slight concerns.

    Firstly, Sr. Lucia and The Holy Father Pope John Paul II, both of blessed memory attest that the consecration of Russia has happened. To even suspect otherwise shows disloyalty to the Church.

    While I can’t deny that rosaries are always spiritually powerful, even if slightly misdirected, I believe with the greatest of love and respect, dear Revd. Father, that your strong and firm view should be that of the Holy Father and the Blessed Sr. Lucia.

    Morover, I think that the links between the SSPX and Traditionalist in communion with Rome are a worry. We look toward them to carry our banner, perhaps, because they are able to say and do the things that we are not. However, loyalty to the Church is an absolute must. We cannot throw our lot in with theirs while their situation is still even slightly irregular.

    We should pray for them and love them in Christian charity. But until they are fully regularised and reincorporated we cannot hitch our wagon to theirs. For this reason, Father, I genuinly urge and ask that you stop regurgitating their letters, statements and news.

  38. mary says:

    Jennifer Boyance,
    When John Paul II consecrated the world (not Russia, like our Lady asked for) in 1984 during that consecration His Holiness asked Our Lady to “enlighten the people still awaiting our consecration and confiding.” These statements were reported in L’Osservatore Romano the next day.

    So he did not think it was done exactly as Our lady requested.

    Was he disloyal to the Church?

  39. ssoldie says:

    I will be one of the twelve million rosary’s.

  40. Antiquarian says:

    Prof Basto,

    It is indeed absurd, but unfortunately, Bishop Williamson has stated that, since Jose-Maria Escriva was canonized and he, Williamson, did not think he should have been, that canonizations are no longer to be considered infallible. He even urged followers not to regard Padre Pio’s canonization as valid since that would imply that others to which he objected would have to be accepted.

  41. schoolman says:

    “I was expecting the Rosary crusade to be for the success of the doctrinal discussions, leading to the lifting of the SSPX’s suspension. Is anybody else surprised that Bishop Fellay is calling for the consecration of Russia instead? I’m trying to understand his reasoning…”

    I am afraid this is a manifestation of the “hermeneutic of suspicion” involving so-called lies, conspriracies and cover-ups in connection with Fatima — the story pushed in books such as “The Devil’s Final Battle. There is a wing of SSPX that understands the “triumph of the Immaculate heart of Mary” to involve the “conversion” of Rome after a period of chastisement, etc. Some (such as Williamson) argue that there should be no reconciliation until after the (a) chastisement, (b) “conversion of Rome” and (c) triumph of the immaculate heart. There is more than meets the eye in this “crusade” intention.

  42. Danny Mary-Joseph says:

    “…like a crown of 12 million stars”

    -sounds like the dreaded Novelty to ;->
    All true Marian devotion is a good idea and should be renewed or done anew often. Consecrate or re-consecrate? Who cares? Would it really take that much effort to do it anyway? Just do it.

    Fr.Pepper: whats the worst that can happen?

  43. Richard says:

    Didn’t Our Lady promise the conversion of Russia if the consecration was done? If the consecration happened in 1984, where is the conversion of Russia and period of world peace? Everyone can see that Russia has not converted, and the world is not at peace, and yet there are those who claim that the consecration has been done. Finally, if the Holy See takes the position that the consecration has been done, and that Heaven has accepted the consecration, why does it continue to allow the prayers after Low Mass for the salvation of Russia as ordered by Pope Bl. Pius XI? I am of the opinion that the consecration will not happen until a cataclysmic event shakes the Church to the core and compels the Pope and the bishops to act decisively. It will be late, but it will happen, just as Our Lady foretold, and in the end Her Immaculate Heart will triumph, just when all seems lost.

  44. girl-in-the-middle says:

    If that is how Bishop Felley speaks to his benefactors, SIGN ME UP! No wonder they have a Swiss at their helm! What a simply sincere letter. I love it when a priest/bishop understands that one of their most important tasks is to call those around them to greater holiness, and if there is a secondary goal, all the better! Pray! Pray! PRAY!!!!!

  45. “God will not be outdone in generosity” as Father has said. What concerns me however is how the rosaries are conducted. The example of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector of Luke 18:10-14 comes to mind here. If the SSPX goes and prays for the conversion of others and does not look after where they stand with God, their action could be an act of arrogance and pride, not one of love and charity.

    This is my fear here.

  46. Cathguy says:

    Good letter, although I have much to quibble with. I will try to be careful to follow Fr. Z’s warning. (Thanks for making it)

    It is my opinion only (and my opinion means little) that the SSPX has done some good for the Church in addition to the scandal it has caused. (I do not think that is unreasonable to say that the SSPX has caused scandal by being publicly disobedient to the Holy Roman Pontiff). It seems to me that they are very good at criticizing Rome, but not very good at GETTING criticism. That is typical of many Chuchmen I find, as well as with this younger generation of people in general. The problem I think is a certain narcissism on the part of SOME (not all).

    Except for the liturgy (on which I think they are probably 100% correct) I have LOTS of difficulty with their position, especially on religious liberty and the Jews (which is troublesome. Fellay’s use of the word, which Fr. Z qualified, is difficult to characterize as anything other than anti-semitic). I find the Archbishop’s book on the topic (which I recently read) disturbing, not to mention perhaps racist.

    Please understand that the above is not meant as a blanket statement. I am NOT saying that all in the SSPX are anti-semitic or racist. I AM saying that the content of Lefebvre’s book leads me to conclude that he may have been. That is all.

    I also think that people of good will can have honest disagreements and that these things can cause high emotions.

    I fell compelled to point out that I do not think that the SSPX has the moral high ground here. Here is why:

    Before the excommunications were lifted it was easy to dismiss the SSPX as the lunatic fringe. Now, they must be taken seriously. Taking them seriously is a good thing. They are our brothers in Christ. They have felt pain and have been marginalized by the Church.

    That being said, now that many are taking them seriously, reading the work they produce etc., some of us are troubled.

    Referring to the Jews as a “people of deicide” or referring the those of other races as inferior to whites because they are effected by original sin in different ways IS wrong. It isn’t wrong to say such things are wrong. If I didn’t say such things were wrong, I for one couldn’t sleep at night.

    I think the rosaries are a wonderful idea, and I applaud Bp. Fellay for asking for the Rosary Crusade. Prayer can only be a good thing. Many in the SSPX and the faithful who worship at their chapels are obviously VERY good people. I find, however, that their constant insistence that they hold the high-ground and Rome is at fault for everything off-putting; it strikes me as narcissistic.

    I apologize for any offense I may have given in this post. I just want to point out that racism and bigotry are not Catholic virtues. Discussion on these points may be necessary as part of the doctrinal conversation between the Holy See and the SSPX.

  47. Biff says:

    Holy Maniples Batman! If the FSSPX steam roller keeps up like this, Weigel, Shea and 98% of the EWTN Super Converts will be heading to a rubber room.

  48. Paul Haley says:

    What could be more helpful in today’s troubled world that the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the consecration of Russia? I say we need not fewer rosaries but more of them.

  49. Jordanes says:

    Richard asked: If the consecration happened in 1984, where is the conversion of Russia and period of world peace?

    Did Our Lady say that it would happen immediately after the consecration, or that the consecration would bring about that result?

    Finally, if the Holy See takes the position that the consecration has been done, and that Heaven has accepted the consecration, why does it continue to allow the prayers after Low Mass for the salvation of Russia as ordered by Pope Bl. Pius XI?

    Maybe because it\’s still a good idea to pray those prayers, and probably always will be this side of heaven (and I\’d say not just for Russia, but for all the other nations affected by socialist error).

  50. Jordanes says:

    Biff said: If the FSSPX steam roller keeps up like this, Weigel, Shea and 98% of the EWTN Super Converts will be heading to a rubber room.

    Dream on, Biff.

  51. C.L. says:

    If the consecration happened in 1984, where is the conversion of Russia and period of world peace? Everyone can see that Russia has not converted, and the world is not at peace, and yet there are those who claim that the consecration has been done.

    It’s ridiculous to speak of “converting” the Russian Orthodox. They’re already Christians. One would speak more credibly of converting the American Episcopalians. The return of faith to the centre of life and culture in Russia is indeed a miracle. Nobody believed it was possible until it, well, happened. Deo gratias. But that’s not good enough apparently – some people always want more bang for their buck. Same with the Third Secret of Fatima. When it was revealed, the ultra-enthusiasts yawned as if to say ‘oh, is that all? Hey, there must be something more, Mary’s hand diverting a bullet to save the life of a saintly pope on the anniversary of Fatima – and before the eyes of the entire world – is kinda dull’. We want something big’! Did anyone expect Our Lady to zap everything into shape according to the preferences and timetables of onlookers? Did they think we’d reached the pina colada stage of salvation history? ‘Put those feet up after the consecration and watch as the world becomes a holy utopia’! No. The fruits of the consecration are there for those with eyes to see. Now we have to harvest the fruits – and the fruits must be full, ecclesial reunion. The work ethic and wisdom we need to do this should be what we pray for. Revisiting the bona fides of the consecration every time we don’t get what we want – when we want it – is both childish and sinful.

  52. Rose says:

    Please excuse the ignorance but I have only begun to educate myself on this issue of the
    “SSPX”-what does he mean by “Jews and progressives want to force [the Holy Father] to choose between Vatican II and ourselves”….is he referring to the question of the “conversion of the Jews”? Seems rather inflammatory language at this point in time. It would indeed trouble me if he thinks he has to speak this way in order to appeal to his “base”.

  53. Ottaviani says:

    Maybe because it’s still a good idea to pray those prayers, and probably always will be this side of heaven (and I’d say not just for Russia, but for all the other nations affected by socialist error)

    You very fact that you have admitted that other nations who have been “affected by socialist error” would only prove the traditionalist point that the Russia still spreads her errors throughout the world and that the consecration quite simply has not happened.

  54. Michael says:

    Bp. Fellay states “[y]et we are accused of either seeing a crisis where there is none, or of wrongly blaming the Council for a disastrous and enormously serious situation which anyone can recognize, or again of profiting by that situation to justify a wrongful attitude of rebellion and independence.”

    So I suppose that as long as one does not officially blame the teachings of Vatican II (which at the same time teaches everything and nothing), but rather one blames its disastrous fruits, one can be a good and obedient Catholic, or so it seems.

    Whatever else one thinks of Bp. Williamson, we are back to trying to answer the question that he posed several weeks ago – what are we supposed to accept with respect to Vatican II? The lack of clarity in what it teaches, or the confusion among the “faithful” that it has caused? Because if one scratches beneath the surface, there does not seem to be much else left…

  55. dcs says:

    C.L. suggests:
    It’s ridiculous to speak of “converting” the Russian Orthodox.

    Why is it ridiculous? They are not Catholic so why should we not speak of converting them?

  56. Br Louis Mary OFM Conv says:

    Peace in Jesus and Mary!
    St Maximilian Maria Kolbe predicted that modern times would be dominated by Satan. Surely this is what we are seeing, the diabolical disorientation which has entered the Church. Let us beseech the Immaculata, through our rosaries for Her Immaculate Heart to triumph. Surely it would be good to promote the Divine Mercy devotion, especially the Chaplet which so beautifully express the doctrine of the Holy Sacrifice of Mass. Remembering that Our Lord appeared to St Faustina during the Traditional Mass. God bless- Br Louis Mary

  57. LA says:

    Dear Fr. Z.,
    Do you think Bishop Fellay is doing this for money, or do you think that perhaps he really believes what he writes? I am very distressed that you have judged that he has an ulterior monetary motive in this letter. Can you not simply take the letter at face value and see that he does not ask for any financial support, just spiritual support (prayer and sacrifice)? There is no appeal for funds in this letter.
    God bless you.

  58. dobbs says:

    The 1984 Consecration of the world by the late Holy Father JPII was a holy action and did yield good fruit. However, it is not a consecration of Russia.

    Consecration sets something apart as holy from other things. There are many buildings but THIS building is consecrated a church. There are many men, but THIS man is consecrated a priest. Russia was never mentioned as the object separated for God, Therefore one cannot speak of Our Lady’s request for the Consecration of Russia as being fulfilled in 1984 – especially when Sister Lucia of Fatima publicly said after 1984 that it has not been done.

    Our Lady said that when Russia is consecrated by the Holy Father, “Russia will be converted and there will be an era of peace in the world.” That also has not happened.

    I see this as a selfless act by the Fr. Schmidberger and the SSPX. As when they prayed for the freedom of the EF, this is not about the SSPX, but about the greater good of the Church. Although I will wait until they have been regularized before I receive the sacraments from them, I believe history will judge them very favorably.

  59. Chris Garton-Zavesky says:

    A few thoughts are in order.

    In reference to the consecration of Russia, is it worth noting that in the confessional it is insufficient to confess that I am a sinner — which is nevertheless true — and further insufficient to say that I’m sorry for all my sins, if I use this as an excuse not to mention some mortal sin?

    I’m not a member of the SSPX, but I find Msgr Fellay’s letter amazingly Pro-Benedict. I mean by this not that he should be anti-Benedict, but rather that he is actively calling his “benefactors” to rally to the Pope’s side, for His Holiness is under attack. He isn’t asking (at least in this part of the letter) for the benefactors to rally to Fellay’s side, but to join Fellay in supporting Benedict. To try to quote Franz Werfel, “Prayer, gentlemen, is good, wherever it occurs.”.

    Maybe, maybe, the Society is demonstrating the “pacification of spirits” for which His Holiness has called?

    On a lighter note, wouldn’t the success of the reconciliation be a miracle: it would be the impossible made reality through prayer?

  60. C.L. says:

    Why is it ridiculous? They are not Catholic so why should we not speak of converting them?

    I suggest you read The Special Consideration of the Eastern Churches in Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism and the Servant of God John Paul II’s Orientale Lumen. West and East, as John Paul once said, are the “two lungs” of the Church, not in full communion, alas, but in no way should the Eastern Orthodox be said to be requiring “conversion” to the faith. They already have it. One of the great things about Summorum Pontificum is that it brings we Latins temperamentally and spiritually closer to the Orthodox. The need for this – and the theology of continuity in liturgy which it strengthens anew – was essayed by by John Paul in Orientale Lumen.

    The East expresses in a living way the reality of tradition and expectation. All its liturgy, in particular, is a commemoration of salvation and an invocation of the Lord’s return. And if Tradition teaches the Churches fidelity to what give birth to them, eschatological expectation urges them to be what they have not yet fully become, what the Lord wants them to become, and thus to seek ever new ways of fidelity, overcoming pessimism because they are striving for the hope of God who does not disappoint.
    We must show people the beauty of memory, the power that comes to us from the Spirit and makes us witnesses because we are children of witnesses; we must make them taste the wonderful things the Spirit has wrought in history; we must show that it is precisely Tradition which has preserved them, thus giving hope to those who, even without seeing their efforts to do good crowned by success, know that someone else will bring them to fulfillment; therefore man will feel less alone, less enclosed in the narrow corner of his own individual achievement.

    But I digress. Back to the issue of “conversion”. I quote Walter Cardinal Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promotion Christian Unity:

    “The Catholic Church recognizes that Russia has a longstanding Christian tradition and culture. We recognize all the sacraments, the episcopate and the priesthood of the Russian Orthodox Church. “Thus, while Catholic Christians living in Russia may clearly give witness of their Catholic faith, there cannot be an evangelization as such, as this can only be undertaken in a pagan context. Therefore, it is not our policy or strategy to convert the Orthodox to the Catholic Church.
    We do not undertake missionary work in Russia as we do in the pagan regions of the world. We want to collaborate with the Russian Orthodox in missionary work and in evangelization, which is needed in modern Russia after more then 70 years of atheistic propaganda and education.” […]”We say that ‘uniatism,’ understood as a method, today and in the future, is no longer a means of achieving Church unity,” Cardinal Kasper said.

    And, as with the point I made above on accepting miracles and not whining for bigger better ones, note also what the Cardinal had to say about reunification:

    “I had a very friendly meeting with Metropolitan Vladimir. We were able to inaugurate St. Clement Ecumenical Center with the blessing of Metropolitan Vladimir from the Russian Orthodox Church, of Cardinal Lubomyr Husar from the Greek Catholic Church, and of Cardinal Marian Jarworski from the Latin Catholic Church. “This accord is in itself a little miracle. This center is still a small plant, but it is set to grow. I hope it will become a common reference and meeting point, a place of dialogue and communication between the Churches.”

    Reposted to correct formatting errors. Apologies.

  61. dominic1962 says:

    True, the Eastern Orthodox do not need to be evangelized, but they do need to come into full communion with the Holy See.

    Also, I don’t see the problem with “uniatism” unless we are speaking of it as a way to try to split an Eastern Orthodox Church in two and try to play the sides off of each other in order to weaken the EO. That creates lots of hard feelings and animosities. However, if sections of an EO Church want to reconcile with Rome they should be able to. Bishop Soro (formerly of the Assyrian Apostolic Church) joined the Catholic Church along with some of his clerics and about 3,000 of the Faithful. It would have been a travesty if we didn’t accept him back in order not to tick off the AAC or the other EO.

  62. No rosary is ever in vain. The Mediatrix, will always present our pleas to her Son. Maybe we could also say that they are consecrating Russia as it is, given political changes between most of the 80’s, the 50’s , and now. Personally, I think Russia could use a birage of prayers towards it. Perhaps that’s a stretch, but atleast someone is praying. Period. Even if its for something that might have already occurred.

    And so far, from a CPOV, their crusades have been successful. That in no way admits that they are in the right, and others are not. One thing I would point out is that they are showing what a deep prayer life can and should be.

    Same example, I work for an evangelical church. I am a traditionalist catholic, or atleast I consider myself one, but with a sense of continuity (I love both masses, as the Pope says too, and as I am compelled). Those people, as errant as they are about certain doctrinal issues, do one thing VERY well. They pray. They trust in their prayer, just like the SSPX does. I would weigh that, against all the other “bullet points” one might have against either group. Yes, the evangelicals arent totally in communion with the Catholic Church, and likewise, yes the SSPX is in an “irregular situation”, or however its phrased canonically. But we could stand to learn from both these groups in many areas, most importantly, prayer.

  63. Chironomo says:


    I too read the words “certain reforms” and interpreted that as “definite reforms” or “strong reforms”, rather than “particular reforms” or “reforms to a certain degree”. Also, since it was in the context of a sentence which was praising Pope Benedict, it would seem out of place to put a qualifier of that type in, although there have been instances in the past where Bp. Fellay has done such things…

  64. prof. basto says:

    “The 1984 Consecration of the world by the late Holy Father JPII was a holy action and did yield good fruit. However, it is not a consecration of Russia.”

    Let me assume for a moment, for the sake of agument, that you are correct in stating that it did not suffice as a consacration of Russia. But,

    What about the consacration performed by Pope Pius XII, that no-one talks about? In his 1952 Apostolic Letter Sacro Vergente Anno he explicitly proclaimed the consacration of the peoples of Russia to the Sacred Heart of Mary .

    In terms of fruits, less then a year later, Stalin’s rule over the Russians came to an end (by means of his death).

    And, when Pope John Paul II supplemented that consacration with the one he performed in 1984 together with the Episcopal College, what happened as fruits: Gorbatchev was elected Secretary General of the Communist Party in the next year, replacing the hard-liners, and in less then a decade, the Soviet Union was over, the final act of dissolution taking place in a Night of Christmas.

  65. Ottaviani says:

    What about the consacration performed by Pope Pius XII, that no-one talks about? In his 1952 Apostolic Letter Sacro Vergente Anno he explicitly proclaimed the consacration of the peoples of Russia to the Sacred Heart of Mary

    Just read the English translation of the letter and it would seem indeed that Pius XII already fulfilled the wishes of Our Lady. I wonder, however, if this consecration done as a personal act (as the letter implies) or with the college of bishops?

    In any case, we need to ascertain what was meant by Our Lady when she said “In the end My Immaculate Heart will triumph and Russia will be converted.” At the time when this message was given, people would have thought it meant Russia returning to union with Rome and that really can be the only thing. Otherwise the message of Fatima is meaningless if it has to fluctuate with the times.

  66. Jordanes says:

    Ottaviani said: You very fact that you have admitted that other nations who have been “affected by socialist error” would only prove the traditionalist point that the Russia still spreads her errors throughout the world and that the consecration quite simply has not happened.

    No, it obviously proves nothing of the sort. Many nations have been affected by and been infected by socialist error, which is not Russian in origin but French. Even granting that Russia no longer spreads “her” errors, the other nations would not then immediately be rid of socialist error and no longer need us to pray for them. None of that would prove the consecration didn’t happen. It is for the Church to judge in these matters, and at this time the judgment of the Church is that it happened — if the matter is reinvestigated and the previous consecration is deemed insufficient, then so be it. Whatever the case, we should all be praying fervently that all nations be set free from socialist error.

  67. dcs says:

    but in no way should the Eastern Orthodox be said to be requiring “conversion” to the faith. They already have it.

    They share many of the same beliefs as Catholics but they do not have the Catholic Faith since they reject the Primacy and Infallibility of the Pope and many of them reject the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady. So they do not need evangelization in the sense that pagans or Jews or Muslims need it, but they do need conversion to the true Church outside of which no one is saved.

  68. Folks: Get this back on track.

  69. Patricia Gonzalez says:

    Father, I agree — everyone, take out your Rosaries and pray! Our Lady will handle the rest. We’re in danger of not seeing the forest for the trees here. Time to get back to the basics and pray, pray, pray!

  70. Rose Haven says:

    Doesn’t sound like the issues are resolved yet and still have plenty of difficulty in their disagreements with Rome!

  71. Mark VA says:

    Praying for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary is certainly a worthy endeavor. Especially since the errors involved are very sophisticated, and stretch the human faculties to their limits.

  72. Mel says:

    “…I have LOTS of difficulty with their position, especially on…the Jews.”

    I doubt that the SSPX isn’t worried about that as the Society of Saint Pius X simply adheres to the Church’s teachings regarding the Jews.

    Rome has never condemned the SSPX’s “position” on the Jews.

    By the way, millions of Jews would take your statement one step father as they have “lots of difficulty” with the Catholic Religion’s position on Jews. Million of Jews insist that that the Catholic Religion is anti-semitic.

    It is comical that you have “LOTS of difficulty” with the SSPX’s “position” on Jews when you (if you’re Catholic) belong to a religion that million of Jews and, for that matter, millions of non-Jews, insist is anti-semitic.

    The moral of the story is that you had best not cast stones at the SSPX “position on Jews” as the SSPX simply upholds the Catholic Religion’s traditional teachings regarding Jews.

  73. Micha Elyi says:

    I’d be more impressed if SSPX disciplined its own before attempting to scold our Pope.

  74. Geoffrey says:

    Considering the way things are going in this country, I think I would prefer to see the US Bishops consecrate the USA to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

  75. Jacques says:

    Certainly the “errors” have a French origin, but currently it is Russia that is spreading them, not France. Our Lady doesn’t require the conversion of France (although France is in apostasy like many other West countries)but that of RUSSIA and no other nation. To say that its conversion would be “ridiculous” is presomptuous: Our Lady WANTS it, then we have to comply her will in doing the consecration without grumbling in the EXACT way she requires and no other (according to our fantasies, our laziness or our pride).
    RUSSIA hasn’t converted until now since she doesn’t acknowledge the Pope’s authority nor she denies some RCC’s dogmas. Therefore she NEEDS to be converted even if Card Kasper says she doesn’t: It is safer to rely on our Lady’s words than on those of a cardinal so eminent be he.
    If we decline to convert our Orthodox brothers who are on the treshold, while this would be so easy through only a bit of good will from the Pope and the bishops (not even from us catholic lay people), why to spend much more energy to strive converting the pagans? It’s vain and useless.

  76. Debra D. says:


    What are all the people going to say when Russia is consecrated? Seems to me, know one will remind them of their previous positions. Sort of like the situation when Benedict said the old mass was never abrogated.

    Enough of this. Let\’s have a cage fight with Weigel and Mershon

  77. Alex says:

    Has anyone done the math on this? Isn’t it roughly 30,000+ rosaries a day by March 25, 2010? How many faithful do the SSPX have? They better get some monks on this pronto!

  78. Timbot says:

    Kudos Geoffrey! Well said!

  79. Reading “And if the Council is incompatible with such [previously dogmatic] Declarations” makes me think the SSPX still fails to distinguish between an Ecumenical Council and the modernists who used what analogically could be called a “changing of the guard” event, e.g. as a smoke screen, to implement that dissenting and so-called spirit of Vatican II. SSPX seems still to refuse separate abuse by bad churchmen (yes, Bishops and Cardinals included) from the true teachings of a Council. Their approach smacks of distrust of Council teachings, and continuing to claim they know better. This is the “SSPX is the better Magisterium” mindset, cleverly worded by Bishop Fellay to avoid a direct contradiction of one of the rules of engagement set down by Rome. Same ole, same ole…

    On the other major topic, Russia spreading her errors should be obvious, originally in physical communism (revolution in Russia, leading to the USSR, China, etc) but more so spiritually, which is atheistic in nature. The practical atheism of today, and resultant great apostasy, is the real problem. Actual atheists are small in number (but growing), but those apostatizing practically, such as only 1/3 to 1/4 attending Sunday Mass and a similar minority believing in the True Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, are the larger problem for the world because of the resultant lack of Grace obtained. Yes, that is apocalyptic, as is stated directly in the Bible.

    In Maximin’s secret of La Salette is: “France corrupted the Universe, one day it will be punished. The faith will die out in France: three parts of France will not practice any more a religion, or almost no more; the other part will practice it without goodness in practicing it. Then, after [that] the nations will convert, the faith will be re-ignited everywhere.” (my simple translation from the French in “Découverte du Secret de La Salette.”) So that is the real source of the practical atheism, through philosophy. This idea has already been mentioned above by Mary (indirectly – the French Revolution) and Jacques. This atheism is far from turning around where Russia, as fruit, is converted. It will get worse before it gets better. After all, there is still the annihilation of nations to come.

  80. Mark VA says:

    Dear Mel:

    The official Roman Catholic Church teaching “regarding the Jews”, as you put it, is contained in the Vatican Two document “Nostra Aetate:

    As you can see, this document condemns all willful anti-Semitism as sinful. May I add that any Catholic who falls into this trap accidentally, needs to repent of it and extricate himself from it by good will efforts and education.

    In my opinion, Father Z does not tolerate bigotry in his blog, and routinely censors those few who cross that line. Regarding SSPX, they have separated themselves from the Roman Catholic Church, they do not speak for it, nor do they have a monopoly on Traditional Catholicism. If you’ve been following this story, perhaps you’ll agree that Vatican’s discussions with them are generally thorny. I hope that you’ll acknowledge these distinctions, and that the “millions” who hold the Roman Catholic Church as anti-Semitic, will reconsider their views.

  81. Jordanes says:

    Jacques said: Certainly the “errors” have a French origin, but currently it is Russia that is spreading them, not France.

    I don’t see Russia spreading those errors, certainly not the way she did in the past. Many nations are spreading those errors now, including the U.S.

    Our Lady doesn’t require the conversion of France (although France is in apostasy like many other West countries)but that of RUSSIA and no other nation.

    The Fatima revelations do not “require” Russia’s “conversion,” but “request” that Russia be “consecrated” to the Immaculate Heart, and predicted that the consecration would lead to Russia’s conversion and a period of world peace, without ever indicating how long after the consecration it would be until Russia is converted and the period of world peace ensued.

  82. Jordanes says:

    Debra D. said: What are all the people going to say when Russia is consecrated?

    We’ll find out if it ever happens in our lifetimes.

    Seems to me, know one will remind them of their previous positions. Sort of like the situation when Benedict said the old mass was never abrogated.

    Why should they remind them. It is ignoble and unworthy of a Christian to remind people that they formerly were in error regarding something of which the Church permitted them to hold diverse opinions. But it’s hard for a lot of people to resist the urge to crow, “I told you so, you cretins!!!”

  83. Suzanne says:

    Massachusetts Catholic, does Russia look converted to you? Could anybody possibly imagine the ProteMasonatholic bishops even praying a rosary decade let alone coming together to consecrate Russia to The Immaculate Heart? Our Lady did say “in union with ALL bishop”. Nope. Didn’t happen. I don’t care what is claimed to have come from St. Lucia. Here is EWTN’s timetable of facts. It is very fair.:

    Yet NOWHERE does it show that the Pope, in union with all the bishops of the world, consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart. We’ve had popes try to solo it, consecrate the world, consecrate a people, renew a solo consecration of the people solo AGAIN, offer the invitation, do a renewal of one Our Lady already rejected (Now how do you do that?) and finally do something in union with “the pastors of the Church in a particular bond whereby we constitute a body and a college” not “all the bishops of the world” mind you, consecrates “the whole world, especially the peoples for which by reason of their situation you have particular love and solicitude.” whatever that means! Again…no specific mention of Russia. Sigh. Sigh. Sigh. It is obvious that our popes knew doggone well that there were bishops that would never go along with it. Why else would something so simple and so easy be so difficult to do? The frustration of our popes is obvious as well. Our Lady knew of the obstacles of course even when she made the request.

    For awhile there, with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the USSR it looked like hey maybe it happened when we weren’t looking. Maybe they did a consecration in secret according to what Our Lady actually requested and just didn’t tell us. But no. Russia’s errors have spread like a cancer. You need look no further than Pennsylvania Avenue. Some interesting information on how the Communists regrouped is here:

    I’m not surprised that is the SSPX that calls for this rosary campaign. Maybe when they and Rome are re-united, THEN all the bishops of the world will actually be able to do the consecration. Those false bishops that exist are already outside The Church, so maybe this is what is being waited for. Unless of course you think they will have a mass conversion. Now wouldn’t that be a kick in the pants?

  84. Biff says:


    It’s a little harsh to call anyone a cretin but Deborah has a point. These people seem to have lost no credibility in each other’s eyes. The have never apologised.

    I think many are ready to abide by Fr. Z’s rules issued before the MP but these people continue to castigate the people Benedict has reached out to. They turned against Tradition as a way of displaying loyalty. Their track record isn’t very good and yet they’re treated as experts.
    How long will this last?
    Now, a “cage fight” that might serve a purpose.

    As for the 3rd Secret (or 4th), the more I read the stranger this all sounds.

  85. schoolman says:

    “Reading “And if the Council is incompatible with such [previously dogmatic] Declarations” makes me think the SSPX still fails to distinguish between an Ecumenical Council and the modernists who used what analogically could be called a “changing of the guard” event, e.g. as a smoke screen, to implement that dissenting and so-called spirit of Vatican II.”

    I think some have not understood that indefectibility is linked to Peter and the Papal Magisterium. The papal magisterium, as such, can’t defect in faith or morals, per se. To say otherwise is to (more or less) implicitly deny the indefectibility of the Church.

  86. Biff says:

    Haven’t subsequent Councils rebuked others?

    Why is it that only the Spirit of Vatican II can be in error?

    Some have tried to say that the Holy Spirit wasn’t at V2.

    Instead, I think He (sorry Dr. Hahn) just wasn’t invited. He worked overtime to make sure the heretics didn’t define anything.

  87. Dan Lyon says:

    I just stumbled on this site. And I could not leave without leaving a comment concerning the consecration of Russia. I am sure you are all aware of the vision that Pope Leo the 13th had of Satan and Christ.Satan said he needed 75 to 100 years, and a greater power over those who will give themselves over to his service. Christ said, “You have the time, you will have the power. Do with them what you will.” This was on March 25,1884.

    The devil said he needed 75 to 100 years, 75 years from 1884 is 1959. On January 25, 1959, John XXIII publicly summoned the Second Vatican Council. On March 25, 1984 Pope John Paul and the bishops throughout the world consecrated Russia and the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Even Russian Orthodox Bishops entered in. A few years later Lucia said, Our Lady has accepted the 1984 consecration and She will keep Her promise.”

    This was 100 years to the day that Pope Leo had his vision.

    During the period between 1971 and 1988 there were thirty million
    baptisms into the Orthodox Church.

    Nearly 4000 students enrolled in seminaries in 1989.

    In 1989 Lucia said publicly that the Consecration was completed and that “God will keep His Word”. That year on Nov 9th the Berlin Wall came down and Gorbachev meet the Pope at the Vatican and promised religious freedom.

    The following year on the Feast of Fatima, May 13th, freedom of religion was made the law of Russia. And on the feast of the miracle of Fatima, Oct 13, Gorbachev received the Nobel Peace Prize.

    May 1, 1991 was the 100 anniversary of Rerum Novarum, the encyclical “On the Condition of Human Labor by Pope Leo XIII, and the Feast of St. Joseph, the Worker, and the end of May Day as a communist holiday.

    On Aug 19, 1991 the communists attempted to overthrow Gorbachev. They picked the wrong day for it was the 74th anniversary of the Aug appearance at Fatima. On Aug 22 the attempt failed and the communists were defeated. This was the feast of the Queenship of Mary.

    Dec 8th, 1991, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, was the start of the Commonwealth of republics, The end of the USSR.

    12 days later Yeltsin met with the Pope in Rome. And 13 days after that (on Dec 25th, 1991) the Communist Flag came down for last time over Russia.

    On Dec 30th, 1991 Lucia wrote that the world will recognize that the defeat of Communism was by Mary.

    On Christmas day, The Nativity of our Lord, 1992 Communism was declared illegal in Russia.

    God is the author of His own play. We are on the stage but a short time, full of sound and fury, and then we depart. But the play goes on. Just a thought. Bye

  88. Geoffrey says:

    Mr. Lyon:

    Excellent summary. That is what the Zenit article I posted above was all about. Coincidences? I doubt it! Deo gratias!

  89. Jordanes says:

    Biff said: These people seem to have lost no credibility in each other’s eyes. The have never apologised.

    I’m not sure what they have to apologise for — they held an opinion completely unsurprising to find in a faithful Catholic at that time. Agreeing with the Pope, even if it means changing one’s mind, is not something one has to apologise for.

    I think many are ready to abide by Fr. Z’s rules issued before the MP but these people continue to castigate the people Benedict has reached out to.

    That “castigation” is the expression of criticisms of the SSPX that also seem to represent the concerns that the Holy See has about the SSPX.

    They turned against Tradition as a way of displaying loyalty.

    But they do not identify “Tradition” with traditionalist Catholicism — and I don’t think any of them were ever traditionalists, so they didn’t turn against it.

    Their track record isn’t very good and yet they’re treated as experts.

    They are experts about some things. I don’t hold it against them that they weren’t among the handful of people who believed against all appearances that the traditional Roman Rite had never been abrogated.

    Haven’t subsequent Councils rebuked others?

    Not valid and approved Oecumenical Councils, no — that’s never happened.

    Why is it that only the Spirit of Vatican II can be in error?

    I suppose you meant “can’t be in error”?

    Some have tried to say that the Holy Spirit wasn’t at V2.

    Yes, and it’s rubbish. He undoubtedly was there.

    Instead, I think He (sorry Dr. Hahn) just wasn’t invited. He worked overtime to make sure the heretics didn’t define anything.

    The historical record shows that He was invited and invoked — but that doesn’t necessarily mean the Council Fathers yielded to Him or listened to Him very well.

  90. Mel says:

    “The official Roman Catholic Church teaching “regarding the Jews”, as you put it, is contained in the Vatican Two document “Nostra Aetate:”

    That is the only “official” teaching of the Roman Catholic Church regarding the Jews? Really? Does Nostra Aetate teach that we are called to pray for Jews to convert to the True Religion?

    Each year on Good Friday, the Church prays that the Jews will convert to the Catholic Religion. I am unable to find that teaching in Nostra Aetate.

    Therefore, the “official” Roman Catholic Church teachings regarding Jews is not contained exclusively in Nostra Aetate.

    The SSPX adheres to the Church’s traditional teachings regarding Jews. Rome has never condemned the SSPX for its (the Society’s) teachings regarding Jews as the Society’s teachings in that regard are simply the Church’s official teachings.

    Therefore, why would any poster to this blog have a problem with the official teachings regarding Jews that flow from the SSPX?

  91. Manrique Zabala de Arízona says:

    I’d just say this: the more Rosaries, the better, independently if it was done right or not. These crusades are a great chance of sanctification for everyone, so why not give them a try?

    And I’m not an SSPX attendant :)

  92. jacques says:

    Of course, the Consecration of Russia is required TO BRING this country’s conversion together with a time of peace thus implying that the Russia is directly liable in the unpeaceful times we are living now.
    Indeed, everyone may see the suspicious and troublesome links this country never ceased to have with now biggest communist & atheistic country, China, in the military field (see their navies combined manoeuvres last week) and in the military technologies. Why does the Russia still supports terrorist organizations and countries like Iran?
    Russia hasn’t converted bcs:
    – It has the world’s highest rate in abortion
    – It is has one of the biggest consumption ratio per capita of drug and alcohol
    – Murder and prostitution are blossoming. The risk to die of a violent death is 4 times higher in Rusiia than in the US
    One cannot call this a conversion even if there is a big renewal in the Orthodox faith that in my opinion is almost normal because of the end of 70 years of persecutions.
    Regarding the Consecration made by JPII, on has to revert to the declarations Sr Lucy actually made until her sudden change of mind in 1989. The Abbe de Nantes could clearly demonstrate that she was ORDERED to say this consecration was valid by her her hierarchy from this date.
    Even if that consecration had an effect (our Lady never let our prayers unheeded), the fall of of the iron curtain, it wasn’t the one that was promised. The very reason is that it was not made as She wanted.
    25 years have passed and the true Conversion of the Russia to the Catholic faith (like Sr Lucy confided Fr Alonso) hasn’t yet happened

  93. irishgirl says:

    I will pray! The more Rosaries, the better!

  94. Clement says:

    “Has anyone done the math on this? Isn’t it roughly 30,000+ rosaries a day by March 25, 2010? How many faithful do the SSPX have? They better get some monks on this pronto!”

    The FSSPX have over 600,000 faithful worldwide.
    If they each say one rosary per day for the Consecration Of Russia to the Immaculate Heart, it would be done in less than one month.
    12 million rosaries is not that difficult for a Society the size of the FSSPX, in one years time.

    I have already said 10 Rosaries, in three days time for this intention and I am not a regular FSSPX attendee.

    God bless you.

  95. Michael J says:

    prof basto,

    I am not denying your assertion that “The act of canonization is an infallible definition declaring one’s sainthood”, but I just cannot find a declaration by the Church stating as much.

    Can you help me out here? I agree, for example that the Catholic Encyclopedia says essentially what you state, but I was looking for something a bit more official.

  96. Michael J says:

    As a follow up, professor (and Antiquarian), I believe that you have been mis-informed about the “position” of the SSPX regarding the infallibility of canonizations.

    This, as much as i can tell, is what they say about the issue:

    “Consequently, it is not the fact that a person is called a “saint” that makes it infallible, but the solemn declaration and definition by the Sovereign Pontiff, as binding on all Catholics. It is upon this that the answer to the question concerning the infallibility of the canonization of Escriva depends. If the decree defines formally and obliges the acceptation of his sanctity, then it will be infallible, regardless of the defects in the processes for the canonization of saints that exist since Vatican II. However, if the decree of canonization were not to be solemn, and not to contain such expressions as “we define” and “we command” the veneration of this saint, then it would not be infallible, just as the approval of canonized saints in the early centuries of the Church”

  97. Ian says:

    One brief point:

    Whether the Consecration stated has been performed by the Pope may be doubtful. It is clear that it was not done by the Pope and all of the Catholic bishops as it seems was requested. Whether that is the case, it is of little importance to debate whether such was accomplished, and it is also of little point to question whether prayer for this intention is good.

    It is important to recall that God dwells and often works outside of time. He may have already given graces which depend on some merits earned later, just as he may take what seems to us a great deal of time to answer a single petition.

    Asking for prayers is never a bad thing.

    Second brief point:

    While I agree that with the Liturgy as well as with Canon Law we ought to be strict, I would posit that it is a more than inflammatory, and more unhelpful to the Pope for bishops as Bishop Fellay write, to continually point out the irregular situation (which cannot be solved for at least some time) and then require of the SSPX to be in a regular situation. That will take time, and in the meantime Charity is the best course of action. These same bishops have ignore other Canonical irregularities for a long time, but now make an issue of the SSPX. It is inconsistent, somewhat lacking in Charity and unhelpful.

    It would be different if the Pope were to ask the SSPX to cease ordinations for a period of time until a canonical solution could be worked out, but clearly the Holy Father graciously accepts (and has even written) that he is concerned for the well being of the priests in the SSPX, and it is clear from his actions that while I imagine he would like Canon Law followed, that he accepts that the SSPX will ordain priests for now in this irregular situation and hopefully things will be fixed in a reasonable amount of time.

    If Cardinal Castrillon asked in his “ultimatum” that the SSPX refrain from polemics, then the same should be asked of the bishops in the world toward the SSPX, at least until the results of doctrinal discussions are finished. That simply seems fair.

    If it were Archbishop Burke (who was very consistent with Canon Law) who ordered the SSPX to not ordain in his diocese, then at least we could see that the law was being applied consistently … it seems that is not the situation in Germany, however.

  98. Ian says:

    A final point I neglected to make before:

    Regarding Canonizations, I am certain that the SSPX would follow the nearly universal theological opinion that Canonization is an infallible act of the Pope, while Beatification is not so. Personal anecdotes do not policy make, but in years attending Society Masses and knowing dozens of the SSPX priests personally (hence countless personal and casual conversation) not a single priest has ever suggested that someone declared a Saint since 1960 was not so. At most they have suggested that the proliferation of the number of Saints might devalue Sainthood (which before modern times was not thought of as just a declaration that the person is in Heaven, but the Church’s highest stamp of approval on his entire life and as an example).

    I would not think that Bishop Fellay was suggesting that Maximillian Kolbe was not a Saint. Suggesting that is reading into his words something which is not there. There are plenty of explainations, but perhaps the best is that he may have just been using a more common reference to the man instead of the title granted by the Church. In fact with some Saints it has been very common to not use their Sanctoral titles (e.g. “Padre Pio” for St. Pio of Pietrelcina; “Don Bosco” for St. John Bosco; “Fra Angelico” for Bl. Giovanni da Fiesole; “Venerable Bede” for St. Bede). We also often refer to Saintly Popes without the Sanctoral title (Pope Pius X instead of Pope St. Pius X). In some cases it has become so common that few know the actual title of the Saint (referring to “St. Padre Pio” instead of “St. Pio” or his full title). There is not a need to always use the title, and sometimes it is even practical to use another, such as “Father” to emphasize that he was a priest.

  99. Antiquarian says:

    I did not intend to imply that the Society as a whole rejects the infallibility of recent canonizations, but Bishop Williamson is on record as doing so, and I imagine that some agree. (And I note that his writings on all subjects, not just the Holocaust, have been removed from the web.)

  100. Antiquarian says:

    I fear I am deepening a rabbit hole and apologize to Fr Z if so– but here is Bishop Williamson’s letter pronouncing post-Vatican II canonizations to be fallible. Some mighty tortuous reasoning is at work here.

    “In conclusion, these more or less Conciliar “canonizations” are correspondingly fallible, and are automatically not infallible. Obviously, Padre Pio was an entirely Traditional Saint, and we need not doubt the worthiness of his canonization. However, it might be advisable not to profit by his Newchurch “canonization” to venerate him officially or in public, insofar as that might be liable to give to other Newchurch “canonizations” a credit which is not due to them.”

  101. Henry Edwards says:

    Has anyone done the math on this?

    Well, it’s not that hard: 12 million / 600,000 is only 20 rosaries per SSPX member during the course of a year, which is not so many. And there will probably be a number of non-SSPX members contributing. I recall that in their first rosary campaign an address was provided where non-supporters (of the SSPX itself) could report theirs, and I understand many were received this way. So I wouldn’t be surprised if they wind up with a total exceeding the projected one million per month.

    On the other hot topic of this thread ……. I’ve tried on a few occasions, but simply have never been able to work up any real interest in the consecration of Russia question. So I was surprised to see the following comment at NLM by Fr. Peter Stravinskas, whom I respect for other reasons, while realizing that he is decidedly cool toward the TLM and such like as the SSPX:

    “All: Regarding the overall question of the consecration of Russia, I must say (although I have no intense interest in the issue)that I do not think it has been done and, further, that I believe the 2000 document of the Vatican on the topic was a white-wash, which I do no expect to see repudiated any time soon.”
    Father Peter Stravinskas

  102. Michael J says:


    You rather colorfully lambasted Bishop Williamson’s (erroneous) views about the infallibility of recent canonizations in response to a question about what the society itself teaches and says about the subject.

    How again is it that you “did not intend to imply that the Society as a whole rejects the infallibility of recent canonizations”?

    Do you really think that continuing to harp on one man’s errors – even going so fare as to dig up dirt from seven years ago – contributes at all?

  103. Biff says:

    Wow! Surprising quote from Don’t Homeschool Stravinskas. I would neveR have suspected that.

    Is there any truth to the claim that Maximilliam Kolbe held view on the Jwes similar to +Williamson (with exception to the fact of gassing) ?

  104. Antiquarian says:

    Michael J,

    No, I responded directly to prof basto– not particularly colorfully, if you ask me– and I think pointing out Williamson’s views is perfectly germane. You, I note, quoted only a portion of the text from the Society’s website, instead of the entire passage in which they question recent canonizations, especially that of St Jose Maria Escriva. There is an amplification from Father Peter Scott which includes the following, and again, this is their own current website–

    “we cannot possibly consider this “canonization” as a valid, infallible papal pronouncement. We trust that he is in heaven, but we cannot possibly regard as a saint this herald of Vatican II, who preached naturalism and indifferentism as early as 1928… ”

    It is interesting that you regard citing Bishop Williamson verbatim as “lambasting” him.

  105. Mark VA says:

    Dear Mel:

    You ask, somewhat rhetorically “Therefore, why would any poster to this blog have a problem with the official teachings regarding Jews that flow from the SSPX?”

    Roman Catholics pray for the conversion of the entire world, not because we want to impose our will, but because we believe that God exists, and Christ is divine. Should we not pray for each other? Conversely, if someone sincerely believes that we Catholics are mistaken in our beliefs, should they not, out of charity, pray for us?

    Regarding the Good Friday Traditional prayers for the Jewish people, Pope Benedict XVI asked that they no longer be said because they cause discontent among their recipients. In obedience to the Pope, these prayers are no longer said during that Traditional liturgy. We cannot speak for the SSPX in this matter, since they are outside the jurisdiction of the Church, and follow their own leadership.

    I recognize that I may not be able to convince you that the Roman Catholic Church is not congenitally anti-Semitic. Moreover, I’ve learned that in such discussions there sometimes comes a point where things should be left to one’s conscience.

  106. prof. basto says:

    Michael J,

    I’m not an expert on the subject. Perhaps others will point out to more authoritative statements on that. I know that the Catholic Encyclopedia states that canonization is the definition of a dogmatic fact.

    I understand that that is the accepted and traditional view of canonization, at least since the days of the solemn definition of papal infalibility.

    The 2005 document by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints on the new procedures for beatification ( states that canonization “is the supreme glorification by the Church of a Servant of God raised to the honours of the altar with a decree declared definitive and preceptive for the whole Church, involving the solemn Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff”.

    “Solemn Magisterium” is the Extraordinary Magisterium, that is, either a teaching of an ecumenical council or an ex cathedra teaching of a pope. Solemn Magisterium of a Pope, therefore, means an ex cathedra teaching. Note that the document is adressed to the whole Church, is preceptive and definitive.

    The formula used for canonization includes the explicit wording “We define”, typical of a solemn teaching, and also a formal invocation of the Supreme Authority, “With the Authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and with Ours…”

    The formula of canonization is as follows: “Ad honorem Sanctae et Individuae Trnitatis… auctoritate Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, beatorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli ac Nostra… Beatum N. N. Sanctum esse decernimus ac definimus, ac Sanctorum Catalogo adscribimus, statuentes eum in universa Ecclesia inter Sanctos pia devotione recoli debere.” Then follows the Trinitarian Formula.

    So, basically, the same formula as in pre-conciliar days. As in the past, still today canonizations are subsequently recorded by the Pope by means of a Decretal Letter (for instance, the Decretal Letter “Cum dilexisset suos”, on the canonization of St. Gianna Beretta Molla:

  107. Mel says:

    “I recognize that I may not be able to convince you that the Roman Catholic Church is not congenitally anti-Semitic.”

    I agree that Holy Mother Church is not anti-semitic (whatever “anti-semitic” may mean).

    I simply responded to the following statement from Cathguy — 25 April 2009 @ 7:59 pm : “I have LOTS of difficulty with their position, especially on…the Jews…”

    The SSPX’s “position” regarding Jews is the Church’s “position” regarding Jews. Therefore, why would anybody who is Catholic “have lots of difficulty” with the SSPX’s position regarding the Jews?

  108. Peter says:

    “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”

  109. Mark VA says:

    Dear Mel:

    Your last post clarified for me where you are coming from. In my personal experience, I know that at least some Jewish people are glad that the Church published Nostra Aetate, since it officially removed, once and for all, the erroneous perception of their collective guilt for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. It also paved the way for better relations between us, an endeavor which really started to blossom during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II.

    As far as SSPX is concerned – my opinion is that it is difficult to say what this group’s official stand on this matter is. I see factions – one led by SSPX Bishop Williamson, who sounds like a Feenyite or worse, and a more moderate faction headed by some of their other Bishops. However, I see them as generally very suspicious of “the Jews”, and somewhat obsessed with this subject. I don’t know if they wholeheartedly embrace Nostra Aetate, or even if they approve of Pope John Paul II’s efforts to change the Catholic-Jewish relations for the better.

    I reject the notion that this group somehow has the authority to define the Roman Catholic Church’s position with respect to the Jewish people. In this matter, they represent themselves only.

    I would like to see Catholic Traditionalism as spiritually healthy, historically well informed, and intelligent. I just don’t see how pathologies, such as anti-Semitism, should be camouflaged as “Catholic Tradition”.

  110. Brian says:

    Father Z, I go yo the sspx, why don,t you join and all Catholics join for this intention. You will see the fruits. I challenge you and all the Catholics worldwide to join to receive all the graces for the Church, the world, to end abortion,etc. Please join EVERYONE and let our Mother show us the results.

  111. Mathew25 says:

    There’s free rosary crusade informational / promotional material available for download here:,3420770.0.html


    Please print and distribute far and wide!

  112. Rose Haven says:

    May is a month devoted to the Blessed Mother and with the rosary devotion, we pray for the Holy Father and church unity.

    Some of these groups are not obedient and seem to want things their own way and we hear of these things from time to time. Pray!

  113. Mark says:

    When “their own way” is also Our Lady’s way, I’d say you should just do it.

Comments are closed.