As you know, the SSPX has the German bishops in a Tizzy because of the ordinations at their German seminary in Zaitzkofen.
To be clear, the SSPX does not have permission from the Church to ordain anyone. The SSPX are suspended a divinis. They validly ordain, but they do so illicitly. When the men are ordained priests, they are automatically suspended. They do not yet belong to any recognized ecclesiatical structure which can grant them faculties.
Here is a statement about the ordinations from the rector of that SSPX seminary. A reader provided me with a translation. My emphases and comments:
Statement of Rector Stefan Frey on the occasion of the ordinations to the priesthood on 27 June, 2009
The Seminary of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, of the Society of St. Pius X, in Zaitzkofen.
As rector, I would like to issue a statement at the beginning of today’s priestly ordinations to explain how we see today’s ceremony and how we would like them to be understood.
We regret that the public discourse about the Society of St. Pius X and about these priestly ordinations has been dominated by emotion. [Some have actually used reason.]
We regret that we had to recently experience massive verbal ostracism from several German bishops. [There were rumblings of excommunication.]It is very clear: Their position is completely at odds with the conduct of Rome. [Remember, that the SSPX bishops were excommunicated. The Holy Father lifted the excommunications as a kind and merciful gesture. But the problems still remain. Yes! The conduct of Rome has been benevolent.]
It must be recognized that Rome has not tied the doctrinal discussions about the Second Vatican Council with the Society of St. Pius X, which will soon begin, to the condition that we refrain from dispensing the sacraments in the meantime, until a practical agreement is reached. [So, "Rome didn’t say we couldn’t!" Is that something like a teenager saying that "Dad didn’t say we couldn’t" after hot wiring the family car for the fourth time, taking it for a joyride, and getting his licence suspended.]
If our society were to acquiesce to the demands of several German bishops and stop ordaining priests, celebrating the Mass, and dispensing the sacraments because we are currently in a gray area with respect to canon law, then that would amount to our de factio dissolution. [Well… not really. Also, I bet that if they said they wouldn’t ordain, perhaps the Holy See would even grant temporary faculties to say Mass. That is my conjecture, of course, from the purest optimism. But large gestures on both sides should be met with expansive gratitude.]
By making these demands, these bishops have twisted the intention of the Pope in lifting the decree of excommunication into its opposite. [This is probably right. But don’t fool yourself into thinking that the POPE thinks that what you are doing, outside the structures of the Church, is okay!]
We wish to make clear that the Society is merely the occasion, and not the cause of the current public conflict, which more and more is starting to address the Church’s real problem. [This is hard to follow. Is the Society "starting to address the Church’s real problem"? I don’t think that that is their role.]
This problem is well described by the words of the former Bishop of Regensburg, Msgr. Rudolf Graber:
"Everything is at stake. The Church is at stake. It is a matter of a gigantic revolution in the Church!" – "Protestantism was the first step. Afterwards follows modernism. It all ends in atheism." – There is a desire to "strip the Church of her supernatural character, to blend her into the world, to turn confessional coexistence into ecumenical fusion."
This is also our appraisal. We see an unprecedented crisis in the Church, even moreso today than 36 years ago, when Bishop Graber’s outstanding analysis of the crisis was released under the title "Athanasius and the Church of our Time."
The actions of the Society of St. Pius X this day can only be understood against this background. There is a crisis of faith in the Church, and a crisis of the priesthood. This is an emergency situation that has been caused, in large part, by forces inside the Church, which is endangering the faith and the eternal salvation of very many souls.
Because we love the Church, we are obligated by our conscience to continue using the 2000 year old tradition of the Church as our standard in priestly formation, which reaches its glorious conclusion in the ordination to the priesthood. [Despite the fact that it is done in disobedience. Is there a flaw in the formation somewhere?] We ask every person, to whom the good of the Church is truly dear, to look beyond human perils and to accept our honest and genuine desire to serve the Church. [Yes. I do accept that. And I really look forward to the day when some day it might be true and fruitful service] Only an objective and honest debate, marked by mutual respect, can bring blessings upon the Church. [Agreed! 100%]
Fr. Stefan Frey, Rector
I so hope that the SSPX leadership will honestly submit themselves to the doctrinal discussions with the necessary humility.
We need these men reconciled and intergrated into the Church.
Loading ...
I know emotions run high concerning the SSPX. Therefore, I make the following comment only from observable facts, knowing nothing about the hidden workings of the Society or Rome, and I make it without meaning to pass any sort of judgement.
Hiis dictis: Fr Frey comments that “mutual respect” is needed but these ordinations do not appear to indicate that respect.
I pray everyday that the SSPX is reconciled with the church.
obviously the Holy Father is focused on the final goal and is not distracted by ordinations which by themselves will mean nothing compared to if in fact the doctrinal discussions fail
and the SSPX is put back into ecclesiastical wilderness for at least a few more years
if the SSPX asked for faculties, and were given them, the German bishops might go ballistic because the SSPX will have them “not accepting v2”, and then the SSPX could be accused of dealing in bad faith during the negogiations because they already have faculties–when would they expire a month, a year?. de Mallerais thinks the talks will go on 30 years
if the SSPX stops ordaining, or even worse stops saying mass, then the liberals in Rome control the negogiations. And probably more importantly, then men who have studied, what 6-7 years are held hostage to these negogiations. It would be one thing to delay all for a week or even a month with then certain ordination, but the discussions are supposed to open and honest without secondary agendas. There is no way to know if an agreement will occur for sure and especially if it will take a week or a year, or 30 (heaven forbid)
When Archishop L was about to consecrate bishops, the warnings were quite public and explicit.
At this time, there is no such admonition. Just as when Thomas More’s silence spoke volumes, it may be this Pope’s silence is also saying much.
My views on the SSPX are well known to anyone who reads this blog so I will attempt to be brief: a) I agree 100% with Father that we need the reconciliation of the SSPX both that those who prefer the EF can do so in good consciounce and so that the Church can utilize the Society’s expertise in rooting out modernism. (b) whilst I appreciate and sympathise with the Society’s fears and the need to win over those members who have developed a quasi-schismatic mindset it ought to show some public humility and/or an overt gesture of loyalty to the Holy Father (c) from what I have seen and heard your average SSPX Catholic is exceptionally Pious, commited to Othordoxy and loves Christ, therefore when reconcilliation occurs they should be welcomed back with filial love rather than be subject to a tounge-lashing in the Catholic press (they’ll get enough of that from the secular press)
I would have incredible respect for the SSPX if, as a gesture of good will, they stopped offering the mass in hopes that the Holy See would extend temporary faculties.
I think that it’s easy to forget that the Pope *doesn’t have to say anything.* The law is clearly stated in black and white: the SSPX do not have licit faculties to ordain, and thus their priests are suspended. They offer illicit Masses, and do not have the faculties to absolve sins.
The canon law is there, as it has stood since its promulgation twenty-odd years ago, with the weight of 2000 years of legal tradition. The Pope doesn’t stand over each person and warn them when they’re about to commit a canonical crime, just like the President doesn’t send a letter to each senator reminding them not to engage in larceny and bribery.
*The law is the warning.* And the SSPX have violated it, dismissing the Pope’s spirit of reconciliation.
After all the Holy See has done recently in regards to the SSPX, wouldn’t it be wise to put all such ordinations on hold out of sheer respect and politeness? As a sign of good faith? The Holy See has done much. What has the SSPX done in return?
This situation can be remedied by temporary faculties granted by the Holy Father pending completion of the discussions. One wonders why this has not been done when the salvation of souls is at stake. to me the SSPX is not doing anything different from what they have been doing for 40 odd years but, suddenly, when the excommunications are remitted, there is a firestorm of criticism against their actions by the German and French conferences. They are welcomed back but then placed under suspension while supposedly their views are being considered in the doctrinal discussions. In the meantime the Holy Father remains silent about these developments. It boggles the mind. The Church needs them and they need the Church but it seems emotion are getting in the way.
perhaps a good Idea would be to temporarly grant them faculties for 3 years pending discussions, however what you must remember is that the SSPX are very creative in their interpritations of cannon law. A carrot and stick perhaps? remind them that they need to play their part and accept V2 whilst being free to offer constructive criticism about the wording of the documents.
I have been following your discussions, and I wanted to say something about this reciprocity idea.
As I’ve mentioned in other posts, I bear SSPX and Bishop Fellay no ill-will, and I would add that I believe they are (at least currently) acting in good faith. More importantly, perhaps the Pope also is of that view (or even a more founded one).
I myself was thinking that perhaps he should have said something about “Ecclesia supplet” or “temporary faculties”, or something like that, just to avoid the scandal (objectively) that many are expressing: “how can they do this?”, etc.
Perhaps, though, the Pope believes that any such overt statement would cause more harm than good, and has decided to just not say anything. After all, he can create Cardinals “in pectore” (which I realize is not the same thing, but it is an analogy). Such Cardinals’ seniority ranks from the moment of the Pope’s intention if they are later identified; but if the Pope dies, ???.
Maybe the less said, the better for everyone.
Or, maybe I’m all wet.
And what do you do with the million or so faithful while they stop saying Mass? Tell them what? Go where? And for how long should Mass be suspended? One week, one month, one year, or maybe 20? I believe and correct me if I am wrong that the Vatican has said the faithful can fulfill their obligation to attend Mass by attending SSPX Masses, even if they encourage against it and remind us to evaluate the reason we are going. eg; not with schismatic intentions. I am fortunate to have Tridentine Masses within my Dioceases but many , many are without. And it is our own Bishops who despite what the Holy Father has determined, will do everything within their power to prevent the Mass according to the 1962 Missal. Many faithful were driven to these chapels and Masses by their very own Priests and Bishops….Do you really want to hurt them further? Perhaps this is the angle from which the Pope sees. I trust that the Holy Father is correct in his handling of the situation and Bishop Fellay truly loves the Church and Pope and wants this reconciliation as much as anyone. It is not only the SSPX leaders, but hundreds of thousands of simple lay people involved in our opinions of how the SSPX should act now towards Rome…
We wish to make clear that the Society is merely the occasion, and not the cause of the current public conflict, which more and more is starting to address the Church’s real problem. [This is hard to follow. Is the Society “starting to address the Church’s real problem”? I don’t think that that is their role.]
He is saying that the public conflict is more and more beginning to address “the real problem.” I think he means that people are starting to argue about causes of the “doctrinal crisis”, i.e., their different interpretations of Vatican II rather than fighting about the details of canon law or the externals of worship.
Geoffrey: It has guarded and protected the TLM and Church History for decades. Without this protection there would not now be the strong foundation that the Holy Father will now utilize to put into place a workable system for the re-interpretation of some of the documents of VATII, namely ecumenism, collegiality, religious liberty and the Novus Ordo. All Catholics will benefit from this study. Our Holy Father is highly motivated to undertake this project because he desperately needs the 500 (next year closer to 600) priests (mostly young) that he will inherit to help him to reintroduce elements of tradition into the Church. Anyone following the news just from Austria and Germany just during the month of June can easily appreciate this.
I would have incredible respect for the SSPX if, as a gesture of good will, they stopped offering the mass in hopes that the Holy See would extend temporary faculties.
After all the Holy See has done recently in regards to the SSPX, wouldn’t it be wise to put all such ordinations on hold out of sheer respect and politeness? As a sign of good faith?</i?
Both of you guys are living in a weird conciliarist fantasy world to come up with this stuff. The Pope certainly does not expect any such thing of the SSPX.
He might prefer that the SSPX ask forgiveness, and ask for immediate regularization with no preconditions on their side, but he knows it will not happen that way and will not waste his time asking them to do it.
I just wonder what you guys will think when the SSPX successfully concludes doctrinal discussions, the Pope issues clarifying statements on the problematic texts of Vatican II, the SSPX receives an apostolic administration removing it from the control of local bishops, and all past SSPX confessions and marriages are declared valid?
“I just wonder what you guys will think when the SSPX successfully concludes doctrinal discussions, the Pope issues clarifying statements on the problematic texts of Vatican II, the SSPX receives an apostolic administration removing it from the control of local bishops, and all past SSPX confessions and marriages are declared valid?”
Rejoice, drink Widow as is the tradition of this blog, and drive to the nearest SSPX chapel to celebrate the great work of God that he has worked in the presence of His people?
I thought that this might happen. Give SSPX an inch and it takes a mile. They reason that the ordinations must be permitted because Rome did not specifically prohibit them. I believe that ordinations, to be licit, must be approved by Rome, through the local ordinary.
Nevertheless, I pray for SSPX, and I hope that it can return to the main body of the Church.
Sorry hit “enter” too early.
I just don’t see how hoping for Christian unity is living in a weird conciliarist fantasy.
“But don’t fool yourself into thinking that the POPE thinks that what you are doing, outside the structures of the Church, is okay!”
Father, with all due respect – maybe you should not be the judge of what the Holy Father does and does not think either.
My last 2 cents before I got to bed is to remember that although the modernists are on the way out they still have the potential to be dangerous (I believe that is what we are seeing with the French & German Bishop councils) also I totally agree with Mitchell about how many were driven into the arms of the SSPX by members of the Clergy (not that its an excuse for disobediance), my last point is that we should remember that the SSPX have been treated very badly ever since their inception and consequently have adopted an ‘Athanasius Contra Mundum’ mentality which means that Rome may have to cut them ALOT of slack if they are serious about reconcilliaton (and I believe the Holy Father is)
de Mallerais thinks the talks will go on 30 years…
On the other hand:
Maybe the less said, the better for everyone.
It is not so difficult to understand why the Pope is hesitating or better acting cautiously.
The Pope lifted the restrictions on the traditional Latin mass and he lifted the excommunications of the four bishops. This can only mean one thing… He has already implicitly welcomed back the SSPX into the Church. Does he really have to spell it out?
The reaction of the German and French bishops is very disappointing. They cannot admit that they have lost the battle. Maybe the modernists are not responsible for the crisis in the Church, but they made it worse for sure.
The seminaries of the ‘official’ Church are empty. Game over for them. On the other hand you see many people yearning for good priests. More and more people are looking in the direction of the SSPX and similar groups.
The German and French bishops should now welcome back the SSPX into the Church. Then the Pope can officially regularise their status. If the German and French bishops stubbornly refuse to welcome back the SSPX, two things could happen: 1. the faithful will force them to do so or 2. the ‘official’ Church in Germany and French will cease to exist.
Every major town in Germany and France has an SSPX church or chapel. Even smaller towns are being served by the SSPX. Nobody can deny the ‘success’ of the SSPX and the meltdown of the ‘offical’ Church in Northern Europe. The sooner everybody realises that these trends are irreversable, the better for all.
“We wish to make clear that the Society is merely the occasion, and not the cause of the current public conflict, which more and more is starting to address the Church’s real problem. [This is hard to follow. Is the Society “starting to address the Church’s real problem”? I don’t think that that is their role.]”
wsxyz’s comment:
He is saying that the public conflict is more and more beginning to address “the real problem.” I think he means that people are starting to argue about causes of the “doctrinal crisis”, i.e., their different interpretations of Vatican II rather than fighting about the details of canon law or the externals of worship.
wsxyz,
I understood it that way too.
He is saying that the SSPX is just the occasion, the scapegoat, for liberal bishops to manifest their dislike of traditional Catholicism and of Pope Benedict’s push for continuity.
He is saying that what the Bishops dislike isn’t the SSPX per se or the ordinations that have taken place today, but traditional Chistianity, its values, its doctrine.
He is saying that, in his view, the SSPX is just a “battle” for the liberal German bishops; their “war” being against the continuity promoted by Pope Benedict, the doctrinal talks, traditionalism as a whole, the traditional vision for the Church etc.
He is implying that the German bishops desire a Church of watered down doctrine, rupture in liturgy and in belief, etc. So the real fight is over the meaning of Vatican II, the future of the Church, etc.
That is the “real problem” the “public conflict” is now facing more directly.
I reiterate what I have said before: If the FSSPX were an Eastern Orthodox grouping, no-one would ever dream of expecting of them that they ceased to ordain priests as long as doctrinal discussions were underway, much less that they ceased to celebrate the Divine Liturgy. Why is it only of the FSSPX, who have always been adamant that they believe everything the Church has always taught, that people make such absurd demands?
Meanwhile, the Patriarch of Lisbon, who said that it is ‘outdated’ to think of Christianity as superior to other religions, is still allowed to say Mass and ordain priests. Cardinal Maloney with his absurd and unchristian liturgical ideas is still allowed to say Mass and ordain priests. The German Archbishop who severely garbled the theology of the Redemption is still allowed to say Mass and ordain priests. Archbishop Weakland, who is stating that homosexuality is not sinful, is at least still allowed to say Mass. The Austrian priest who consecrated a pita bread and held it up for adoration with barbecue tongs is still allowed to say Mass. Fr. Jenkins, who bestowed an honorary doctorate upon a radical pro-abortionist, is still allowed to say Mass. The Austrian priests who live with their concubines are still allowed to say Mass, along with their countless partners-in-crime in Africa. The Indian priests who, in Hindu fashion, sprinkled their congregations with cow’s urine during the Asperges are probably still allowed to say Mass. And as far as I know, even the arch-heresiarch of Modernism, Hans Küng, has never had his faculties to say Mass removed.
May I kindly ask people to get some bloody perspective and turn their attention to the real problems???
Very true Prof. Basto.
Unfortunately, the liberals forget only one thing:
GOD IS LOVE
“Why is it only of the FSSPX, who have always been adamant that they believe everything the Church has always taught, that people make such absurd demands?”
Gideon Ertner
Indeed! Maybe it is time to revive the concept of “heresy”.
The question is:”What is Catholic and what is not?”
“Geoffrey: It has guarded and protected the TLM and Church History for decades. Without this protection there would not now be the strong foundation that the Holy Father will now utilize to put into place a workable system for the re-interpretation of some of the documents of VATII, namely ecumenism, collegiality, religious liberty and the Novus Ordo. All Catholics will benefit from this study. Our Holy Father is highly motivated to undertake this project because he desperately needs the 500 (next year closer to 600) priests (mostly young) that he will inherit to help him to reintroduce elements of tradition into the Church. Anyone following the news just from Austria and Germany just during the month of June can easily appreciate this.
Comment by mfg — 27 June 2009 @ 6:02 pm ”
_________________________________________________
mfg,
What an arrogant and absurd statement that sums as: The only hope is the SSPX. No one else can possibly do anything to help the Church. Rubbish.
Those 500 priests are disobedient. The law is clear that they illicitly administer some sacraments and other aren’t sacraments at all, just invalid attempts. These are not acts of traditional Catholic priests. Traditional Catholic Priests don’t work outside of the Church. They don’t need to have meetings discussing how they are going to fix their very serious problem. The actions of the SSPX are no better than those priests and bishops of a liberal agenda. Both ends of the spectrum believe and are trying to do good, but both allow the pursuit of their agendas to tarnish and damage the missions they are on.
I hope that the bishops and the priests of the SSPX do eventually come back to the Church as their agenda (in my opinion) is more in line with Church teachings and traditions, but right now I can’t support them because of the fact that their actions are not those of traditional Catholics.
Regarding our Holy Father’s desire for an authentic interpretation of Vatican II consistent with tradition, which is more supportive of him? The Church’s episcopacy as a whole, or the SSPX?
Would the SSPX’s support of the Pope be more helpful to him from within or from without the Church?
If, for instance, Ecclesia Dei and Summorum Pontificum are results of the SSPX’s influence from without, would their influence now be more effective from within? What has changed?
the liberals do have love, but they only love gays and people of another faith than the Catholic Faith.
Their own brethren get only hatred from the liberals.
Re “wouldn’t it be wise to put all such ordinations on hold out of sheer respect and politeness?” and the many similar sentiments on this blog: try putting yourselves in the position of the SSPX: they do what they do, not for some kind of amusement, but because of a sincere belief that their work is necessary. In that light, asking them to suspend their necessary work (mass, sacraments including ordinations) for anything other than grave (and to me, unimaginable) supernatural reasons, is quite senseless.
We can have yet another discussion about whether or not the SSPX position about the necessity of its actions is correct (guess what I think), but these men are not playing games and should not be expected to respond so.
God Bless
Paul
PS Dear Fr Z re your “We need these men reconciled and intergrated into the Church” – that’s great to see … it makes me think that you don’t believe all of the bad things you sometimes imply about them!
Dear JM,
Better 500 or 600 disobedient young SSPX priests than no \’official\’ obedient priests.
You simply don\’t seem to grasp what is going on in Northern Europe right now.
This problem is well described by the words of the former Bishop of Regensburg, Msgr. Rudolf Graber:
\”Everything is at stake. The Church is at stake. It is a matter of a gigantic revolution in the Church!\” – \”Protestantism was the first step. Afterwards follows modernism. It all ends in atheism.\” – There is a desire to \”strip the Church of her supernatural character, to blend her into the world, to turn confessional coexistence into ecumenical fusion.\”
The Church is at stake in Northern Europe!
Sorry, but disobedient acts like this ordination only strengthen my hunch that the SSPX has no intention of reconciling with the Church. The Holy Father is bending over backwards to restore unity, and these ordinations are just another obstacle to that unity becoming a reality.
I think that what makes me most uncomfortable about the Society’s actions is that it seems to engender the opinion that indviduals, and not the Magisterium as a whole, with the Successor of Peter as its head, preserve the Catholic Faith and Church. I have known numerous supporters of the Society who take this view (now I know that no one says this explicitly, but actions speak volumes). I know the Society is probably motivated in part by fear, but I am not sure that their mentality is correct. The Doctors of the Church, and even moreso the Fathers of the Church, are very clear about the Magisterium in union with Peter.
I also wonder if this situation is somewhat like a child and his parents. In this case, I think that the parent has been openly benevolent, while the child has been both obedient and rebellious.
Now, I don’t say this about all supporters, but this has been my experience over the last few years…
I’ve always been liturgically traditional but for the longest time had no sympathy at all for SSPX due to the evident disobedience that resulted in the excommunication of their bishops.
However, more recently, I’ve begun to change my perspective; I believe that this is due to Pope Benedict XVI’s own example in endeavoring to reconcile the Society with the Church.
I mean, to my mind, the Pope wants the reintegration of the SSPX because he is fundamentally sympathetic to their perspective that possibly the wording (and certainly the interpretation) of certain Vatican II documents needs to be clarified.
Furthermore, it becomes clearer to me every day more and more that there really is a state of emergency in the Church; the losses in the past 40 years have been unimaginable and as recent evidence from certain clergy in the US, Germany, France, and Austria suggest, there are still many more losses to come.
I’m not saying that what the SSPX has done is the ideal Catholic response but it may well have been the only realistic one given how radical modernists steamrolled over faithful priests and others in the name of obedience to the “Spirit of Vatican II”.
Ultimately, I don’t hope to be able to understand all of the complexities involved in these issues but I for one am content to follow the lead of the Holy Father who seems to be willing to overlook the irregularities of the SSPX in order to focus on the critical matters that the Society is calling attention to.
Pax et Bonum
Good commentary, Fr. Z. I have one question: how long are these talks expected to last? If they will be short, then why not wait? If they are going to be long, then why not clarify the SSPX’s canonical situation? Either way, why does the SSPX dishonor the Pope’s sacrifices for them by committing this shameful public act of implicit defiance?
The “unprecedented crisis in the Church” excuse is wearing thin.
I have a question for Father Z. and all the readers,to whit, what are the “teachings” of Vatican II? I mean it. And please, do not confuse these items with the “Spirit of Vatican II” Religious freedom? Ecumenism? Ecumenism is so off the rails that Cdl Ratzinger issued DOMINUS JESUS in September 5, 2000 and again on July 10th, 2007. Statements are just now being issued to the Jews, their Covenant no longer obtains, reversing 40 years of gibberish. Now it is being admitted that salvation comes only through Christ! That the Church of Christ is the true Church.
Many are talking about disobedience. What about all the disobedient bishops and cardinals? Our own cardinal, bishop of our archdiocese, refuses to follow the Motu Propio given by his Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.
It seems we have conveniently forgotten these disobedient individuals who are currently supposed to be in the \”chain of command\”.
Yes I agree Fr. Z that these men (SSPX) ought to be reconciled. Many of them are excellent Catholics and the Church needs them. However, the long years of separation and struggle have hardened and embittered some of them. This need to be healed and purged. We should be reminded of Bishop Williamson’s statements and those like minded with him. If we consider Modernism and false ecumenism as worse, then we can say equally that religious extremism/extreme rightism is also worse. But nonetheless the existence of the Church depends on the Grace of God. It will not depend on any human organization. God uses human persons and organizations to further His loving plan for humankind.
Anyone see pics of the ordinations? There was on on the SSPX’s German site of a bishop there — he looked like he was not part of the 4 Society bishops. Any clue on who he is? http://www.piusbruderschaft.de/index.php?option=com_phocagallery&view=category&id=847&Itemid=72
4th picture on the page.
Sorry, but disobedient acts like this ordination only strengthen my hunch that the SSPX has no intention of reconciling with the Church. The Holy Father is bending over backwards to restore unity, and these ordinations are just another obstacle to that unity becoming a reality.
TNCath – You are missing that crucial key to understanding the situation. That key is that Pope Benedict does not expect the SSPX to stop ordinations and has not asked them to stop ordinations.
True, canon law does not permit them. Every single person involved knows that. Every single person involved also knows that the SSPX has ordained every year and that this year is no different. No person involved expects the SSPX to stop doing ANYTHING that they have not been explicitly asked to stop.
We did not talk about last years ordinations by the SSPX. Why this year?
In fact, we have not talked much about the SSPX ordinations in Winona or Econe this year, but pretty much only about the SSPX ordinations in Zaitzkofen. Why is that?
The only reason this is an issue at all is because a couple of German bishops decided to make it an issue. And now they stand there with egg on their face. They demanded a stop to the ordinations. They threatened excommunication. They demanded the Pope put a stop to the SSPX \”disobediance.\” Nothing happened. That is because the Pope is not going to allow the German bishops to screw up his plans. He knows that the German bishops are being disingenuous. He knows that they are applying a double standard.
In the interview with Fr. Schmidberger, we learned that the Pope and the SSPX have worked out a plan for the regularization of the society. That plan did not foresee, require, or request that the SSPX abstain from any of their activities. That plan is being followed and, in my opinion, that plan will succeed.
If we consider Modernism and false ecumenism as worse, then we can say equally that religious extremism/extreme rightism is also worse.
What in the world is religious extremism?
The Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ and every other religion is false and inspired by the devil for the purpose of bringing men to their damnation.
That is true. Does it count as religious extremism?
When Fr. Frey quotes Bishop Graber saying “‘Protestantism was the first step. Afterwards follows modernism. It all ends in atheism.‘” in this context, is he suggesting that the German bishops are (becoming) Protestant?
LCB: So you feel free calling for the SSPX to stop celebrating Holy Mass when, if the scenario I proposed comes true, then the SSPX really does have supplied jurisdiction and has been right all along?
How strange.
The SSPX doesn’t have a monopoly on “lack of humility”. I know of at least one internet cleric who suffers from it as well.
Strange times we live in. Muslim child molester Michael Jackson memorialised on the front page of the pope’s newspaper and orthodox priests under suspension.
And I think Cardinal Renato Martino’s description of Gaza as a “big concentration camp” is as dangerous and anti-semitic as Williamson’s comparably moronic boilerplate.
I love the incessant propaganda…”disobedient, disobedient, disobedient” lol Why can’t the “neo” conservatives here who apparently like all the traditional Catholic practices (most especially, the TLM) give credit to the SSPX for that? If not for the so-called “disobedience” of the SSPX for the last 40 years, you would not have Summorum Pontificum. You would not have the TLM.
The SSPX was offered the same deal as St Peter’s received 20 years ago – exclusive use of the Old Missal – but they refused, because the great Archbishop insisted that ALL priests have to have the old missal available to them. Then the St Peter’s priests started calling them “disobedient!” The St John Vianney priests also gave in without insisting on all priests’ right to use the old missal. Again, the SSPX insisted…the old missal is allowed to ALL priests, it has never been abrogated. Then, the Vianney priests charge the SSPX with being “disobedient!”
Now, the diocesan priests have finally been given the right to the old missal – the successor of Peter finally admitting it has “never been juridically abrogated.” He has also said that there is, in fact, a “crisis in the Church” mainly “due to the disintegration of the liturgy.”
What a surprise! SSPX was right all along…all priests have the right – and have had the right all along – to use the old missal, and the use of the old missal will help in repairing the damage done by the new liturgy. And, now that it is so obvious that the Pope wants the work of the SSPX to continue, still the charges of “disobedient” are thrown about.
The SSPX “withstood Peter to his face, because he was wrong.” Give them the credit they deserve!
P.S. – Keep in mind, the only holdup to the official regularization of SSPX is the doctrinal talks, which were not demanded by Rome (as if there were some doubt about the orthodoxy of SSPX) but rather were asked for by SSPX, so that Rome could clarify the doctrine of the Church for the benefit of the faithful, whose official teachers have been teaching them abject heresy for 40 years.
Hans, I think many of the German bishops passed the Protestant stage about 30 years ago.
Wsxyz,
You wrote:
LCB: So you feel free calling for the SSPX to stop celebrating Holy Mass when, if the scenario I proposed comes true, then the SSPX really does have supplied jurisdiction and has been right all along?
I reply:
Firstly, you may find it fruitful to reread Fr. Z’s original post in which he states: “Also, I bet that if they said they wouldn’t ordain, perhaps the Holy See would even grant temporary faculties to say Mass. That is my conjecture, of course, from the purest optimism. But large gestures on both sides should be met with expansive gratitude.” My original comment was based as a response to that, and you seem to be missing that context. I had slightly misunderstood Fr. Z (and read “offering mass” in place of “ordinations”), but my point about my personal opinion remains.
Secondly, I try not to base my opinions on future possibilities of debatable likelihood that result in individuals being made to appear “right all alone.”
Thirdly, retroactive supplied jurisdiction (which the Pontiff can do as supreme legislator, I believe) can be issued that would supply validity to all marriages and confessions without prejudice towards jurisdiction when the initial event took place.
Is ignoring the local Bishop’s authority as successor to the apostles the best way to protect the Church from modernism, Protestantism, and atheism? Modernists, Protestants, and atheists also ignore the Bishop’s authority as successor to the apostles. National Catholic Reporter and Fr. Jenkins, CSC have the same attitude towards the Episcopacy. Why do we even have bishops, if even so-called conservative, traditional, orthodox Catholics ignore them. The comparison to St. Athanasius doesn’t apply. Athanasius was a Bishop, and not just a Bishop, but Metropolitan of a See second only to Rome in dignity, against heretics who rejected the humanity of Christ. Unless they’re ready to go fully sede-vacantist, and accuse the Pope and all the Bishops of a similar heresy, the analogy doesn’t hold, and unless a wondering, gyrovague Bishop is somehow on the same level as a Patriarch.
David,
Do the ends justify the means? Consequentialism is heresy.
Since there was a good result by a Pontiff who sought to end an irregular situation, the initial act is now justified, right?
“The SSPX ‘withstood Peter to his face, because he was wrong.'”
I think it is fair to wonder if Peter has indeed been having some sort of an “Antioch moment” again these past 45 years.
However, I don’t exactly see the often hyperbolical and unreasonable FSSPX as a credible cast for St. Paul. St. Catherine of Siena and St. Bernhard of Clairvaux could criticize Popes, but as far as I know they always showed fitting respect and assumed their good will. Plus, they were Saints themselves, which makes their witness a lot more credible. I know only of one saintly person who really stood up to Paul VI (there may well have been more, but sorry, I am not counting the intransigent Mons. Lefèbvre), namely Dietrich von Hildebrand, and he was also always civil towards the Pope even though there was much to be angry about.
The conduct of these characters stand in stark contrast to the likes of the venom-spewing Savonarola who, although his criticism of Alexander VI was certainly well founded, eventually strayed into heresy. His actions mirror those of the Sedevacantists and the ‘hard-core’ FSSPX crowd.
Many people are justifiably scandalized by a lot of things that have happened in the past decades, and the Popes have not been at all blameless in this regard. But as I see it, any criticism must bear in mind that 1) we ourselves are neither Saints nor Apostles, like Paul was, and 2) no matter what happens, the Roman Pontiff still bears the power of the Keys and all the Church is subject to him.
Do the ends justify the means?
That’s a very good question to ask about Vatican II.
Oh I’m sorry, the approved orthodox formula is, the implementation of Vatican II.
Gideon,
St. Catherine et al. were not saints (strictly speaking) when there criticisms were being delivered. They were simply serious Catholics working out their salvation in fear and trembeling. They did what they had to do and they were canonized for it.
Crazy Man: Good eye. Who is that bishop? As far as I can tell, he is not one of the SSPX bishops (Do abbots vest that way outside of their abbey’s? Or is he someone with the right to pontificals who is sympathetic?)
wsxyz wrote: “You are missing that crucial key to understanding the situation. That key is that Pope Benedict does not expect the SSPX to stop ordinations and has not asked them to stop ordinations.”
Pope Benedict wants them to return to the Church. Perhaps he has not asked them to stop ordinations because he knows it wouldn’t do any good, as the SSPX has not recognized his authority since its founding. If they have defied the Church for this long, why would he expect them to stop doing so now? Regardless of what the Pope has or has not asked them to do, if they REALLY wanted to be reconciled with the Church, they wouldn’t do anything do put that reconciliation at risk by going through with these illicit ordinations, just as the Anglicans wouldn’t have “ordained” women, just as Archbishop Milingo wouldn’t have ordained his bishops, just as other splinter groups have attempted to ordain women. Semper idem, semper idem–disobedience all around. We can only pray that these groups see the errors of their foolish ways and return to the barque of Peter.
stp writes: “What about all the disobedient bishops and cardinals? Our own cardinal, bishop of our archdiocese, refuses to follow the Motu Propio given by his Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.”
The bishop you speak of may very well be disobedient, but, regardless, he is still a legitimate bishop in a legitimate diocese. He should be corrected as necessary. Nonetheless, he is still in communion with Peter.
what if a very, very, very large chunk of a planet breaks off from the planet but the little remaining piece is still in its original orbit while the chunk is floating through space?
if they REALLY wanted to be reconciled with the Church, they wouldn’t do anything do put that reconciliation at risk by going through with these illicit ordinations
These ordinations do nothing to put their reconciliation at risk. That is the part that you haven’t been understanding.
As to what the SSPX REALLY wants, it seems to me that they want Rome to stop tolerating heresy and to start aggressively defending the authentic Catholic faith, starting by authoritatively defining precise, clear and orthodox readings of the texts of Vatican II.
“The SSPX “withstood Peter to his face, because he was wrong.” Give them the credit they deserve!”
I personally wont frequent the SSPX until they are regularized, but I’m starting to think more and more that this may in fact be the interpretation history gives to the whole thing 150 years down the line looking back. I used to condemn the SSPX a lot, now, though I do not feel that I can go where they have gone, I am extremely sympathetic. I think someday we may even have a St Marcel Lefebvre. But it will take a long view of history to determine that.
“I think someday we may even have a St Marcel Lefebvre. But it will take a long view of history to determine that.”
Has anyone who died excommunicated been canonized? That seems very unlikely.
wsxyz wrote: “These ordinations do nothing to put their reconciliation at risk. That is the part that you haven’t been understanding.”
Well, defying the Church’s authority hardly helps to pave the way towards reconciliation.
wsxyz wrote: “As to what the SSPX REALLY wants, it seems to me that they want Rome to stop tolerating heresy and to start aggressively defending the authentic Catholic faith, starting by authoritatively defining precise, clear and orthodox readings of the texts of Vatican II.”
Perhaps the SSPX should look in the mirror first? It is not the SSPX’s call to dictate what the Church should do and how and when she should do it. Either the SSPX wants to reconcile with the Church or they don’t.
The question Geoffrey is this, “Has anyone who has died in a state of excommunication been received into heaven?” For that to be answered requires miraculous intervention and only then could canonization be a subject for consideration. Disobedience in a religious matter of this import is not the sort of behavior that even gets your cause initiated. That being said should miracles suddenly multiply through such a person’s intercession it would certainly be a cause for investigation. But so long as ML’s followers continue to disobey either Rome or their local LEGITIMATE Bishops it looks a lot more like pride over virtue and we all know whose followers really have PRIDE, and they sure ain’t in heaven.
I’m glad Father-Rector made the effort to clarify the position of the Society although it wasn’t necessary for me. I appreciate the efforts of the Society, and as I had said in an earlier post, the attitude of all these obsessive-compulsive naysayers is that they wish the SSPX to die off through attrition.
At the same time, the various things Father Z pointed out about the ordinations and the resulting irregularity, brings to mind the fact no one in the Church is flopping around on the floor when the “Orthodox” schismatics do their “ordinations,” or elevating of “bishops,” etc. Why no letters to those people? Why no public excoriations of them by Bishop Nag or Father Dolt? Yeah, everyone wants to justify why they are two-faced about treating the SSPX one way and the real schismatics of the East another. Two-faced means LIAR!
I agree with Father Z’s sentiments. We really do want these priests in the Church one day so they can serve us with their priestly ministries. IMO, these SSPXer-priests would be more than ready to put boots on the ground running than a lot of these half-bakes we get out the average seminary nowadays, especially here in Los Angeles. I appreciate the fathers’ sincerity but in a lot of things they don’t have a clue.
TNCath: defying the Church’s authority hardly helps to pave the way towards reconciliation.
The point is that they are not now anymore defying the Church’s authority than they were last year. The Pope knows that the SSPX will keep dispensing the sacraments, business as usual, throughout the time of the negotiations. He has always expected them to continue to do so. It is a non-issue with respect to reconciliation.
It is not the SSPX’s call to dictate what the Church should do and how and when she should do it. Either the SSPX wants to reconcile with the Church or they don’t.
The SSPX wants to reconcile with the Church on their own terms. Until that happens, they are perfectly willing to continue as they are. I agree that seems pretty arrogant, but from their point of view they are just refusing to let themselves get dragged into the same quagmire that most of the rest of the Church is already floundering in.
If any other group of episcopi vagantes were welcomed back would they be treated with the same degree of good will?
The German bishops rightly wish to be well distanced from the Crypto-Nazi element evidenced by Williamson’s prejudiced unhistorical views. Many of these beliefs may be what much of the German Church believed in the 1930’s but they are rightly rejected now. The Holy Father has himself warned againt the Nazification of the Faith. He should know, he grew up among it and transcended it. The German bishops operate against the background of a particular historical situation.
and do not have the faculties to absolve sins
The Vatican has already stated that they DO have these faculties, but only when the receipient of the sacrament is ignorant that the Priest is suspended. So they have partial faculties if the receipient is ignorant.
I would also go so far as to say they could also absolve sins if the receipient was in imminent danger of death.
I am constantly amazed how many people want to poke a stick in the eye of any member of the SSPX while allowing protestant or even non-catholics to take a more involved role in the “modern Catholic church”.
“Is ignoring the local Bishop’s authority as successor to the apostles the best way to protect the Church from modernism, Protestantism, and atheism? Modernists, Protestants, and atheists also ignore the Bishop’s authority as successor to the apostles. National Catholic Reporter and Fr. Jenkins, CSC have the same attitude towards the Episcopacy. Why do we even have bishops, if even so-called conservative, traditional, orthodox Catholics ignore them. The comparison to St. Athanasius doesn’t apply. Athanasius was a Bishop, and not just a Bishop, but Metropolitan of a See second only to Rome in dignity, against heretics who rejected the humanity of Christ.”
Arius was a bishop too.
I wish the FSSPX would visit blogs like Mark Shea’s where there’s renewed optimism that the society won’t be regularized.
That should be a motivator for them.
I’m sure that their official presence in the Church would go along way toward rooting out what they dislike
I think that the SSPX recently ordained a large group of priests in the US, and no-one took notice. So, I have the suspicicion that it was only the German bishops who talked up this ordination in Germany into something like a big test case in order to derail the talks for regularisation (already after the lifting of the excommunications one German bishop stated that he feels closer to the divorced Lutheran ‘Bishopess’ in his town than to the SSPX, just to give you an idea about the mood)
No-one knows how long these doctrinal talks will be going on; and it would seem somewhat absurd if they had told to the deacons who were ordained priests yesterday ‘go away, find a job, and report back in a few years’ time’.
I don’t know the history, but I should be surprised if a moratorium of celebrating the sacraments was in place during the talks for the reconciliation of the priests at Campos in Brasil a few years ago.
Fr. Z’s commentary on the press release is right on the money. The SSPX do not have the law on their side. I bet, even they would admit that. But!! They have history on their side: the Church has suffered greatly since the conclusion of Vatican 2. Not everything was caused by an ill managed and hastily concluded Council. But ever since the conlusion of the Council, the wreckers in the Church have used the volumes of poorly written documents to confuse and debase the life of our Church. The SSPX is the only organization that has successfuly stood against the wreckers’ agenda. Their obstinate courage infuriates their detractors.
The odd thing in this whole affair is that while the SSPX is or has been officially persecuted, the Church wreckers get or have been getting official protection. Is there any wonder the SSPX are impatient with the situation from time to time? Their position has to be windicated in the long-run because if they loose the gates of Heaven are less secure than we were originally told.
“…we all know whose followers really have PRIDE…”
Bugnini’s?
I’m with Mark, above. I’ve always been harshly critical of the Society and I’m not one who has even hankered after a Latin Mass he doesn’t remember anyway. But I have more sympathy for them these days as I see the hierarchy repeatedly trying to effect cheap pseudo-eirenic
breakthroughs by accommodating themselves (and us) to secular liberalism. All they’ve managed to do in 40 years is spiritually bankrupt the Church. They’re like the financiers who brought down the world economy: they won’t admit they were wrong, they put what they’re charged with preserving in hock and they parley with customers who won’t ever repay what they were so recklessly given. They’re Madoffs in mitres, many of them. The SSPX has many faults but cowardice before the world isn’t one of them.
“Anyone see pics of the ordinations? There was on on the SSPX’s German site of a bishop there—- he looked like he was not part of the 4 Society bishops. Any clue on who he is? http://www.piusbruderschaft.de/index.php?option=com_phocagallery&view=category&id=847&Itemid=72
4th picture on the page.
Comment by Crazy Man — 27 June 2009 @ 8:40 pm”
In one of Bishop Fellay’s most recent talks, he said that the SSPX and Rome had agreed to have an observer visit the SSPX at ordinations, in there seminaries, etc. Perhaps he was an observer?
Also in one of his recent talks, he mentioned that there have been some Bishops in Europe who have contacted him to say they would welcome the SSPX in their diocese. Could be one of those Bishops.
This letter from the Rector was for Romes purpose. Bishop Fellay also said in recent talks that the only Bishops having an issue were those in Germany. There was no problem coming from the US and Econe where ordinations were also taking place. Rome was trying to find a way to put this to rest and said that a statement saying that this was ot being done for schismatic reasons or as an insult to the Pope would help. Then Rome could say they say this…, so we do not believe they are trying to cause trouble… You get the picture. Bishop Fellay said this ~ 1 week ago. Now we have this letter and I believe there was another interview, so it appears to be along the lines he described.
Bishop Fellay has said the Rome has personally told him that they are OK with the ordinations. They understand the SSPX must continue to operate while they engage in communications with Rome. Whether anyone on here agrees, or like this, it matters NOT! It really matters NOT, if you believe Bishop Fellay, he is the one in constant communication with Rome (by phone and in person). He knows what is happening, not us.
Bishop Fellay also spoke of the new Motu Proprio. He was told it was ready and would be published this month. It should have been published earlier this month but the problem with the German Bishops delayed it. Rome wanted the German Bishops to settle down a bit first. They want the MP to be received the best way possible and there are going to be some who are upset over it, just like the last one. This also was spoken by Bihsop Fellay just about 1 week ago and also in several interviews. As most know, ‘Inside the Vatican’ and some other news source both commented this week on this and seem to be backing up what Bishop Fellay said.
Bishop Fellay also mentioned that when he last went to Rome, Cardinal Levada told him he would not be the one meeting for the talks. Now this seems to be confirmed byt he recent article I mentioned above.
Bishop Fellay also confirmed that Rome has 3 or 4 times offered them different agreements. Each of them had a flaw that was not acceptable. Bishop Fellay has to look out for the Bishops, priest, layfaithful of the SSPX and make sure that nothing threatens the life of the SSPX, as well as the Faith. The last offer was close but still left an area open for concern. Rome is working on it and is looking at something similar to Opus Dei – BUT NOT Opus Dei. They are checking to make sure the logistics are lawful. Most recent articles since Bishop Fellay’s talks seem to confirm this now.
Seems all that Bishop Fellay is saying has been coming about.
Whether each of you likes it or not – it doesn’t matter.
If you really cared for Holy Mother Church, you would focus on the priest and Bishops in your each of your own countries who regularly disobey the Pope, teach heresey, and give scandal on almost a regular basis. What they do is way worse because they lead the faithful astray because they are in ‘full communion’ and the faithful think this allows them to do what they want. BTW – it almost certain the only reason they are still in ‘full communion’ is that there are way to many of them to discipline or excommunicate. The Church would have to be nearly emptied.
William Phelan,
I’m with you. What ARE the teachings of Vatican II?
Specifically?
I’m still trying to figure out our common membership in
the Body of Christ based on Baptism, given the fact
that Baptism is regarded so differently by various
Protestant groups.
Yes, I know that Christ gives the sacrament. But there
has to be some recognition that it’s more than a symbol
from the recipient. But this doesn’t seem to figure in
the ecumenical theology we’re constantly being given.
I wish the FSSPX would visit blogs like Mark Shea’s where there’s renewed optimism that the society won’t be regularized. -Kevin
Kevin, that’s a dirty lie. I suggest you either post the exact words (in context) when Mark Shea wished the Society to not be regularized, or retract this slanderous post. [Calm down.]
“Madoffs in mitres” LOL!!!
“What they do is way worse because they lead the faithful astray because they are in ‘full communion’ and the faithful think this allows them to do what they want. BTW – it almost certain the only reason they are still in ‘full communion’ is that there are way to many of them to discipline or excommunicate. The Church would have to be nearly emptied.”
Excellent analysis. We have to remember the all-encompassing nature of this crisis: The Holy Father can’t just sack all the Bishops and priests who are disobedient and heterodox tomorrow. Not only would they be extremely difficult to replace, many of them would walk off with at least part of their flock and found any number of schismatic sects. The Church would explode and disintegrate. Better there be a lasting and more complete renewal of the Faith, even if it may take centuries to effect. The Holy Father clearly sees the FSSPX and the coming clarifications of Vatican II as significant elements in this renewal.
Meanwhile, let each of us hold our own Bishops accountable. When a Bishop says something which is ambiguous and dubious, discuss the matter with a priest or theologian you trust and if appropriate, write a private letter to the Bishop asking for a clarification. If the Bishop’s answer is not satisfactory, write to the appropriate Vatican dicastery. If there is a scandal that needs to be adressed urgently, write an open letter or a commentary for the diocesan newspaper. Challenge them! Let them know they can’t get away with ofuscating the Faith. And most importantly: always be polite, civil and respectful and assume good will on the part of the Bishop, as Christian charity demands.
Andy and Kevin:
I was there. Mark is a little more cautious these days. But a definite
tone like that is detectable on the blog. Even more so from his
followers.
The SSPX may not have the law on their side… unless one is talking the Law of Love or the Salvation of Souls. Without the SSPX there would be no FSSP or Institite of Christ the King or the Motu Proprio SP, etc. And we all know it. The good Archbishop will be considered an Athanasius in the future and probably already is considered so in Heaven. I thank him for the fact of my FSSP Church I attend every week. No one else was fighting for the souls of Catholics, while many were lamenting silent apostasy, or the smoke of satan, or self-destruction… did they do anything? No. Monsignor did. God bless him.
Dear Veritas,
Hitler was anti-catholic. He prosecuted the Church.
60.000.000 Christians died during World War II.
The Nazi-ideology (‘survival of the fittest – eugenics’) did not come from the Catholic Church, but from atheists like Malthus, Darwin, Galton, Huxley and the rest of them.
Don’t believe the absurd propaganda of the communists and the atheists, which started to blame Pope Pius XII in the 1960’s.
The Vatican has been bombed twice by Nazi die-hards. The bedroom of Pope Pius was hit!
The Truth has its rights!
Is the SSPX really worth the fight? Why do we jump through so many hoops for an organization that seems to be its own magisterium. How are they different from Luther, Calvin, and the other Reformers?
Jake: Yes, I think this is worth the fight.
Luther, Calvin and other reformers wanted to destroy the Church. Luther was a theological amateur and Calvin was a brutal, megalomaniac and taliban-like tyrant.
We look at the fruits of the FSSPX in the last forty years, and compare them to the fruits of Vatican IIof the last forty years. Cardinal Ratzenger,now Pope Benedict XVI remarked with great preceptiveness in 1997: I am convinced that the crises in the Church that we are experencing is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy… (see p.37.)In his address to the Bishops of Chile on July 13, 1988, the Cardinal explaned: The second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberetly chose to remain on a modest level as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it made itself into a superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest. This idea is made stronger by things that are now happening. That which was considered most holy-the form in which the liturgy was handed down- suddenly appears as the most forbidden of all things, the one thing that can safely be prohibited. (p.95.) Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II, by Michael Davies. I believe our Holy Father has thought very deeply these last 40+ years, and remember with age comes wisdom.
I find it ironic that the SSPX, who often portrays the abuses of disobedience as the “fruits” of Vatican II, would respond with more disobedience on their own part. Until there is a change on their part, I don’t see a group of “faithful” Catholics but just one more group of dissenters little different than the crowd at America magazine. Breaking with the Church over Vatican II might have a different purpose than Döllinger and Vatican I, but the fruits are the same: Disobedience
We often think of dissent as something “the Modernists” do, yet there can be conservative dissent and conservative heresy (see works of Augustine against the Donatists for example).
Until the SSPX return to obedience of the Church, they are nothing more than one more group of disobedient priests.
In regards to the opening of debate on the Council, I don’t think we need to reopen debate on the Council any more than we need to reopen debate on Vatican I or Trent or Nicaea for that matter. Rather, we need to affirm what it means and clarify how certain passages are to be understood.
“Debate” seems to imply that everything is up for grabs, though I may be misinterpreting this.
What in the world is religious extremism?
The Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ and every other religion is false and inspired by the devil for the purpose of bringing men to their damnation.
That is true. Does it count as religious extremism?”
Religious extremism is when a sect rejects the right of dissenting opinions in society to exist, or if they excuse some dissenting opinions on the “common good” (whatever that means).
Well said Rolf.
Lord deliver us from “conservative Catholics”…were it not for them, the counter-revolution would have already succeeded. [hmmm…. I wonder what that could mean.]
Laminustacitus,
Your claim is NOT the teaching of the Catholic Church.
“The Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ and every other religion is false and inspired by the devil for the purpose of bringing men to their damnation.”
This is an absolurely correct statement.
I understand that the German and French Bishops are furious. But themselves are they free of criticism when speaking about obedience.
In my opinion, the SSPX has a mass destruction weapon that the modernists are ideologically (hard to find a better adjective) despising since the decades: It’s the Rosary.
And it works! See the millions rosaries the SSPX faithfuls prayed for the lifting of the excommunications.
Who may predict that the current discussions between SSPX and the Vatican will fail? I am sure of the contrary because their bishops are requiring to pray rosaries with that aim .
The next step within some months: The SSPX as a personal prelature of Pope.
The step after: The Consecration of Russia in the right way.
Often times I find it frustrating that we are so concerned with how the SSPX is behaving and talk of it being a necessity for them to stop delivering the sacraments due to illicitness,; however, we rarely look at the current situation in the novus ordo Mass. [“we”? “rarely”? Perhaps you are new to reading this blog. This is a constant point of concern for “us”.] We have priests delivering the sacraments illicitly as well, but when have the Bishops been so concerned? I think we need to focus on the modern influence affecting the Church and embracing the orthodox, traditionalist movement. There will be a major turning point with regards to the Church and I can only pray that the SSPX is on our side when that day comes. [This reintegration would strengthen the “gravitational pull” exerted by the use of the older form on how the newer forms of liturgy are celebrated.]
“I find it ironic that the SSPX, who often portrays the abuses of disobedience as the “fruits” of Vatican II, would respond with more disobedience on their own part. Until there is a change on their part, I don’t see a group of “faithful” Catholics but just one more group of dissenters little different than the crowd at America magazine. Breaking with the Church over Vatican II might have a different purpose than Döllinger and Vatican I, but the fruits are the same: Disobedience
We often think of dissent as something “the Modernists” do, yet there can be conservative dissent and conservative heresy (see works of Augustine against the Donatists for example).
Until the SSPX return to obedience of the Church, they are nothing more than one more group of disobedient priests.
In regards to the opening of debate on the Council, I don’t think we need to reopen debate on the Council any more than we need to reopen debate on Vatican I or Trent or Nicaea for that matter. Rather, we need to affirm what it means and clarify how certain passages are to be understood.
“Debate” seems to imply that everything is up for grabs, though I may be misinterpreting this.
Comment by Arnobius of Sicca — 28 June 2009 @ 8:46 am ”
Arnobius –
The statement above, which was posted by you, very clearly shows where you are coming from and it speaks very loudly as to why you would be against the SSPX.
If the SSPX is correct, that means you are wrong.
You do not want this to happen, so you are against the SSPX because they are making it happen.
Well, your personal opinion does not really matter because the SSPX and Rome are running this show and they have decided that there will be debate over Vatican II. What it says and what it should say will be cleared up and what weight it holds and does not hold will be determined. With or without your approval, this is going to happen. And the Chruch will be the better for it.
As for your opinion of the priest of the SSPX – again, it does not matter if you think they are disobedient. Rome gets to decide that. If Rome has determined they do not think they are being disobedient, then they are not PERIOD. Even if you continue to say they are, if Rome says they are not, then they are not. If Rome says they may continue to fully function while the discussions continue and while they try to come up with solution for the SSPX – that is Romes right and you can do nothing about it.
People who continue to whine “but they are disobedient” remind me of selfish, spolied tattle tails who are always trying to get someone else in trouble and can’t stand it when their parents ignore them.
Again, they are only disobedient if Rome says they are. It is not disobedience if Rome has told tehm they can function while discussions continue. Even if the law says they canot do these things, Rome can give them permission.
Since we are not part of these discussions we cannot say that this has not happened. Bishop Fellay says it has happened and that Rome says they only ones causing a problem are the German bishops. This seems reasonable since Rome has not publically come out against thema nd they ignored the request from the German bishops. Not to mention that there has been no word from the bishops in the US or in Econe. I am not even sure the German bishops are still persisting at this point. SInce the ordinations happened yesterday I believe, have they said anything else (either directly before or after)? Does anyone know?
I. Person X claims “every other religion is false and inspired by the devil”
II. But, Judaism is a religion that is not inspired by the devil.
III. Therefore it can be seen that Person X is wrong.
The Catholic Church is the one True Religion, and all others are false. Though not all false religions are inspired by the devil.
More frontline troops for the Church Militant, however the way they’re being made is illicit
I hope that the SSPX situation is regularized and soon.
Although not fluent in this issue I am confused why an order who maintains our traditions is suspended while orders intent on modernism are not.
If one consults the website concerning these ordinations, it is mentioned quite clearly that the ordaining Bishop is Bishop Alfonso de Galaretta, who is one of the four ordained by Msgr. Lefebvre along with Bishop Fellay, who was also present.
Father Z wrote:
“[This reintegration would strengthen the “gravitational pull” exerted by the use of the older form on how the newer forms of liturgy are celebrated.]”
)(
Ideally, yes, Father, but in reality, how? How could the Tridentine Mass exert any “gravitational pull” on the Novus Ordo when so few places celebrate the Tridentine Mass either by prohibition or contemptuous lack of desire?
Matt Q: You are too impatient… and perhaps too pessimistic.
“Laminustacitus,
Your claim is NOT the teaching of the Catholic Church.”
And what does the Catholic Church preach: burn everybody who dares utter a blasphemous statement? No, in fact, Dignitatis Humanae pretty much states what I did minus the shot against the common good. We live in a world where, thankfully, the idea that a religion can justly be imposed on individuals has been shown for the sham, and tyranny it really is. Society is brought about through the cooperation of individuals, and it is therefore a do ut des relationship; social cooperation is always a quid pro quo, and religious freedom is the idea that I will give someone to right to practice their beliefs so that I may have the right to practice mine. If we don’t let other practice their faith openly, then why should they let us practice our faith openly?
Matt Q, I think what Father means is that when the SSPX is regularised then people like me who prefer the TLM and live near an SSPX chapel in a diocese where the Bishop is not friendly to the TLM will be able legitimatly invite our NO friends to ‘taste’ the TLM, hopefully they will appreciate the exceptional witness given by those who love the TLM and will call for a greater use of it within their own parishes. Also the fact that the ‘guilt by associaton’ status (due to use by schismatic groups) will fade from the TLM. Hopefully the witness of traditionalists will dispell the steriotype of us as whiners (I have been guilty of that as well) when NO’s see what we are like in our own setting (when I first visited a Trad Parish I was humbled by the piety and love for Christ on display, this coming from someone who thought he was pretty devout by NO standards)
Fr. Z: [hmmm…. I wonder what that could mean.]
Conservatives never regain any ground lost to the liberals. At best they only slow the decline. At worst, they carry water for the establishment by brown-shirting [What does “brown-shirting” mean.] those who are trying to regain lost ground: the counter-revolutionaries. [Lots of mixed metaphors. How about not trying to be so fancy. Just write a simple, declarative sentence. I have no idea what you are talking about.]
pjsandstrom: The prelate referred to in my Crazy Man’s remarks is not the ordaining bishop. If you look at the fourth picture in the link above, you’ll see to whom he refers.
I. Person X claims “every other religion is false and inspired by the devil”
II. But, Judaism is a religion that is not inspired by the devil.
III. Therefore it can be seen that Person X is wrong.
What you call Judaism – that is, the Jewish religion of today – is not that which was once the true religion. Jesus was Jewish, and yet he was (and is) also Catholic. That is not true of the Jews of today.
When Jesus lived there was sacrifice, but there was no talmud. Now there is no sacrifice, and there is a talmud. The Jews of today persist in the same errors that Jesus specifically condemned, and reject their own promised Christ. Judaism today is the corrupted remnants of what was once the religion of God, and the devil is one responsible for that corruption.
Therefore Person X is right.
Wsxyz writes, “Judaism today is the corrupted remnants of what was once the religion of God, and the devil is one responsible for that corruption.”
I reply: ugh, please stop posting drivel like that, you make sane traditionalists look bad.
And what does the Catholic Church preach: burn everybody who dares utter a blasphemous statement? No, in fact, Dignitatis Humanae pretty much states what I did.
And there lies the problem. False religions can not have rights, because they are opposed to God. That does not mean that people can be forced to become Catholic. An insincere “conversion” is no conversion at all, but that does not mean that other religions have any rights at all. It means that they can at times, such as now, be tolerated. In a Catholic society they can also be legitimately suppressed.
Wsxyz writes, “Judaism today is the corrupted remnants of what was once the religion of God, and the devil is one responsible for that corruption.”
LCB reply: ugh, please stop posting drivel like that, you make sane traditionalists look bad.
I am sane and that is not drivel. If you disagree, please make an argument rather than failing miserably to do so. Please explain in what what Judaism of today conforms to the laws of that former religion as set out by God. [But NOT HERE. This entry is not about the Jews or Jewish religion. Rabbit hole CLOSED.]
I am surprised that the bishop who assisted at the SSPX ordinations in Germany has not attracted more attention, especially given the Bishop of Regensburg’s prior threats. The photographs make clear that he fully participated in the ceremony. See, for example, this one, which clearly shows him in stole with raised hand near Bishop Fellay, having obviously just laid hands on the ordinands: http://www.piusbruderschaft.de/images/phocagallery/Weihen/2009/priesterweihe_ztkf_09/thumbs/phoca_thumb_l_dsc_0044-1.jpg
Does anyone recognize the bishop? None of the photographs show his face very clearly. Could it be Bishop Koch of Basle, whose recent comments about the Council were mentioned by Fr, Zuhlsdorf below?
In any event, for any non-SSPX bishop to have assisted at, and even participated in, these ordinations is remarkable. Perhaps this gives some credence to the idea of tacit approval by the Holy See for the ordinations to go ahead. Has anyone heard further comments from the German bishops since the ordinations took place, incidentally?
Fr. Z: [hmmm…. I wonder what that could mean.]
Conservatives never regain any ground lost to the liberals. At best they only slow the decline. At worst, they carry water for the establishment by brown-shirting those who are trying to regain lost ground: the counter-revolutionaries.
Comment by Heather — 28 June 2009 @ 12:50 pm
Well put Heather:
An analogy would be the female alar boy debacle. First they opposed then they accepted and accused those who resisted of being radtrads.
When and if the SSPX is reconciled, they won’t admit to ever having castigated them. Accept this and treat then as useful idiots, Lord knows the liberals have.
wsxyz:
The straight line in history is Abraham-Moses-Jesus-The Church.
Modern Judaism is not the Mother Faith but rather a jealous YOUNGER sister
@ JAS.
When you say “The statement above, which was posted by you, very clearly shows where you are coming from and it speaks very loudly as to why you would be against the SSPX.
If the SSPX is correct, that means you are wrong.
You do not want this to happen, so you are against the SSPX because they are making it happen.”
I see projection on your part and await the other side of your argument: that if the SSPX is wrong, you have nothing to stand on.
Your argument is nonsensical. I believe obedience to the Church under Peter is essential to being part of the true Church. Without it, one is no better than the Donatists or others. I have no fear that the SSPX is right and the Church is wrong because my faith is in Christ who promised to protect His Church.
If Pope Benedict XVI makes changes to the disciplines of the Church, or even if he ends the ordinary form of the Mass, you won’t see me joining some “Society of Blessed John XIII” in defiance. The successor has the power to bind and to loose and I am in the Church in submission to the Magisterial authority.
For the SSPX to be “right,” and the Church “wrong,” Christ Himself would have to have failed in His promise to protect the Church from error.
No, the SSPX and Rome are not running the show as you put it. The Magisterial authority of the Church is running the show. The Holy Father is indeed being very much the example of the shepherd who left the 99 to find the one lost sheep. The SSPX is that lost sheep. If his Holiness believes certain things should be permitted in bringing the SSPX back to the Church, then I would trust in his lead even if I were personally dubious about some of them.
However, the SSPX is not a Magisterial body. The issue is to get them to renounce their disobedience and accept the authority of the Church again.
So, TL:DR… your projection of my being afraid of the SSPX being proved “right” is groundless. My faith is that Christ will protect His Church from error.
“SSPX and Rome are running the show”? When did the SSPX become equivalent to Rome?
“And there lies the problem. False religions can not have rights, because they are opposed to God.”
They are still innocent human beings following their conscience, does that give them the right to exist?
“That does not mean that people can be forced to become Catholic. An insincere “conversion” is no conversion at all, but that does not mean that other religions have any rights at all.”
How about the individuals practicing those religions? You are speaking as if “Religions” are human beings, but they are not, and it is the human being practicing a religion, not the religion, that has rights. That said, man has rights qua man, and one of those rights includes the freedom to pursue his conscience without coercion.
“It means that they can at times, such as now, be tolerated. In a Catholic society they can also be legitimately suppressed.”
Religious freedom is necessary for a Catholic society to blossom, that is if that “Catholic society” desires to be in accord with truth, and justice as promulgated by Dignitatis Humanae:
“This demand for freedom in human society chiefly regards the quest for the values proper to the human spirit. It regards, in the first place, the free exercise of religion in society. This Vatican Council takes careful note of these desires in the minds of men. It proposes to declare them to be greatly in accord with truth and justice.”
Matt Q wrote: “How could the Tridentine Mass exert any “gravitational pull” on the Novus Ordo when so few places celebrate the Tridentine Mass either by prohibition or contemptuous lack of desire?
I don’t believe that “gravitational pull” argument is valid. The TLM has zero effect upon 99.9 percent of today’s Latin Catholics as they lack attachment to the TLM. That is the result of our Churchmen’s desire to inflict the Novus Ordo upon the Latin Church.
Even conservative Cardinals and bishops have declared that interest among the Faithful in the TLM is virtually non-existent. Many conservative Cardinals and bishops have stated that the TLM will enjoy little expose within their dioceses.
Example: Cardinal Dinardo (Archdiocese Galveston-Houston) has declared that scant interest in his Archdiocese exists for the TLM.
At best, as the decades pass, the TLM will be offered in a few places within a given dioceses.
However, should the Holy Father, promote the restoration of the TLM with the same vigor that Popes Paul VI and John Paul II promoted the Novus Ordo, then TLM celebrations would become widespread.
The Papacy is the key to the restoration of Liturgical sanity and Holy Tradition within the Latin Church.
Just a relative handful of Catholics each week throughout the world assist at TLMs. The majority of bishops and priests despise or, at best, have little interest in promoting the TLM. Again, even conservative Cardinals who are friendly toward Traditional Catholics (Cardinal Dinardo, for example) have taken the realistic approach that few Catholics today are interested in the TLM.
Therefore, as long as the TLM is confined to ghetto status within the Church (offered at best at just a few parishes here and there within a diocese), the TLM cannot possibly exert a “gravitational pull” upon the Novus Ordo.
Pope Paul VI forced the Novus Ordo upon the Faithful. In turn, for the TLM to have any chance to influence the Faithful, Pope Benedict XVI (or a future Pope) would literally have to compel bishops and priests to offer at least one TLM per Sunday at each parish throughout the Latin Church.
But the restoration of the TLM actually begins with the Novus Ordo. For the TLM to take root again throughout the Latin Church, the Faithful must regain their familiarity with Latin Masses, Gregorian Chant, ad orientem worship, Communion received on the tongue (kneeling), etc.
But as long as 99.9 percent of Latin Catholics who even bother today to assist at Mass (about 20 percent Mass attendance) encounter vernacular Masses, Communion in the hand (standing), ugly vestments, ad populum worship, altar girls, EMs, etc., then they will always view the TLM as something extremely foreign and of little relation to their accustomed style of liturgy.
Realistically, the Novus Ordo has to become the TLM for the TLM to become recognizable and of interest to Latin Church Catholics.
Everything regarding the above is within the hands of Peter. The current crisis of Faith is actually Peter’s crisis.
Only when Peter returns to his traditional roots, that is, returns to being Traditional Roman Mass Peter, will the liturgical crisis/crisis of Faith be consigned to history.
Steve,
You bring up important points, and you are correct in your historical assessment of how things developed.
Yet I think there is a gravitational pull. There can be little doubt that, since Summorum Pontificum, TLM has become far more widespread. Groups like the FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, and others continue to flourish.
This blog has cataloged the spread and acceptance of TLM diocese by diocese, and has also shown how it has impacted liturgy in other places (especially letters from priests who have discussed how celebrating TLM has modified and changed how they celebrate the Novus Order).
Is it an uphill struggle? No doubt, but progress, significant progress, is being made. And that is why full regular communion with the SSPX is so important. 500 new traditional priests would represent 1/250th of all the priests in the world today. And worldwide the SSPX has perhaps as many as 1 million adherents. That may not seem like much, but that’s a huge amount of ‘reinforcements.’ Surely 500 priests and many adherents can make a significant difference. In some dioceses where the SSPX have chapels, the Bishops are desperate for new priests, and new vocations. Some of those young men may find their vocation with the diocese, and the gravitational pull continues.
It took 40 years for us to get into this mess, and it may take twice as long for us to get out. If one holds the long view, the gravitational pull certainly is working and will work over the coming decades.
Steve
Have you been sitting under a tree for the past two years? The Holy Father is promoting the TLM, unfortunatly at the moment he is constrained by the fact that he has huge numbers of disobediant Bishops!!!! however as many people will tell you the current (post V2 ) crop of Bishops is dying off and their replacements are friendlier to traditionists. Unfortunatly a number of priests and religious have also inibed of the wine of disobediance and the Holy Father is trying to get them to fall in line as well.
Commenting on other articles Father has posted about the SSPX I have commented that Bshp Felley is trying to do the same with members of the SSPX which have developed a schismatic mindset. Remember the number one rule is the salvation of souls not the TLM, yes it will take longer that you or I would like but eventually the TLM will become the norm again and the NO will be quitely forgotton as one of the worst mistakes the Church made (in regards to liturgy), hopefully as I have said earlier reconcilliation with the SSPX will speed the process up.
Why anyone would expect the SSPX to unilaterlly disarm is beyond me.
“Come on, just stop ordaining priests. We’ll let you back in.”
Then months pass into years, the SSPX has fallen by half and more of their flock turn to sedevacantist chapels or leave the Faith altogether. All the while modernists in Rome laugh while they tie the Holy Father’s hands.
Right. Great idea.
Unilateral vulnerability is the heart of Christianity. It’s what saved our souls and butts, so it’s not wise to talk it down.
That said, I think that the SSPX thinks they _are_ being generous.
The altar girls debacle is a perfect example Tom.
Prior to the MP some of the most virulent anti-TLM attacks came from conservative Catholics (including distinguished canonists), who argued that the Mass was abrogated.
“Unilateral vulnerability is the heart of Christianity. It’s what saved our souls and butts, so it’s not wise to talk it down.”
And I can rattle off thousands of martyres and saints, including the obvious like Athanasius, who didn’t feel compelled to be “vulnerable” as you put it and instead chose to be a man and fight heresy. Have you ever wondered, even if just for a second, if the SSPX are the modern day Athanasius?
#
Prior to the MP some of the most virulent anti-TLM attacks came from conservative Catholics (including distinguished canonists), who argued that the Mass was abrogated.
Comment by Heather — 28 June 2009 @ 5:42 pm
Weeks before the Moto Proprio, The Wanderer staff republished a book reaffirming the abrogation.
Steve graciously replied:
“I don’t believe that “gravitational pull” argument is valid. The TLM has zero effect upon 99.9 percent of today’s Latin Catholics as they lack attachment to the TLM. That is the result of our Churchmen’s desire to inflict the Novus Ordo upon the Latin Church.
= = I agree with you on this. = =
Even conservative Cardinals and bishops have declared that interest among the Faithful in the TLM is virtually non-existent. Many conservative Cardinals and bishops have stated that the TLM will enjoy little expose within their dioceses.
= = It’s a disconnect for me when you say conservative cardinals and bishops have spoken against the Tridentine Mass. To me it’s like saying a conservative is pro-abortion. Anyway, this is anecdotal only if the bishop is the sole source of such statistics and is not to be trusted. Bishops promote their own agenda and say what they will to effect it. Here in Los Angeles, Mahony the Has-Ran ( Rejoice, 2011!! ) has said the same thing but yet he also has an edict in place that no diocesan priest can say the Tridentine Mass OR ELSE! I’m friends with a few priests. I know the low-down. This is also why the Una Voce members in the Los Angeles area are rapidly losing places to say the Tridentine Masses. This has even been mentioned in the local press.
The Tridentine Mass crowd is large in Los Anegeles and there was a major petition campaign for permission to say the Tridentine Mass. A flat no is all we got. Then a year later Summorum Pontificum was released. Oooh, big help that was.
In the Duarte area, Tridentine Masses were said for years at the chapel ( about the size of a church ) at the Carmelite hospital. Suddenly one day last year or so, the Get Lost sign was hung on the door. Why? You tell me they weren’t leaned on. = =
Example: Cardinal Dinardo (Archdiocese Galveston-Houston) has declared that scant interest in his Archdiocese exists for the TLM.
= = Odd, DiNardo just celebrated a Mass of Anglican Use at Our Lady of Walshingham, Houston, and just gushed about how hierarchic? language is necessary in the Liturgy, oh, but nobody else likes that kind of stuff except them? There is an Una Voce chapter in Houston. Obviously DiNardo didn’t consult them. = =
At best, as the decades pass, the TLM will be offered in a few places within a given dioceses.
However, should the Holy Father, promote the restoration of the TLM with the same vigor that Popes Paul VI and John Paul II promoted the Novus Ordo, then TLM celebrations would become widespread.
The Papacy is the key to the restoration of Liturgical sanity and Holy Tradition within the Latin Church.
= = We’ll see what his second liturgical Motu Proprio will say, the one combining the PCED into the CDF. Who knows when it will be released but the key point is, what teeth will it have? Will it be like Summorum Pontificum and end up being another piece of soggy toast? = =
Just a relative handful of Catholics each week throughout the world assist at TLMs. The majority of bishops and priests despise or, at best, have little interest in promoting the TLM. Again, even conservative Cardinals who are friendly toward Traditional Catholics (Cardinal Dinardo, for example) have taken the realistic approach that few Catholics today are interested in the TLM. Therefore, as long as the TLM is confined to ghetto status within the Church (offered at best at just a few parishes here and there within a diocese), the TLM cannot possibly exert a “gravitational pull” upon the Novus Ordo.
= = This is done on purpose either by the bishops or the fact there are so few priests around who know how to say the Tridentine Mass. It’s very much a lie if the bishop goes around spinning that as lack of interest. The bishops’ fault lies in the fact they will not allow a priest or two from elsewhere ( e.g. the FSSP, Canons of St John Cantius, etc. ) into their dioceses to say Mass. Oh, how we have tried here in Los Angeles… = =
Chaos and confusion, chaos and confusion, the devil is alive and well. Compare the fruits of the FSSPX in the last 40- years to the fruits of the N.O.M. and all that has gone on since the end of the counsil, if you cannot see the ‘crisis ‘ that has been going on, you are blind or choose to be blind……Bishop Marcel Lefevbre, “I have handed down what I have recieved”-“True friends of the Church are not revolutionaries, innovators, but Traditionalist”. I have a great love for Bishop Marcel Lefebvre and also the FSSPX. I believe it was Cardinal Hoyos said, that the Holy Father did not want to hear the word schism used in regard to the FSSPX. So why are so many upset with what the Holy Father is doing in regards to the FSSPX, maybe he knows something no one else does.Please pray a rosary daily for Pope Benedict XVI.
Matt Q
You obviously didn’t see my response to Steve, in addition I know many N.O. Trads who when the SSPX are regularised will worship at those parishes and encourage our friends to attend as well. When that happens the Bishops will have no choice but to either rapidly release the restrictions (now illigal) they place on the TLM or to whach the FSSP, ISCKSP and FSSPX take over their Parishes and seminaries one by one. Along with that will come the Zeal for othordoxy espoused by all three orders and the death of mondernism.
Steve, you mentioned future Pope. Let’s pray we get one just as good as this or better. I came across this the other night and this is a rather disturbing vile thought.
http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Religion/?id=3.0.3468546829
Vatican: Report raises questions about internal debate
Vatican City, 25 June (AKI) – The Vatican is beset by a number of internal conflicts that risk paralyzing the papacy of Pope Benedict XVI, according to a report in the Italian magazine Panorama. The weekly magazine, due to be published on Friday, says several cardinals in senior positions are divided over issues including dialogue with China, relations with the Jews and the beatification of former pope John Paul II.
Inside the Vatican, the head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Levada, is reported to be in conflict with the head of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Antonio Canizares.
Former secretary of state Angelo Sodano and former personal secretary of Pope John Paul II, Stanislaw Dziwisz, are also reported to be “dueling”, while another cardinal Achille Silvestrini is accused of challenging the power of the Vatican’s influential secretary of state Tarcisio Bertone.
According to the article Pope Benedict has had positive medical tests in recent weeks, including a magnetic resonance test and his heart is said to be functioning well.
However, the magazine article is suggesting that maneuvers have already begun for the next papal conclave to determine his successor.
)(
Already plotting the downfall of the Church.
In a way this is a poor article. Well, why is Levada mad at Canizares? It mentions the problem but doesn’t say what the conflict is. On that point we can just as easily say Canizares won’t let Levada use his stapler, that’s why he’s mad at him.
Do you want to know why there is so much foot-dragging in the Novus Ordo groups about joining the TLM? It is simple-married couples don’t want to have to give up CONTRACEPTION. Many of them can’t, for economic reasons(the two-income family). Priest and bishops don’t want to go along because this would signal they and THEIR leaders (get my drift?) were wrong for the last forty years. When you have four degrees after your name it is very difficult to have to admit to Billy Phelan, the businessman who is doing this PART-TIME, that he (and many others!) was right and the ENTIRE LEADERSHIP OF THE CHURCH WAS WRONG.
Here is a quicknote that Father Z. will enjoy. At Immaculate Conception seminary in the Archdiocese of Newark, N.J., every seminarian had to read the Life of St. John Vianney, the Cure of Ars. Then, in the late fifties they were told, No, that will never be read again. “Are you selfish? you go about trying to save souls? Pshaw! People have needs on this earth and it is time we, the Church, helped them. From now on we will be PASTORAL! Don’t let things like divorce, contraception, or abortion in a jam get in the way. Who’s perfect?” Who has Pope Benedict brought back after forty years? Le cure d’Ars. As the young cure, who had missed a path on walking to his assignment, said to the French farm-boy “Son, show me the way to Ars and I will show you the way to heaven.”
David Kastel wrote: “Hans, I think many of the German bishops passed the Protestant stage about 30 years ago.”
David, here is a list (compiled from catholic-hierarchy.org) of the current ordinaries in Germany, with their current see and when and where they were first appointed a bishop. You will note that ONLY ONE of them was a bishop 30 years ago (1979).
1970s
Joachim Cardinal Meisner, Archbishop of Köln, 17 Mar 1975, Auxiliary Bishop of Erfurt-Meiningen
1980s
Joachim Wanke, Bishop of Erfurt, 2 Oct 1980, Coadjutor Apostolic Administrator of Erfurt-Meiningen
Karl Cardinal Lehmann, Bishop of Mainz, 2 Oct 1983, Bishop of Mainz
Wilhelm Schraml, Bishop of Passau, 7 Jan 1986, Auxiliary Bishop of Regensburg
Joachim Friedrich Reinelt, Bishop of Dresden-Meissen, 2 Jan 1988, Bishop of Dresden-Meissen
Georg Maximilian Cardinal Sterzinsky, Archbishop of Berlin, 28 May 1989, Bishop of Berlin
1990s
Franz-Josef Hermann Bode, Bishop of Osnabrück, 5 Jun 1991, Auxiliary Bishop of Paderborn
Norbert Trelle, Bishop of Hildesheim, 25 Mar 1992, Auxiliary Bishop of Köln
Friedhelm Hofmann, Bishop of Würzburg, 25 Jul 1992, Auxiliary Bishop of Köln
Heinrich Mussinghoff, Bishop of Aachen, 12 Dec 1994, Bishop of Aachen
Walter Mixa, Bishop of Augsburg, Bishop of Germany, Military, 24 Feb 1996, Bishop of Eichstätt
Reinhard Marx, Archbishop of München und Freising, 23 Jul 1996, Auxiliary Bishop of Paderborn
Heinz Josef Algermissen, Bishop of Fulda, 23 Jul 1996, Auxiliary Bishop of Paderborn
Ludwig Schick, Archbishop of Bamberg, 20 May 1998, Auxiliary Bishop of Fulda
Werner Thissen, Archbishop of Hamburg, 16 Apr 1999, Auxiliary Bishop of Münster
Felix Genn, Bishop of Münster, 16 Apr 1999, Auxiliary Bishop of Trier
Gerhard Feige, Bishop of Magdeburg, 19 Jul 1999, Auxiliary Bishop of Magdeburg
Hans-Josef Becker, Archbishop of Paderborn, 9 Dec 1999, Auxiliary Bishop of Paderborn
2000s
Gebhard Fürst, Bishop of Rottenburg-Stuttgart, 7 Jul 2000, Bishop of Rottenburg-Stuttgart
Karl-Heinz Wiesemann, Bishop of Speyer, 4 Jul 2002, Auxiliary Bishop of Paderborn
Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Bishop of Regensburg, 1 Oct 2002, Bishop of Regensburg
Robert Zollitsch, Archbishop of Freiburg im Breisgau, 16 Jun 2003, Archbishop of Freiburg im Breisgau
Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst, Bishop of Limburg, 14 Nov 2003, Auxiliary Bishop of Münster
Stephan Ackermann, Bishop of Trier, 14 Mar 2006, Auxiliary Bishop of Trier
Gregor Maria Franz Hanke, O.S.B., Bishop of Eichstätt, 14 Oct 2006, Appointed, Bishop of Eichstätt
Konrad Zdarsa, Bishop of Görlitz, 24 Apr 2007, Bishop of Görlitz
Diocese of Essen, vacant
So I looked up Cardinal Meisner, the only current German bishop (not Emeritus or Auxiliary) predating the election of John Paul II, and I found these quotes about him:
“Meisner is known for his absolute support to the Pope in Rome and all the Church’s teachings.”
“An article in the German magazine Der Spiegel reproached Meisner for having written a friendly letter to Father Franz Schmidberger, head of the German branch of the Society of St. Pius X and its former superior general[.]”
“He recently stated that Pope John Paul II — on his way to sainthood — had his first miracle: the election of Joseph Ratzinger as pope.”
Some Protestant.
I wrote: Example: Cardinal Dinardo (Archdiocese Galveston-Houston) has declared that scant interest in his Archdiocese exists for the TLM.
Matt Q was nice to have replied: “Odd, DiNardo just celebrated a Mass of Anglican Use at Our Lady of Walshingham, Houston, and just gushed about how hierarchic? language is necessary in the Liturgy, oh, but nobody else likes that kind of stuff except them? There is an Una Voce chapter in Houston. Obviously DiNardo didn’t consult them.”
I believe that Daniel Cardinal DiNardo is simply being honest. The reality is that scant interest in his diocese (and elsewhere) exists for the TLM. The good Cardinal may appreciate the TLM and Anglican Use liturgy, but does that translate into interest in said liturgies to the Faithful of his diocese? Answer: No.
Conservative Justin Cardinal Rigali (Philadelphia) has taken the same honest approach to the TLM as Cardinal DiNardo.
Cardinal Rigali said of the TLM: “At present I do not foresee a great demand for celebrations according to the extraordinary form of the Mass. In the Archdiocese of Philadelphia the requests we have received are very few. Most Catholics today find spiritual satisfaction in the Mass as celebrated using the Missal of Paul VI, and this remains the ordinary form of the celebration.”
There you go. Conservative Cardinals have simply told the truth regarding the TLM. They are not opposed to the TLM, but…
1. Scant interest among Latin Catholics, even within conservative dioceses, exists for the TLM.
2. Despite being relatively open to Summorum Pontificum, conservative Churchmen will go just so far to promote the TLM. Conservative Churchmen are determined to keep the Novus Ordo locked into place.
Conservative Catholics, such as Justin Cardinal Rigali continue to promote the party line. As Cardinal Rigali declared, “Most Catholics today find spiritual satisfaction in the Mass as celebrated using the Missal of Paul VI…”
The reality is, of course, that most Catholics today do not…do not…find spiritual satisfaction in the Mass as celebrated using the Missal of Paul VI.
Each Sunday in America, for example, about 80 percent of Catholics refuse to assist at Novus Ordo Masses. They don’t have any desire to subject themselves to the Missal of Pope Paul VI.
Why do conservatives such as Cardinal Rigali stick to the party line regarding the Mass of Pope Paul VI? Are they truly unaware that the majority of Catholics are bored with the Novus Ordo?
Or are many conservative Churchmen simply human beings who suffer from the following problem that they share with everybody: They simply are not keen to utter the words…”I’m wrong.”
Frankly, the credibility of our Churchmen — Churchmen who continue to promote the discredited party line that the majority of Catholics love the Novus Ordo liturgical revolution — is on the line.
Sorry, Cardinal Rigali, but you are wrong.
Steve
I said…”Just a relative handful of Catholics each week throughout the world assist at TLMs. The majority of bishops and priests despise or, at best, have little interest in promoting the TLM. Again, even conservative Cardinals who are friendly toward Traditional Catholics (Cardinal Dinardo, for example) have taken the realistic approach that few Catholics today are interested in the TLM. Therefore, as long as the TLM is confined to ghetto status within the Church (offered at best at just a few parishes here and there within a diocese), the TLM cannot possibly exert a “gravitational pull” upon the Novus Ordo.
Matt Q was nice to reply: “This is done on purpose either by the bishops or the fact there are so few priests around who know how to say the Tridentine Mass. It’s very much a lie if the bishop goes around spinning that as lack of interest. The bishops’ fault lies in the fact they will not allow a priest or two from elsewhere ( e.g. the FSSP, Canons of St John Cantius, etc. ) into their dioceses to say Mass. Oh, how we have tried here in Los Angeles…”
Matt, I agree that interest among Catholics in the TLM is greater than many bishops and priests pretend. But greater to what extent?
At my parish, which is conservative, the party line is promoted…”everybody loves the Novus Ordo…nobody here is interested in the TLM…our parish is thriving liturgically and spiritually.”
Fact: Only about 18 percent of my brother and sister parishioners assist each week at Saturday night/Sunday Mass.
From my conversations with relatively young parishioners, I estimate that a Sunday TLM would attract perhaps 200 worshippers. That is not many considering the tremendous size of the parish. But that is far greater than the parish’s party line that “nobody here is interested in the TLM.”
Matt, I agree that many bishops and priests have locked the TLM in liturgical prison. But even if set free, I doubt that more than one percent of Catholics would assist at TLMs.
The liturgical revolution that Rome launched about 40 years ago has thrown the Latin Church into a state of collapse.
In our country, for example, Sunday Mass attendance has fallen to about 20 percent (25 percent at best)…and that percentage will only decrease as the collapse of the Church continues.
During the past 40 years, among the relative few Catholics who have even bothered to assist at Mass, we’ve been taught to despise the “Latin Mass.”
We have have been taught that Mass is about “active participation.” Mass is about playing a piano, strumming a guitar, performing readings and pushing priests aside to serve as “EMs.”
Mass is about the priest and people facing each other for an hour…hearing Mass in the vernacular…dressing in T-shirt and shorts, chattering, receiving Communion in the hand, then bolting to the parking lot well before the Mass has ended.
Anything else regarding Mass is foreign to the majority of Catholics. No wonder they have little interest in the “Latin Mass.”
Matt, that is what I believe is the reality that is before us.
Only the complete restoration of the TLM can possibly restore “Catholic Identity” among Latin Church Catholics.
But just get there — to a Mass that is incredibly foreign to the majority of today’s Catholics — if that is even where the Pope, bishops and priests wish to go…and at least among bishops and priests, the majority oppose the journey in question…the Faithful must first encounter Latin, Gregorian Chant, Communion in the hand, Mass ad orientem, etc., at the Novus Ordo.
It would take decades to reach that point with the Novus Ordo…and again, that is if the Pope, bishops and priests even wish to go there…and the majority of bishops and priests have scant desire to embark upon said journey.
“SSPX and Rome are running the show”? When did the SSPX become equivalent to Rome?
Comment by Rose — 28 June 2009 @ 4:17 pm
Yes, Rose – I did not sayt he SSPX is equivalent to Rome. I said the the SSPX and Rome are running the show. And they are. The SSPX and Rome are the ones working on the relation issues between the 2 parties. They are the ones meeting, writing, and phoning to determine the best way to work this out. And the SSPX and Rome are the ones working on the Vatican II discussions. The SSPX is the one that initiated these discussions with Rome and the discussions are to take place between Rome and the SSPX. So yes, I say that the SSPX and Rome are running this show – this show being the 2 categories I noted above.
I hope that Pope Benedict will have the strength and courage to see that Bishop Fellay and the Society have the TRUTH on their side. The “New Church” members are more full of dissent and heresy than ANY priest, Bishop or parishioner of the Society of Pius X. Vatican II is wrought with errors that need to be corrected! Reverence and tradition need to be injected back into Liturgy, and the minds of all the faithful.
What better way to educate, than to show the vast difference between a Church with tradition and one without.
Arnobius of Sicca said:
“I see projection on your part and await the other side of your argument: that if the SSPX is wrong, you have nothing to stand on.”
So far, the SSPX has been correct and the more they are proven correct, the more those who have always argued against them get upset.
The SSPX has always argued that the Old Mass was NEVER abrogated. The SSPX was right all along. Many well known and not so well known ‘conservative’ Catholics and internet theologians virulently argued against them. Which side did you argue on?
Not only did the Pope’s MP state the Old Mass was never abrogated, but he freed the Mass. Local bishops and priests may still be blocking the Mass, but the Pope freed it so taht anyone could have access to it. Again, this is something that many argued would also not happen. They all said the local bishops would have the right to allow it or not. The MP took it out of their hands, except to help get it implimented when there is a problem. The bishops are disobedient and do not abide by the MP, but that is another story. Which side of this issue were you on? How often do you worry over the disobedience of your local bishops and priests?
The SSPX has always argued that ‘for all’ is not the proper translation of ‘pro multis’. The proper translation is ‘for many’. The SSPX was right all along. Again, many well known and not so well known ‘conservative’ Catholics and internet theologians virulently argued against them. Which side did you argue on?
When the rumors were coming out that the excommunications wold be lifted. Once again, many well known and not so well known ‘conservative’ Catholics and internet theologians virulently argued that the Pope would NEVER do such a thing without first requiring the SSPX to do some formal apology, accept the New Mass, accept Vatican II, accept this…, accept that… However, the Pope did lift the excommunications and required nothing on the part of the SSPX. Which side did you argue on?
So how many times have you been wrong so far?
Arnobius of Sicca said:
“Your argument is nonsensical. I believe obedience to the Church under Peter is essential to being part of the true Church. Without it, one is no better than the Donatists or others. I have no fear that the SSPX is right and the Church is wrong because my faith is in Christ who promised to protect His Church.”
Everything the Pope says is not infallible. Everything the Church does is not infallible. The SSPX does not believe the Church has erred in any infallible statements. They do beleive there are errors with Vatican II. Vatican II was a pastoral council. It is permissible to believe there are errors with Vatican II. Vatican II does need to be opened up to discussion and the errors need to be uncovered, exposed and removed. The ambiguous language needs to be clarified and changed so that the liberals and the modernists can no longer twist things to their advantage. The SSPX has initiated a plan with Rome for these discussions to take place. You are against these discussions. You do not want Vatican II opened up and revisted. Why? It could only be that you do not want to be wrong again. Because if you had a love for the truth, you would see this as a good thing. One who loves the Church and the truth should want to have this cleared up once and for all. If there are errors in Vatican II, you should want to find that out and have them corrected. Even if you believe there are no errors, you should still want to make sure.
Arnobius of Sicca said:
“For the SSPX to be “right,” and the Church “wrong,” Christ Himself would have to have failed in His promise to protect the Church from error.”
That is not correct. It would be if they claimed the Pope erred in an infallible statement, but they do not. Again, Vatican II was pastoral and may have errors. This would not mean that Christ failed in his promise. You may believe that everything in Vatican II is infallible, but if you are wrong, you should want to know.
Arnobius of Sicca said:
“No, the SSPX and Rome are not running the show as you put it. The Magisterial authority of the Church is running the show.”
The SSPX and Rome are running this show. The SSPX initiated the discussions on Vatican II. It is the SSPX and Rome who are outlining the discussions on Vatican II. Together they are running this show. It is the SSPX and Rome who are discussing how to work out an agreement between the 2 parties. It is not just Rome telling the SSPX what to do. It is a 2 way discussion with active participation from the SSPX. So when it comes to these 2 items, they are running this show together and no one else is involved.
Arnobius of Sicca said:
“However, the SSPX is not a Magisterial body. The issue is to get them to renounce their disobedience and accept the authority of the Church again.”
So says you. The Pope has not requested they ‘renounce’ their disobedience. You may wish that he do so. However, he has not. As for the authority of the Church, the SSPX consents to that already. Perhaps you should focus on the priests and bishops in your area who are regularly disobedient, do not accept the authority of the Pope, go around teaching heresey, lead immoral lifestyles, and lead many souls into hell. Certainly your time would be better spent on finding and exposing them. It is these people who are damaging the Church and the Faith. The SSPX does not believe or teach heresey. The SSPX immediately disciplines and removes any of their own who are discovered to have an immoral lifestyle. The SSPX is concerned with saving souls and protecting the Church from liberals and modernists. The SSPX wants to help the Pope and the Church and is in discussions to do so. They are in no way the enemy. The SSPX loves the Church. The SSPX maintains the Faith.
Witness interview with Bishop Bernard Fellay, SSPX – Complete transcript
http://saltandlighttv.org/blog/?p=5071
This is an excellent interview. Many may have already seen the video here: http://saltandlighttv.org/prog_slprog_witness.html .
Ideally, yes, Father, but in reality, how? How could the Tridentine Mass exert any “gravitational pull” on the Novus Ordo when so few places celebrate the Tridentine Mass either by prohibition or contemptuous lack of desire?
Comment by Matt Q
Latin is the foundation for the formation of every priest. When it was banished from the seminaries, it was replaced by Protestant style activism. Once every seminarian must once again study Latin (to be able to say the TLM), then the formation has begun to be restored–and the reform of the Church has begun.
Jack wrote: “The Holy Father is promoting the TLM, unfortunatly at the moment he is constrained by the fact that he has huge numbers of disobediant Bishops! however as many people will tell you the current (post V2 ) crop of Bishops is dying off and their replacements are friendlier to traditionists. Unfortunatly a number of priests and religious have also inibed of the wine of disobediance and the Holy Father is trying to get them to fall in line as well.”
Jack, there are many bishops (and priests) who have wielded their authority to stifle the TLM. But the reality is that scant interest among Catholics for the TLM exists in the first place.
To argue that the Holy Father’s efforts to promote the TLM have been constrained by “disobedient” bishops is to overlook the fact that conservative bishops who are loyal to His Holiness have insisted that scant interest among the Faithful exists regarding the TLM.
I again quote orthodox and conservative Justin Cardinal Rigali who declared that he does “not foresee a great demand for celebrations according to the extraordinary form of the Mass. In the Archdiocese of Philadelphia the requests we have received are very few. Most Catholics today find spiritual satisfaction in the Mass as celebrated using the Missal of Paul VI, and this remains the ordinary form of the celebration.”
I again refer to orthodox and conservative Daniel Cardinal DiNardo (Galveston-Houston) who declared that scant interest among the Faithful exists regarding the TLM.
Time and again, orthodox, conservative Cardinals and bishops who are loyal to the Holy Father have declared that Summorum Pontificum will have little impact upon the Faithful as they (the Faithful) have scant interest in the TLM.
Therefore, the idea that “disobedient” bishops have thwarted the Pope’s efforts to promote the TLM is misleading. Yes, there are bishops who have refused to implement Summorum Pontificum to any extent.
But according to even the most conservative bishops who are loyal to the Pope’s teachings regarding the TLM, little interest among the Faithful exists for the TLM.
The Pope can remove one “disobedient” bishop after another…we could have hundreds and hundreds of conservative Cardinals and bishops in place, akin to the DiNardos and Rigalis of the Church…but that would not change the fact that with relatively few exceptions, Latin Catholics are not interested in assisting at TLMs.
David said: Arius was a bishop too.
No, he was only a priest. Arius never became a bishop.
Jack wrote: “…eventually the TLM will become the norm again and the NO will be quitely forgotton as one of the worst mistakes the Church made (in regards to liturgy), hopefully as I have said earlier reconcilliation with the SSPX will speed the process up.”
I agree that the Novus Ordo will fade into oblivion. But that time is a long way off…decades and decades away.
For now, Pope Benedict XVI and our bishops have made it clear that they are determined to keep the Novus Ordo monopoly locked firmly in place.
We are dealing with Churchmen who are “men of the Council.” They have spent the past 40 years insisting that the Faithful love the Novus Ordo. They are not remotely determined to restore the TLM as the Ordinary Form of Mass.
In 2007, regarding the Novus Ordo, Pope Benedict XVI declared that “the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.”
Unless His Holiness has experienced a sudden change of heart and mind, he is determined to maintain the Novus Ordo as the Mass at which the all but a few (Latin Church) Catholics will worship.
Nevertheless, I believe as do you that the Novus Ordo will eventually disappear from view. However, as incredible as it appears, the collapse of the Church will worsen before Rome and the bishops return to the TLM.
Mass attendance, which is pathetic today, would have to reach absolute rock bottom…rock, rock bottom…before the Pope (or future Pope(s) ) and the bishops acknowledged what is clear today: that the Novus Ordo liturgical revolution is a disaster.
For now, our Holy Father and bishops have made it clear that they are sticking to the Novus Ordo…and for 99.9 percent of the relatively few Catholics who assist regularly at Mass, the Novus Ordo will remain for decades to come as the Mass at which they worship.
Moving to the TLM is a pipe-dream as long as 99.9 percent of Latin Catholics are not remotely familiar with Latin Masses, Gregorian Chant, ad orientem worship, Communion on the tongue, the removal of EMs, altar girls, etc.
Sorry, but the Novus Ordo and banal liturgies are here to stay…at least for decades to come.
Steve said:
“Jack, there are many bishops (and priests) who have wielded their authority to stifle the TLM. But the reality is that scant interest among Catholics for the TLM exists in the first place.”
Steve –
The interest in the TLM cannot be accurately compared to the NO because the NO is readily available in every Church, the TLM is not. The only way to accurately measure the interest would be to allow the TLM to exist side by side with the TLM in ALL parishes everywhere. I know many people who are interested but are not willing to drive the distance required to get to one. I know many who have said if their Church offered one, they would attend it.
The TLM is only available here and there and in alot of those places, it is not even regularly. Most people who attend the TLM are having to drive 30/45/60 minutes and some upwards of 2-2.5 hours each way. Most attending the NO can go down teh street 10-15 minutes away. That is much easier. Under these conditions, I don’t think you can accurately discuss the interest. Plus, the TLM is still treated like the red-headed step-child and this discourages many from attending as well.
Many of the comments by the anti-SSPX crowd reinforce the great chasm that exists between those of us who support the SSPX (and indeed, the fraternity itself), and the rest of the Church. Principally, the SSPX believes there is a crisis and that it is so grave the disobedience is justified because obedience serves faith, not the other way around. Those opposed to the SSPX believe there is no crisis, or that it is not grave, or that it cannot justify anything other than blind obedience. As long as this very different understand of the situation in the Church exists, there will be no commonality.
The SSPX cannot be expected to simply stop all their efforts of the last 20 years simply because some progress has been made. Every crisis in the history of the Church (Arian, Pelagian, ‘Reformation’), has taken a long time to resolve, and this one will be no different. I believe Fellay, et al, understand this, and they’re (rightly) thinking in terms of decades, not weeks or months.
How could the Tridentine Mass exert any “gravitational pull” on the Novus Ordo when so few places celebrate the Tridentine Mass either by prohibition or contemptuous lack of desire?
In the past two weeks I have witnessed in person or on TV Masses in a half dozen different parishes in several different dioceses. In each of them at least the Sanctus and Agnus Dei were in Latin. This may not be much, but even so it would have been unimaginable (to me, at least) just a couple of years ago.
Obviously, something is happening, and on the Church’s time scale, it’s happening very rapidly. Is it that gravitational pull?
Whether or not ordinations happened, the members of the SSPX are suspended at the present time. The new priests were suspended as seminarians the day before, now suspended as priests. The difference… they can now offer the Sacrifice of the Mass, hear confessions, distribute Holy Communion… in short, can work for the “supreme law”… the salvation of souls. Yes, I think it’s better they were ordained.
When this is resolved, their suspensions will go away in the same way the other SSPX priests’ will, God willing.
Andy 28 Jun 753 – I dont believe the adverse criticism of Pius XII spread about since the 1960’s and the publication of Hochhuth’s play “The Representative”, I prefer the evidence presented so ably by Rabbi David Dalin “The Myth of Hitler’s Pope”. However as a matter of historical fact one must be aware that Hitler himself had a Catholic upbringing, that his advent to power in 1933 had considerable Catholic suppport, that the Church signed a Concordat with him, that membership of the Nazi Party was not a cause for excommunication, that opposition from within the church was confined to a few individuals, that the episcopate praised Hitler on his birthday, and that even the Bishop of Munster, who probably halted the killing of the unfit and the sick, said nothing when the same course was followed with the Jews. As for Catholic and Nazi ideology being so opposed to one another perhaps you should read Karl Adam, the author of that excellent work “The Spirit of Catholicism”, who in 1933 argued that Catholicism and Nazism belonged together as nature and grace. Lest you should doubt this statement from such a world famous theologian it is in “Deutsches Volkstum und katholisches Christentum” Theologische Quartalschrift, CXIV (1933), 59. Hitler never prosecuted or persecuted Catholics as such ,indeed there were too many of them in the bureaucracy,the SS, the Party, and the Armed Forces, and he did not wish to hinder the war effort. Indeed the German episcopate backed his war effort to the very end, with Bishop von Galen refusing to speak to the Allies as he said his place was with the “conquered people”. The German Church has a shameful history, redeemed by some few individuals such as the Provost of Berlin. It is not surprising that they react strongly to anyone who might appear to be a Nazi apologist, as does the anti-semitic wing of the SSPX. It is a pity that such a worthy cause as the old liturgy should have got tangled up with such people. One must look at the German Bishops actions against this background.
veritas
I you think that Bl Von Galen was pro nazi I’ve got a bridge over the thames to sell you !!!, secondly I don’t think that the SSPX is anti-semetic per se (a few individuals perhaps), even if this were the case the German Bishops counfrance surrendered any sort of doctrinal credence when their head pretty much denied the doctrine of the Redemption.
JAS wrote:
“The interest in the TLM cannot be accurately compared to the NO because the NO is readily available in every Church, the TLM is not. The only way to accurately measure the interest would be to allow the TLM to exist side by side with the TLM in ALL parishes everywhere. I know many people who are interested but are not willing to drive the distance required to get to one. I know many who have said if their Church offered one, they would attend it.
The TLM is only available here and there and in alot of those places, it is not even regularly. Most people who attend the TLM are having to drive 30/45/60 minutes and some upwards of 2-2.5 hours each way. Most attending the NO can go down teh street 10-15 minutes away. That is much easier. Under these conditions, I don’t think you can accurately discuss the interest. Plus, the TLM is still treated like the red-headed step-child and this discourages many from attending as well.”
Although I continue to believe that scant interest among the Faithful exists regarding the TLM…let’s forget for the moment what you and I may believe…
…let’s focus upon the following vital fact:
Many conservative…conservative…that is, conservative Cardinals and bishops have declared that scant interest among the Faithful exists for the TLM.
The myth that many posters to this (and additional Catholic blogs) promote is that liberals alone have insisted that Catholics aren’t interested in the TLM…and once liberals are tossed aside by the Pope, then Summorum Pontificum will be implemented to the hilt.
Sorry, folks, but many conservative Cardinals and bishops promote the “little interest exists for the TLM” party line.
I have documented, for example, that conservative Cardinals Rigali and DiNardo have maintained the “little interest exists for the TLM” party line.
Conservative Cardinals and bishops have made the following very clear:
1. Scant interest exists for the TLM.
2. The Novus Ordo monopoly will absolutely remain in place.
I am sorry, but the “it’s the liberals who thwart interest in the TLM…and once they’re cast aside, the Latin Church Faithful will once again fall in love with the TLM” is simply a pipe-dream.
Liberal Churchmen and conservative Churchmen are in this together…and they maintain that people in the pews are not interested in the TLM…and that 99.9 percent of Latin Church Catholics will have little choice but to assist at Novus Ordo Masses.
Only Pope Benedict XVI (or a future Pope) can break the Novus Ordo monopoly (if that is his desire).
Otherwise, liberal and conservative Churchmen have made it clear that the Novus Ordo is here to stay.
The Novus Ordo monopoly will exist as long as the Novus Ordo remains the Pope’s Mass of choice.
Pope Paul VI instituted the Novus Ordo. Popes John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI maintained the Novus Ordo as their collective Mass of choice.
Only when a Pope offers the TLM regularly…restores the TLM as the “Ordinary Form” of Mass…and insists that Latin Church bishops and priests follow his lead…will we be rid of the Novus Ordo monopoly.
Yes, there are many liberal bishops and priests who have consigned Summorum Pontificum to oblivon (at least within their dioceses and parishes).
But many conservative bishops and priests have, for all practical purposes, acted in similar fashion via their adherence to the party line…that “little interest exists for the TLM.”
The bottom line is as follows: Pope Benedict XVI (and perhaps future Popes) maintains that the Novus Ordo is the “Ordinary Form” of Mass…
Pope Benedict XVI maintains that “the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful”…
Therefore, the idea that Rome and our (conservative) bishops desire to launch the Novus Ordo into oblivon in favor of the TLM is a pipe-dream.
Yes, the TLM will be allowed to exist at a relative handful of parishes. Yes, Churchmen here and there will offer the TLM.
Perhaps the Pope (or a future Pope) will someday offer the TLM on occasion.
But unless he undergoes a monumental change of heart and mind, Pope Benedict XVI has made it clear that the Novus Ordo is here to stay and will remain as the Mass which virtually all Latin Catholics will encounter on Saturday nights/Sundays.
In turn, conservative bishops and priests have made it clear that they will follow the Pope’s lead in that regard.
Liberal bishops and priests certainly agree with conservative bishops that little interest exists regarding the TLM and that the Novus Ordo monopoly will remain in place.
Yes, the Novus Ordo will eventually fade into oblivon decades from now as our parishes and seminaries continue to empty. Only then will Rome and our bishops finally embrace reality regarding the Novus Ordo.
But until that time arrives, Rome and our bishops (liberals and conservatives) are determined to maintain the Novus Ordo liturgical monopoly…and are determined to insist that scant interest exists regarding the TLM.
That is a shame.
Jack – please spell anti-semitic correctly – I am perfectly aware that when the specific rights of the Church were concerned Von Galen has a better record, not very difficult, from his episcopal peers, nevertheless not only did he welcome Hitler’s accession to power, he also took part in the issue of a episcopal letter exhorting the faithful to pray for the union of the Saarland with the Third Reich, and to the very end supported the war effort. Nowhere can I find any denunciation by him of the mass murder of the Jews. Unlike what Williamson ,a not insignificant member of the SSPX , says about it now, Von Galen presumably knew it was happening. He appears to have been quite happy for the SA, with their banners, to attend masses at which he was the preacher. Indeed a story is told that at such a service, when preaching on marriage , he was interrupted by an SA man who complained that as a celibate person he had no right to talk about it. He replied by saying “How dare you insult the Fuhrer”.The populace did not know of Eva Braun. I would suggest that rather than resort to vulgar invective – bridge over the Thames – you check on the actual facts which are very well documented. If you want to praise members of the German Church look at the Provost of Berlin, who alone in 1938 protested at the Crystal Night and was eventually sent to Auschwitz, and the brave Catholic conspirators who, along with others, tried to kill the dictator.It is a pity they were so few.
Incidentally, from your first post you list Malthus as an atheist. The Revd Thomas Malthus was in fact an Anglican clergyman who argued that the solution to what he saw as over- population was abstention from sexual intercourse. I would have thought this perfectly consonant with Catholic teaching.
To Steve:
*“The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.” (GK Chesterton, 1924)*
Like I said before, Lord deliver us from conservative Catholics.
From a Bp. Fellay interview published by Reuters yesterday:
Was this a provocation by the SSPX against Pope Benedict, whose flag flies above the seminary? Absolutely not, a very self-confident Bishop Fellay responded to journalists who had journeyed to this Swiss Alpine village for the ceremony. “There is a tacit tolerance from Rome,” said the Swiss-born bishop, whose 20-year excommunication was lifted in January along with the three other bishops drummed out of the Church in 1988. “We did not have an explicit order not to do this. I have contacts with Rome, I’m not just making this up out of thin air. Rome knows this is not a provocation on our part.”
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/06/29/guestview-felley-ordains-sspx-priests-hints-timid-opening/
Of, we have our own experts here at WDPRS, and some of them know better.
Heather wrote: “*“The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.” (GK Chesterton, 1924)*
Like I said before, Lord deliver us from conservative Catholics.”
I agree with you. Conservative Catholics are pretty much slow-motion liberals in that they accept (and demand that Traditional Catholics accept) various novelties that liberals promote.
Considering the following: Liberals promoted Communion in the hand. Traditional Catholics opposed Communion in the hand. Rome unfortunately embraced the dreadful practice of Communion in the hand.
Many conservative Catholics then demanded that Catholic Traditionalists fall into line with the tired, old…”well, if it’s good enough for the Pope, then it’s good enough with me.”
Altar girls…a liberal novelty that has been accepted throughout virtually all conservative dioceses and parishes.
Mass vs. populum…how many conservative parishes hold fast to the ancient Mass ad orientem tradition? Answer: Few. Virtually each Mass offered in conservative (and liberal) dioceses and parishes is ad populum.
Latin Mass: How many conservative dioceses and parishes insist that at the very least, the Ordinary of the Mass be prayed in Latin…accompanied by Gregorian Chant. Answer: None.
Vernacular Mass devoid of Gregorian Chant is the norm for each “conservative” diocese.
As you well know, additional examples of “conservative” refusal to reject novelties in favor of Holy Tradition may be cited.
I am not saying that conservatives are bad people. I am simply telling the undeniable truth in that during our post-Vatican II Novus Ordo meltdown, conservatives by and large stood more frequently with liberals than Traditional Catholics.
Conservatives took the approach that once “approved” by Rome, each novelty (ranging from bizarre ecumenical/interreligious gatherings conducted by Popes to awful Vatican-approved practices that wrecked the Roman Liturgy) was to be accepted by all…and any big, bad Traditional Catholic who resisted was labeled “schismatic.”
The proof is in back copies of conservative magazines and the archives of conservative Web sites.
In particular, many conservative Catholics spent decades attacking the SSPX. False and vicious information was printed against the SSPX.
Now that the Traditional Catholic Movement has been “legitimized,” more and more conservatives have joined the club.
That is a good thing. But let’s not revise history regarding the manner in which many conservatives approached the Traditional Catholic Movement.
More often than not, conservatives stood with liberals.
*Now that the Traditional Catholic Movement has been “legitimized,” more and more conservatives have joined the club.*
But nevertheless, have not abandoned their favorite hobby: bashing the SSPX.
GUESTVIEW: Felley ordains SSPX priests, hints timid opening
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/06/29/guestview-felley-ordains-sspx-priests-hints-timid-opening/
“We did not have an explicit order not to do this. I have contacts with Rome, I’m not just making this up out of thin air. Rome knows this is not a provocation on our part.”
Dear Veritas
I’m sorry that I was slightly mistaken in my facts regarding Malthus (I have since learned that he was clergyman) and Bl Von Galen. However this is irelevent to my comment about the heretical comments made by the head of the German Bishops confrence. BTW I don’t see why the Church should be frightended by the memories of a long dead apostate (Hitler) methinks that the German Bishops are the ones most opposed to the Cannonization of Pius XII, I have news for them ‘don’t let hysetrical jewsish advocacy groups interfere in our relgion. Finially Hasn’t Williamson apologised for his remarks?
Now that the Traditional Catholic Movement has been “legitimized,” more and more conservatives have joined the club.
Heather replied: “But nevertheless, have not abandoned their favorite hobby: bashing the SSPX.”
That is true. But we shouldn’t expect various conservatives, who had bashed the SSPX for years, to suddenly embrace the holy SSPX.
After having espoused the party line(s) for decades — that the TLM was abrogated…that SSPX priests were “schismatics” who “hated the Church”…
oh, and let’s not forget their favorite bit of nonsense “the SSPX is anti-Semitic,” many conservatives have difficulty ackowledging their errors.
But simply consult back copies and archives of conservative publications and Web sites. The vicious and unfortunate attacks against the SSPX are there.
Apparently it has occurred to no one (all amateurish and positivist interpretations of Canon Law aside, where they belong) that:
1) The present Holy Father has known of the SSPX’s penchant to ordain scads of priests every year, all quite outside the bounds of the letter of Canon Law, and has said and done nothing about it;
2) For that matter, so have the German, the Swiss, the American, the Argentinian, and the Australian bishops in whose dioceses SSPX seminaries operate also ignored the allegedly illicit ordinations performed annually in these same seminaries, which, of itself, raises some doubts as to the true motives of at least the German bishops in choosing the present moment to make a fuss;
3) At the time the Holy Father remitted the excommunications (quite gratuitously, by the way), if these “illicit” annual ordinations had seriously concerned him (or the German bishops for that matter), he could and should have, then, set as a condition for their remission that the SSPX behave itself, and obey Canon Law down to the last letter;
4) To have apparently failed to set such an obviously necessary condition at precisely the ideal opportunity for doing so; and to have thereafter failed to reprimand the SSPX for their latest spate of ordinations implies two possibilities:
a. That the Holy Father is a bumbling idiot who doesn’t know his job, or
b. That these so-called “illicit” ordinations do not concern him.
In worrying this issue to death, and in pestering the Holy Father for “direction as to how to proceed,” it should be evident to any but WHO WILL NOT SEE, which of these two possibilities the German bishops believe to be the truth.
In treating the objections of the German bishops against the SSPX as serious and cogent charges, all you amateur canonists obviously agree with them in their scurrilous opinion of the Holy Father.
Gentlemen, why do you hate and disrespect our Holy Father?