In a new interview – this time with the French Catholic television station TV Libertés – Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, spoke once more about the current situation of the Society with regard to Rome.
Speaking for some 18 minutes with Jean-Pierre Maugendre for his televised program “Terres de Mission,” Bishop Fellay tries to explain on 29 January two seemingly contradictory events raised by Mr. Maugendre: namely, that Pope Francis, in November of 2017 in his Apostolic Letter Misericordia et Misera, granted to the SSPX the extension of the faculty to hear confessions; and secondly, Francis published the post-synodal document Amoris Laetitia which, in certain cases, appears to allow some “remarried” divorcees to receive Holy Communion. In reply, the Swiss prelate says that these two acts “stem from the same movement, namely the concern of the Holy Father for the rejected people […] for those at the peripheries,” adding: “we are rejected […] and marginalized, forgotten or set aside.”
When asked about the dubia of the Four Cardinals – the first high-ranking resistance since the “Bacci-Ottaviani intervention” in the late 1960s concerning the theology of the Novus Ordo Mass – Bishop Fellay says that “something is changing” and that “things are getting worse […] not on the level of principles, but that the [bad] principles are bearing fruit, are having consequences.” He does not think that we have yet reached the “ultimate consequences” of those defective principles, but he sees that the general situation is now “so bad that a certain number of bishops and cardinals in their own consciences saw that they had to say ‘that’s it’.” Fellay added that, “privately, they [these resisting prelates] are even more numerous [than the ones who have spoken up publicly].” However, in Fellay’s eyes, “it is too early to say whether this movement will grow.” The prelate explains that “one has to hope, and I dare to hope, that it will continue in this sense because we are not at all doing well”; and that, “once people begin to speak out, one will be able to reflect more seriously about the [deeper] causes of the situation” concerning the current and long germinating crisis within the Church.
Mr. Maugendre, the interviewer, then also refers to the recent intervention from Bishop Athanasius Schneider who asks the SSPX to accept now the proposal from Rome for a regularization, even though things might “not be 100% satisfactory” in the Church. The French interviewer then asks Bishop Fellay whether he expects “to sign a proposal soon,” and Fellay responds with the important (though somewhat unspecific) statement that “there is one conditio sine qua non, namely, that we can stay as we are.” [my emphasis] Without this assurance, says Fellay, “we will not do anything.” For, the SSPX still has some “grave criticisms” concerning what has happened “in the Church since Vatican II”; as representative topics, for example, the Swiss bishop mentions the practical “integration of Communism”; “Religious Liberty”; the “relationship between Church and State”; and the question of toleration of other religions, one of which is today to be seen, more and more, in the context and presence of “terror.” It now seems to Fellay that “we go in the right direction” and that, by way of alleviation of the pressure, “Rome has lifted a foot for two years now.” This apparently new attitude of Rome implies that some disputed questions concerning the Second Vatican Council are not strictly related to the binding “criteria of Catholicity.” Fellay explains: “That means that one has the right not to be in agreement [with some aspects of the Second Vatican Council] but still be considered to be Catholic.”
He also stresses that the SSPX has fought against any development towards a schism, and is against “the establishment of a parallel church.” He says that he is working with Pope Francis on the practical side, and that there are certain “practical dispositions in place which practically render impossible a schism.”
Moreover, Fellay says that the SSPX has shown in the recent past and in daily acts “our submission to Rome,” that “we are recognizing Rome’s authority,” and not only by praying for the Holy Father in the Canon of the Mass. In a practical way, says the Superior General, “we have normal relationships” with Rome, inasmuch as the SSPX was told last summer that the Superior General “may licitly ordain priests of the Society without first receiving any explicit approval from the local bishop.” Additionally, the SSPX may now licitly hear confessions. Also, in other juridical, canonical fields, the SSPX Superior General has been given authority over his priests, for example, if and when they commit a serious violation. He says that “the juridical, the canonical acts are already in place” which effectively “suppress the possibility of schism, but, obviously, one always has to be watchful.”
When asked what, then, is still missing, Fellay responds, with a smile: “the stamp,” and then he adds: “and the clear and firm affirmation that one will respect that guarantee [of being able to remain who we are now].” “That stamp and guarantee,” concludes the interviewer, “can only be given by the pope himself.” “Yes, it is up to the pope to do so,” replies Bishop Fellay.
Dr. Maike Hickson, born and raised in Germany, studied History and French Literature at the University of Hannover and lived for several years in Switzerland where she wrote her doctoral dissertation. She is married to Dr. Robert Hickson, and they have been blessed with two beautiful children. She is a happy housewife who likes to write articles when time permits.
Her articles have appeared in American and European journals such as Catholicism.org, LifeSiteNews, The Wanderer, Culture Wars, Catholic Family News, Christian Order, Apropos, and Zeit-Fragen.
The problem is the one assurance that must be given is that ‘we can stay the same’. The next story on 1P5 is this: ‘Malta Besieged: An Ancient and Sovereign Order Toppled by Rome’. If even cast iron LAW doesn’t restrain the Pope from intervening in a sovereign order, why would he think twice about doing the same to the SSPX when they have been pulled in?
Yes, but I’d imagine Francis would wait a bit before ordering an “investigation” of the SSPX, and by then maybe there is another pope. Now, will the next pope be a Francis II?
The way things are going the next Pope may very well be appointed by Jesus Himself.
And Christ will appoint the next Pope and he will be a “very holy pope.” It might be after our Church goes through hell here on Earth before this takes place…. I also read in many Catholic End times that there will also be a ‘holy Monarch (instead of a President) and the holy Pope running the world. Will this happen and if it does, will we see this? Only God knows…….
This Lent is looking gloomy. God protect us all through the coming upheavals.
Or Pope Cyril (regardless of the numbering)?
Francis is trying to eliminate a possible route away from the church he is trying to establish. He knows exactly what he is doing and that people will indeed look for options away from the Apostate Church Francis labors to establish. The SSPX is not the answer, but there will be one, because Jesus made a very specific promise that the gates of hell and those such as Francis who represent the interests of hell will not prevail against His Church. And Francis won’t do anything but gather the damned into his false church. That there would be such an outcome is an example of Divine Justice and the restoring of Divine Order to an authentic Sacramental and Faithful Church in turmoil post Vatican II. The time where the demonically inspired tool of purposeful ambiguity is coming to an end.
Why do you say that the SSPX is not the answer, please? Why do you think that the “time where the demonically inspired tool of purposeful ambiguity is coming to an end”?
Hi top8305 – I don’t believe the SSPX is the answer because it fomented schism. It separated itself from the Sacramental Church, for reasons which were not sufficient and not justified by the teachings of the Church. In other words it was a protest movement not an effort to remain faithful to the teachings of the Church or the Words of Christ. No matter how sympathetic one might be to there complaints, they are still schismatic. The SSPX members have contributed to the wound to the Body of Christ which is not dissimilar to the one Francis is creating. I would hope that they would consider returning to the Body of Christ which opposes Francis, and thus return to the faithful who have remained faithful to the Church Jesus established and the apostles built. The answer wasn’t to walk away from the Church like the persons who walked away from Jesus in John6:48-71. We must not abandon the Church, we must fight for it, as Cardinal Burke and others are doing now, our response must be the same as Peter’s – “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the Words of eternal life.” The SSPx members abandoned the Church, it is time for them to return to the Church and oppose Francis from within, rather than negotiate a truce with him, that they could offer any form of alliance with Francis is the most telling action that they are fellow schismatics. It is similar to the truce which exists within the protestant sects, I will let you believe what you wish as long as you allow me to believe what I wish. How does that serve the Truth?
I believe that the time for ambiguity has run its course within the Church because enough people are becoming aware of the confusion and unsoundness it has created within the Church, and thus are beginning to reject and replacing it with demands for clarity. These are clearly the tactics of Francis, and a continuation of the tactics which have been employed in the Church post Vatican II. Wherever you see claims that being “Pastorally Sensitive” rather than faithful to the teachings of the Church and, in these days, to the Words spoken by Jesus Christ, you will find the pillars built to support the coming codification of schism. It was apparent in the new catechism, where the teachings of the Church are clearly defined, but then undermined in the paragraphs which follow those teachings, opening the way for contradicting those clear teachings. It was as though there was a great battle that took place behind the scenes as the Catechism was being composed, and unfortunately the soil of compromise were being cultivated as the seeds of ambiguity are now being harvested by those who have carefully nurtured that ambiguity. We are a troubled Church, but the Truth will win out, and those who oppose that Truth will be the new schismatics, no matter their number or the property and wealth they abscond with as they separate themselves from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is not defined by what the schismatics take but by what they have chosen to separate themselves from – the Truth.
Parts of some documents of Vatican II are clearly departures from settled doctrine. That’s heresy. Archbishop Lefebvre objected and refused to support heresy, so your contention that the SSPX is in schism is flawed. It is Vatican II which was in schism and its effects are the reason for the condition of the Church today.
Fidelity to Christ is never schismatic.
Hi Winslow – Can you identify three dogmatic teachings of the Church that were doctrinal changes which emanated from Vatican II?
Yes, but I haven’t the time to look them up. Read the Canons of the Council of Trent for starters.
Hi Winslow – My mistake, I thought you wouldn’t have to look them up.
Schism my butt.
Hi Jafin – There are protestants who pray the rosary. Heretics your butt?
“Well, one can see the obvious results of the lack of Thomistic education since the 1960’s.
People here obviously do not know what schism even means. The Pope(s) have never ordered the SSPX to do anything they have not obeyed.
Being asked if you will do something is not an order. Not doing what you are asked to do is not disobedience.
If you are asked to do something and you explain why you cannot do what you have been asked for a reason and that reason has not and cannot be countered is not disobedience.
Yet, so many like to throw around bigoted slogans and labels that demonize the SSPX, but when one actually takes the time to investigate the reality one finds absolutely no basis for this liable. Yes, it is liable.
It is sad that Thomisitic education has been lost . . .”
Please give me your definition of schism.
The SSPX has not left the Church and they are not in schism. Paul VI through his lackies pressured the bishop of the diocese they were canonically recognized in to withdraw their canonical recognition. In other words, the Church left them. Get your facts straight before you think to scandalize an entire population of faithful Catholics. I have no idea what your aims are but you certainly are uncharitable in conveying them.
Hi Wayne – The Truth can hurt, whether I would wish it to or not. Perhaps whether it hurts or not defines one’s relationship with or proximity to the Truth. Before Vatican II, could a bishop be ordained without the approval of the Pope? It easy to make the case against the modernists who distorted the teachings of Vatican II. But what if there were others who did the exact same thing in a less apparent way? It is never an act of charity to deceive someone, Wayne.
Are you a Jesuit? You typed a bunch of nonsense and didn’t address what I said.
Hi Wayne – No, I sit in the back of the Church with my family, every Sunday at 8AM. Please identify your most cogent point, present in the form of a coherent question, and I will address it the best I can.
If you do not understand what I said the problem does not lie with me. Good day.
Hi Wayne – A schismatic mindset, no doubt. I fear it is readily found in those prone to heresy and apostasy as well. At least, you have hopefully chosen the lesser of those three evils.
Presumptuous of you to judge my mindset considering I did not say that I agreed or disagreed with the SSPX, Bishop Fellay, or the Vatican on the issue. Frankly I do not presume to know what the SSPX or the Vatican should do. I didn’t state a judgement, I stated two facts regarding the SSPX. 1) They were canonically recognized by the Bishop of Lousanne in Switzerland and 2) the Bishop was subsequently pressured by the Vatican to withdraw his canonical recognition, which he did. As I said, the Church left the SSPX, not the other way around. I’m not making a statement on what I think, I’m saying what happened. And I haven’t made a statement of opinion on how the SSPX should handle their dealings with the Vatican or the other way around. There is no question for you and will not be one. You haven’t made a clear statement to one comment in this thread.
Hi Wayne – I don’t think God makes a distinction between those who justify and defend what offends Him, and those who practice that offense. I don’t either.
Are you insinuating that I am justifying and defending someone?
Hi Wayne – If you do not understand what I said the problem does not lie with me.
Getting a bit pompous now. If you don’t know what ‘schism’ means you shouldn’t be discussing it. If you do know what it means it’s demeaning of you to demand a definition as if you’re the master and we’re your students,
If you have something to say, say it. So far you haven’t said anything at all edifying.
Apparently I have a schismatic mindset. And to think I had no idea… Thankfully I decided to participate in the discussion instead of just reading today. Otherwise, I’d have never known.. Maybe everyone can be diagnosed. What do you say fniper? Bring that towering intellect to the fore and set everyone straight.
Hi Winslow – I am only quoting Wayne, I would never be that pompous. Apparently schism is in the eye of the beholder. But I would make this observation – the heretic never thinks they are the heretic, the apostate never thinks they are the apostate, and more to the point the schismatic never thinks they are the schismatic. And that requires a distortion of the definition of each of those states for that denial to exist.
I was referring to the totality of your remarks. Your fidelity to the Church is admirable; the rest of what you say begs the question. Declaring the SSPX to be in schism doesn’t make it so.
I am in the process of finishing a book in which Vatican II has a prominent place. I have done exhaustive research on the Council and its errors. I have examined the SSPX beginning with Archbishop Lefebvre’s position as one of the Fathers of the Council. His objections to some the Council’s documents and its decisions are strictly orthodox and above reproach. It was the Council who left the Church, not Archbishop Lefebvre.
You have asked me to list the Council’s deviations from settled doctrine. When I address such a subject I prefer to get it right, rather than leave a single hole for an adversary to pounce on while ignoring the rest. The information is available to you on line. If you have a serious interest in the truth you will use what is available to you instead of asking me to do the work. Google ‘Vatican II errors’ and you will have more to work with than you want.
Hi Winslow – I would prefer hearing what you consider the most persuasive of those points, and have your understanding of those points to consider. I have a question for you – Are there any faithful Roman Catholics, still remaining in the Church. that did not follow the path the SSPX has taken?
It’s for you to say what my most persuasive point is.
There are millions of faithful Catholics who do not follow the SSPX. I’m one of them.
Hi Winslow – Actually it is best for you to decide what your most persuasive point is since you are trying to persuade people to your point of view. If there are millions of faithful Catholic who do not follow the SSPX, then doesn’t that completely debunk the reasons for the existence of the SSPX?
Such names they call us
That’s not what we are
We are Roman Catholics
At the front of the war.
Some just go AWOL
Copying our stance
Then say we’re a sect.
A lot like in England
Saint John Fisher’s day
When his brothers said, “yes”
This Saint replied, “nay”.
All alone in the Fort
St. John Fisher stood
For the whole all that’s good.
Not just for himself
Those attached to what’s old
Or reformers reforming
Pretending they’re bold.
We’re simply preserving
Once again, the True Fort
While those with new orders
And with promises made
To men hungry for power
They mock, stand and point
At us in the tower.
Hoping for all
When in fact a catastrophic
Schism is ever defended this way
finding comfort in words they didn’t say
As though the words that remain unsaid
can justify actions and the path they have tread.
The worrying aspect is the man holding the Papal Office just now. There is a difference between obedience & surrender which the K of M have just done. The SSPX is Catholic but disobedient & the vast majority of Orthodox Catholics have reaped the backlash of that disobedience by not having access to the Old Rite which, though not abrogated, was not mandated by PB or endorsed by NO Bishops.
Hi Ana – Pope Francis is the one of the bitter fruits which have fallen from the tree which was nurtured to distort the teachings of Vatican II. The SSPX is another of the bitter fruits which has fallen from that tree as well. One an apple, one an orange, but both unsavory to the followers of Christ, the one’s who remain faithful to His Words and the unchanging teachings of His Church, that is.
I am wondering if the Prelate PF has in mind for the SSPX might be Cardinal Burke.
Hi Ana – I doubt that. Look how it worked out at the Knights of Malta. Probably more likely to be Cupich or one of his equivalents.
If it was Cupich there would definitely be no deal. I don’t think that’s a possibility!
Hi Ana – From your keyboard to God’s ear.
I thought Fellay would remain in charge? Did I miss something?
I read that the Holy See (PF) would appoint a Prelate – not necessary for him to be Bishop Fellay. It could be Cardinal Burke/Bishop Schneider? Time will tell.
The charge against the SSPX is precisely that they have remained faithful to the immutable teachings of the Church. Their only error was Archbishop Lefebvre ordaining four priests as bishops, something he didn’t want to do, but the alternative was accepting the demise of the Order. The sainted John Paul II was a far more bitter fruit than Abp. Lefebvre for forcing him to do it.
No lectures, please.
Hi Winslow – Remained Faithful? Only error? Something he didn’t want to do? The alternate was accepting the demise of the order? forcing him to do it? Who needs a lecture after an obvious admission of guilt.
I hope I am not speaking to a Dave Armstrong in disguise but here goes.
If one chooses to hold every ounce of doctrine, Dogma, and sentiments of the Church held before Vatican II, how can one find oneself in a position that they are no longer Catholic? That is what happened to the SSPX. The list of Popes since Vatican II just went along with the tune. They found themselves abandoned and no one to trust. The Holy Father had clearly adopted positions (ecumenism, religious liberty, absolute deconstruction of the liturgy) that they were taught as Catholics to avoid and defend against. To be more precise, Catholics were taught before Vatican II that those were the ideas of the enemies of the Church.
So the SSPX decided to cling to Tradition. Its founder made a conscientious decision for the preservation of the faithful by using his authority to illicitly consecrate Bishops.
Is the SSPX schismatic for doing so? Hard to say. If anything, Catholics who remained silent and followed the trends of Vatican II without much opposition are truly the problematic group here. What were they doing? Did they not get the same Catholic education?
So before you go blaming the SSPX and labeling it as schismatics, I think you need to get your facts straight. You speak as someone who may have just become Catholic or had become aware of Catholicism after Vatican II. But for people who were faithful to the Church before Vatican II, it made no sense that the Church suddenly did a U-Turn on issues like ecumenism, religious liberty and the liturgy.
Hi Tony – I have no idea who Dave Armstrong is. The SSPX are schismatics because they separated themselves from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church by their actions. I am a cradle Catholic born in 1962. I have been aware of the errors which flowed from Vatican II for decades. I believe ecumenism is a great evil. And have the greatest respect for Malachi Martin, whom I consider the most coherent critic of Vatican II and the changes that swept the Church post Vatican II. He also spoke clearly about the times we are experiencing right now, including the apostasy we are witnessing not only in the Church at large but at the highest levels of the Vatican. That he tied this all to what occurred at Fatima and more specifically the contents of the third secret of Fatima, which he said he had read, make him a very credible witness to these times. By the way his comments on JPII, and the environment he had to deal with at the Vatican make him a very sympathetic character, for those who would wish to criticize JPII. By the way the writings of Malachi Martin prepared many of us for the papacy of Francis, as he warned against both the Jesuit order and the aspirations of Liberation Theology, the aberration from hell spawned on the soil of Latin America.
So you want it both ways. The perfect path to heresy.
Hi Winslow – I only want to align myself to that which is singular – The Truth. If you can identify an example of my wanting “it” both ways, please feel free to make that case.
You have repeatedly condemned Vatican II and the SSPX in the same breath, a clear contradiction. Don’t bother to deny it.
Hi Winslow – No contradiction needs be made when one condemns the errors of Vatican II and the errors of the SSPX. For instance contradicting errors are the hallmark of Protestantism, as the devil doesn’t care which error leads you to his kingdom, just that you embrace that errors detrimental to your soul. That is why errors are associated with men and not the Holy Spirit who guides the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated 4 bishops without papal mandate. He and the 4 were excommunicated as a result. Ok. Then Pope Benedict XVI lifted those excommmunications. That means, unless they’ve gone further into heresy or something, they are brought back into communion. The only issue now is simply rubber stamp approval for canonical status. Tell me again how, today, right now they are schismatics? 10 years ago I’d probably agree. But not now.
Hi Jafin – You referenced the point yourself – “When asked what, then, is still missing, Fellay responds, with a smile: “the stamp,” and then he adds: “and the clear and firm affirmation that one will respect that guarantee [of being able to remain who we are now].” “That stamp and guarantee,” concludes the interviewer, “can only be given by the pope himself.” “Yes, it is up to the pope to do so,” replies Bishop Fellay.” If SSPX members refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the Norvus Ordo Mass, and advise their membership not to participate in the Norvus Ordo mass, they remain irrevocably separated from the Body of Christ, no less so than the protestants separated themselves from the TLM 500 years ago. Why do you feel a need to attach yourself to the Church officially rejected 30 years ago, and which under any objective standard should be even more repellant to you now? .
So I understand what you are saying and I held the position for a long time as well.
However, the extraordinary circumstance in the case of the SSPX is that they essentially hold the same things that Catholics held before Vatican II. They find themselves incompatible with the Catholic Church today because they hold onto what was handed down to them, when the Pope and most of the rest have moved on. Is that really schism?
One can say that they did not assent to the Papacy and that is what makes them guilty of schism. However, is one bound to assent to the Pope if he leaves behind the Catholic way of life that his predecessors repeatedly claimed as should be defended?
The most effective claim for schism I think is that consecration of Bishops without Papal approval is a formal act of schism. Hence, one can argue that they went into schism the moment they performed the consecrations. I personally find that argument the most convincing. However, I do not think that the argument is not without objection. When faced with the situation that the founder of the SSPX faced, is it morally impermissible for him to decide to consecrate Bishops for the preservation of the faith? I feel that subjectively, there might be good grounds given the magnitude of the crisis for the Bishop to consecrate.
Perhaps to think of this historically, if an orthodox Archbishop during the Arian crisis was trying to preserve the faith in his land, would it be wrong for him to pick a candidate himself and consecrate him? What if he had reason to think that the Pope was compromised on that particular doctrine? I think in such a case, to disobey the Pope might not be an act of schism? But, I do not know the answer for sure.
EDIT: All of this being said, I do not attend the SSPX and will not attend till they make a formal agreement (which seems possible that it will happen soon). The way I see it, when in doubt, avoid. But if someone feels strongly that the SSPX was in the right, I personally wouldn’t necessarily call them schismatic is what I wanted to point out.
Hi Tony – What is the SSPX’s position on the those who remained faithful to the unchanging teachings of the Church and the Words of Christ while remaining within the Church during their absence? Do they propose that the Holy Spirit was found in opposing camps during this time when each side delegitimized the other and in fact served both the SSPX, who clearly is not in union with the Church and those who remained in union with the Church , equally? I don’t, The Holy Spirit was in charge in the Church pre Vatican II, during Vatican II and post Vatican II, the errors came from men, not the Holy Spirit. And I claim that the actions of the SSPX when contrasted to the faithful who remained in the Church, and did not adopt the novelties dangled before them, clearly highlight who was blaspheming the Holy Spirit and who remained faithful to His Church. Just as there is a necessary period of repentance for heretics and apostates, there should also be such for members of the SSPX. Without this act of repentance the wound will not heal, and to turn to someone like Francis to assure yourself that you are not offending God by insisting on remaining as you are should disturb anyone who has witnessed the tendency of Francis toward finding ways to reconcile ourselves to God without first rejecting the actions which have caused great scandal and offense to that same God. It might be unwise to think of Francis as “the Vicar of Christ” because if he isn’t any assurances you receive from him that he offers a pathway toward reconciliation to the blessed Trinity, whether you are divorced and remarried, a sexual pervert, a person of ill formed conscience or in fact a schismatic is at best questionable. I assure you pope Francis is far worse than any pope who preceded him, whether their offenses were real or imagined, minimalized or exaggerated, they pale in comparison to his offenses.
Well, I cannot speak for the SSPX since I am not from the society.
However, I think you are already asserting what you set out to prove with them though. For an example, your entire dilemma of “Where was the Holy Spirit?” only happens because you hold that the SSPX were clearly not in union with the Church. But as many would point out, the point of contention is whether the SSPX were indeed not in union with the Church.
The question is hard to answer because it seems the like SSPX just woke up and got ready to live the life they had always lived and found themselves facing a Pope who didn’t want them to live that way. Their leader made a quick decision that he would consecrate Bishops so that the society can continue to live that way. Also, they are not different from those who are not of the society and remain faithful to tradition. The SSPX being a priestly society, needed Bishops to be able to sustain the society. So hence the extra step (that most lay Catholics wouldn’t have to do) in ordaining Bishops.
Again, I am not saying that what I have said above is an air-tight argument. I am merely pointing out the difficulty in pin-pointing exactly where the SSPX fall in regards to Unity.
Hi Tony – I have great sympathy for the SSPX. I have a far greater amount of sympathy for those who remained in the Church, trusting the Holy Spirit is fulfilling HIs Mission to preserve the teachings of the Church intact and free from error in that Church. They have suffered as acutely as any member of the SSPX ever has. They did not fall prey to the impulse to equate “Pastoral Sensitivity” to the active and authentic teachings of the Church, which in the end exposed the “Pastorally Sensitive” as apostates. That came from within the Church, just as resistance to Francis is coming from within the Church, and is based on fidelity to the Words of Christ and the unchanging teachings of the Church. The Holy Spirit would never encourage the urge toward abandonment of the Church He guides, therefore the moment the SSPX adherents decided to separate themselves from the Church and form their own resistance movement to Vatican II from outside the Church was the moment they fell into the same trap heretics, apostates and other schismatics have from the earliest days of the Church. May God forgive them and give them the Grace to recognize their error and return to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, for those who remain in the SSPX do indeed blaspheme the Holy Spirit as they stand today. The real fight is against the real threat, and that is Francis, join the resistance to him from within the Church, where the true battle to preserve the teachings of the Church, the Sacraments, and the acknowledgement that all things must first be resolved to the Words of Christ is taking place. It is with those weapons, which are found in the arsenal the Holy Spirit both guards and sharpens for war, against those within the Church and outside her walls who dare to attack the Bride of Christ.
Perhaps my replies before were unclear. So let me try again.
You keep saying those who remained within the Church vs. the SSPX. What I am trying to point out to you is that before you say the SSPX left, you have to prove they actually left. When the Orthodox tried to usurp the power of Rome to Constantinople, denied the doctrine of the Papacy, it was clear that they were leaving. We know that Orthodox were wrong because the state of affairs before their rebellion backs the position of Rome as actually correct. What we Catholics seem to miss is that if it was indeed the case that Rome had no historical backing for her claims, then the Orthodox should have done what they did.
So with that mind, we have to look at the present situation with the SSPX. The same cannot be said of Rome today because her positions are not backed by what was there before.
Then the difficulty with the SSPX lies with the following
1) What would be the criterion to encapsulate their current status as “left the Church”
2) Is that definition coherent? (i.e. does not lead to absurd conclusions)
3) What reason do we have to think that such a definition is correct?
There are many who offer explanations, but I am yet to find something very coherent that also gives good reason to think the criterion as being definitive. The conservatives within the Church offer explanations presuming that what has come since Vatican II are perfectly the same as what we had before. But once you reject that, you do not have easy grounds on which to dismiss the SSPX as having left the Church.
For an example, you know how you point out to a group of individuals as “remained in the Church”? Under certain definitions and criterion, even those individuals can be said to have “left the Church” because they “resist” the Pope when he commands. But you might say, the faithful must resist for the good of the faith. BUT, then the SSPX can also simply say that they are resisting the Pope in the same manner. The difference is that since the SSPX is a visible society, they were ostracized by the Church hierarchy whereas those of us who remain “inside” and resist are not on the radar.
Hi Tony – Why was there a need for negotiations between the last three popes and the SSPX for a return to the Church? I would never assert that the pre Vatican II days are equivalent to the post Vatican II days, they clearly are not, and there hasn’t been a single day, post Vatican II that the Church hasn’t been in deep turmoil, and subject to the influence of men who wish to undermine the teachings of the Church, and introduce the confusion and ambiguity that has lead a large portion of those claiming to be Catholic into apostasy. And yet up until the resignation of Pope Benedict the authority which flows from adherence to the unchanging teachings of the Church, an unwavering commitment to the Sacramental Nature of the Church, and fidelity to the Words of Jesus Christ was evident. It is that authority which has always separates the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church form those lost in heresy, apostasy and schism. With the forced resignation of Pope Benedict, and forced it was, as a false sense of overwhelming scandal was used to bully Benedict from the Papacy. And who should be hired to be the new pope? Francis, the man who almost took power after JPII. Apparently, the time to patiently wait for the natural end of Benedict’s Papacy was no longer practical. While Benedict lives, there is a legitimate Pope. Regardless, the Church must now deal with a pope which is clearly a heretic, and that is what makes these days like no other in the history of the Church. Francis was hired to establish one thing and one thing alone Catholi-Schism. With the SSPX that has already occurred, so any attempt to co-opt the SSPX by Francis is no more than a matter of housekeeping. An effort to offer alliance to the Apostate Church he wishes to serve. It is all about authority, Tony, and the lack there of is the hallmark of heretics(The Protestants), apostates(The supporters of Francis) and schismatics( The SSPX). They lack the authority that the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church alone possesses. The Keys of the Kingdom shall never fall into the hands of those who can only make deluded claims to that authority.
You asked why was there negotiations with the last three Popes for a “return to the Church”. The problem yet again, is that one has to demonstrate that they indeed left the Church. From the SSPX perspective, they can argue that its not a return. They are merely discussing why they have become incompatible with the current Church.
You say that everything was good until Pope Benedict resigned. In my experience, it was not. Pope JP II personally carried out many things that one would consider problematic. His public ecumenical and interfaith gatherings were problematic. His writings on certain matters were problematic (mutual subjection of husband and wife, the unity of the Church, Religious Liberty etc). One can say that Pope Benedict XVI was relatively better. But even then, his wasn’t the shining bulwark of a Papacy either. There are some aspects of his writings that are problematic. When it comes to his personal works, the problems compound even further.
So I think your view that until Pope Benedict’s resignation, all was well, is a misconception. If you look at it from your current view, YES, the SSPX certainly look like they just went into schism and disobeyed a faithful Papacy. But that was not the case. In fact, the consecration of the Bishops by the SSPX came right after the disaster that was Assisi. It is said that the Archbishop was shocked at what had happened.
Hi Tony – If you reread my post carefully, you will find I did not say “everything was good after Pope Benedict resigned”. As to JPII’s actions that do not meet your approval, I am mostly in agreement, but I consider the times which shaped JPII, namely his witnessing of the atrocities of WWII. I think they are the source of his attempts to avoid conflict and open himself up to the false hopes of the ecumenical movement. He was a man of his times, and I feel fortunate that he and Benedict were in place to reinforce the teachings of the Church that Francis now undermines. I am sure those who support Francis would have loved to hire someone of his ilk directly after the death of JPI. That Pope Francis followed the resignation of Benedict speaks to the folly of such an act. Being shocked by the actions of the post Vatican II popes, is not a reason to abandon the Church, it is playing right into Satan’s hands. If Satan can get Catholics to separate themselves from a Church that remains faithful to the deposit of the Faith, so much the easier for satan when persons like Francis rise to undermine the unchanging teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Sacraments, and the very Words spoke by Christ, which are unimpeachable revelations of Divine Truth. The sad thing is that at some point those who reject their heresy, apostasy or schism and wish to repent of their errors, might find it extremely difficult to find a sure pathway away from those grave offenses to the Bride of Christ. It might be hard to find the Sacramental Church which has gone underground or fled into the desert. Such will be the times, when Jesus Christ, upon His return, will question where Faith can be found on this earth. And those who delay rejection and repentance of their grievous sins, might not find absolution to be as readily found as it is this day.
I do read your replies carefully. Let me pin point to your statement that suggested everything was well until Pope Benedict resigned:
“And yet up until the resignation of Pope Benedict the authority which flows from adherence to the unchanging teachings of the Church, an unwavering commitment to the Sacramental Nature of the Church, and fidelity to the Words of Jesus Christ was evident.”
Anyway, the issue I think is that you see the actions of Pope Paul VI, Pope JP II, PEBXVI as merely shock inducing actions. I think that is unfair and not very Catholic. If one were a devout Catholic, such actions are sufficient to instill a deep suspicion of ones prelate. One could legitimately ask if they have the best interest of the Catholic faith in mind. The fact of the matter is, Popes and much of the hierarchy have not remained faithful to the deposit of faith since Vatican II (unless you have a very lose definition of being faithful which means one can believe in principle, but act differently). If you have a lose definition of what it means to be “faithful”, then why do you think Pope Francis is a problem? He is just doing more of the same, but in regards to issues that are more well known (divorce/remarriage).
To say that those who didn’t go with the flow (i.e. obey the words of the Pope) had left the Church then is problematic. In fact, one could counter argue that those who supposedly “remained” in the Church and followed the instructions at least on the surface, are complicit with the sin of allowing the destruction of the Church.
Again, I ask you, what does it mean to say that a faithful Catholic who find themselves incompatible with the current accepted status of Catholic piety, has not remained in the Church?
Hi Tony – Perhaps you missed the second sentence from my post – ” I would never assert that the pre Vatican II days are equivalent to the post Vatican II days, they clearly are not, and there hasn’t been a single day, post Vatican II that the Church hasn’t been in deep turmoil, and subject to the influence of men who wish to undermine the teachings of the Church, and introduce the confusion and ambiguity that has lead a large portion of those claiming to be Catholic into apostasy.”
The answer is found in the question. Incompatibility on the scale practiced by the SSPX at the point in Church History they chose to act on that incompatibility, was an act of schism. Choosing the word incompatible in this case encompasses not only acts of disobedience. acts of rejection and thus sadly indisputable separation from the Church and has left a lasting wound to the Bride of Christ. You should be able to see the similarity between those actions and the actions of Francis at this time as both the SSPX and he are all too ready to abandon Christ’s plea for unity to serve feelings of dissatisfaction within a Church which did/does not accommodate their sense as to what the Sacramental form the Church must conform to. That is up to the Holy Spirit, regardless of the inability to adapt to the form the Holy Spirit has chosen to practice the Eucharistic Prayer. The defects that were present in the Norvus Ordo did not invalidate the Sacrament, and correction of those errors has occurred. just as those who trusted the Holy Spirit and did not forget that He empowers the Sacraments prayed would occur.
Sorry for the late reply. Was a busy couple of days.
So ok, I don’t mean to get pedantic here, but I do want to point this out to you. You said that ” – If you reread my post carefully, you will find I did not say “everything was good after Pope Benedict resigned”. Now it just occurred to me, I never even accused you of saying anything of that sort. But you keep telling me to read your replies carefully. I mean, that just comes across as disingenuous.
But, lets get to the heart of the matter. You finally give us a reason why you think the SSPX are in schism. It seems to be as follows:-
‘The magnitude of the incompatibility between the way of life of the SSPX and the Catholic Church is so large, that it must be considered an act of schism’
Now the issue with your position is the following.
a) By accepting that there is indeed a vast difference between the SSPX way of life and that of the post-Vatican II Church, you concede that there is indeed a significant difference in the way of life.
BUT, as Catholics, then we face a problem. If the Church is now living a life so different from the life before, then according to the history of the Church, it is indeed the Church that has strayed.
Now you also mention some weird aspects. You state that “defects that were present in the Norvus Ordo did not invalidate the Sacrament, and correction of those errors has occurred”. Corrections have occurred? When? Unless you think the post Benedictine Novus Ordo is actually free of defect, then I am not sure where you are coming from. Also note that the traditionalist position is that one cannot simply correct the errors of the Novus Ordo because the elephant in the room is that the Novus Ordo broke with the traditional liturgy. It is not an organic development. You cannot correct that by just introducing more novel development.
At this point, I would like to just take a moment and say that is it possible that you may not understand the magnitude of the problem? (I mean, clearly, you do not seem to grasp it because you think that the errors of the Novus Ordo have been corrected?)
Hi Tony – I am glad to know you are well. You are a funny man, you act as though I was unable to read my posts, and yet they prove who is being disingenuous. Can you list five errors, currently being practiced in the Novus Ordo? That should get to the heart of it. By the way, is the Novus Ordo Consecration Valid? If not, is adoration of the Blessed Sacrament possible outside the SSPX?
I am not quiet sure what you are finding humorous. I charged you as stating that until Pope Benedict resigned, everything was OK in the Church and I backed it up with your quote. You claimed that I misread you and you never said “after Pope Benedict resigned”. I mean, I am just pointing these things out because you are starting to suggest that I am at fault. Please read the third reply to me above from the bottom and my post before that. Hopefully you will find it enlightening on that particular matter.
As for your request of five errors, here is are five
Now, before you say “but.. but… some of those are optional in the Novus Ordo…”, the entire point of the liturgical rubrics giving such options is also offensive to Catholic piety.
Hi Tony – Once again this is what I posted – ” I would never assert that the pre Vatican II days are equivalent to the post Vatican II days, they clearly are not, and there hasn’t been a single day, post Vatican II that the Church hasn’t been in deep turmoil, and subject to the influence of men who wish to undermine the teachings of the Church, and introduce the confusion and ambiguity that has lead a large portion of those claiming to be Catholic into apostasy.”
I generally don’t go to websites recommended to me by others, especially when the person I am posting with can pick out the five errors which they think are being currently practiced in the Novus Ordo. Please do so and then I can address them one by one and in the order you believe are the most egregious. Don’t be afraid of putting what you consider the five errors most easy to establish currently being practiced in the Novus Ordo. Maybe your imagination has run away with you. Let’s find out.
No worries at all bud, here are the concerns copied and pasted for your convenience right here 🙂 Just for academic integrity, this is courtesy of Bishop Athanasius Schneider
A) The first and most obvious wound is the celebration of the sacrifice of the Mass in which the priest celebrates with his face turned towards the faithful, especially during the Eucharistic prayer and the consecration, the highest and most sacred moment of the worship that is God’s due. This exterior form corresponds, by its very nature, more to the way in which one teaches a class or shares a meal. We are in a closed circle. And this form absolutely does not conform to the moment of the prayer, less yet to that of adoration. And yet Vatican II did not want this form by any means; nor has it ever been recommended by the Magisterium of the Popes since the Council. Pope Benedict wrote in the preface to the first volume of his collected works: “[t]he idea that the priest and the people in prayer must look at one another reciprocally was born only in the modern age and is completely foreign to ancient Christianity. In fact, the priest and the people do not address their prayer to one another, but together they address it to the one Lord. For this reason they look in the same direction in prayer: either towards the East as the cosmic symbol of the Lord’s return, or where this in not possible, towards an image of Christ in the apse, towards a cross, or simply upwards.”
The form of celebration in which all turn their gaze in the same direction (conversi ad orientem, ad Crucem, ad Dominum) is even mentioned in the rubrics of the new rite of the Mass (see Ordo Missae, 25, 133, 134). The so-called “versus populum” celebration certainly does not correspond to the idea of the Holy Liturgy as mentioned in the declaration of Sacrosanctum Concilium, 2 and 8.
B) The second wound is communion in the hand, which is now spread nearly throughout the entire world. Not only was this manner of receiving communion in no way mentioned by the Vatican II Council Fathers, but it was in fact introduced by a certain number of bishops in disobedience to the Holy See and in spite of the negative majority vote by bishops in 1968. Pope Paul VI legitimized it only later, reluctantly, and under specific conditions. Pope Benedict XVI, since Corpus Christi 2008, distributes Communion to the faithful kneeling and on their tongue only, both in Rome and also in all the local churches he visits. He thus is showing the entire Church a clear example of practical Magisterium in a liturgical matter. Since the qualified majority of the bishops refused Communion in the hand as something harmful three years after the Council, how much more the Council Fathers would have done so!
C) The third wound is the new Offertory prayers. They are an entirely new creation and had never been used in the Church. They do less to express the mystery of the sacrifice of the Cross than that of a banquet; thus they recall the prayers of the Jewish Sabbath meal. In the more than thousand-year tradition of the Church in both East and West, the Offertory prayers have always been expressly oriented to the mystery of the sacrifice of the Cross (see e.g. Paul Tirot, Histoire des prières d’offertoire dans la liturgie romaine du VIIème au XVIème siècle [Rome, 1985]). There is no doubt that such an absolutely new creation contradicts the clear formulation of Vatican II that states: “Innovationes ne fiant . . . novae formae ex formis iam exstantibus organice crescant” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 23).
D) The fourth wound is the total disappearance of Latin in the huge majority of Eucharistic celebrations in the Ordinary Form in all Catholic countries. This is a direct infraction against the decisions of Vatican II.
E) The fifth wound is the exercise of the liturgical services of lector and acolyte by women as well as the exercise of these same services in lay clothing while entering into the choir during Holy Mass directly from the space reserved to the faithful. This custom has never existed in the Church, or at least has never been welcome. It confers to the celebration of the Catholic Mass the exterior character of informality, the character and style of a rather profane assembly. The second council of Nicaea, already in 787, forbad such practices when it lay down the following canon: “If someone is not ordained, it is not permitted for him to do the reading from the ambo during the holy liturgy“ (can. 14). This norm has been constantly followed in the Church. Only subdeacons and lectors were allowed to give the reading during the liturgy of the Mass. If lectors and acolytes are missing, men or boys in liturgical vestments may do so, not women, since the male sex symbolically represents the last link to minor orders from the point of view of the non-sacramental ordination of lectors and acolytes. The texts of Vatican II never mention the suppression of the minor orders and of the subdiaconate or the introduction of new ministries. In Sacrosanctum Concilium no. 28, the Council distinguishes “minister” from “fidelis” during the liturgical celebration, and it stipulates that each may do only what pertains to him by the nature of the liturgy. Number 29 mentions the “ministrantes”, that is the altar servers who have not been ordained. In contrast to them, there are, in keeping with the juridical terms in use at that time, the “ministri,” that is to say those who have received an order, be it major or minor.
Hi Tony – Since I am not posting with Bishop Athanasius Schneider, please choose the error you find most egregious and we can discuss it. You can can’t you?
So perhaps there is a communication barrier here. But it doesn’t matter if I was Bishop Athanasius or not in this particular case. You asked for five reasons, I gave you five reasons. Then you make a silly comment about how you are not posting with Bishop Athanasius. What kind of a comment is that? You want me to pick one error? You wanted me to pick five in your previous post. So with all due respect, either address the five errors presented to you, or stop pretending like you got a grasp of this issue. It would be quiet funny if not for the gravity of the actual situation we are discussing here.
Hi Tony – YOU are the person I am conversing with, I want what YOU believe are the 5 most grievous errors and to further the discussion I would like YOU to begin the discussion of these errors by choosing the one YOU feel is most easy to establish as an error, by YOU. If YOU can not present these errors with YOUR own understanding and sense of which error is most invalidating of the Novus Ordo, just admit that you can’t. If you can, please begin with the error YOU believe is most damning, and let’s discuss the issues that supposed error introduces..
Oh my dear fniper, so I presented to you five errors that apparently I do not even consider as five errors, huh? YOU asked for five errors. Since you seem to suffer from temporary amnesia here and then, let me quote you 🙂
“Don’t be afraid of putting what you consider the five errors most easy to establish currently being practiced in the Novus Ordo. Maybe your imagination has run away with you. Let’s find out.”
So turns out, its not just my imagination and people who are more articulate than me like Bishop Athanasius share the same concerns. I present the five errors to you, and what do you do? You reply
” Since I am not posting with Bishop Athanasius Schneider, please choose the error you find most egregious and we can discuss it. You can can’t you?”
What the heck is that supposed to even mean? Did you think I posted something that I did not understand? It pretty much seems like it because then you reply
“If YOU can not present these errors with YOUR own understanding and sense of which error is most invalidating of the Novus Ordo, just admit that you can’t.”
What exactly do you think you were doing here and who exactly do you think you are? Did you out of some self appointed reason think that I need to prove myself to you? Hell no! As far as I am concerned, even if I had zero understanding of what I am talking about, this is how I would reason. I have Bishop Athanasius and many authoritative and qualified persons expressing concerns about the Novus Ordo. Then I have this random guy/girl called fniper who thinks he knows better on a Disqus forum and is asking people who present arguments against him to rephrase them in their own understanding.
That just suggests that fniper was really not that intelligent and was ignorant. He has bitten off more than he could chew by asking for five reasons and even suggesting that the other person was deluded. Now unable to swallow the bitter pill, he has resorted to handing out primary school level exercises that asks the opponent of his position to paraphrase things for him. I am actually starting to think that you are unable to even understand what I presented to you. Perhaps the language was a bit too complicated for you? But then, you are now trying to save face by pretending that I have an obligation to explain things to you in my own words or it is possible that I lack understanding lol.
In case you have not yet understood, the point under debate here is not my intellectual capacity or ability to understand. The point under debate here is whether there was any erroneous elements in the Novus Ordo. You specifically kept asking for FIVE. I gave you five. Now either reply to those five objections or stop wasting my time!
Hi Tony – Let’s begin with the error which you think is most easy to establish as an error. Let’s start, Tony. That is the best I can do for you Tony, let you choose the error you want to start our discussion with and then discuss it with you. Ready?.
I do not want you to do anything for me in this discussion. You asked for five errors. I put forth five errors for you not for my sake. I put it for the sake of discussion so that two people can seek the truth about what we are discussing. Now you have somehow gone and made this about doing something for me! That is odd.
So what I advise you to do is take a look at the five errors presented to you.
1) If you feel that any of them are indeed justifiably a problematic aspect of the Novus Ordo, then come back and tell me “Yes, I was wrong about saying that the problems with the Novus Ordo have been corrected”.
2) OR, you can alternatively see that all those five problems are non-existent in the Novus Ordo. So you can come and tell me, “Tony, perhaps you have not realized this but those errors do not even exist in the Church today”.
3) OR, you may alternatively tell me that Tony, I think those aren’t really errors in my eyes. I do not think that they are such a big deal!”
If it is option 3 that you identify with, then we have a difference in position. According to Catholic piety of old, I consider those errors to indeed be a big deal and I see them as being offensive. In fact, I see them as valid grounds upon which one may rightly become suspicious of the advise of the prelates who practice or allow those errors. But in any case, if your position is option 3, you have to come out and say it rather than beat around the bush. Then we can progress our discussion forward by looking at why I think its such a big deal and why you don’t think so.
Instead, the past few posts in this discussion have been quiet bonkers.
Hi Tony – We can discuss each of the errors you have put forward, one by one. Pick one and let’s begin. Don’t be afraid, Tony, when you present the error in your own words, instead of someone else’s we can have an authentic discussion. You can do it, have confidence in presenting what you believe and then defend your thoughts on the matter. I am interested in what you think, not what Bishop Schneider believes, not because it doesn’t have value, but because I am not talking with him.
fniper, please re-read my earlier comment to you. If you read it properly, you will understand that what you are requesting has no relevance in this discussion. There is no need to for me to present to you one single error and discuss it with you. Neither is there any need for me to present the error in “my own words”.
Also, just to quip in on this “you are not Bishop Schneider” thing you keep bringing up, what if I was indeed him? As far as you are concerned, for this discussion, I am indeed him!! In case you are unaware, that is how discussions work. So rather than try to discuss the person, discuss the actual points put forward to you. In any case, re-read my previous comment carefully and you will understand why there is no need at all for me to represent anything to you or pick an error. If you cannot comprehend what is written in my previous post to you, I think further discussion is not possible.
Now in the event that you are indeed unable to understand the five points and this is your way of asking for it in a simpler form of English, I would once again have to say that then you might be pushing above your weight in trying to have this discussion. I admire your willingness though!
Hi Tony – Your “I’m Spartacus” moment doesn’t add much to the discussion, though it is amusing. The issue is whether the SSPX is in schism. That seems to rest on the claims that the Novus Ordo is an illegitimate form of the Mass, which forced the members of the SSPX to reject the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and thus the Holy Spirit. That is why your understanding of the errors you associate to the Novus Ordo is important. When you stand before Jesus Christ, if you say you were just following the understanding of Bishop Schneider, you might not receive the absolution that you believe that might give you for rejecting the Bride of Christ. The true enemy of the Church is Francis, and to fight him, you can not do so from outside the Church, being in Schism prior to his papacy drains all members of the SSPX of the credibility needed to fight against the heretical teachings Francis is endeavoring to advance. I feel sorry for you, but you are actually in quite a bind. The same bind all heretics, apostates and schismatics find themselves in, when a profound crisis, such as the one Francis foments arises within the Church. Christ warned us about hypocrisy, and anyone who has embraced heresy, apostasy or schism is being hypocritical when they criticize Francis, whether they recognize they are being hypocritical or not.
Did it, even for a moment, dawn on you that perhaps you might be really lacking the ability to discuss this issue?
When I stand before Christ, I have nothing to answer for in this regard since I do not have a horse in the race i.e. I am not from the SSPX or affiliated with them. More importantly, as far as critiquing a position goes, it does not matter if I understand it or Bishop Schneider understands it. This is the simple fact that you seem oblivious to. The merit of arguments are not subject to the understanding of those who present them or those who even hold them. The argument stands on its own or falls on its own. So please smarten up.
Second, on the subject of hypocrisy, the only real hypocrite here is you. You want to blame Francis and those who follow his advise today, but you don’t seem to realize that Pope Paul VI, Pope St. John Paul II, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI (admittedly to a lesser extent) were just as bad as Pope Francis. Only difference between Pope Francis and the other Popes I mentioned is that they erred on matters that had already been accepted by majority of the prelates in the Church. So no one really presented any vocal objection (apart from the SSPX) because they were just waiting for those concessions to come. In reality, all those Popes I just mentioned set the platform for Pope Francis. Pope Francis is just finishing what they started.
People like you who either have a short memory or are too young to remember the history of the past ~50 years, are sitting there telling the SSPX that they are powerless to fight heresy. It sounds moronic because once upon a time, they were fighting heresy of Popes like Paul VI and John Paul II etc. and that is what lead to their “powerlessness”. So if anything, its time for people like you to shut up. No point crying over Pope Francis when you didn’t cry over Pope John Paul II.
Hi Tony – Please identify five heretical teachings of JPII or Benedict, and choose one that makes your case most persuasively with your own understanding. There is absolutely no doubt that JPII and Benedict have committed errors in judgment, none greater than Benedict’s resignation, which opened the door to Francis, but neither of the Popes who preceded Francis taught heretical teachings. Francis is obviously a different case. He has undermined the Sacraments, contradicted the Words of Christ, and his teaching on the primacy of one’s conscience ranks with the greatest heresies in the history of the Church. I can not speak to JohnXXIII, of PaulVI, but I have followed the Papacies of both JPII and Benedict closely, and lived through many of their questionable acts, I have never come to the conclusion that they were heretics. Francis is. As to the SSPX, that they were unwilling to rejoin the Church during the Papacy of Benedict, and re-establish themselves in the FSSP, before the Papacy of Francis might prove to have eternal consequence for their souls. By the way I was born in 1962. Francis is the chastisement.
Before I go further, I want to make sure I drill this into your head. My understanding of an argument matters zero for its validity. To say that it does is pretty much to commit the ad hominem fallacy. Until you can acknowledge this simple logical fact, I refuse to proceed any further.
However, I would like to clarify one thing first. Not even Pope Francis is a heretic (unless you are throwing around that term pretty loosely). What I maintain is that the Popes since Vatican II have had errors in their writings, just as we can see with Pope Francis. Only difference is that people like you were too accustomed to those errors that they were pretty much accepted and celebrated as awesome ideas. Case in point, Pope St. JPII’s idea of mutual subjection of husband and wife presented in Mulieris Dignitatem. We didn’t have Cardinals submitting dubia back then though….
Again, I remind you that I will not reply any further until you acknowledge that there is no need for me to present anything in my understanding. Doing so has no merit to the validity and persuasiveness of my argument. If you cannot acknowledge that much, I am afraid we must conclude that you have not grasped the logical rules of inference enough to have a discussion.
Hi Tony – Let me reassure you Tony, I would never assume your understanding of an issue made it valid. I find it hard to believe that you claim I would or have. That is why I ask for your understanding, so that understanding can be tested. The fact that a Dubai was never issued under the papacies of JPII and Benedict, only means that their writings never rose to the level of error Francis’ have. The Dubai is a request for clarification of Francis teachings, and that Francis refuses to respond clearly reveals that he can not reconcile his teachings to those of the Church, and in the case of allowing unrepentant adulterers to Communion, a denial of the very Words of Christ who defined a class of adulterers as such. To compare JPII and Benedict to Francis proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that your understanding is deeply flawed. Let me repeat once again – “Let me reassure you Tony, I would never assume your understanding of an issue made it valid.”
You said: “That is why I ask for your understanding, so that understanding can be tested.”
AGAIN, in discussions, people do not test each others understanding. They test the validity of the argument. So please reply if you understand this simple fact or not.
You said: “The fact that a Dubai was never issued under the papacies of JPII and Benedict, only means that their writings never rose to the level of error Francis’ have.”
That does not strictly follow. Perhaps, as many would argue, no one bothered standing up against those two Popes because after Vatican II, most prelates seemed to think that anything could change. The bitter pill with Pope Francis is that he is contradicting what a post-Vatican II Pope had also spoke about i.e. Familiaris Consortio. So neo-conservatives are having a stroke now because that is too much to reconcile.
You said: “To compare JPII and Benedict to Francis proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that your understanding is deeply flawed.”
Judging by your replies, I wouldn’t be surprised if that is what you actually thought. Nevertheless, I stand by the position that all of these Popes contradicted Church teaching in their writings. If anything, it appears that you have just been ignorant of actual Church teaching on the matters they contradicted. So it took you something like the current issue with divorce and remarriage to jolt your senses.
Hi Tony – How do you test the validity of someone’s argument without testing their understanding of their argument, Tony? I am starting to think you are a contrarian. They are more concerned with arguing for arguments sake rather than making sense. Neither JPII or Benedict ever undermined a Sacrament, if you think they did, make the case. Neither JPII or Benedict ever undermined a teaching of the Church, if you think they did, make the case. Neither JPII or Benedict ever undermined the Words spoken by Christ, if you think they did, make the case. Francis has done all three.
You said: “How do you test the validity of someone’s argument without testing their understanding of their argument”
The validity of an argument relies on
1) its premises
2) its logical rules of inferences used in arriving at the conclusion of the argument
Whether or not the presenter understands the conclusion, the logical rules of inference, or the premises is a moot point. So the fact that you are unable to understand this fact and still ask a person to explain things in his own understanding means that you are committing a logical fallacy. Furthermore, that makes it clear to anyone that you lack the ability to have a discussion. I am not presenting any more arguments to you because as far as I am concerned, you lack a grasp of basic logic.
Oh and by the way, given the revelation about your grasp of logical argumentation, I think you are the last person that should be going around telling people your opinion as fact. You certainly have the zeal and I believe that you clearly do think that Pope Francis is unique, SSPX are schismatic, and that previous bunch of Popes we had were not that bad. However, do know that your position is not necessarily defensible. If I may put it in the manner you seem to think, you certainly understand what you are saying, but are unable to comprehend the logical invalidity of it 🙂
Hi Tony – The fundamental premise for one’s argument is your understanding, if it is faulty, so is your argument. I guess you feel comfortable with the claim that not knowing what you are talking about has no weight in judging the credibility of your claim. I am sorry to have to be the one to inform you, Tony, it does. Here is a rule of logic – BS artists lack credibility.
NO! Premises and the logical rules of inference used to arrive at the conclusion stand on its own.
Your comment “BS artists lack credibility” is actually a good example of a logical fallacy, rather than a rule of logic. So I repeat what I said last time, you are in no position to have any form of argument because you lack the basic requirements to do so.
Hi Tony – I agree, you are the master in the house of your own creation.
That’s your judgment and yours alone. No one here agrees with you. Perhaps you didn’t catch that in your zeal to govern the conversation.
Your use of ‘guilt’ is seriously misplaced. Begging the question again.
Hi Winslow – The Truth is always a better companion than surrounding yourself with companions who oppose the Truth, but, agree with you. I do agree one grouping is usually far larger than the other.
The SSPX is not a bitter fruit….without it we would never have had Sumorum Pontificam and the restoration of the traditional Latin Mass.
Hi DJ – The Holy Spirit has no nick names.
I would have to agree,. Did somebody say he did?
DJ – Those who claim he guides the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and guides the SSPX must believe he uses aliases.
My Good fniper, I must ask who is it that commenced the
Does not the teachings of Vatican II and subsequent
pronouncements directly contradict (without abrogation, abolishment or nullification as provided in Canon Law) Magisterium which preceded them?
Regarding Ecumenism, does not Vatican II and subsequent
documents and acts directly disobey:
Pope Leo XIII’s 1895 prohibition of participation in
interreligious congresses in accord with Canon 1325 n3 (1917 Canon of Holy Mother Church until 1983 and it’s Vatican II modernization)
Pope Pius IX, Holy Office Letter to English Bishops on
Christian Unity (1864)
Pope Pius IX, Holy Office Instruction to Anglican Puseyites
on True Religious Unity (1865)
Pope Pius IX, Apostolic Letter Iam Vos Omnes (1868)
Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae
Pope Leo XIII, Apostolic Letter to Archbishop Francis Satolli
Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum (1896)
Pope St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter Our Apostolic Mandate (1910)
Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Mortalium Animos (1928)
Pope Pius XII, Canonical Warning Cum Compertum on Attending
Ecumenical Gatherings (1948)
Pope Pius XII, Instruction De Motione Oecumenica on the
Ecumenical Movement (1949)
All you need to read is St Pope Pius X’s Apostolic Mandate
and Pope Pius XI’s Encyclical Mortalium Animos (promulgated a mere 32 years before Vatican II) and you will see what is a break from the Deposit of Faith and hence schismatic:
“Is it permitted for Catholics to be present at, or to take part in, conventions, gatherings, meetings, or societies of non-Catholics
which aim to associate together under a single agreement everyone who, in any way, lays claim to the name Christian? In the negative!… It is clear, therefore, why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics, there is only one wav in which the unity of Christians may be fostered, and that is by furthering the return to the one true Church of Christ those who are separated from her. ” (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos)
The consistent teachings of the Roman Pontiffs are Ordinary
Magisterium and reflect the Deposit of Faith; supported in the Ordinary Magisterium are such proclamations as:
But God forbid that the sons of the Catholic Church ever in
any way be hostile to those who are not joined with us in the same bonds of faith and love; but rather they should always be zealous to seek them out and aid them, whether poor, or sick, or afflicted with any other burdens, with all the offices of Christian charity; and they should especially endeavor to snatch them from the darkness of error in which they unhappily lie, and lead them back to Catholic truth and to the most loving Mother the Church, who never ceases to stretch out her maternal hands lovingly to them, and to call them back to her bosom so that, established and firm in faith, hope, and charity, and “being fruitful in every good work” [Colossians 1:10], they may attain eternal salvation.
(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, n. 9)
Even on the plea of promoting unity it is not allowed to
dissemble one single dogma; for, as the Patriarch of Alexandria warns us, “although the desire of peace is a noble and excellent thing, yet we must not for its sake neglect the virtue of loyalty in Christ.” Consequently, the much desired return of erring sons to true and genuine unity in Christ will not be furthered by exclusive concentration on those doctrines which all, or most, communities glorying in the Christian name accept in common. The only
successful method will be that which bases harmony and agreement among Christ’s faithful ones upon all the truths, and the whole of the truths, which God has revealed.
(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Orientalis Ecclesiae, n. 16)
[The Bishops] shall also be on guard lest, on the false pretext that more attention should be paid to the points on which we agree than to those on which we differ, a dangerous indifferentism be encouraged, especially among persons whose training in theology is not deep and whose practice of their faith is not very strong.
For care must be taken lest, in the so-called “irenic” spirit of today, through comparative study and the vain desire for a progressively closer mutual approach among the various professions of faith, Catholic doctrine — either in its dogmas or in the truths which are connected with them — be so conformed or in a way adapted to the doctrines of dissident sects, that the purity of Catholic doctrine be impaired, or its genuine and certain meaning be obscured.
(Holy Office, Instruction De Motione Oecumenica, n. II, On
the Ecumenical Movement, 1949)
“It is not permitted at all for the faithful to assist in any active manner at or to have any part in the worship of non-Catholics.” [Canon 1258, 1917 Code of Canon Law]
“How does a Catholic sin against faith? A Catholic sins against Faith by Apostasy, heresy, indifferentism and by taking part in non-Catholic worship.” (Catechism of the Council of Trent, Catechism of Saint Pope Pius X and The Baltimore Catechism)
“For if they have doctrines opposed to ours, it is not fitting to be mixed up with them for this cause alone… what do you say?
‘There faith is the same; these men are orthodox?’ why, then, are they not with us?” – St. John Chrysostom
“St. Anthony the Abbot would not speak to a heretic, except to exhort him to the true faith; and he drove all heretics from his
mountain, calling them venomous serpents.” – St. Athanasius on the life of St. Anthony the Hermit
“It is therefore unlawful, and a profanation, and an act the punishment of which is death, to love to associate with unholy
heretics, and to unite oneself to their communion” – St. Cyril of
“Saint Peter and Paul have loathed heretics, and in their
Epistles have warned us to avoid them” – St. Cyprian
“Those who go off to heretics, and all who leave the Church for heresy, abandon the name of Christ. Those who call these men “Christians” are in grievous error, since they neither understand Scripture at all nor the faith which it contains.”
– St. Anthasius: Discourse Against the Arians,” Bk. I, ch.1, no. 1, PG 26:11
“If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meeting-houses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion If any Bishops or Priest or Deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion” – III Council of Constantinople.
“Cut off from the Church: One must neither pray nor sing
psalms with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: let him be excommunicated” – Council of Carthage.
“No one shall pray in common with heretics and schismatics” – Council of Laodicea.
“We decree that those who give credence to the teachings of heretics, as well as those who receive, defend, or patronize them,
are excommunicated… If anyone refuses to avoid such accomplices after they have been ostracized by the Church, let them also be excommunicated” – IV Lateran Council
“Make no mistake, my brethren, they shall suffer everlasting punishment who endeavor to corrupt the Church of Christ. Whosoever sets at nought His doctrine shall go into hell, and so shall everyone who listens to him” – St. Ignatisus of Antioch
A Protestant once approached St. John Vianney saying,
‘though we are not together on earth, we shall be together in heaven’. The saint looked into the man’s eyes and said gently: “As the tree leans, so the tree falls. If we do not live together on earth, we shall not live together in heaven. Death makes no change in that”. The Protestant upon hearing these gentle words of the saint considered them, renounced his error, and became a Catholic.
Prayer of Saint Pope Pius X: “Give thanks to God that He has made you a child of His Church which is always animated and governed by His Divine Spirit who was sent into the world on the day of Pentecost. Hear and follow the sovereign Pontiff, who teaches infallibly through the Holy Ghost and the Church, which is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim 3: J 5). Hold fast to her doctrines, maintain her cause, defend her rights. Live always as becomes a child of God and a member of the true Church of God, so that after this life, you may receive Heaven as your inheritance, Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.! Amen”
Vatican I dogmatically defined that the Vicar of Christ is to protect and defend the deposit of faith and cannot create novelty.
“If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican” – Matt 18:17
Our Lord Said to St. Paul ‘ “I send you to the Gentiles to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the
power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins by faith in Me” Acts 26:18
Vatican II teaching on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis humanae)
is infallibly condemned by Pope Gregory XVI in encyclical Mirari vos (1832), then by Pius IX in encyclical Quanta cura (1864; cf. The Syllabus of Errors), and in repeated acts of the Ordinary Magisterium and is heretical in the strict sense of the term.
Regarding the Sacraments, all seven having been drastically
changed after Vatican II, they were each also put on “lock-down” Magisterially proscribed from being changed:
Trent Session VII, Canon 13 (1545-1563)
If whosoever says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the Sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by whatsoever pastor [a term that includes the Supreme Pastor, the Pope] of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema.
“It is well known that the Church has no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching on the substance of the
Pope St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter Ex Quo, December 26, 1910
“As the Council of Trent teaches, the seven sacraments of the New Law have all been instituted by Jesus Christ, Our Lord,
and the Church has no power over the ‘substance of the Sacraments,’ that is, over those things which with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign.”
Pope Pius XII, Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, November 30, 1947
Regarding the Novus Ordo Mass, how is it licit when Saint Pope
Pius V’s “Quo Primum”, established by the Council of Trent proclaims ex cathedra:
“By this our decree, to be valid IN PERPETUITY, we determine and order that NEVER shall anything be added to, omitted from, or changed in this Missal. . .At no time in the future can a priest,
whether secular or order priest, ever be forced to use any other way of saying Mass. And so as to preclude once and for all any scruples of conscience and fear of ecclesiastical penalties and censures, we herewith declare that it is in virtue of our Apostolic Authority that we decree and determine that this our present order and decree is to last in PERPETUITY and can never be legally revoked or amended at a future date. . . And if anyone would
nevertheless ever dare to attempt any action contrary to this order of ours, given for all times, let him know that he has incurred the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”
Given this ex cathedral, Extraordinary Magisterial Decree, by what authority was the N.O. Mass promulgated? There exists no Papal document even referring to it in accordance with Canon Law.
I will cease here. The SSPX conforms to the unchanging
Magisterium regarding Ecumenism, Religious Liberty, Collegiately, The Mass, the Sacraments (all changed after V2 in disobedience to Trent’s prohibition against changing the Sacraments and confirmation of Popes), the Divine Office, the Canonization process of Saints (no longer infallible), the Liturgical Calendar,
the Code of Canon Law, the error-ridden Catechism of Pope John Paul II, and even the defective translation of the Bible.
Who is in schism? Protestants are on the way to salvation but the SSPX is outside the Church? For clinging to The Magisterium for dear Salvation in all fealty as others trample it under foot and replace it will disobedience in grave abuse of God Granted Authority. Diabolical Disorientation indeed.
I appreciate your remarks and appreciate your ear. May God
Bless, Save, and Keep us all.
All wise and wonderful admonitions from very holy men. Personally I believe every person who dies as a heretic, as an apostate, or as a schismatic(although this is the most difficult case to make) all go to eternal damnation. And to answer your original question- those who chose to establish the SSPX commenced the Schism. None of the errors that preceded Vatican II, occurred during Vatican II, or are attributed to Vatican II justify schism. Correction, Yes, Schism, No. After these many years, the members of the SSPX must realize that no special Graces have flowed from there separation from the Church. The real Grace is flowing to those who now oppose schism in any form, including opposition to the SSPX, and Francis who though considered a schismatic of a different form actually springs from the same root cause – the inability to trust the purpose of the Holy Spirit in the Church in which He moves and has His Being. It is a grave error to focus on the errors arising from men, and forgetting God deals with these errors in His Good Time, and in His Good Way.
Way to dodge all of that.
Hi Jafin – I am, if nothing else, a bottom line kind of guy.
“None of the errors that preceded Vatican II…”
And what, precisely, are the errors that preceded Vatican II?!? Where and what error of any of the Magisterium, Ordinary or Extraordinary has ever been proclaimed by any Pontiff, Council, Doctor, Saint or Theologian? Please name one.
fniper, the effort to “return” the SSPX to the Fold, despite its justified, obdurate insistence that it “remains the same” without submitting to the manifold errors in Vatican II or celebration/participation in the defective Novus Ordo Missae is indicative of the quasi-schizophrenic nature of this whole SSPX is in schism inanity.
That Archbishop Guido Pozzo, stated last August that the Vatican II Documents Disputed by the SSPX are Non-Doctrinal and, hence, non-binding
(https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/abp-pozzo-on-sspx-disputed-vatican-ii-documents-are-non-doctrinal/) further absurdizes (heh, heh) this whole stigmatize-anyone-who-adheres-to-tradition strategy – now manifest in humiliating/demoting Clergy and Prelates, decimating the Curia and elsewhere of Clergy who defend the Deposit of Faith against the modernist monster of Amoris Laetitia.
The morphing of the faith has reached absurd proportions as the very words of our Lord God Christ Jesus are so twisted that I imagine even surpassed that which St Peter augured.
The SSPX schismatic? According to who, men who embrace and advocate disobedience to the Magisterium by proclaiming Truth to be somehow changed?
So, when the SSPX is granted a Personal Prelature without any change to itself,
with only their ever-avowed fealty and obedience to the Petrine Office (past,
present, and future) in accord with that Office’s Divine Obligation to defend
the Deposit of Faith…
The whole tragedy is a demonstration of the Theater of the Absurd. Diabolically Disoriented indeed.
Hi top8305 – Thomas Aquinas did not believe that life begins at conception. He believed there was a significant delay between conception and ensoulment. He was wrong. The true tragedy would be if Francis was the source of the alleged legitimization of the SSPX that the members of the SSPX pointed to in the future. That would be quite telling. By the way, are you in the picture you provided at the start of our conversation? No need to identify yourself specifically, I just wonder if you appear in that picture. Unfortunately being a player on the stage of Schism does indeed presume diabolical disorientation, as well as speaking lines which do best align themselves with the Theater of the Absurd. There is still time to change the script.
Common, now, any properly catechized Catholic knows that the singular statement of one person, be it the Angelic Doctor himself, does not constitute the Magisterium:
The Magisterium of Catholic Church teaches the faithful in two ways;
1) Solemn Magisterium:
is Church teaching which is used only rarely by formal and authentic definitions of councils or Popes. This includes dogmatic definitions by councils or Popes teaching “ex cathedra”
2) Ordinary Magisterium: this second form of Church teaching is continually exercised by the Church especially in her universal practices connected with faith and morals, in the unanimous consent of the Fathers and theologians, in the decisions of the Roman Congregations concerning faith and morals, in the common sense of the Faithful, and various historical documents, in which the faith is declared.
So, I ask again, fniper, what, precisely, are the errors that preceded Vatican II? Can we try to remain on point, here? The overarching point is where did the disobedience to the Magisterium begin? I assert that it is clearly evident that it wasn’t the SSPX, but modernists who disobeyed Holy Magisterium at the highest levels of Church Authority (which the Church had been warning of for almost 200 years by a slew of Pontiffs prior to Vatican Council Two).
BTW, I have attached not pics. Pax Christi
Hi Top8305 – The rise of humanism within the ranks of the theologians pre Vatican II.Jaques Maritan. Disobedience within the Apostles started with Judas and has continued unabated since then. Are there any members of the Magesterim who have remained faithful to the Holy Spirit since the SSPX split from the Church they agreed to shepherd? Are Cardinal Burke’s faculties lessened because he isn’t a member of the SSPX?
fniper, I have tried to stay on track but you won’t have it, avoiding the points of substance: (1) who first disobeyed the Magisterium, the SSPX or the Prelates and Clergy of Vatican II; (2) you asserted that there were errors that preceded Vatican II and I asked for examples of error of any of the Magisterium put forth by Popes, Councils, Doctors, Saints, Theologians. You have not substantiated any of your contentions and instead you employ sophistic techniques and change the subject some more. Dialectic requires questions to be resolved with right reason, not non-factual statements of opinion. Later days and may God Bless and Keep you.
Hi top8305 – Let’s get to the nub of the issue. Please resolve this question with right reason for me – are there more saints among those who remained in the Church or among those who joined the SSPX? In the end it is a matter of who trusted the Holy Spirit and who chose to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. That is the choice that was made.
In fact, the Council itself, in addition, Popes JPII and BXVI have admitted it has no infallible character.
I’m afraid you are seriously confused, fniper. And pompous and arrogant into the bargain. You refuse to be taught or to teach yourself. You are floating on hot air. Your implied claim to infallibility is nothing but a childish tantrum.
Hi Winslow – One’s Imagination can be a dangerous thing.
Excellent work, top8305!
The SSPX remain faithful to the one true Church established by Jesus
Hi DJ – Lutherans make the same claim.
I was referring to the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
Hi DJ – The SSPX are as faithful to the Holy Roman Catholic Church as the Lutherans are. Is Cardinal Burke faithful to the Holy Roman Catholic Church?.
SSPX is schism? Good try, Michael. Go back to your click-bait blog.
Hi LCC – My name is John, and if you are referring to the Church Militant website, I have been kicked off of it twice, once for defending Malachi Martin, and the second time for making the observation that Francis has delegitimized any claims that he is holy or the vicar of Christ. And yes, the SSPX is schismatic, in God’s eyes without a doubt, if not their own. After all, just as heretics do not recognize they embrace heresy and apostates would never admit they are apostates, schismatics suffer from the same form of delusion. Each blaspheming the Holy Spirit in their own way.
First of all, Archbishop Lefebvre was not regretful of the Episcopal Consecrations. He regretted those in the hierarchy leaving him with no choice. The Archbishop did what a bishop is supposed to do. He protected the flock, through his teaching the inerrant Truths of the Catholic Faith as handed down from the Fathers (something completly foreign to our current bishops). He changed nothing, with regard to Church Doctrine, in what he taught. Had even a handful more of bishops been more vociferous in fighting for Truth, rather than afraid of losing their worldly comforts, perhaps the situation we currently face, would not be as grave. You also make quite an arrogant statement, to certainly “know” God finds the SSPX schismatic (I wasn’t aware someone here on earth had the capability to “know” exactly what God is thinking).
Hi John – Should Cardinal Burke become an SSPX member to gain the legitimacy you claim the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre have. or is he a legitimate representative of the Truth? As to your inability to know exactly how God thinks, I believe the Words spoken by Christ, and the teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, do exactly that. The Blessed Trinity speak with One Voice. Listen.
This entire comment, from front to back, is a non sequitur.
Hi Winslow – Should Cardinal Burke become an SSPX member to gain the legitimacy you claim the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre have. or is he a legitimate representative of the Truth?
More wanting it both ways. I understand you’re blind to it so no point to protesting.
Hi Winslow – Make the case that I am wanting “it” both ways.
Well according to St. Catherine Emmerich and her propheies, there will be two churches, one false one along with the True Catholic church and we’re seeing the Great Apostasy folding right before our eyes. We know we cannot follow the teaching’s of this man who’s currently on the Chair of Peter and the True Remnant of the Catholic church will probably have to go underground for awhile. We know our Church will go through a lot of suffering before Christ raises her again as He promised He will never leave her
Hi Sunisyde – Agreed. Your post brings to mind a claim that Malachi Martin made about how the Church would go through It’s own Passion, Death, time in the Grave and Resurrection. And as always he proves to be a great source of insight and wisdom, even though he died nearly 20 years ago.
I think Mgr Fellay is fully aware of the trap in which the Pope has ensnared the SMOM’s Grand Master Fra’ Festing and cardinal-patron Mgr Burke. He knows how the Vatican mafia succeeded in destroying the FFI. There were no apologies from the Vatican when an Italian civil court sentenced the Pope’s commissar Fr Volpi (now deceased) for his lies and slanders against the founder of this order Fr Manelli and his family.
The the same mafia’s methods were used against both them.
In my opinion Mgr Fellay is not naive. He is not eager to step the gap, knowing the huge risk for the SSPX to end like the FFI and the SMOM. But he doesn’t want to look like the bad guy in front of the sooo merciful Pope Francis and he plays a
The unbelievable coup that’s ongoing over the SMOM is an urgent warning to the SSPX and it’s head to be as shrewd as serpents and as innocent as doves because he is like a sheep among wolves.
It is worth noting that the entities Francis has exercised his power on are strictly speaking outside the traditionalist canonical structures – the FFI (male and female) is a religious order under Congregation for Religious, the SMOM is a longstanding sovereign entity of vowed knights, Ciudad del Este and Albenga-Imperia are dioceses. What they all have in common is that they’re conventional Church structures which were all riven by internal theological factions, and not uniform traditionalists. In each case, a more liberal faction made formal complaints to Rome, which – along with the fact that none were canonically dedicated to tradition – gave the Pope the legal hook to act (unjustly in each case, I might add).
It could well be that there may yet be action taken against Ecclesia Dei groups or the SSPX. So far it hasn’t happened, though we’re all rather nervous at the prospect. The obvious precedent for doing so is the FSSP Protocol 1411/99 episode in 1999.
Rather than serving as the focus of earthly unity, the Papacy – or the distorted idea which the Papacy has now become – is serving as the cause of earthly division. Under Francis “the humble” we have seen the Papacy being able to ride rough-shod over Divine Law and all forms of natural justice. Not only is the Papacy widely-held to be unaccountable to any earthly authority from below, but it is being wielded as a power which is unaccountable even to God above. This is the corruption which is caused by unfettered ultramontanism and is empowering the gates of hell against the Church.
What I find most appalling about this situation is not that we have a corrupt Pope – we have had many of those in our history – but that the great majority of our hierarchy are quiescant and impotent in the face of it. Apart from the few noble exceptions, we have effeminate eunuch hirelings instead of shepherds who actually give a damn about their flocks. If I as an earthly father were so remiss and negligent in defending my family in the face of evil, I would rightly expect to pay the penalty for my sins either in this life or the life to come. What will it take to wake these men up to their responsibilities?
I don’t understand why the SSPX are waiting for ‘the stamp’ . It has already been approved by the Vatican.
I believe Martin Luther graces it.
Hi Augustine – Benedict is still living, and until he dies, he will have a restraining influence on Francis. A word from Benedict could bring Francis’ Agenda to a swift halt. Will Benedict intervene? Yes, I think he would, if the wolf in sheep’s clothing, finds himself penned in and begins to strike out. This will be a big year in that regard. Francis’ timetable is forcing his hand.
Bishop Fellay is running circles around the Jesuits. Quite a feat.?
What would be the point in regularising with the CC if the Traditional Orders were not allowed to keep their buildings – seminaries, churches, schools etc.? They belong to the Orders who built them, as in the past all priestly orders & nunneries built, maintained & kept or sold their buildings, lands etc. Why should this change? It has nothing to do wth fidelity to Rome and for PF who is so fond of stipulating that he wants a Church of the Poor, it would go directly against that wish to grab what is necessary for religious orders to accomplish their mission (& K of M). Their mission comes from God & not directly from PF wielding a power only given to be used under very strict conditions. If he breaks those conditions it is he who contravenes the Will of God.
The people of the SSPX, with no help from the Vatican, built the property they have. If they give that up, they are foolish.
That is what I said. No Order has to relinquish their property to the Holy See. The Orders build with the support of their followers – it has nothing to do with accepting funds from the Vatican. Bishop Fellay will hold fast I’m sure & is in close contact with his supporters in the Vatican. Followers of SSPX make him seem like a fool which undermines his authority within the SSPX. We are at a critical point in our history & Catholics of all strands should fight this demonic situation together. Remember Our Lord’s Words – “A Kingdom divided against itself shall fall”.
No deal should be made with the Vatican.
“Come into my parlor said the spider to the fly…………..”
Francis loathes everything for which SSPX stands. This is a set up.
Agreed. But if they accepted, and it went south, couldn’t they just fall back to their current status?
What if Bergoglio stole their assets,buildings and money-which he would?.I don’t trust anything that he says!He is a deceiver and will sabotage them quickly.
So what! He cannot EVER steal the One True Faith in our souls. Our Faith is not in buildings or money. As Deus Hoc Vult said they could “fall back to their current status”.
Very well put LS.
Isn’t that what the KOM said? They were sovereign? You can’t touch us?
The SSPX’s seminaries, churches & schools were built with the financial support of the laity & not financed by Rome so Rome would not have a moral or legal right to seize them. I’m sure Bishop Fellay will insist they retain control & that this agreement is made sacrosanct for all time. Otherwise no deal. We mustn’t forget that there are other interested beings whose influence cannot be ignored – The Holy Ghost & Our Blessed Lady.
I doubt Menzingen springs for any deal which doesn’t protect their existing property rights. The Holy See only has power over their assets to the extent the Society allows it.
I don’t trust him either! I cannot understand for the life of me why Bishop Fellay does! Has he not been watching Francis? And listening to him? Has he been watching what he’s done in Malta? Francis as Bishop Fellay MUST know by now is NO FAN of the TLM. People may say he’s ‘unclear’ about a lot of things, but about his ‘distaste’ for the TLM he has made himself CRYSTAL CLEAR on numerous occasions! I don’t know how he could trust him?
The Smoke of Satan has entered the Church……..
Regarding Francis’ repeated condemnations of “doctors of the law” and “fundamentalists,” terms some associated with the sort of traditionalists found inside the Society of St. Pius X, Fellay said he wasn’t sure they’re directed to him and his group.
When he has asked in Rome whom the pope has in mind, he said, the answer he most often receives is, “conservative Americans.”
“Certainly he doesn’t agree with us on these points on the Council which we are attacking,” Fellay said. “Definitely he doesn’t. But for him, the doctrine is not so important – it is man, the people, who are important – and there we have given enough proof that we are Catholics.”
“He sees that we are genuine,” Fellay said. “He certainly sees things he would disagree with in us, things he would like to see us change, but for him, that’s not what’s important.”
Ultimately, “what’s important is to love Jesus, and that’s it,” he said.
“Conservative Americans” means someone like Card. Burke? But Fellay is even more conservative than Burke, isn’t he? Others below link “conservative Americans” to things like free market and all that but “doctors of the law” and “fundamentalists” do not seem to have any relation to economics. I guess what makes more sense here for me is that SSPX are not dismissed as “doctors of the law”/”fundamentalists” because they take their ideas seriously in real life, and Francis would be referring to lukewarm “pharisees” who don’t do as they preach…
I think he means prelates out of touch with people, priests who are not willing to get their feet muddy.Unfortunately, Burke fits that category, no matter how holy the man may be. Fellay, on the other hand, represents a society that upholds tradition, at the same time, they are wonderful missionaries working with the poor. Francis favors missionaries. Traditionalist order are virtually invisible in the 3rd world, a poduct of the rich first, like it or not. Particularly Latam.Reason why Burke is unknown in Latam, where 50% of catholics reside.
Again, I will stand for his Eminence Raymond Cardinal Burke. I’ve read his books, I’ve gone to his Pontifical high mass last year and he’s the most outspoken critic of Bergoglio
Cardinal Burke is a very conservative Roman Catholic. I’ve been following him for at least ten yrs. and have attended the beautiful Latin High Masses he’s given. He also gave a Pontifical High mass here in our state last year and is very outspoken against when Frankie stands for
If Frank the Humble said that he’s worse off than I thought.
“If you love me, you will keep my Commandments,” says the Lord. “Do not commit adultery.”
“He sees we are genuine.” Really?? If Bishop Fellay is falling for that phony ‘love Jesus’ from the master of deceit he’s a dead duck.
There’s got to be something more to this story that we are not seeing. Bishop Fellay KNOWS that you CANNOT LOVE JESUS and go against his teaching. Adhering to Doctrine is adhering to the law of God. They are ONE IN THE SAME, and he KNOWS that! If you truly love Jesus, you will obey his commandments. He’s saying that Bergoglio doesn’t think doctrine is so important? What??? And he’s OK WITH THAT?????
That’s the question of the day.
SO pretty much everyone is naive except… you?
Whatever you say, Marcelus.
Ah but the red Cardinals hat looks so good on him.
Fellay as Cardinal means able to vote for Pope. Also means chance of becoming Pope. Pope Fellay would mean V2 wiped out. Is this too much to hope (and pray) for????
God is a God of miracles, so we must pray that the Church of Darkness leave Rome.
Maybe. On the other hand could it have something to do with making him look “traditional friendly”, merciful, and tolerant? Cardinal Burke, criticizes Pope Francis, but to the eyes of the world the SSPX accepts Pope Francis. Also, if someone leaves the Church in protest because of changes, if they go to the SSPX they now appear to not be leaving the Church. Personally I never thought that the SSPX ever left the Church but to the eyes of the world it is different. Also, maybe it would result in the loss of numbers of the SSPX, not everyone willing to be recognized by Rome. Their numbers might decrease somewhat.
Cardinal Burke has not, up to today, ever criticized Pope Francis. He’s issued questions, but never criticism.
Sorry, you are absolutely correct. I think in my mind that I am looking at it from the perspective of Pope Francis, what is going on in his mind, and also some of the media, and progressive Catholics and Pope Francis’ posible motives for courting the SSPX. I am sure, for example, the Greek Bishop Papamanolis would consider the dubia as a criticism of Pope Francis. However, in choosing the term “criticizes”, I am making his eminence, look less favorable. That is not something I want to do.
You are totally incorrect! His Eminence Raymond Cardinal Burke has been critical of Bergoglio so I don’t know what you are talking about. In fact, he’s the one who initially became critical of Bergoglio and then a few more Cardinals follow suit. You are dead wrong and if you profess to be a Catholic, you need to go to confession for lying and if you’re not lying, then your ignorance is coming through. I’ve read several of Cardinal Burke’s books, have gone to see him every time he visits our State and he’s been highly critical of this current pope. Cardinal Burke has also stated that the Mass must be said, ‘Ad Orientum’ in our State. You better get your information straight before you make such comments!
False. He’s indicated great concern for the ideas that Francis seems to be promoting (which I believe Francis certainly IS promoting) but he has never criticized the pope. If you asked him if he has, he’d tell you that he has nothing but the utmost respect for the Supreme Pontiff and has never criticized him. He would also tell you about his concern. The dubia were issued with full obedience to the Roman Pontiff. If he had criticized the pope, that would prove strategically problematic for helping to heal the church. He may be privately critical, but that I do not know, nor will I speculate. His lack of public criticism for Bergoglio does not undermine or take away from his current efforts to protect the faith.
As an aside, be careful when you judge the soul of one whose name you don’t even know. “Do not judge, lest you be judged likewise.”
C. Burke is an honest, God-fearing, gentle yet courageous man who would prefer persecution (as he is going through now at the hands of the pope and his supporters), to dishonoring his God. He has at all times been faithful to the Catholic Magisterium, respectful to and of Francis, yet firm in upholding dogma.
Cardinal Burke: On dubia, I’m more concerned about Last Judgment than losing my title – https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-burke-maintains-unwavering-resolve-but-offers-no-timetable-for-for?utm_source=Daily+Newsletter
Please provide some statements by Cardinal Burke criticizing the Pope. Your vague allegations mean nothing.
If I have anything to say about it, it’s that Cardinal Burke is too tolerant of the Pope and his heresies.
“Ship with out a rudder ring a bell?” Look, Cardinal Burke has been critical of the errors and erroneous statements of Francis, yet, he respects the Petrine office of Holy Mother Church to the extent possible with a rogue Pope. Some of you may disagree with that, that’s your choice.
When Catholics are not prudent of how we offer necessary criticism of the Pontiff. We can sound a lot like Protestants to those around us.
Burke recently offered an interview with the Remnant. Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcDFehYqkt0
Rudderless ship? Pope is Harming the Church? a few more I will have to look up…
We currently have a crisis in our state where we have a ‘very well known’ man of God, a holy priest who fills his church where there is standing room only. We here in our state were shocked to hear that he’s being sent to Rome and many of us are wondering, why? Is he going there to be ‘indoctrinated’ or is he going to be sent to a remote Island like another holy priest who was sent to South Africa because he celebrated the Latin mass and also had his Catholic church filled to capacity? The Grand Wizard is up to his tricks again…..
What’s his name? I’d like to follow the trail.
For the sake of the whole Church and for themselves the SSPX need stand firm against notions occupying pride of place in Roman Catholic circles and which have proved fatally toxic to large numbers of the faithful – and indeed to Western culture.
My estimation of Rome’s comportment is to provide hospitality to the Society and the broader group of traditional Catholics in their own corral while they become extinct and have the chrysalis of Roman Catholicism politely commandeered by the new entity. For this to be successful it requires the current ambiguity while employing a decidedly firm appeal to our tradition of
obedience. The present evisceration of the Knights stands as a warning.
The heterodox within the Roman Catholicism cling to the current structure only in order to claim the credibility provided by its pedigree. That is the best that can be said of their intention. The financial security provided by the institution they debase is vital for the inauguration of their new and improved kungian kasparian katholicism and ultimately to their personal financial security.
Bishop Fellay is no one’s fool. I am at a loss as to why they would walk this path now. It makes no apparent sense and appears far more precarious than imaginable — especially this past month. He has to be aware of something we are not. That said, I hope they retain their independence for some time longer. The current context is nothing less than menacing.
There seems to be a diabolical current running through the Church today, and I don’t mean the obvious Pope Humble. I refer to the almost instant reversal of the stance of Fra Festing in suddenly agreeing to resign, and the similar reversal of his colleagues in supporting his resignation.
Bishop Fellay seems to be on the same path, walking blindly into an obvious trap. I pray I’m wrong.
Your observation holds water. I think it comes from poor formation — obedience and humility are poorly framed — they need be imparted with reference to prudence, justice and fortitude.
From someone who has spent time in religious life everyone need be very aware of the following incontrovertible truth. There is not a single left wing Roman Catholic – pope, bishop, priest, sister, layman or laywoman who gives a hoot about obedience except when it is getting some one, particularly a pious conservative, to tow their line. Every one of them regards us, at best, as ignorant groundlings. The more authority they wield the worse it is.
I have not observed this in “conservative” superiors or pastors – they are always more measured and thoughtful.
The abuse of legitimate authority to undermine the perennial Magisterium of
the Church, to terrorize a subordinate, is a sacrilege.
If ALL of us are not obedient to the perennial Magisterium of the Church,
ALL of us need be very careful to whom we give deference and obedience.
Far too many good and faithful Catholics are being railroaded by the duplicitous.
We need be “…wise as serpents and gentle as doves…” Matt. 10:16
Don’t be surprised if Fellay plays this very well. He impresses me. He needs a lot of prayer.
You have summed it up quite well, James. Humility doesn’t require obeisance. One can be humble and maintain his self respect.
I find Bishop Fellay’s approach a bit too fawning in the face of the arrogance of the Pope. I hope you’re right about him.
Bishop Fellay MUST understand that the pre-Vatican II church and the post-conciliar Vatican II church cannot both be the true faith, nor can they coexist with one another. He says he does not want a schism or a parallel church. However, only one true church can exist. Anything else is a diabolical lie from the Father of Lies. What does he not see that so many of us faithful Catholics see so clearly?
Bishop Fellay is obviously not of the same mind as Abp. Lefebvre, who would not make a deal with apostate Rome. This is very clearly a deception and why Bp. Fellay doesn’t see it is truly a mystery. That the SSPX would need Francis the apostate destroyer to tell them they are Catholic is ludicrous. It would seem that Bp. Fellay is not in tune with his flock either and a deal will likely cause more splintering of the Society.
Also, does not Bishop Fellay see that with each passing day the Sedevacantists gain ground?
Exactly. People say he is not naive, but he seems to be. Bishop Williamson was right all along. Bp. Fellay is misrepresenting the words of Abp. Lefevbre. Here is an excerpt from what he actually said in 1990:
“We must not be under any illusions. We are fighting a fight guaranteed by a whole line of popes. Hence, we should have no hesitation or fear, hesitation such as, “Why should we be going on our own? After all, why not join Rome, why not join the pope?” Yes, if Rome and the Pope were in line with Tradition, if they were carrying on the work of all the Popes of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century, of course. …So we do not have to worry. We must after all trust in the grace of God.
“What is going to happen? How is it all going to end?” That is God’s secret. Mystery. But that we must fight the ideas presently fashionable in Rome, coming from the Pope’s own mouth, Cardinal Ratzinger’s mouth, Cardinal Casaroli’s mouth, of Cardinal Willebrands and those like them, is clear, clear, for all they do is repeat the opposite of what the Popes said and solemnly stated for 150 years…It is clear. Hence we must not waver for one moment.”
The difficulty with Bp. Williamson is that his stance of “Recognize but Resist” increasingly amounts to just “Resist.” And as such, it becomes less theologically coherent than that of bodies like the SSPV or CMRI, who can more credibly resist a pope they do not recognize in the first place.
Can you explain how Bp. Williamson’s views on R&R are different than that of Archbishop Lefebvre?
Bishop Fellay sees….What exactly has he given Rome?
So now … the conspiracy theories again. As I said, the SSPX and the Pope go way back. They worked together in Argentina when he was Archbishop.Even when Benedict declared they had no canonical status in the RCC. They are legally part of the RCC there- And the SSPX in Latam is run from Argentina. That said, I do not think Fellay will return under Francis in any case.Why have they gone that far in an agreement, I can not imagine. But they will not come back now. Relax.
For him , although, it’d be easy to put an end to the “approach”, he could just order them to submit and obey, particularly this last, obey, as Fr Z says, they have an issue with obedience. If they do not comply…
Fellay in October of 2013,
“What Gospel does he have? Which Bible does he have to say such things. It’s horrible. What has this to do with the Gospel? With the Catholic Faith? That’s pure Modernism, my dear brethren. We have in front of us a genuine Modernist.”
Fellay in January of 2017
“the concern of the Holy Father for the rejected people […] for those at the peripheries,” adding: “we are rejected […] and marginalized, forgotten or set aside.””
Huh? Since October 2013 Bergoglio has only revealed himself even more as a modernist. But Fellay praises him as someone who has concerns for “rejected people” What is going on? Why can’t any of these Bishops call a spade a spade?
Fellay in may 2016:
Regarding Francis’ repeated condemnations of “doctors of the law” and “fundamentalists,” terms some associated with the sort of traditionalists found inside the Society of St. Pius X, Fellay said he wasn’t sure they’re directed to him and his group.
When he has asked in Rome whom the pope has in mind, he said, the answer he most often receives is, “conservative Americans.”
“Certainly he doesn’t agree with us on these points on the Council which we are attacking,” Fellay said. “Definitely he doesn’t. But for him, the doctrine is not so important – it is man, the people, who are important – and there we have given enough proof that we are Catholics.”
“He sees that we are genuine,” Fellay said. “He certainly sees things he would disagree with in us, things he would like to see us change, but for him, that’s not what’s important.”
Ultimately, “what’s important is to love Jesus, and that’s it,” he said.
Francs uses ambiguity to divide and then rule a snake in the grass !
Does not Bishop Fellay see that with each passing day the Sedevacantists gain ground?
Where? In the blogosphere? Big deal. Where are the new sedevacantist chapels?
Forget Sedevacantists – they are a NO NO.
Ana, I know that. However, the longer the Four Cardinals and their brother prelates wait, the more credence they actually give the Sedevacantists.
The Sedes came out of the SSPX having been disgruntled by their adherence to Papal authority, so I don’t support he is much concerned about them. They definitely wanted schism.. Now they have separated themselves they want us to join them so as to appease their consciences. If the SSPX are allowed to continue to minister as they are & are financially independent of the Vatican & this is publicly agreed to (the stamp, as Bishop Fellay puts it) then it is great news. We can so do with their presence in Spain & Europe as a whole. If not, then we shall have to continue to wait but if further erosion of the Holy Mass is enforced upon us we shall have to revolt by emptying the churches. I still am expecting news re formal correction which I sense has been issued, mainly because of the KOM affair & the persecution of priests, but I may be wrong.
Bishop fellay and sspx should join with the eastern rite and Anglican ordinate former Anglican Episcopal churches in upholding canon law 915 as a requirement to be RC faith member.
Great to read about SSPX. It would be brilliant to have them in the fight for the truth to be restored.
I would love to see this happen. The Pope and the SSPX have one major thing in common; a detestation of the peculiar brand of Catholicism practiced by American conservatives. Check out the SSPX post on Labor Day and how American Catholic conservatism is directly opposed to the teachings of Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum.
If the SSPX detest American Catholicism, why are they so deeply entrenched there?
It’s a fertile ground for evangelization. Did you read the SSPX article in the Angelus about the economy?
I tried accessing it online but no results were shown.
Their excuse for not evangelising Europe is they need faculties which NO Bishops won’t give them. America doesn’t seem to present the same problems although they must also have the same proportion of NO Bishops as we have.
I suspect Willard means to refer to the very pro-free market, individualist stance of modern American conservative Catholics like George Weigel, Fr. Sirico, Michael Novak, et al, which tends to play up the pro-market aspects of Centissimus Annus (1991) and gives soft play to things like the preferential option for the poor (Quadagesimo Anno), especially as they might relate to a state role.
As for the SSPX, in America they seem to be heavily stamped by the experience of American Catholicism as it existed in the mid-20th century (esp. the postwar era of 1945-1962), with all its pecularities (especially of Irish pietism) – which is rather distinct from how one experiences the Society’s existence in France or the rest of the Continent.
Bingo! I’m impressed.
That’s a sad perspective and the thing that keeps me from particular sympathy for SSPX. Detestation? Really? I understand if one disagrees vehemently with the economic perspectives and conclusions of such Catholics. But when people like Weigel, who faithfully accept the entire magisterium and tradition in the face of ever growing secularism are “detested”, I see nothing but angry disunity against fellow faithful
I don’t know, but perhaps the “detestation” comes from an assumption (again I don’t know if there is any ground to it) that these people live mundane lives without caring for the poor, preaching as “doctors of the law” but lacking true spirituality, so that Catholicism is just something superimposed into an otherwise unremarkable well-off American lifestyle. So these people are detested as modern-day “pharisees”. That’s kind of the narrative I gather from Francis.
Such people certainly have improving to do. I still find that rather odd to “detest” such a person or hold them in contempt from either side (Francis or trads). At worst these people are in need of the guidance and “accompaniment” being called for with everyone else. At best, they are allies in preserving the teachings of the Church, defending it’s intellectual traditional, and pressing against more secular sympathies. And one would think such people are more disposed to being shown the shortcoming in their ways and the rational conclusions drawn from the teaching they accept than those open dissenters we seem to go out of our way to accommodate at every turn.
I agree. Anyway, the “detest” word was from someone who commented here, not verbatim from Francis or the SSPX.
Well, in fairness, Weigel’s pattern of hostile remarks about traditionalists and traditional liturgy over the years have not helped; and it’s probably his views on religious liberty and ecumenism that rub many trads raw more than his economics.
I’ll have to admit, I don’t follow him closely enough to know that. How sad. I’ve heard him speak and he was good enough. I still find his type more of an ally to the true faith than anything else
Did Saint Athanasius put himself under the authority of Arius in order to combat Arianism? No, he didn’t. It would have been foolhardy to do such a thing. And yet Bishop Fellay is willing to put himself and the SSPX under the authority of the leader of the Modernists (Pope Francis), in order to combat Modernism. Perhaps Bishop Fellay has no intention of trying to combat Modernism. It’s possible that he just wants more TLM venues to be offered in the church. He won’t be allowed to do anything else.
Remember that the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate were accused of being “crypto-Lefebverians.” And we all know what happened to them.
Arius wasn’t the Pope. And St Athanasius always accepted the principle of papal authority, even when he pointed out that Pope Liberius’s excommunication of him was invalid for having been issued under duress (imperial captivity).
What hurt the Franciscans of the Immaculate was that they were never an Ecclesia Dei order devoted to tradition, but a conventional religious order formed around the modern rites, while trying to make the transition into tradition in the face of internal opposition – opposition which formally appealed to Rome. Which doesn’t make the crackdown on them any less unjust. Only that their situation was different.
The SSPX also have always accepted the principle of papal authority. We all know that Arius wasn’t a Pope. That’s not the point. And yes, Pope Liberius, having been kidnapped and held in exile by the Arians relented and excommunicated St. Athanasius. He was weak, and didn’t want to become a martyr.
The situation with the FFI is that they were unjustly persecuted. Fr. Manelli implemented the TLM after Sumorum Pontificum, so they DID have the right to celebrate the TLM, even though there were those in the order who didn’t like the TLM. But they were becoming too traditional. They had to go.
The SSPX also have always accepted the principle of papal authority.
The only reason I made this point is that the Arius example is not applicable here. Arius was a heresiarch priest, not the pope; there is no question of the SSPX submitting itself to such a low-ranking (and condemned) figure. Francis may be a material heretic (of his own free will), but he is the pope.
I don’t disagree that what has been done to the FFI, brothers and sisters, is deeply unjust, and a black stain on this pontificate. I would, however, emphasize again that their legal situation is distinct not only from the SSPX (either now, or under a prelature) but also from any Ecclesia Dei group (monastic and mendicant orders included). They came under the authority of the Congregation for Religious, not Ecclesia Dei; and their constitutions did not specify the TLM as their conventual rite, but had been founded on the celebration of the Pauline missal as normative. It was the attempt to make the 1962 books into the conventual rite that created the opening for the dissidents to make their appeal. The wiser course would have been to resolve the factional feud by splitting the order into N.O. and traditional groups first. Still, that cannot justify what has been done since.
I think there’s a lesson here: While tradition should be freely available to all within the Latin Rite Church, and while even the strictures of Ecclesia Dei or any other canonical arrangement are never going to be 100% protection from abuses of papal power, there may not be a safe halfway house in our present situation.
I don’t agree that the example of Arius is not applicable. You’re not seeing the situation from a traditional POV. The leader of the leading heresy (Arianism) at that time was Arius. The leader at this point in time of the heresy of modernism is Pope Francis. You may not believe in Modernism, or that it really exists. Many Catholics don’t. This is why the example is applicable. Bishop Fellay wants to put the SSPX under the authority of the leader of the Modernists.
Also, regarding the FFI, Summorum Pontificum doesn’t apply only to those groups under Ecclesia Dei. It applies to all clergy as well as bishops and cardinals within the Catholic Church. I was not aware that the FFI specified the Novus Ordo as normative which excluded the TLM. Are you sure about that? I can’t imagine that Fr. Manelli would allow that specification in the constitution of the order.
1. The leader at this point in time of the heresy of modernism is Pope Francis.
He’s a material heretic, but I cannot agree that he’s the “leader.” He isn’t coherent enough for that.
Bishop Fellay wants to put the SSPX under the authority of the leader of the Modernists.
So what’s the solution? “Wait until Rome returns to tradition?” You may be waiting a very, very long time, barring the Parousia. By which point, most of the Society may not be willing to come back no matter what the circumstances. I get that this is a horrible pontificate in which to make a deal; but the fact is (and I suspect you know this as well as I do) that many in the Society opposed a deal with Benedict under *any* circumstances (preamble or no preamble), and would oppose *any* deal whatsoever until there’s a full-on restoration of tradition in Rome. That was not Archbishop Lefebvre’s demand, however. However much his position gradually hardened, he was open to a deal with Quran-kissing John Paul II, if it would let him and his Society be left to live as they had.
Look, I attend exclusively Traditional Masses celebrated by either diocesan priests or Ecclesia Dei group clergy (principally the Institute of Christ the King). All of them are “under the leader of the Modernists.” I have had to suffer difficulties because of it, but I stick with it, though without judging fellow traditionalists who choose the path of Econe. You can see, I hope, why this line of argument isn’t exactly endearing your stance to me.
2. I was not aware that the FFI specified the Novus Ordo as normative which excluded the TLM. Are you sure about that?
I did not say that. The FFI were founded by Fr. Manelli in 1970. At that time, the only Mass celebrated was the Novus Ordo. Only in the 21st century did they begin seeing a shift toward increasing celebration by friars of the 1962 missal. There was a move to make this normative for conventual Masses (which I support); but the Constitutions did not specify that, and this gave the dissident friars, such as Fr Geiger (who ironically recently left the FFI), their canonical opening to appeal to the Holy See.
To the extent that Fr Manelli and his collaborators were trying to make the FFI into a full-on traditional order, I think was a laudable and even necessary move for the flourishing of the order. Unfortunately, they failed to get their canonical ducks in a row, and that created the opening for the enemy to act.
Yes, wait until Rome returns to Tradition. And yes, it may be a long time to wait. I don’t agree that the SSPX would reach a point of no return.
Actually, it was the Archbishop’s demand, in his later years, that Rome return to the Catholic Faith as it had always been practiced. He believed that Rome was in apostasy, and this was what the Archbishop said when Pope John Paul ll was Pope. Are you not aware of this?
Do you believe that when Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated the four bishops, that it was a schismatic act?
I know John Paul II called it one.
The consecrations were not an act I agreed with, even though I sympathize with Archbishop Lefebvre’s situation at the time.
I think an argument can be made either way. But either way, I would not accept that the Society is in a state of schism. Rome has spoken on that more than once, and it certainly is taking numerous actions with regard to them that run against how one would treat a schismatic body. Arguably some people within the SSPX have schismatic mindsets….but that is true of plenty of Catholics in all sorts of milieus in the Church, in various ways.
Yes, Pope John Paul ll did declare the consecrations of the four bishops by Archbishop Lefebvre a schismatic act. Do you agree with the Pope on the matter?
No, not really. “Disobedient,” certainly.
That said, I think the resulting breach did tend to create a schismatic mindset among some in the Society (starting with Richard Williamson, the one clear mistake of Lefebvre’s in choosing his bishops).
And having said that in turn, had John Paul II acted on Lefebvre’s request for new bishops in an expedient manner, the whole sad event could have been avoided.
I’m glad to see that you do not agree with Pope John Paul ll’s declaring it a schismatic act.
Yes, there are some adherents of the SSPX who have a schismatic mindset. I’ve seen that firsthand. But that’s what happens in a Crisis such as the one we are living in today. People are going to get carried away. IMO, it’s not their fault so much as it’s the fault of Rome not practicing and promoting the Catholic Faith, but rather a faith based on the cult of Man, rather than God. We didn’t ask for the Crisis, though it can be argued that God is punishing us by allowing the Church to go through a horrible purification, by way of the current crisis.
Yes, it’s possible that if Pope John Paul ll would not have taken so long to decide on providing a bishop (just one, I think), then the situation may have been different. But there was not a good reason for taking so long. The Archbishop believed that he was not long for this world, and wanted to ensure that the Catholic faith, as it had always been practiced, as well as the traditional sacraments and the Old Mass, would continue to live. Archbishop Lefebvre once said that Rome was waiting for him to die, and that’s why they were taking so long to provide a bishop.
The consecrations of the four bishops were on June 30, 1988. The Archbishop passed away in March of 1991. He lived for only two years and nine months after the consecrations.
If he had paid more attention to who he was promoting to the episcopal office we wouldn’t have most of the problems which beset us today.
Reading Ann Barnhardt and some others, this all makes sense. SPXX can’t be left outside FrancisChurch because that entity will be a ‘welcoming’ and ‘gathering’ place for all religions/faiths/spiritual searching groups/ styles/formats. With Bergolio as the Chief Organizer/BridgeBuilder, the expressed plan is all such groups will live together in peace and luv. Of course, the real purpose will be to render Truth as relative – entirely subjective – resulting in a population that will be putty in the hands of Cultural Marxists (read: Satan.) Don’t ya know – we are all worshiping the same god and all trying to go to the same place….just by different routes (sarc off)
With apologies to the SSPX supporters on this page, in my opinion this is a terrible idea. There can be no unity with the SSPX until they accept all of Vatican II as valid. Not the strange new religion represented by the views of “Spirit of Vatican II” progressives, but the real council – as interpreted by the Papal Magisterium of Blessed Paul VI, St. John Paul the Great, and Holy Benedict.
There is a much larger agenda at foot here. The idea is to defeat orthodoxy by enticing the traditionalists with an offer so tempting they cannot refuse – full communion for the SSPX without their having to accept the full teaching of the Church. In other words, it is a poison apple.
Once this is accomplished, all kinds of strange and heterodox viewpoints on the other end of the spectrum (i.e., the “progressive” side) will suddenly be legitimized. If the SSPXers can reject major teachings of the Council and yet be in full communion then how can they complain when the same privilege is allowed for groups that do the same but from the other end of the “ideological” spectrum.
Yes, although I guess the counterargument is that these “progressive” groups already exist and make up most of the Church nowadays…
I’d agree except Vatican II is replete with errors. Just read Nostra Aetate followed by Mortalium Animos. If you can reconcile the two then your mind is more limber than mine. I can’t manage the contortions and backflips necessary to make it work.
I believe the legitimization of the SSPX would potentially provide a much needed medicine for the whole church.
The problem is, accepting all of VII is accepting it’s heresies, too. Is that what you’re asking?
What you and many others don’t understand is, the “spirit of Vatican II” is all that’s left of the Council. In fact, it’s all there ever was of the Council from the day it closed. To understand that, just look at the result.
Does anyone know anything about PF past history as a priest etc. in ARgentina?
You are right to ask about this. I can’t find a real unbiased examination of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and that powers my radar.
Of course you could drown in Kool-Aide guzzling biographies by Allen, Bunson,
Ivereigh, Politi, Pique, Scavo and Vallely, et al. The subtitles of their works provide the clue the Disney version is in hand. I can’t do it, I got to watch my sugar. One of my favorites is “Pope Francis Takes the Bus, and Other Unexpected Stories” by Rosario Carello. That one might have something going for it – “unexpected stories” and a pope.
We got unexpected stories, that’s for sure.
It is widely known that when Jorge Mario Bergoglio was being considered for Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Father Kolvenbach (Jesuit Superior General) told Pope John Paul that Bergoglio was emotionally unstable and temperamentally unreliable. This same insight into Pope Francis comportment was offered by an Argentinian bishop whose name escapes me at the announcement Bergoglio’s election to the papacy in 2013. Apparently Pope John Paul disregarded Kolvenbach’s warning believing left wing Jesuits were unsympathetic to Bergoglio because he was not sympathetic to Liberation Theology (how things change). In 1988 Kolvenbach shunned Bergoglio, sent him into “exile” to Cordova and sent those sympathetic to him to Europe.
Pope Bergoglio knows how to play the game. Does Fellay? I hope so.
And here we are today.
Dear Alice, It’s Argentina not ARgentina do you get my drift.
So far PF has appointed people to positions of power …some faithful many not. He
then appoints many not so faithful to lower positions thus making an impossible
situation for those loyal to the Catholic Church. Is PF trustworthy?
The most proud and authoritarian pope in modern Catholicism, Francis!
Of all time, Tanyi.
PF is in a win win position with regard to the SSPX. If the society is regularized PF
will ultimately gain control or even destroy it in some way because many of these
traditionalist priests will be opposed to regularization and will leave. If the society
does not agree then PF is in a position to condemn it because of the generous offer
he has proposed. Bishop Fellay’s best option might be to delay any action ………..
trusting in God’s providence and in time….this pope is not getting any younger.
Archbishop Levebre would not even consider regularization under Pope Francis. He would be horrified by the very idea! And the condition mentioned by Fellay, “that we can stay as we are”, is as soft as butter. If he falls into this trap, the SSPX will be gone. Of course Francis will assure Fellay that they can stay as there are. Of course! And the next day — or on any oppurtune future occasion — he will destroy them, under the pretext that they didn’t stay what they were but have changed. Once the SSPX can be reached by Papal power, that power will be used. How can the Superior General be so stupid as to put his own head on the block? Stay away from Francis the Deceiver! Stay independent! There is a bright future for the SSPX if they really stay what they are and continue to refuse any formal ties with the Vatican. That future is that one day they’ll be able to take over the Church. The Modernist Church is dying and is growing more chaotic every day. Disintegration is everywhere. Within a generation it will be over. The SSPX should just wait until the modernist structure collapses. Then they can step in and bring back order.
They need to “step in ” now, while the gate is open.
Then, the flood may begin, and wash away all that the last 50+ years has produced.
The (SSPX) presence must be fully recognised, now, particularly whilst it appears the Bergoglio reign is about to implode.– and fall from the barque of Peter.
Not the other way around.
If they step in now, they themselves will be destroyed by the destruction now raging in the Church. The Pope and Cardinal Kasper will feed them to the lions.
While it is a heartening thought that the reign of Pope Francis is about to implode, I’m not so sure about that. Though you may be right. The Pope has a lot of supporters in Rome and elsewhere. Bishop Williamson has recently said that God is not likely to give us a good Pope until there are enough Catholics who want one.
What if God provided a good Pope within the next year or two? How many Catholics would actually support him? Very few, I think, because so many Catholics today believe in a man-centered religion. It’s not their fault, for the most part. But they would be appalled, IMO, at the thought of a Pope who might actually tell them such things as, for example, that artificial contraception is a sin for couples, as is co-habitation. Or that it is also a sin to miss Mass on Sunday without a good reason. Or that women should obey their husbands, and that husbands should love their wives a Christ loves the Church. Or that marriage is between one man and one woman. That there is only one Religion that saves, which is that Church as founded by God Himself. Or that there is such a thing as Hell, and it isn’t empty. There would be quite a rebellion within the Church if God provided a good Pope today.
Good. Maybe we need a rebellion to separate the sheep from the goats. A schism is coming. The only question is as to how it manifests.
Well, a schism may indeed be coming. But who will be considered, by Rome, to be the schismatics, exactly?
To be honest, I don’t really care who Rome considers to be in schism. On the one hand, I’m a Roman Catholic and a papist through and through. On the other, I am only those things because of my love and devotion to Our Lord Christ. If I have to choose between Our Lord and His Vicar… well, there’s no question.
That’s pretty much what Archbishop Lefebvre believed as well, so you’re in good company. And he never did reconcile with Rome, which believed that he and the SSPX were “outside of the Church.” And quite a few Catholics, especially laypersons, thought of the SSPX (and still do) as being schismatics. That’s part of the reason that Bishop Fellay wants to reconcile with Rome – so that they will finally be thought of as being Catholic by the rest of the Church.
Count me in!
What does SSPX have to gain by getting into the lion’s den? The idea sounds suicidal to me.
Canonical status, which does mean something. A month ago I was all for regularization. AFter the SMOM destruction though… I’m not so sure. I’m hopeful though… Lord help us!
And yet Archbishop Lefebvre wasn’t so concerned about canonical status. He was far more concerned about maintaining the Catholic faith until Rome came to its senses and decided to practice and promote the Catholic faith of all time, as it did before the Council.
Very true. However, Archbishop Lefebvre lived in a somewhat different time than now. I don’t claim to know what he would say now, but things may have changed in such a way that canonical recognition is better, not only for the Society, but for the whole church. If the SSPX is made regular, and your average catholic then feels peace to go there imagine the medicine that could flow through the church from their firm stand. Right now they’re “ghettoized” to quote Francis (admittedly, we’re not talking about refugees). Time to bring them back into the fold so that the rest of the church may be healed.
I must admit, I’m a little skeptical now because of the Knights of Malta situation… I’m presenting an alternative. I don’t claim to know what’s best.
In your view, how will the SSPX heal the Church?
Their long time holding to the truths of the faith and the teaching they grant to other Catholics can administer medicine to the Church. It’s not that the SSPX will heal the church, it’s the truth of Christ, the true faith being lived out, and not being formally shoved into a corner that will heal the Church… or could. It’s another conduit for the grace and truth of Christ to come through that is currently horribly restricted.
But how or what can the SSPX teach that the FSSP or ICK don’t already teach?
For one thing they could set up shop in my neighborhood and I could attend a legitimate Mass for a change.
Francis is a Narcissistic destroyer. Everything he does should be seen in that light.
And Bergoglio will never do it, will never give his “stamp and guarantee.”
I hope I’m wrong, but I believe Bergoglio will never give that “stamp and guarantee,” because he would be giving up some of his power. He would thereafter never be able to change anything about the SSPX, and giving up power is something Bergoglio cannot do. He is a deceitful, angry, vengeful old man who is obsessed with power. His treatment of Cardinal Burke and the Knights of Malta is only one example of this.
Bergoglio would rather see the SSPX continue to be “rejected […] and marginalized, forgotten or set aside.” He can’t help it. He’s made that way.
Once again, though, nothing would make me happier than one day to wake up and discover that I am utterly wrong about all this.
He may because then he can say that if the sspx can be regularized why not the liberal Lutheran groups, etc.
I’m not holding my breath.
The problem here is that, OK, Rome regularizes the Society in that they don’t have to adhere to certain aspects of Vatican 2, to which we trads put up both thumbs. But that could/will set the precedence for modernists to reject certain aspects of orthodox authority, past or potential future, does it not?
They already do but I see your point.
Hate to burst the bubble but they already did: http://www.dici.org/actualites/entretien-de-mgr-bernard-fellay-sur-radio-courtoisie-le-26-janvier-2017/
I don’t see how Bishop Fellay can get the stamp he wants because the pope has shown in his treatment of Cardinal Burke that he, the pope, cannot be trusted.
I see that most of my posts have been removed from this section, and some of the other sections as well. Can a moderator tell me why this is? I feel that my posts are charitable and mature, and I’m not a Sedevacantist at all.
Well, this will be removed in short order, but I have to sat that it’s obvious that this is not a traditional blog. There’s something very wrong with it, and it’s article content is at times dishonest. I’ll be banned, but I’ll be working to find out what the real agenda is here. Because it certainly isn’t Catholic.