As it turns out, standard physics prevailed: Pioneer Spacecraft Anomaly solved.

For your “Just Too Cool” file.

From NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab comes a fascinating story about the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecrafts.  When last contacted they were mysteriously slowing down.  Someone figured out why.

It was, as it turns out, rocket science!

Study Finds Heat is Source of ‘Pioneer Anomaly’

The unexpected slowing of NASA’s Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft – the so-called “Pioneer Anomaly” – turns out to be due to the slight, but detectable effect of heat pushing back on the spacecraft, according to a recent paper. The heat emanates from electrical current flowing through instruments and the thermoelectric power supply. The results were published on June 12 in the journal Physical Review Letters.

“The effect is something like when you’re driving a car and the photons from your headlights are pushing you backward,” said Slava Turyshev, the paper’s lead author at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “It is very subtle.”

Launched in 1972 and 1973 respectively, Pioneer 10 and 11 are on an outward trajectory from our sun. In the early 1980s, navigators saw a deceleration on the two spacecraft, in the direction back toward the sun, as the spacecraft were approaching Saturn. They dismissed it as the effect of dribbles of leftover propellant still in the fuel lines after controllers had cut off the propellant. But by 1998, as the spacecraft kept traveling on their journey and were over 8 billion miles (13 billion kilometers) away from the sun, a group of scientists led by John Anderson of JPL realized there was an actual deceleration of about 300 inches per day squared (0.9 nanometers per second squared). [NB] They raised the possibility that this could be some new type of physics that contradicted Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

In 2004, Turyshev decided to start gathering records stored all over the country and analyze the data to see if he could definitively figure out the source of the deceleration. In part, he and colleagues were contemplating a deep space physics mission to investigate the anomaly, and he wanted to be sure there was one before asking NASA for a spacecraft.

He and colleagues went searching for Doppler data, the pattern of data communicated back to Earth from the spacecraft, and telemetry data, the housekeeping data sent back from the spacecraft. At the time these two Pioneers were launched, data were still being stored on punch cards. [Wow.  I remember making programs with those.] But Turyshev and colleagues were able to copy digitized files from the computer of JPL navigators who have helped steer the Pioneer spacecraft since the 1970s. They also found over a dozen of boxes of magnetic tapes stored under a staircase at JPL and received files from the National Space Science Data Center at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., and worked with NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif., to save some of their boxes of magnetic optical tapes. He collected more than 43 gigabytes of data, which may not seem like a lot now, but is quite a lot of data for the 1970s. [I’ll say. I remember my Atari with its massive, what, 64k of RAM? And in my recent cleaning I found a 5″ diskette.  Blast from the past.] He also managed to save a vintage tape machine that was about to be discarded, so he could play the magnetic tapes.

The effort was a labor of love for Turyshev and others. The Planetary Society sent out appeals to its members to help fund the data recovery effort. NASA later also provided funding. In the process, a programmer in Canada, Viktor Toth, heard about the effort and contacted Turyshev. He helped Turyshev create a program that could read the telemetry tapes and clean up the old data.

They saw that what was happening to Pioneer wasn’t happening to other spacecraft, mostly because of the way the spacecraft were built. For example, the Voyager spacecraft are less sensitive to the effect seen on Pioneer, because its thrusters align it along three axes, whereas the Pioneer spacecraft rely on spinning to stay stable.

With all the data newly available, Turyshev and colleagues were able to calculate the heat put out by the electrical subsystems and the decay of plutonium in the Pioneer power sources, which matched the anomalous acceleration seen on both Pioneers.

[Bottom line…] “The story is finding its conclusion because it turns out that standard physics prevail,” Turyshev said. “While of course it would’ve been exciting to discover a new kind of physics, we did solve a mystery.”

Pioneer 10 and 11 were managed by NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. Pioneer 10’s last signal was received on Earth in January 2003. Pioneer 11’s last signal was received in November 1995. JPL is a division of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.

Posted in Just Too Cool, Look! Up in the sky! | Tagged , , , ,
19 Comments

Analysis of NPR’s interview of LCWR Pres. Sr. Pat Farrell: like a 7-year old’s manipulative obfuscation

Sr. Pat Farrell of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (a subsidiary of the Magisterium of Nuns) did an interview with the liberal-leaning National Public Radio.  Carl Olson of Catholic World Report deftly dissected Sister’s interview.  Let’s see the first part with my emphases and comments.

[Don’t forget: The LCWR’s leadership claim that, since they are not clerics, women religious don’t have to stand up for Magisterial teachings in their apostolates.  Therefore, they think they can blur and be silent about important moral and doctrinal issues and align themselves through that blurring and silence with a secular feminist agenda or with the Obama Administration’s pro-abortion efforts.]

Sister Pat Farrell, president of the LCWR, deflects, blames, and otherwise obfuscates

By Carl E. Olson

National Public Radio recently interviewed Sister Pat Farrell, the current president of the LCWR (Leadership Conference of Women Religious):

Farrell tells Fresh Air’s Terry Gross that the leadership organization is currently gathering the perspectives of all of its members in preparation for its national assembly in August.

“We’re hoping to come out of that assembly with a much clearer direction about [the Vatican’s decision], and that’s when the national board and presidency can proceed,” she says.

Among the options on the table, she says, are fully complying with the mandate, not complying with the mandate or seeing if the Vatican will negotiate with them.

“In my mind, [I want] to see if we can somehow, in a spirited, nonviolent strategizing, [LOL! She introduces the notion of “violence”?   What a manipulative joke!] look for maybe a third way that refuses to define the mandate and the issues in such black and white terms,” she says. [Let’s make everything gray and squishy.]

[Olsen now continues… sorry, the formatting here could be confusing…] In other words, let’s sit down and talk about having further dialogue that will point us in the direction of additional conversations, which in turn will open up new vistas of vague and non-distinct paths ushering in an even more rewarding round of discussions, etc., etc. Frankly, this is what it is like sometimes dealing with my seven-year-old son, who is verbally skilled, sometimes manipulative, very adept at deflection, and usually refuses to back down when caught breaking rules, telling lies, or stealing sweets. A “third way”? That’s simply grown-up talk for “one more chance”. Refusing to define issues in such “black and white terms” is a variation on “why do you always have to be so strict about X, Y, and Z?” The key to this approach is being willing to outlast—often through endless talk!—those in authority. It also helps to be able say one thing while claiming to say another.

But, first, how about a little dose of deflection?

[Another snip of the Farrell interview…] “The question is, ‘Can you be Catholic and have a questioning mind?’ That’s what we’re asking. … I think one of our deepest hopes is that in the way we manage the balancing beam in the position we’re in, if we can make any headways in helping to create a safe and respectful environment [Notice how she goes back to this “violence” theme?  She is slyly trying to paint the LCWR as some sort of battered-women’s shelter.  If memory serves, however, in schools all across the land it was the nuns that did the battering… of children.] where church leaders along with rank-and-file members can raise questions openly and search for truth freely, with very complex and swiftly changing issues in our day, that would be our hope. [blah blah blah] But the climate is not there. And this mandate coming from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith putting us in a position of being under the control of certain bishops, that is not a dialogue. If anything, it appears to be shutting down dialogue.”

[Now Olson…] First, begin with a nonsensical question (my son, caught watching a television channel he knows is off limits, says, “Why does my sister get to watch whatever shes wants to?” Well, she doesn’t. But he’s not interested in the answer, is he?) Does Sister Farrell really ponder, with all seriousness, the question, “Can I be a Catholic and have a questioning mind?” Uh, the fact that a Catholic can even ponder such a question indicates the obvious answer: “Yes!” Crack open the Summa Theologica, one of the seminal theological and philosophical texts in the Tradition, and what do you find? Questions! Hundreds of ’em! Because we were made to question, ponder, contemplate, and wonder. But what is really being asked is this: “Can I be a Catholic and reject certain Catholic teachings?” The giveaway is in the term “complex and swiftly shifting issues in our day“. The next part of deflection, of course, is blaming someone else. In this case, it’s the CDF and the bishops appointed by the CDF: “But the climate is not there.” Yes, that’s right: the forecast for the LCWR is stormy weather, not smooth sailing.

[…]

You definitely want to read the rest over THERE.

I am especially pleased that Olson linked to my post NUNS GONE WILD!

In the interview, Sr. Farrell also opined that women religious are closer to understanding women’s health predicaments than are men/clerics. Does that sound to you like opposition to abortion?

Posted in Biased Media Coverage, Magisterium of Nuns, The Drill, Throwing a Nutty, Women Religious | Tagged , , , , ,
32 Comments

United States of America: “Mission Territory”. Wherein Fr. Z rants.

For a long time the Church in the USA was under the aegis of the Holy See’s then Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, called now the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples. This is why, for example, the seminarians at the North American College in Rome and at the Pontifical Seminary “Josephinum” in the USA wear the same cassock as the seminarians of the Propaganda Fide College in Rome. Mission countries were in many important spheres under the governance of Propaganda. That changed as the Church in the USA, “a Christian country”, was able to sustain itself.

And now?

Dioceses are declaring bankrupcy. Identity is crumbling. The decidedly post-Christian Obama Administration, with its anti-Catholic catholics such as VP Biden and HHS Sec. Kathleen Sebelius, are viciously attacking our 1st Amendment religious freedoms.

Many years ago I was chewing the fat with an American bishop. I asked him, “What do we do to turn things around in the USA?” He responded, “The first thing we have to do is stop blowing happy gas!”

In sum, things are terrible. Yes, there are signs here and there of an awakening of Catholic identity, but things are simply dreadful, all in all. Maybe that is what we need: the Church grew from the seeds of the martyr’s blood drops.

On that note, I read with interest the comment by Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia:

“The Archdiocese of Philadelphia . . . is now really a mission territory.”

Of course it is, Your Excellency! It has been for a long time!

What is encouraging is that Archbishop Chaput had the guts to say it and Card. Dolan of New York openly agreed.

If the USA is mission territory, then every US Catholic is a missionary.

But when have we not been?

Before His Ascension, Christ said “Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” (Matthew 28:19-20 Douay)

All Catholics are called to the sequela Christi, the following of Christ, to become holy, to be saints. We strive to become saints for ourselves, because we desire our salvation, but also for others, whom we have an obligation to help to salvation from love of God and neighbor.
Our Faith is for us, and our Faith is for others.

There is no authentic Catholic life without a mission to others. Even hermits and the cloistered are missionaries. The cloistered Carmelite St. Therese de Lisieux was named Patroness of Missionaries. If she was a missionary in her convent, how are we not all the more missionaries?

The Christian is called to holiness. The Christians is called to give witness. Christian witness is manifested first in the pursuit of holiness. Some are called to the special witness of the exercise of virtues in a heroic manner according to the circumstances and the opportunities which present themselves. Others are called to the outstanding but bloody witness of martyrdom. All are called to witness, however, for salvation is not just for ourselves alone. We are not islands. Unity in Christ necessarily means love of neighbor, which requires sacrificial love and choices that aim at the good of the other.

In this age which is ever more hostile to the Christian Faith and to “the Catholic Thing” in particular, how are we not being offered opportunities to give witness? Holiness is for ourselves, and it is for others. There is always an opportunity to be on mission in his Church Militant.

The rich modern West is mission country.  Rich in material, at least for now, we are impoverished in spirit and in the spiritual.

May I now refer you back to my rant, tirade, jeremiad? My manifesto after the Notre Shame debacle? HERE.

Since Pope Benedict’s election I have thought that a principle aim of his pontificate is to revitalize our Catholic identity. Just as in the Marshall Plan the US rebuilt war-torn Europe to create good trading partners and foster a bulwark against Communism, so to Pope Benedict is trying to build a bulwark against the dictatorship of relativism through a revitalization of our Catholic identity. To my mind, and I think also to Papa Ratzinger’s mind – if I know anything about his thought – at the heart of what must be done to strengthen our identity is the revitalization of our worship of Almighty God.

Liturgical worship is the key and sine qua non for any rebuilding of our Catholic identity.

As I wrote in my aforementioned tirade…

I urge all priests and bishops who read this blog with any slight quaver of resonance or benevolence, to consider this with care:

If you sense that something quite serious and important is going on right now, for the love of God rethink your approach to how you foster Holy Church’s proper public worship.

Do all in your power and through your influence to foster a worship of God which conforms not to worldly goals – as praiseworthy as they may be in a world still dominated by its dire prince – but rather to the real point of religion: an encounter with mystery.

Our worship must become more and more focused on the one who is Other. Seek what is truly above in your rites and raise people to encounter mystery.

You will be challenged and reviled, blocked and attacked as you do. You will be worn down and afraid under the weight of resistance.

To save the world we must save the liturgy.

[…]

Holy Catholic worship will be an attractive force for conversion.

We need to foster worship which stuns, which leaves the newcomer, long-time practicing Catholic, above all the fallen-away simply thunder stuck. Worship must at some point leave people speechless in awe. We need language and music and gesture which in its beauty floods the mind with light even while it swells the heart to bursting.

The more people encounter mystery through liturgy, the more hollow will clang the false or incomplete messages of those who have strayed from the good path, either to the left or to the right.

Our goal must be that which is good and beautiful because it is true, that which reflects what is of God, not man’s image merely. Give us mystery, not fabrications smacking of the world, fallen and transitory.

Fathers, and you Reverend Bishops, if anything of alarm has sounded in your hearts and minds of late, rethink your approach to our worship. Examine your approach with an eye on the signs of the times. Take a new approach.

The approach we have had least last few decades isn’t getting it done. Really … it isn’t

Going neither left nor right along the road toward the Lord, even as He comes to us, take the flock now deeper, now higher on that path, but always to encounter the mystery which distinguishes truly Catholic liturgy… and therefore true Catholics.

Lines are being drawn, sides taken, choices made.

More than ever we need what Christ, the true Actor of our liturgy, desires to offer us through Holy Church’s worship.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Benedict XVI, Brick by Brick, GO TO CONFESSION, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, Religious Liberty, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice, Year of Faith | Tagged , , , , , ,
49 Comments

POLL ALERT! Australia: Legal efforts to force priests to break Seal of Confession!

For POLL info, read to the bottom.

From Australian news.com.au

Priests could be ordered to report confessions of sex abuse to police
Ashley Gardiner
Herald Sun
July 18, 2012 12:00AM

HUNDREDS of years of Catholic tradition in the confessional could be overturned by Victoria’s inquiry into child sex abuse.

Priests would be ordered to reveal crimes told to them in private confessions under one proposal before the inquiry.  [Such a law would require priests to violate the Seal of Confession.  St. John Nepomucene, pray for us.]

But priests say they will resist being forced to reveal secrets of the confessional.

A parliamentary committee also will look at radical new laws that would see bishops face criminal charges for the misconduct of their priests.  [That is an attack on the essence of the Church itself.  It seeks to fragment dioceses.]

[…]

Liberal Catholic-haters try this every once in a while.

They know they will lose, but they also know that each time the try it, they get a few people on their side.  With each attempt they hope the can nudge the needle in their direction until… one day…

At the bottom of the page I linked, HERE, there is a POLL on this.  Scroll down.

At the time of this writing:

 

Posted in Our Catholic Identity, POLLS, Priests and Priesthood, Religious Liberty, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice | Tagged , , , , , ,
42 Comments

Reason #12894 for Summorum Pontificum

This is the height of narcissism.

From Eponymous Flower and pius.info:

The picture of the week shows a “Hardrock-Mass” in the Cathedral of Tarragona (Spain) on the 8th of April 2012. The celebrant is known as “Padre Jony”, such is his stage name. HIs real name is Joan Enric Reverte, and he is the Pastor of St. Peter Parish in Alcanar.

Posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Pò sì jiù | Tagged ,
67 Comments

Fake open-mindedness, diversity, tolerance, otherness

I like this from The Catholic Thing:

The Anti-Catholic Catholic

By Randall Smith [who teaches theology at the University of St. Thomas, Houston.]

Several weeks back, I published a column in this space suggesting that in our current pluralistic, multi-cultural worship of the alienated, victimized “other,” some are more “other” than others. Some “otherness” gets you respect and a kind of special veneration, while other sorts of “otherness” – uncool “otherness” – earns you contempt.

It’s simply not true that our culture embraces all diversity; no, people usually embrace the sorts of diversity they like or that make them feel especially “open-minded.” And to be especially “open-minded” and “accepting” of “otherness,” one has to embrace things distinctly different from oneself, which tends to make us look too kindly on some groups just because they’re different, while looking with contempt on others closer to us for no other reason than they’re not different enough.

[…]

He goes on to apply this to Catholic colleges, but we can apply it nearly anywhere.

Posted in Our Catholic Identity, The Drill, The Last Acceptable Prejudice | Tagged , , ,
7 Comments

Prayer to St. Joseph for a Difficult Problem

Prayer to Saint Joseph for a Difficult Problem

O Glorious St. Joseph, thou who hast power to render possible even things which are considered impossible, come to our aid in our present trouble and distress.

Take this important and difficult affair under thy particular protection, that it may end happily. (MENTION YOUR REQUEST)

O dear St. Joseph, all our confidence is in thee. Let it not be said that we would invoke thee in vain; and since thou art so powerful with Jesus and Mary, show that thy goodness equals thy power.  Amen.

St. Joseph, friend of the Sacred Heart, pray for us.

My experience has been that, when praying to St. Joseph, it is best to be specific.

 

Posted in PRAYER REQUEST | Tagged
16 Comments

Why Fr. Z pushes Mystic Monk Coffee.

Other than the fact that I get a commission every time you buy Mystic Monk Coffee using my links… and please, I ask you to do so, because it really helps… this video will also show you why I like to push their coffee and tea and help the Wyoming Carmelites.

For your Brick by Brick file.

[wp_youtube]ItBoQsWEW_Q[/wp_youtube]

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Brick by Brick | Tagged , , , ,
6 Comments

Wherein it is not possible but that Fr. Z rants.

At the blog of the Latin Mass Society‘s chairman, Joseph Shaw, there is the exposition of an important Latin text of Pius X in 1905 about frequent reception of Holy Communion.  The Latin is presented and compared to an English translation on the EWTN site, which may be the only English translation on the web.

The text is about receiving Communion with the knowledge of venial sins.

3. Etsi quam maxime expediat, ut frequenti et quotidiana communione utentes venialibus peccatis, saltem plene deliberatis, eorumque affectu sint expertes, sufficit nihilominus, ut culpis mortalibus vacent, cum proposito, se numquam in posterum peccaturos; quo sincero animi proposito, fieri non potest quin quotidie communicates a peccatis etiam venialibus, ab eorumque affectu sensim se expediant;

Here is how EWTN did it, with emphasis added:

3. Although it is especially fitting that those who receive Communion frequently or daily should be free from venial sins, at least from such as are fully deliberate, and from any affection thereto, nevertheless, it is sufficient that they be free from mortal sin, with the purpose of never sinning in the future; and if they have this sincere purpose, it is impossible by [sic] that daily communicants should gradually free themselves even from venial sins, and from all affection thereto.

Shaw points to a serious problem.  The translation makes a hash of what the Latin wants to convey, namely, that reception of Communion helps to over come venial sins.  The EWTN translation ought to read, typo corrected:

… it is not possible BUT that daily communicants should gradually free themselves even from venial sins, and from all affection thereto.

or else:

… it is bound to happen that daily communicants should gradually free themselves even from venial sins, and from all affection thereto.

Clearly there was a typo, probably the result of scanning the document.

Now… forget about that Holy Communion and venial sin thing… we all know that part!  Instead, focus on the double negative!  Latin is comfortable with multiple-negatives, whereas English is less so.  Also, Latin like the impersonal constructions more than English.

On his blog Shaw points out the nonsensical EWTN translation but I think we can tweak it and get extra mileage from it.

Fieri non potest” is literally, “it is not possible that it happen (… that)”, which would be followed with some consequent result.  In this case “fieri non potest” is followed by a clause introduced by quin .  Quin is a compound of quî + ne or “how” + “not”.  (“How does it not happen that…?” in order to state a positive assertion.)  Thus “Fieri non potest quin, etc.” gives us something like “it is not possible that daily communicants should not gradually free themselves…”.  Put another way, with that double negative at work, we could say “It is bound to happen that daily communicants will gradually free themselves…”

That fieri non potest quin … “it cannot happen but that” or “it cannot happen otherwise than that” or even “it is sure to happen that…” construction isn’t exactly rare.  Cicero uses it often.

“But Father! But Father!”, some of you Latin students are eagerly shouting, “How can you stop now?  How can you not break this  down a bit more! We all know that all readers here love Latin grammar and will hang on your every word! Surely it cannot be other than that everyone here will read every syllable!”

If you insist.

Since I am under the gun to write a couple talks, but I have too much to do and writing a talk is on my mind, “Fieri non potest quin allocutionem suam scripserit.”, would assert a positive through the double-negative: “It cannot be but that he has written his talk.”  On the other hand, “Fieri non potest quin allocutionem suam non scripserit.”, would assert the negative: “It cannot be but that he has not written his talk.”  Get it?  On the other hand, “Fieri non potest ut suam allocutionem non scripserit” would deny the negative and mean “It is not possible that he has not written his talk.”  But going on “Fieri non potest ut suam allocutionem scripserit.” would deny the positive and mean “It is not possible that he has written his talk”.  Easy, right?

Again, Latin likes impersonal phrases. However, a personal way of using this construction would be “facere non possum… I can not do other than…” or, in the case of these communicants “facere non possunt… they are bound to”.

I think you get the impact of the construction now.  Thus endeth the lesson.

That said, it is now impossible that I not finish and post this entry.

Posted in "But Father! But Father!", "How To..." - Practical Notes, Linking Back, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill, WDTPRS, Wherein Fr. Z Rants | Tagged , , , ,
17 Comments

SSPX Bp. Fellay speaks about their General Chapter, the new CDF Prefect, unity with Rome (unresolved)

At the site of the SSPX DICI, there is an interview with the SSPX Superior Bp. Bernard Fellay about the recently concluded General Chapter (which is a gathering in which the participants discuss policies, internal matters, etc.).

Read it all, but here are some highlights. First, Fellay said that they were able to get through their agenda and that they dealt with hard questions and clear up misunderstandings. He distanced the Society from “all those who have tried to take advantage of the situation in order to drive a wedge turning Society members against each other.”. Also, he said they will be able to communicate a response to Rome “very soon”.

Interview with Bishop Bernard Fellay on the occasion of the General Chapter (July 16, 2012)

[…]

DICI : What are your thoughts on the appointment of Archbishop Mueller as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?

Bishop Fellay : It is nobody’s secret that the former bishop of Regensburg, where our seminary of Zaitzkofen is located, does not like us. After the courageous action of Benedict XVI on our behalf, in 2009, he refused to cooperate and treated us like if we were lepers! He is the one who stated that our seminary should be closed and that our students should go to the seminaries of their dioceses of origin, adding bluntly that “the four bishops of the SSPX should resign”! (cf. interview with Zeit Online, 8 May 2009).  [While clearly the Prefect of the CDF has a great deal of influence in the dealings of the Congregation, it is also the role of the Prefect to snap to attention when the Roman Pontiff tells him to do something.  At that point, the Prefect of any Congregation puts aside his personal positions and does what the Pope says.  The role of the Prefect in the CDF is not to function so much as a theologian, but rather to make the trains run on time.  Moreover, much of the work will have to be done by the newly appointed VP of the Pont. Comm. “Ecclesia Dei“.]

For us what is more important and more alarming is his leading role at the head of the Congregation for the Faith, which must defend the Faith with the proper mission of fighting doctrinal errors and heresy. Numerous writings of Bishop Mueller on the real transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, on the dogma of Our Lady’s virginity, on the need of conversion of non-Catholics to the Catholic Church… are questionable, to say the least!  [I don’t buy that.] There is no doubt that these texts would have been in the past the object of an intervention of the Holy Office, [I wonder.  And this is entirely hypothetical.] which now is the very Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith presided by him.

DICI : How do you see the future of the SSPX? In the midst of its fight for the Church’s Tradition, will the SSPX keep to the same knife’s edge?

Bishop Fellay : More than ever we must maintain the knife’s edge traced by our venerated founder. [But, dear Bishop Fellay, will the SSPX do that in clear unity with the Roman Pontiff or from the margin?] It is not easy to keep, yet absolutely vital for the Church and the treasure of its Tradition. We are Catholic, we recognise the pope and the bishops, [Recognize, but don’t submit to.] but above all else we must keep intact the Faith, source of God’s grace. Therefore we must avoid all that may endanger the Faith, without trying to become a replacement for the Church, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman. Far from us the idea of establishing a parallel Church, of exercising a parallel magisterium!  [Tell that to the Magisterium of Nuns!]

This was well explained by Archbishop Lefebvre more than thirty years ago: he did not wish to hand down anything else but what he himself had received from the Church of two millennia. This is what we want also, following his lead, so that we may effectively help “to restore all things in Christ.” [The motto of St. Pius X.]It is not us who will break with Rome, the Eternal Rome, [Sigh. “Eternal Rome”.  There’s your “hermeneutic of rupture and discontinuity” in another guise.] mistress of wisdom and truth. Nevertheless, it would be unrealistic to deny that there is a modernist and liberal influence in the Church since the Second Vatican Council and its subsequent reforms. In a word, we maintain the faith in the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and in the Church founded upon Peter, but we refuse all which contributes to the “self-demolition of the Church” acknowledged by Paul VI himself since 1968. May Our Lady, Mother of the Church, hasten the day of its authentic restoration! [May she hasten your submission so that you can raise the roof and do your work within clear unity!]

I was struck by his affirmation of the Church, and the Roman Pontiff, though his “Eternal Rome” smacks of a distinction that suggests they are in their own rupture and discontinuity with the very “Eternal Rome” they profess.  You can go off the road and into the ditch on either side of the road, after all.

But what really struck me in that was yesterday’s Gospel for Mass, which all of the members of the SSPX would have heard or read.

(Jesus said,) “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father in heaven shall enter the kingdom of heaven.”  Matthew 7:21.

They say again and again, “Your Holiness, Your Holiness… Rome… Rome… ” but they also need to act on what they say.  They need to come into clear unity with the Vicar of Christ… the one who stands in Christ’s place … vicarius… in this world in our Church.

I have been hopeful that the whole or most of the SSPX will come in.  If they decide not, I hope the Holy See offers the canonical solution they have ready for those who would want to seek clear unity with Peter.  The sacrifice and the transition would be very hard for the individuals, but I would welcome any of them that made the choice.  Still, my prayer remains, and I ask our Lady of Mount Carmel today to help bring it about for all of them.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Benedict XVI, Brick by Brick, Our Catholic Identity, Pope of Christian Unity, SSPX, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged , , , , ,
52 Comments