This from Bishop Fellay:
And in fact, Rome is offering us a new body. At the head, a bishop. This bishop, chosen by the pope, with (from) three names, which a presented by the Society and taken in the Society. This bishop will have authority above (over) the priests. Above the religious who want to be members. And above the Faithful. All Sacraments, (to) the Faithful (who) will belong to this body, will have the strict right to receive all the Sacraments from priests of the Society. All Sacraments, Marriage included. The bishop will have the right to have schools, seminaries, ordinations. Even to make new religious congregations. And accept inside, other who would like to join. It is something like a super diocese.Autonomous from the local bishops. In other words, for you, no change to what you have now. The only thing, it will be with the recognition that you are Catholics.
You can imagine that… that will create a lot of conflicts, with the local bishops. You can easily imagine that. So we have to remain prudent there. But in itself, you cannot imagine anything better, than what is offered there.
And such a thing that you cannot think, that’s a trap.
Yes, I can.
It’s not a trap.
Yes, it is.
And if somebody is offering something like that, it can be only because he wants good to us.
Ummmm…This is Francis we’re talking about, right?
Right? Because we know that means that no, he doesn’t.
When, in the entirety of the last three-something years, has this man ever shown the slightest hint that he wants anythinggood for anyone?
He wants the good of Tradition,
Sorry, your excellency, but… are you on drugs?
Have you been living in a parallel universe where the man on Peter’s throne is not a manifest heretic, narcissist, Marxist-Peronist lunatic who has spent the last three+ years doing everything he can to destroy the remains of the Catholic Faith within the Church? A lying, blaspheming megalomaniac who has made himself a mortal enemy of Christ, His Blessed Mother, all the angels and saints? Because if you have, I’d like to know how you got in there so I can get there too.
he wants Tradition to say, spread in the Church.
Sorry, but …
…are you mad?
It is impossible to think that such a thing could be invented by enemies.
No, it really isn’t. Not even a bit.
The enemies have many other ways to crush us down. Not that.
Not if they can’t get to you. Which right now they can’t. But if you take the deal, they can.
See?
Perhaps the most striking thing she says is found in this simple image, which I’ve put in bold:
Now, the Romans don’t care about us little guys, but they REALLy want to get rid of the Traddie and quasi-traditional and even “conservative” priests (and whatever bishops might be interested.) Anyone who will stand up and say no to the programme.
Wouldn’t it be nice if we just voluntarily got rid of ourselves? That would clear things up for them and their Big Plans for the rest of the Church right? Because right now it’s just that teeny weeny rump of priests, one or two bishops and a couple of cardinals who are putting the blocks in front of the wheels, making all manner of trouble.
Then what? Once the gig is up, and the Communion for divorced and remarried, or women priests or holy gayness is all set up as the pinch of incense, force the entire pack of us to go along or get out.
What do you do when you’re sweeping up something in your house? Broken glass, say? You first sweep it all up into a little pile, making sure not to leave any little bits lying around.
When did Bishop Fellay make these comments? I agree that he should be wary of this deal.
I don’t credit His Holiness with being that farsighted, nor his cronies.
Three months ago I wouldn’t have, either. But the new rules for religious orders, which are craftily designed to make it far more difficult for contemplative orders to survive and outright impossible for them to be founded without the Vatican’s consent, have convinced me that this Pope is quite capable of taking the long view. And acting upon it.
The Pope could regularize them unilaterally. Without their permission. Even against their wishes.
Because he’s the Pope.
Now, wouldn’t they have an obligation to follow the Pope regarding anything that does NOT violate the Magisterium and conscience? And then go back to their current estrangement if there is a serious problem (an emergency)?
Heh, good point!
Oh boy… The regularizatio of the Society would be a wonderful thing but… Hilary makes a strong case here…
So another question is… What sort of deal would be acceptable short of Rome renouncing modernism and all associated with it? This is the best deal that can possibly be expected, I think. I see 3 potential outcomes of this.
1) Basically what Bishop Fellay seems to think. Life goes on as it has but all SSPX sacraments are undeniably valid, they are undeniably Catholic in full communion, they don’t have to accept V2 with all the arsenic laced in its documents and life goes on with a small net gain.
2) The regularization of the SSPX leads to a full blown revival in the church due to the medicine of truth being injected into the Body of Christ (please Lord let this be the case). The crisis in the Church ends (admittedly this will take time) and everything gets back to good and holiness. The Pope calls a Crusade, France converts, the Muslims are thrown back, and the world rejoices (ok, I might be a little optimistic here… But we can hope right?)
3) Hilary is right. The SSPX comes into the fold, Rome puts the pressure on, the SSPX says oh heck no, Rome excommunicates us all, put themselves into schism, the Catholic (read here SSPX) bishops elect a new Pope, the world descends into a dark age, the Church rises from the ashes a few centuries later.
Obviously we’d all like #2 but I suspect #1 for awhile, then #3. But is remaining in an odd place, with the validity of some of their sacraments being in question? I’ve read much on their arguments for supplied jurisdiction and it’s sketchy at best. They’re basically hoping the Lord is overriding the keys given to Peter because of the awful state of the Church… a questionable line of logic at best… But what else is there? Lord, save us from these dark days!!!
Pope Francis, the “Pope of Mercy” (and his handpicked successor, should he get one) producing an actual excommunication? It wouldn’t be worth the paper its printed on. He’s hemorrhaging credibility by the day.
YES, he has excommunicated people:
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/09/27/pope-francis-excommunicates-australian-priest/
http://nationalreport.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Pope-Francis.jpg
Why does this man always look as though his smile hides what is truly on his mind?
Because his eyes don’t match his smile.
read your article would you not have excommunicated that priest would the society not agree that excommunicating a priest that is publicly calling for female ordinations is proper.
Oh yes, I agree with you. However, the point that I was making is that PF IS capable of excommunicating people. Now, if he’d excommunicate the ones who really should be excommunicated, things might be different.
Hmmm, that #2 one is so tempting, haha!
I had a momentary flash of horror about this. But you know what? It’s gone, replaced by pragmatic resignation.
If Bishop Fellay can’t see what this man is and why he would want this, then SSPX is as good as gone. I admit, it will be astounding if Bishop Fellay is this naïve, but, what can you do, if that’s how it is. Bye-bye SSPX.
There is absolutely nothing, save empty words spewed now and then, to indicate Francis would want anything other than to control them, manipulate them, and ruin them. What possible evidence would Bishop Fellay point to, to indicate anything else. Nothing. So diabolical disorientation rears it’s ugly head once again.
I’ve got my Bible. Everything else is well on it’s way to Hell. Buckle up friends.
Besides, if as a commenter says here Francis can regularize them at any moment, that’s what’s coming, because sure as God made little green apples this man is going to get what he wants one way or another.
Just because Francis could regularize the SSPX at any moment means nothing if he crushes them in the aftermath.
And that, I suspect, is the real endgame envisioned by Francis. Once he has the Society formally under his control, there is nothing he can’t do to them.
Have we learned nothing from the FFI debacle?
What does Pope Emeritus Benedict think, I wonder.
Actually, from how he is acting one might question whether his food or drink is occasionally being spiked with Valium or some other drug to make him as docile and passive as possible.
I don’t think so. Sorry.
From what I know of the SSPX, if a squirrelly modPriest from the local diocesan office showed up at an SSPX parish with orders from the local ordinary to chain the doors and sell the real estate, he would be laughed off the premises.
The troubling part of the equation for the nuChurch modPriests is that they (the SSPX and the other priestly societies) have the vocations – these groups **have the future**. Sure the nuChurch modPriests can continue on with destructive actions but they’ll only watch the continued evaporation of the edifice they’ve spent their lives constructing.
How would a post-regularization suppression of the SSPX be accomplished other than through some FFI-like attempt to relieve the SSPX of its assets? They could of course just not elevate anyone to the episcopacy but Bp Fellay will presumably see to that.
For what its worth, here are some positive outcomes of a near-term personal prelature; 1) it puts more pressure on the “conservative but not traditional” folks to come to the epiphany that the novus ordo missae is a complete fabrication designed for the purpose of fostering happy-clappy participation and eccuminism at the expense of authentic Catholicity 2) a pretty fair number of newly Traditional Catholics will eventually come into SSPX parishes and staunch more of the flow of their currently “conservative but not traditional” funds into nuChurch collection plates 3) it would preclude the possibility of a drift toward permanent separation where hypothetically the SSPX could find themselves in a century from now like the group(s) that left the Church after Vatican I 4) more people in SSPX pews means more people actually following the Church and Her perennial teachings, means more sacramental grace coming into more lives, means more vocations 5) The SSPX comes into the Church just as they are with no pledge of fealty to the Second Vatican Council – – – BOOM!!
It would seem to me that there is so much opportunity in the Church as She is right now for the SSPX to make a powerful – game changing – difference that to wait much longer, to wait for the perfect Pope and for a whole crop of new cardinals who actually care about the Church and Our Lord’s commandments would lessen the impact they would have in actually shaping the outcome of the Restoration that is inevitably coming. “Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves.”
A personal prelature is not the answer. See my post above. Under the Code of Canon Law, personal prelatures fall directly under the pope, and the prelature is subject to the local bishop in his diocese. So, if the bishop of a particular diocese does not want the SSPX, he may order them to leave. Some solution.
That IS current code. Presumably from what H.E. Fellay was saying is that there would be some type of modification to that aspect of the code for them – which, of course, is within the power of the original legislator – The Holy Father himself.
And then what? Look, the bottom line is that the SSPX and the Modernist New Church CANNOT coexist together. Heresy and Truth. That is what the SSPX is dealing with. That is what Lefebvre dealt with. Sure, the pope can do whatever he wants. But that does not make it right.
Right. Canon 297 allows pretty broad ambit for how this would work once the prelature is erected: “The statutes are likewise to define the relationships of the prelature with the local Ordinaries in whose particular Churches the prelature, with the prior consent of the diocesan Bishop, exercises or wishes to exercise its pastoral or missionary activity.”
The Statutes for the SSPX could be worded such that the ability of the local ordinary to keep ’em out of his diocese might be much more restricted than obtains with Opus Dei. Likewise, it seems that existing chapels would be grandfathered in. And it is hard to imagine Fellay, Schmidberger et al springing for this if this was not, in fact, the case.
For all the ignorants, such as myself, I don’t understand the problem here and if someone can boil this down it would be helpful. It looks as if the pope is going to choose a bishop from within their community, they will be able to exercise all sacraments, have the authority to oversee all aspects of their community, so is that not what they were looking for?
That’s the problem – he’s doing the choosing. If Pope Benedict XVI was still reigning, then I’d be a lot more amenable to a personal prelature.
Abp. Lefebvre set out to form traditional priests because no one else was willing to do the job, the Church was in free fall, and in his judgment nothing could change without good priests. That was in 1970.
“Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves.”
Bishop Fellay and the laity of the SSPX have been in the “midst of wolves” since Archbishop Lefebvre established his priestly society against ALL odds and now you Catholics, who haven’t helped us all these years build Chapels, Convents, Seminaries, Monasteries, Retreat Houses & Schools, are warning us?! Thinking Bishop Fellay is naïve?! He is as wise as a serpent who seems a dove, you don’t recognize a prophet in your own land. Today, Bishops act like doves but ARE serpents!
We all know what and who we’re dealing with and even if the modernists try to destroy the Society the laity, baptized faithful, know what to do. We will once again pick up our Crosses and build along with the faithful Society’s Catholic Bishops and Priests while the rest look on and act too afraid to help…again!
THE
LITTLE
CATHOLIC
HEN
Who’ll say Mass
Assumption Feast?
No longer done
Said parish priest.
Who will baptize
Little one?
More important
In-i-ti-a-tion.
The Catholic Faith
Please teach my child?
Not I, said nun born-
To-be-wild.
Who will help
Teach catechism?
Don’t call it that
It sounds like schism.
Who will hear
My child confess?
We’re all forgiven
More-or-less.
Who will give
The angels’ Bread?
Extra-ministers
Sue and Fred.
Confirm my teens
Their souls they’re losing?
That must be done
Of their own choosing.
So little mother
Walked away
Hating to
Look bold.
Never orphaned
Clung to Cross
Deposit- Faith
Her gold.
Then up above
On mountain top
A man in white
He stood.
Just one more Bishop
Who’ll try to stop…
Disorient
What’s good.
But Bishop lifted
Up her Cross
His sons helped
Bear the weight.
And Pilgrims in
Progressive lands
Continued in
Grace-state.
They handed down
What they were taught
Vocations now
They flourish
And others old
Who loved new-thought
Had only crust
To nourish.
But little mother
Saw their tears
Starving for
What’s true…
Come in, come in,
We’ve waited years…
His Bread, for many,
For you!!!
Yep!
The fact that others are issuing warnings is a testament to a job well done, Long Skirts. There is the recognition that there is no schism. And that other solid Catholics recognize the good the Society has done and are concerned for her…. as they should be. That they won’t cry schism if His Excellency Bishop Fellay must, in the end, reject whatever offer is being made from Rome.
The fact that other solid Catholics, even those who didn’t build “all that”, recognize that “all that” is worth protecting is a very, very good thing.
It IS a good thing but it’s irritating to read Hilary White’s rude article, where she insults Bishop Fellay, not only with her daft questions (I mean, “are you on drugs”? CHEEK!) but also setting herself up as knowing better than he what ought to be done in these circumstances. I can just see his humble demeanour as he replies: “thank you for your advice. I will remember that.”
Where the rest of us would say…well… something very different!
I’m just passing by here, so won’t see any responses – please don’t take my non-reply as agreement (unless you are agreeing with moi!)
Even if you will not see any responses, I agree totally with your assessment of Hilary’s “rude article”. I am sick of the complete lack of respect being displayed by bloggers like “Mundbor”, Louis Vericchio and now Hilary White, when discussing the breakdown of Catholic culture by the Modernists. These authors that only know how to to resist by flinging insults, at even holy men, are no help to the cause at all.
Mary Compeau,
When I said I wouldn’t be seeing any responses, I forgot that the Disquis system sends an email alert to replies, so I’m popping by to say that I agree with you agreeing with me (!) and, further, would mention that the websites you name are not on my favourites list and I seldom visit.
There is a difference between plain speaking and nasty personal remarks, as is spelt out on our blog over at Catholic Truth http://www.catholictruthscotland.com – it’s about our only rule. Speak clearly and as forthrightly as you wish, but don’t be nasty. It’s hard to be a real and faithful Catholic plus nasty all at the same time!
Some people fail to see this distinction. I’ve been criticised many times for my forthright writings but, while I know that I can be hard-hitting – goodness I set out to be just so (!) I would hate to think I was being personally nasty about anyone, even this terrible pontiff. Note: he’s terrible at being a pope – that’s all I am morally free to say, just as I may comment on an apparently unprofessional teacher, doctor, lawyer etc. without making additional nasty personal remarks about them as individuals.
If I ever overstepped that line, I would regret it, but it does seem to have become an art form since the election of Pope Francis. He is, I wholeheartedly believe, the worst ever pontiff in the history of the Church and writers should warn, strongly, against his false theology, confused ideas and outright humanism. However, nastiness is never right, it seems to me, although I do accept that it is quite hard to resist at times… But then, that’s what Guardian Angels are for!
I think we can all cut traditional Catholics a bit of slack on the polite niceties. I mean its been 50 years of betrayals, enough is enough… these wolves in sheep’s clothing need to be called out. They will be given respect when they earn it, the days of automatic respect were abused by our church leaders.
(of course I am not including bp Fellay in my assessment of wolves).
….oftentimes it takes “cheek” to get the requisite attention to a serious disconnect. Sadly, receiving what amounts to a pat-on-the-head, however well intended, is received as precisely that.
Sadly, whereas many within the Society are familiar with Bishop Fellay, many more are not. And, to be frank, the sheep have been pacified into catatonia.
So while this approach may work with Society adherents, it will do the exact opposite with those who review His Excellency’s speech from outside the SSPX.
That, however, is the nature of the beast and precisely why, in my opinion, that this situation is one of such intense pressure and almost automatic misunderstanding.
This is why I cannot fault Hilary. I can only lament that the crisis within the Church has degraded to such a state.
As to, “…but also setting herself up as knowing better than he what ought to be done in these circumstances.” Isn’t that what we are all having to do, EditorCT? Seriously?
Is not having to discern, discern, discern and discern precisely what we’re called to do? You take the position of such outrage (…because you know His Excellency?) But again, others do not. And others, as we know, have been scandalized to such a degree as to question, and quite rightly, EVERYTHING. Out of necessity.
So if His Excellency would reply in the manner you say, perhaps you should reply the same. Follow his example. For even in your response to Hilary’s article, you depart from his Excellencies leadership.
The knives are out, friend. This article is well placed and to be expected.
You are kidding – you really think we’re all called to know better than Bishop Fellay? WE can “discern” but not he? WOW!
No. Wrong. Bishop Fellay has the grace of his office – oh and by the way, I do not know Bishop Fellay, have never met him. However, I trust his judgment. He’s the one on the front line; he has the authority to make any agreement about a regularisation, as mandated by Archbishop Lefebvre, who said that it would fall to the Superior General to enter into such conversations with the Vatican – no mention of Hilary White, sometime convert to the fact that the Church is in crisis. As for the article being well placed and expected – it’s no different from any other article I’ve read on the subject; speculation and rather arrogant advice. I would say that from Hilary White that may be “expected” right enough but that would be too close to a personal remark for me, so I’ll say nothing more on that score!
As for your observations about my “manner” – if only I were half as humble and charitable as Bishop Fellay, I would be a very much better person, in that you are correct. However, I’m a humble (by which I mean not important) laywoman, tending to forthright speech and writing, and so if I want to criticise Hilary White’s very rude writings, I am free to do so, just as she has done in the past when I did some forthright writing on the pontificates of Pope John Paul the not so great, and Pope Benedict, both of whom were modernists. Pope Francis didn’t spring out of nowhere.
I’m not making any personal remarks about Hilary – she’s probably very well intentioned – but I do not like her tendency to be nasty about the subjects of her articles. Indeed, I’d better sign off now before I become one myself!
….you have never met him, but you trust “his” judgement. Well, good for you, friend. Other’s don’t….or don’t yet. Why? Because to repeat, they’ve been scandalized until their eyeballs have nearly fallen out. (But again, you may want to follow His Excellencies example in interacting with others who are taken aback.)
As to your freedom to criticize, you are absolutely that. At least so far. The coming election for POTUS may put the kibosh on that presumption of liberty. At least without severe backlash.
That said, “…speculation and rather arrogant advice,” based on your humble observations, friend.
And absolutely, Francis didn’t spring out of nowhere. And neither did Miss White’s commentary despite your humble assessment of her credentials.
So WOW on. And try to tease out the reality that all are required to make prudential discernment with regard to their own souls and dispositions.
I never said His Excellency didn’t have the capacity or the requisite duty to discern. I just noted the reality that in these troubling times, a bishop’s hat is often no assurance. Would that that weren’t the case. But it is.
And FYI, all bishops have the grace of their office. To include the Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis, who, as you stated, didn’t spring out of nowhere.
Peace to you.
Sorry, but you’ve lost me there. Confusing – you initially said we all had to discern, can’t leave it to Bishop Fellay blah blah, and now you’re taking what I said about Bishop Fellay having the grace of his office and equating him with “all bishops”. Wrong. The key difference is that Bishop Fellay is in a tiny minority of almost one, in being a faithful bishop. Nobody could accuse the rest of the hierarchy of the same. When Bishop Fellay speaks I don’t have to run for my copy of the Catechism of the Council of Trent to check if he’s just spouted heresy. Hence, there is a reasonable expectation that God’s grace will be at work in him in his episcopal office.
But listen, I really don’t have time for this – I’d forgotten that Disquis sends emails every time someone responds to my comment but I’ll remember that from now on, hopefully, and desist from posting comments when I’m already overloaded with work, people to see, etc. I’ll post a quick and very cheeky reply to your other response to me below and then I’m outa here, so my original statement stands; don’t think I’m not replying because I agree with you or cannot answer – I just do not have the time. Life, as someone once said, is too short.
Friend, your posts bespeak confusion. But that’s okay. I’m glad you find comfort where you can. Others are doing as they are called to do…. even if you don’t care for their style. Enjoy your evening ;^)
So what did Fellay mean?
“Bishop” Fellay to you.
Let’s not focus on the gnat, EditorCT. Perhaps answering the question posed in charity would do far more to promote the point you were trying to make. Otherwise the only thing accomplished is rancor for rancor and more manifest misunderstanding.
Allow me to rephrase then…
Would you mind always addressing “Fellay” as “Bishop Fellay” out of respect for his episcopal office? I hope I’m not offending you in any way by asking this. If so, I humbly beg your forgiveness….
For someone who is bagging on Hilary White for snark, you sure know how to dish it out, friend.
How about this, present your case that His Excellency, Bishop Fellay is aware of the situation and then proceed to illuminate others based upon what you know to be true.
I always refer to His Excellency with proper titles. Others don’t. And not necessarily out of malice. But if you’ve got an itch-on to always find offense, you’ll find it. Especially if your posts are aimed more at the respect for persons instead of respect for the reality that we’ve all been scandalized to the point of our eyeballs falling out.
And your apology, not that you needed to tender one, is accepted. Thanks ;^)
Not “bagging on Hilary White for snark” – I seldom read anything from her pen but on the odd occasion that I’ve seen something in her name, she’s been making very rude remarks about her subjects. It distracts from the important task of making very rude remarks about what the subject is saying and doing. There is, despite your apparent inability to see it – a huge difference.
Bishop Fellay has SAID that he plans to tread carefully, that he is fully aware of the seriousness of the task now that the prelature has been offered. He’s on public record – have you not watched the videos that were posted both on Rorate Caeli website and then on Catholic Truth?
Re: titles – I made a point to someone who referred to Bishop Fellay by his surname only, and I did so in a manner smacking of some mild humour. YOU chose to take offence. My posts are not “aimed more at the respect for persons instead of respect for the reality blah blah” – to a person of average intelligence (nothing personal there…) it shouldn’t be a case of either/or. I try to do both, show respect for people while being perfectly forthright about the issues under discussion.
Don’t be “scandalized to the point of your eyeballs falling out.” You’re a Soldier of Christ, for goodness sake. Follow the advice which the father of the bridegroom gave to his son on the eve of his son’s wedding: “never” the father said “go to bed mad. Stay up and fight!”
Now, goodbye, PGMGN – I’ve enjoyed our little exchange. I like you, I really do, so – as a famous English saint once said: “pray for me, as I will for thee, that we may merrily meet in Heaven” and as a witty Scotsman later added: “only no the noo… ” (tr: not just now – not yet…)
Nite!
Friend, a Soldier of Christ isn’t put off by “rude” comments during hot war. You may want to check your own sensibilities…. or not.
The SSPX cannot, in good conscience, accept this offer. Once accepted,
Francis could immediately turn the tables on Bishop Fellay, suppress the
SSPX and the TLM, and then issue a papal bull of excommunication. Then
what? Absolutely nothing accomplished. And if it all happened that
way, I would most certainly go with the SSPX as Francis would then
become a true apostate along with every layman, priest, bishop, and cardinal who would support him.
Archbishop Lefebvre remains entirely correct regarding all the problems and heresies which came out of Vatican II.
I repeat again, Vatican II did NOT define any new dogma or doctrine. Vatican II remains a pastoral Council which forced upon the faithful the heresy of Modernism- long condemned by previous Councils and popes.
Hilary White is dead on the money.
As I blogged on this site a few days ago, the Catholic Church is on the verge of the Third Major Schism. The schism this time around, however, will happen because we have a man sitting in the Chair of Peter who may well have been invalidly elected. Or, if the cardinals did validly elect him, he most certainly has lost the Chair of Peter due to his proclamations (Laudatio Si and AL) which clearly advocate outright heresy and a break with the constant teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church handed on by Jesus to His Twelve Apostles and their successors including past popes (you pick the last valid pope).
I only want true unity for the Catholic Church- but not this way. Unity in Protestant-like error(s) saves no souls!
Mary Mother of God, pray for us!
Once accepted, Francis could immediately turn the tables on Bishop Fellay, suppress the SSPX and the TLM, and then issue a papal bull of excommunication.
Actually, if you want to get down to it, Francis could do all of that right now. (Well, he could try – I hold the position that not only was the traditional Roman Rite never abrogated, but also that it can never be, not even by the Pope.) But there is nothing to keep him from issuing a decree excommunicating everyone in the Society, right now, and suppressing the celebration of the TLM in canonical communities.
If there’s a danger, it will manifest itself in more subtle ways, working more slowly and indirectly. That’s the kind of danger the SSPX leadership will have to be alert to if they take a deal.
Hmmm, let’s see…does it go like this?
1. Okay, pick your bishop.
2. There now you’re free!
3. Oooops! Looks like your bishop failed in his duty to protect children and/or ordained some creep who slipped through the cracks.
4. Here’s your new apostolic society administrator who, for the good of your souls, will temporarily forbade the traditional mass.
5. Soon, soon…
That about right?
That’s about right. Oh, and you know those nuns of yours? Let’s start talking about implementing the new rules for contemplatives. Imagine the meetings of the “federation” when the SSPX Benedictines turn up and they start talking about being a “sign to the local church”… and let’s not forget that any new religious communities now have to be pre-approved by Francis.
You can’t understand what’s going on by separating each item and taking it alone. Put it all together.
The risk is there. We’ve seen this gambit played out before in this pontificate.
But it applies with even more force to the Ecclesia Dei groups, who have even fewer canonical protections than what appears to be on offer to the Society. Should they be bailing out and taking a “Recognize But Resist” posture as well?
I sure do understand their fear, their distrust. I share it. That said, at some point, if they really do mean to return to return to the fold, they will have to take a risk of some kind.
Someone at another site recently commented “merge and purge.”
That is it in a nutshell.
I can’t muster a neuron to accept. Not credible. Not now. They will crush the SSPX with a virulent spite unseen in Church history.
But work it. If this is really true, Rome has abandoned the Council.
Make that known LOUDLY. Very loudly.
Correct.
Here is a quote from another part of Bp. Fellay’s conference:
“We’ve been told that at the last meeting of the Congregation of the Faith, where they all meet together, all the cardinals and bishops which are members, we call that a plenaria, this is the full meeting, there was only one cardinal who said, ‘no, no. no, the Society must absolutely accept the whole council’. And other voices who said ‘these people do only one thing, (that is) to repeat what the Church has always taught’. So you see,
there is something on the move…”
Think about it for a second. If the VII church has lost the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it is a “dead parrot”.
Sorry, but there’s no way the SSPX should even think about a personal prelature until the next pontificate.
This is what the Remnant website posted today:
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2746-the-money-trail-why-catholic-bishops-are-silent-on-hillary
IMO, the reason why the Vatican is cozying up to the SSPX is because they want control of the SSPX chapels, churches, convents, monasteries, retreat houses, priories, schools and most of all the $$$ given by the faithful who attend SSPX Masses.
If you saw your next door neighbors raking in the money while you were struggling by, what would be your reaction:
1) God bless them. (Charitable reaction.)
2) I wonder how they do it. What are they doing right that I’m not doing?? (Inquiring minds want to know.)
3) They have it made and here I’m struggling. (Envy.)
Remember the story of Naboth and his vineyard:.
http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=11&ch=21&l=1#x
God forbid that the SSPX should end up like Naboth.
Save Your people, O Lord, and bless Your inheritance. Grant victory to Your Church over her enemies and protect Your people by Your Cross.
Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, Troparion Tone 1
(and almost every Wednesday and Friday throughout the year, with a few exceptions)
I, too, was very alarmed at first regarding this ” act of mercy” by Francis to bring in the SSPX. And I too think money has something to do with it.
And I have serious concerns, since Francis has stated he alone will determine if other orders of priests are able to be in a particular diocese.
But, how good it would be to have another good order of priests and their laity in communion with Rome!
Maybe I am being too simple about it all. Much mischief could be made for the SSPX down the road. But oh, there is so much good they will do for the Church!!!
The SSPX IS in communion with Rome. In the 90s, there was the case of the Hawaii Six:
http://sspx.org/en/hawaii-six-case
Then-cardinal Ratzinger said that this is “an internal matter of the Church. Nota bene the word “internal”. The Holy See recognizes the priests and bishops of the SSPX as valid priests and bishops who administer valid Sacraments.
Archbishop Lefebvre once called the June 30, 1988 episcopal consecrations Operation Survival. To accept a personal prelature now would turn Operation Survival into Operation Suicide.
“…but oh, what good they could do for the Church?”
They have and are currently doing a great deal of good for the Church. Holding firm so that the powers-that-be must inform the Faithful of the truth about the non-binding nature of certain Vatican II documents is a huge service.
It brings people to the truth. Those who would otherwise have shouted schism etc and proceeded to go down the road of facilitating modernism via ignorance or a misguided sense of obedience for obedience sake.
OOPS and a big OOPS. I meant to put an exclamation point at the end of that last sentence. ‘ …but oh what good they could for the Church!!!”
All I know, is that the Church needs the SSPX, the clergy, the laity.
EVER ANCIENT….EVER NEW – St. Augustine
ps editing my error. So glad you responded. Thanks.
Yes, we all need each other. But doing what God calls us to do at the time prescribed. Thanks for your note, too!
That is always the hard question; not only doing what God wants but when He so desires. So very true.
God bless.
I listened to most of Bp. Fellay’s Youtube talk in New Zealand and here’s my problem. Bp. Fellay commented that he is taking it slow and making sure every letter of the agreement is water-tight. This clearly indicates that there is a distrust of the Roman authorities. If Fellay trusted Francis and his gang then he would not need to painstakingly go over every letter. He’s afraid of being cheated! Did you get that? Afraid of being cheated by the Vicar of Christ and his trusted “Apostles”. If Fellay signs the contract then ultimately there will be one Church with two different faiths, creeds and forms of worship. We (Rome) are going to continue doing things like this and you guys (SSPX) can doing things like that. This is insanity! The agreement would be to have a dual-mode Church! Before they wanted to destroy Tradition and now they want to give it complete freedom to a particular area of the Church while for the most part maintaining Nuchurch. As Pilate said in The Passion of the Christ: “can someone explain to me this madness?”
You are spot on!!! We cannot have two versions of the Catholic Church- one infested with the heresy of Modernism- one the true Church.
Very true Al – at the end of the day we can’t!
Adam and Eve ate the poisoned fig which killed them – our Lord Jesus Christ gave us His Body and Blood to eat – the perfect antidote to the poison of satan when received in a state of grace (i.e. through repentance). By contrast the opposition (most of those in the Vatican) claim (in grave error) that we’re all going to Heaven with no effort to repent nor turn away from an immoral lifestyle.
The Vatican is full of boring farts and poofters who wouldn’t know one end of a shovel from the other.
I heard that LSN banned you – have no idea why – you’ve always spoken the truth. But cheer up and have no worries mate – The Lord (and our Mother Mary) have everything in hand.
That is the situation right now. Bringing the SSPX in won’t change it. There has for 50 years been a neo-modernist pseudo-religion that holds control over all the institution of the Church, living alongside a persecuted minority of Catholics. Fellay knows this as well as we do. Personally, I think he should spring the trap and see what happens. Nothing can stop the Catholic faithful from keeping the Faith. And we certainly can’t carry on like this. It does seem likely that the Vatican wants to create a kind of “reservation” for “traditionalists,” that is, for Catholics. But they aren’t taking into account that Catholicism isn’t just a human thing, a set of silly old fashioned ideas and a peculiar out of date aesthetic. It’s more powerful than they can possibly comprehend, thinking as they do only the thoughts of time and the world. They’ll be fighting a civil war with a greatly strengthened foe, backed up by the hosts of Heaven.
These were my thoughts as well to Steve, which you more eloquently captured than myself.
“But they aren’t taking into account that Catholicism isn’t just a human thing, a set of silly old fashioned ideas and a peculiar out of date aesthetic. It’s more powerful than they can possibly comprehend, thinking as they do only the thoughts of time and the world. They’ll be fighting a civil war with a greatly strengthened foe, backed up by the hosts of Heaven.”
It is time we fight together!
There is much that rings true, Hilary, about your comments. In my diocese, anyone who complains to the bishop about the novus liturgy is told to go to the traditional parish, of which there is one in the diocese. Nothing is done to clean up the mess at the novus parishes where there are serious issues. Traditionalists (and novus ordo malcontents — who are not the same thing as traditionalists) are placed in one ghetto….sweeping up the glass, so to speak.
Maybe we live in the same diocese, because I recognize what you describe. The bishop grits his teeth and leaves us mostly unmolested, but in other parishes it is not so easy, especially for younger priests. We are like smallpox: surviving, but in a test tube.
Fellay knows this as well as we do. Personally, I think he should spring the trap and see what happens. Nothing can stop the Catholic faithful from keeping the Faith.
I think that’s where I lean to now as well. Take the risk, keep up your courage and your fortitude. See what they do. Resist injustice when it happens. Keep doing what you have always been doing, without wavering.
But it is the call of Fellay and his district superiors, not mine.
It does seem likely that the Vatican wants to create a kind of “reservation” for “traditionalists”
I admit that, listening to this, I thought of the “flying bishops” set up by the Church of England. That didn’t work out so well for them, of course, and they’re mostly in the Ordinariate now. At any rate, Catholic traditionalism is a lot more robust than conservative Anglicanism was; and of course it also has the virtue of being attached to the Truth.
So Bishop Fellay should allow ecumenism, indifferentism, liberalism (whatever it is) to form the basis of a new stage in the development of the restoration of all things in Christ? Please explain how that’s going to work
This is a point I do not get. Lefebvre said that Rome had to come back to the Church. But this is not what is happening here. I am a V2 NO churchgoer who has come to Tradition thru the NO church. Tell me how that happened. Either way, I am realizing it is in God’s hands as are we all. I attended a NO church that does the TLM. That cannot last.IMHO. It is like two different religions.
Personally, I think the offer is legitimate. The SSPX is tiny and relatively insignificant, at least when compared to the Pope Saint John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI generation of priests and bishops. Pope Francis has other fish to fry. If the SSPX is integrated, it will cause the conservative to lower their guard down, and be good PR proof in the Catholic media that Pope Francis really isn’t all that bad. It would buy him time to get the next two synods to implement his agenda.
I wouldn’t even be surprised if he makes Bishop Fellay a cardinal. Having both Bishop Blase Cupich and Bishop Fellay both be made cardinals at the same time would be an enormous advertisement to Pope Francis’ belief that doctrine doesn’t matter and open disagreements on fundamental doctrines are just opinions. And if doctrine is just opinion that doesn’t matter, more innovations are possible.
Personally, I think it would backfire since I don’t think the Pope Saint John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI generation of priests and bishops are willing are comfortable with the level of antinomianism and confusion Pope Francis is bringing about and how it is causing secular society to begin more ferociously attacking the Church. The news about the SSPX reintegration will be soon forgotten, but the attacks will not. The clamour for Rome to back up the bishops will only grow louder.
Cupich and Fellay made cardinals at the same time by Francis? Huh? No way. Francis would then contradict himself. Modernism and true Catholicism CANNOT exist together.
Al, You assume that PF would recognize a contradiction.
Well, not really. But you’d think, eh?
You’re right… BUT Francis could do so to attempt to make friendly with faithful Catholics. It would be a strategic political maneuver and something I could see his cunning Jesuit mind doing.
Agree with Hillary. If the deal seems to good to be true it probably is. Machiavelli said to keep your friends close and your enemies (Traditionalists) even closer. Pope Francis has been trying to stamp out Traditionalism from day one. There is no reason to believe SSPX can gain anything good from placing themselves under the authority of their enemy. There are two conditions under which I would accept such a deal.
1. SSPX gets to name it’s own Bishop. Period.
2. SSPX has the right to secede at anytime from the authority of the Catholic Church if circumstances so indicate. Under this scenario SSPX and it’s membership would still be considered to be doctrinally members of the Catholic Church. They would be obedient to doctrine but not the Pope.
Yes, but we must keep in mind the defined doctrine the First Vatican Council gave us in reference to papal infallibility regarding Faith and Morals. I am with you all the way up until you said obedience to the pope (and, by extension, his successors).
I believe the SSPX is correct. We must give our assent and obedience to the pope, but ONLY when the pope is teaching as the universal pastor and supreme pontiff of the Catholic Church regarding Faith and Morals. Personal opinions thrown about with no basis in the Original Deposit of Faith, defined dogma and doctrine from either the Ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium do not count. Francis’ first encyclical and first exhortation both fall into this category.
Thanks Silent Crusader. Perhaps my statement could be modified to accomplish same purpose but make it more doctrinally coherent with Vatican I.
This argument is actually false, sorry. The First Vatican Council only defined that the Pope is infallible when teaching on matters of faith and morals under very specific circumstances. It did NOT say that we only obey the Pope when he speaks on those things.
The Pope, whether we like him or not, whether he is doing his job or not, is still the pope. With that office comes the power of binding and loosing. We must ALWAYS give our assent and obedience to the Pope UNLESS he is speaking or acting contrary to the deposit of faith we have already received. This is for each specific action.
For example, Francis made a canonical change to the process for trying annulments. Is it a bad process? Yep. Will it help the Church? Nope. Do we then have to follow it? Sadly, yes we do. It is the law of the church and it is not directly related to faith and morals, but procedure and government. Conversely we have Amoris Laetitia. Here the Pope IS speaking on faith and morals. Is it a good teaching? Nope? Is it going to help the church? Nope. Do we need to follow it? Nope. It’s directly opposed to Church teaching. The authority given to the Pope is supreme and second to none except God Himself and what God has revealed to His people through His Church.
I think my whole point was that Francis is speaking directly against Church teaching. No one is required to give their assent or obedience to such. Sorry, but your AL argument above is non-sense. In order for assent and infallibility to work as Vatican I outlined, the pope must teach only what Jesus, the Apostles, and their successors passed on. Sorry, but, NO, the pope’s authority is NOT ABSOLUTE.
I think you misunderstood what I said in my third paragraph. What I said is that we DO have to obey the Pope, UNLESS what he is telling us to do is against Church teaching. So in the case of AL we are not obligated to follow it. He IS speaking there on matters of faith and morals (I would say that sacramental discipline is indeed a matter of faith, and I think conduct of people in their sexual lives talks about morals), but since he is not speaking in the way defined in the First Vatican Council for such a teaching to be infallible, it is not. And since it violates previous Church teaching, it is not binding. So we agree there.
However, when the Pope does something in a matter of government (e.g. his motu proprio regarding the annulment process) we are obligated to follow it UNLESS there is a clear, immediate danger of damage to souls. One could argue whether or not his motu proprio does that (I would argue that it actually does present a danger but that is besides the point), but until that can be legislated, it’s the law of the church. That is the process which we must follow. And that is binding because he is exercising the keys of the kingdom which he has inherited as Pope.
We are obligated to, in short, obey his edicts and give him the benefit of the doubt until such a time as there is no longer doubt… at this point he hasn’t said much good in years. If he were to suppress the TLM right now, he could. Pope St. Pius V did so after Trent with other liturgical forms unless they could show proof of at least 200 years (I think it was?) of heritage, and he did it by enforcing the Roman form on the entire Latin Rite, unless the aforementioned conditions could be met. And we would be obligated to bow to his authority.
The Pope’s power is NOT ABSOLUTE, as you said, but it is SUPREME, meaning holds greater authority than ANY OTHER rule of law on earth… Only the Law of God, contained in the natural law, moral law and divine law, has greater authority. And this Supreme authority is his, because it was given to Peter by Jesus Himself, then passed on to those who hold the same Office. Unfortunately, the man who holds that, Jorge Bergoglio, has proven to be a poor steward… This we cannot deny. But he still holds that office and the keys with it; the power of binding and loosing.
Remember, I’m not talking about infallibility. I’m talking about authority. There’s a difference.
And on all that, we agree:)
Pax Christi 🙂
Here is more of the trascribed Bp. Fellay conference. Note the part at the end where he speaks about the most recent plenary session of the CDF.
https://sarmaticusblog.wordpress.com/2016/09/03/satanic-council-the-end-game/
Many of us are members if third orders and it becomes difficult to circumnavigate our liyalty to the Church and its Pope, especially with the one at present. If it does happen, I will immediately find my new parish and not have to beg sympathetic priest to offer the old mass. With the Pope’ s ideological slant, the Society may find many more sympathetic bishops than anticipated.
I think Fellay recognizes that the SSPX has the same problem as many parishes in the modern Church, that is relativism. The right of the laity or priests to decide for themselves what is right and wrong. The longer they remain separated from the larger Catholic Church the stronger the feeling among them grows of sedevacantism, that the SSPX is the only one and true Catholic church.
Felley sees an opportunity with Francis for SSPX to receive full recognition while still maintaining themselves as they are. Francis certainly makes some bad decisions and his foot is in his mouth more than on the ground, but he IS the Vicar of Christ. Felley recognizes that because he is Catholic. SSPX has the right to be cautious but their members should be rejoicing at this possibility as well.
In the last 50 years there has not been a point in time where traditionalism has the power to break through into the “reformed” Church as it does today. SSPX could play a HUGE role in that if they were regularized. If local priests couldn’t tell a regular Catholic that SSPX lacks jurisdiction.
I think Fellay recognizes that the SSPX has happily operated in their protected little bubble for long enough, that protection has allowed them to maintain and preserve tradition but now it is time to step off the sideline while their are fissures in the established Church and stand up as a model for all Catholics.
Is it scary? yes, is it hard? yes. Christ never claimed upholding our faith would be anything less.
The longer they remain separated from the larger Catholic Church the stronger the feeling among them grows of sedevacantism, that the SSPX is the only one and true Catholic church.
That was certainly the concern of Frs. Aulagnier and Laguerie – co-founders of the Society with Archbp. Lefebvre, now leaders of the Institute du Bon pasteur – when they were voicing sympathy for the deal taken by Campos. It’s not an unwarranted concern, and I have heard Bishop Fellay discuss it at least once. We are reaching a point where most of the Society now has no living memory of any other state of affairs. They are used to being a reality entirely unto themselves. It is understandable why this has happened; but with the security of independence comes this danger, too.
Meanwhile, in what they call the Concilliar Church’ they’ve been used to altar girls, communion in the hand, contraception, divorce (a.k.a annulments), praying with pagans etc, etc, etc and now the poor souls are being prepared to accept sodomites as well.
We are reaching a point where most mainstream Catholics now have no living memory of any other state of affairs- they no longer have any memory of what the Church actually teaches!.
WHICH IS WORSE?
If I, as a middle aged cradle SSPXer, have no knowledge of a ‘normal state of affairs’ in the Church, am I to blame for it? am I to find a normal state of affairs anywhere today?
Your argument is a red herring. Sure, I don’t know what it is like to have a normal relationship with my local ordinary…. he thinks I’m a wacko. But I pray for him everyday, along with the Pope, in my family Rosary and my Mass and at my local SSPX parish Church… and they ain’t just empty words either.
By the way, where is the proof that tendencies of Sede Vacantism & relativism are growing in the SSPX (except maybe, in the minds of those who want the SSPX to sign on the dotted line)?
One such evidence of the sedivacantist tendency in SSPX if from the SSPX website imploring members not to fall into that temptation. http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/sedevacantist-temptation
Other evidence can be found in Emmett, KS about 10 minutes outside of St. Mary’s Academy and college in the form of a break off group of SSPX who are sedivacantists. Or perhaps evidence comes in the form of a post in an on-line forum implying that only those in the SSPX are capable of prayer deeper than empty words.
I don’t think you know what a red herring is. It is an argument meant to throw you off the track of the current logic. There is no doubt that you are right regarding what has been forced down the throat of the Concillar Church, but because of the grave errors that have been let in don’t assume that the SSPX are the only ones capable of seeing them. This battle is being hard fought on both sides of the divide.
Disappointing article from Ms. White. Doubly disappointing to see it cited with gushing approval here.
Communion with the Roman Pontiff is *essential* to Catholicism. They *need* this. At least Bishop Fellay has the sense to see that, even if White and Skojec don’t.
Many years ago the former editor of Latin Mass Magazine, Fr. James McLucas, noted sagely that there was no great danger in the SSPX accepting the then-current offer from the Vatican. They own their own chapels, they have their own hierarchy, they already operate in an irregular manner. If in the worst case they accept the offer (which in this case sounds much better than was offered years ago) and it turns out to “a trap” they could merely roll back to the status quo ante. Their opponents would look like schmucks and they would quite likely gain an even greater following.
What is the downside to the SSPX?
Let’s stop with the fever swamp paranoia. It is time to forge out into the deep.
Of course they need this. That doesn’t mean it won’t be used to crush them as the mood suits the powers in Rome. Just look at the FFI. One needn’t have a reason when one has unchecked, autonomous authority given by God.
This is why holy and wise men should be elected to the papacy, not corrupt and capricious ones.
The FFI didn’t have an Archbishop Lefebvre, they caved.
Your confidence that even the most well-intentioned men or the structures they implement cannot be undermined by the preternatural forces now prowling the earth unfettered is ill-placed.
Everything is subject to that roaring lion who is going about devouring. God seems at this time, in some way, to be withdrawing His protection. I think of Our Lady of Akita, who said that in the destruction to come, “Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful.”
Do we really think that only fire from the sky is so indiscriminate in who it destroys?
“And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, ”
Sounds like our “restrainer” is gone. The lion devours without it.
“…cannot be undermined by the preternatural forces now prowling the earth unfettered is ill-placed. Everything is subject to that roaring lion who is going about devouring.”
That “roaring lion” swallowed up the FFI because they were no help to the moderninsts. Why did not the “forces…unfettered” devour the FSSP or the Institute of Christ the King? Because FSSP & the Institute, you will find, establish themselves, with the help of the Bruskewitzs & Burkes, near SSPX Chapels & Schools, something the FFI didn’t do so they were easy prey. The modernists are still getting help from the other traditional Orders in trying to pull souls from the SSPX who are preserving the WHOLE Catholic Faith and Culture.
I still do pray that all true Roman Catholic Priestly Orders will once again be united together, please God.
“God seems at this time, in some way, to be withdrawing His protection.”
Maybe in the physical realm but I feel very protected, spiritually, by God as long as I’m in the state of grace which is possible because of Archbishop Lefebvre who preserved the Priesthood, Christ never left us orphans!
…and as always “Christian is my name, and Catholic my surname.”
Saint Pacian of Barcelona
A
SEA
AT
HER
SHRINE
“Elements of Sanctification
In other unions…” how dare!
Your days are numbered
You drop like hair.
Before you were knit
In woman’s womb
He saw your unraveling
Towards this your doom.
So sent the others
To intercede
Sacerdos
They bleed the Creed.
But you reject,
“Themselves they hang.”
Then Tridentine
Intensed birth-pang.
Where ev’ry Host
At elevation
Contracts our sons
Towards priest formation
Who’ll daily offer
Red wine-blood
So devils of delegates
Drown in the flood
Of Catholic faithfuls’
Sea at her shrine
Where past present future
Is all His Divine!
Because FSSP & the Institute, you will find, establish themselves, with the help of the Bruskewitzs & Burkes, near SSPX Chapels & Schools.
As the old saying goes: Want an Ecclesia Dei parish in your diocese? Just get the SSPX to set up a chapel first. Heck, in France, there was one diocese where they even set the FSSP parish up across the street from the Society chapel.
I’ve never attended a Society chapel, but it’s for things like this that I retain a certain real gratitude to them.
I think the mistake of the FFI was not trying to formalize themselves as a TLM-exclusive order under Ecclesia Dei, splitting the order (with the handful of resisters allowed to set up a separate new order) if necessary.
…that “roaring lion” can also visit those who presume themselves safe for whatever reason. Pride creeps up on people, catching many unaware who believed themselves perfectly assured.
That said, “God” preserved the priesthood. Archbishop Lefebvre was merely the vessel used. Hence the legitimate call for prudent discernment and humility lest we inadvertently lose what has been gained.
“that “roaring lion” can also visit those who presume themselves safe for whatever reason. Pride creeps up on people, catching many unaware who believed themselves perfectly assured.”
Of course that “roaring lion” is EVERYwhere. I’m talking about our souls, though, that yes, we can be tortured physically, psychologically, etc. but if as good Catholics we stay in the state of grace what can harm us? I’m only “perfectly assured” of Heaven if in the state of grace, but of course, I’ll be lucky if I make Purgatory – but I must keep on trying no matter bad Prelates, earthquakes, bad Councils, bad Popes, bad companions, bad religious and even MYself being bad. I AM proud of being a Catholic, I’m not always a good one but I AM one! No matter how hard it gets we must run the race and god’s sake support His good Priests!!!
THE
LILY
(“The martyrs were bound, imprisoned, scourged, racked, burnt, rent, butchered – and they multiplied.” St. Augustine)
No burning tearing
Scourging skin
It’s psychological
All within.
No rotting flesh
Or putrid blood
It’s sterile clean
No rancid crud.
For butchered
Tortured bound up skins
Reveals the Truths
Of Bishops’ sins.
They want it nice
They want it hushed
With veins of ice
Good souls are crushed.
The silent cold
Is better yet
Frozen solid
Can’t beget.
For martyred blood
Reveals the Church
Blind souls see Truth
And end their search.
“We can’t have that!”
NICE Bishops say,
“So let’s ignore…
They’ll go away.
Enlightened men
Don’t scourge the skin
Enlightened men
Keep blood within.”
But they forgot –
The woman bleeds
And monthly makes
A bed for seeds
Where nice and hushed
They’ll grow to men
And seize the oars
From wrists that bend…
On Peter’s Barque
Where blood still flows
From woman’s womb…
The Lily grows!
…part of supporting “priests” in their effort to cleave to the good is to voice strong and clear trepidation when called for. That’s part of trying.
Only God is good. And often that dark night of the soul can be such that discernment is far more difficult than imagined. If you are buoyed by confidence, rejoice. That is a tremendous gift. A gift, when present, that can lend the soul flight. But not all have the same gifts at the same time. And yet all are of value.
For while the martyrs bled, there were many others who fell away. And Hilary’s words bear serious consideration. Lest we forget that those who haven’t perhaps been there to build the churches, schools, monasteries, etc, lose what confidence they have for, perhaps, wont of practice. Or perhaps other strengths that “we” don’t recognize.
That said, I would never venture to say that the FFI caved. Never. So much more at play than what we think we know or see. And the sacrifices of others are quite often those we’d never suspect.
God bless.
“That said, I would never venture to say that the FFI caved. Never. So much more at play than what we think we know or see. And the sacrifices of others are quite often those we’d never suspect.”
That’s true, may the FFIs Sacrifices help all of us! God bless you too!!
“Why did not the “forces…unfettered” devour the FSSP or the Institute of Christ the King? Because FSSP & the Institute establish themselves, …, near SSPX Chapels & Schools,.. to pull souls from the SSPX who are preserving the WHOLE Catholic Faith.”
So, once the SSPX in under control, there will be no reason not to clamp down on the FSSP, ICK etc.. They will have served their purpose, and will no longer be necessary.
So not only do we risk losing the SSPX, we risk loosing all.
“So, once the SSPX in under control, there will be no reason not to clamp down on the FSSP, ICK etc.. They will have served their purpose, and will no longer be necessary.”
Perhaps, perhaps not, that’s up to those Priestly Orders to “fight” if the modernists try to wipe them out.
“So not only do we risk losing the SSPX, we risk loosing all.”
They (the modernists) can never take our Faith away, they can never make us lose all, but the SSPX is Catholic and deserves that recognition by Holy Mother Church and if the modernists try to destroy… we pick up our Crosses again and persevere as we have been just like all the Saints of the past who are our examples and ran the race over and over again which we do now…”be not afraid”!!
ANOTHER
NEW
FORT
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
Others defect
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
Preserving, defending
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
Relinquish support.
And with promises made
To men hungry for power
They mock, stand and point
At us in the tower
Hoping for all
Diverse democracy –
When in fact their new fort’s
A kleptocracy.
It’s True, they will never take away the Faith- The Church will always remain faithful. But the SSPX is not the Church, it is not of Divine origin and like all the other orders, is susceptible to failure. If Bishop Fellay acts without prudence, then fail it will, and the Faith will stand without it, and against it.
If you are like me (I suspect you are), and have worked hard for many years to rebuild Tradition through the institution of the SSPX, then you will be as concerned as I am to not let the hard work of the many faithful we know, be flushed down the toilet.
Please don’t pretend bishop Fellay is infallible, and start asking some hard questions like: Why is he waiting to see if Rome will stand by Pozzo’s word that we will not have to accept V2 when both C.Muller and the Pope have confirmed we will? (Read Bp Galaretta’s sermon at Winona). Why is he ignoring (again!) the conclusion of the Superior generals meeting (like he did in 2012)? Why does he say that he never said the New Mass was legitimate when we all know he said it was ‘legitimately promulgated’ which means the same thing? (That’s Something Bishop Tissier said was a disgrace and to the SSPX’s eternal shame!)
Bishop Fellay has had 15 years now of Roman modernists in his ear and it looks like he’s buckling under. Time to show him where his support stands! He needs our prayers now more than ever so that he does not capitulate. He also needs to know what we think.
God Bless
P.S. Your poems are a pleasure to read.
Well said, MadMC.
“So the love for the popes and their teachings that he received was to cause him terrible suffering 40 years later, at the Second Vatican Council, which wished to sell off everything Marcel had received, understood, assimilated and loved at Santa Chiara! He would then be brought to contradict the popes, it is true, to refuse to obey the post-conciliar reforms, he, the great obedient bishop, who had taught his African seminarians: “The pope is the Successor of Peter, Christ on earth, the unshakable Rock, the light of the world! ” He was forced to admit, as Pius XII had said:
‘And if at times there appears in the Church something that manifests the weakness of our human nature, it should not be attributed to her juridical constitution, but rather to that regrettable inclination to evil found in each individual, which its Divine Founder permits even at times in the most exalted members of His Mystical Body, for the purpose of testing the virtue of the Shepherds no less than of the flocks, and that all may increase the merit of their Christian Faith…. This is no reason why we should lessen our love for the Church, but rather why we should increase our devotion to her members. (Encyclical Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943, §66).’
It was this devotion, this respect for the popes, not for their person, but because of their function, that always kept Marcel Lefebvre from any offensive reaction or words against the conciliar popes. And it was the consideration of the permanence of the supreme pontifical function under the errors of these equivocal popes that kept him from falling into sedevacantism, that error of those who, rightly scandalized by the errors of these pontiffs, wrongly conclude that they have lost their function of pope. He continued to go to Rome, to visit the liberal or modernist prelates, “to try to convert them,” he would say, or at least to get them “to tolerate us at least” and again to recognize canonically the Priestly Society of St. Pius X (after its supposed suppression on May 6, 1975), and to “recognize us as we are”, he used to say. Those were his politics with Rome for 15 years: from the supposed “suppression” of the Society in 1975 until his death in 1991.”
(a translation of Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais’ interview for La Porte Latine (the SSPX’s website in France) on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the death of Archbishop Lefebvre.)
<>
I do not think Bishop Fellay is infallible or the Pope, except when he speaks ex cathedra.
<>
Actually, no, he doesn’t, he only needs to do God’s will.
<>
Thank you and pray the Rosary for all!!
AND MINE
SHEEP KNOW ME
They have struck the sheep
Just words they shout
Fleecing the flock
Confuse with fake doubt
They have struck the sheep
Hoots owl, “Who?”
“The sky is falling!”
Scream hysterical ewe
And facing the flock
They lure a white wedge
Eyes to eyes backing
Nearing cliff’s edge
But in the lower
Pasture greens
A Good Shepherd guards
Each lamb a grace gleans
He stands, turns east,
He leads, they follow
Toward thunder’s roll
No time to wallow
Like others before
Crook and Mitred for attack
“Mine sheep know me”…
And we’ve got his back!!!!
For the history of “Roman Catholic” visit https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm
A Protestant coinage, no Catholic should ever use it.
EditorCT.
Misinformation.
See “Sources of Catholic Dogma”
Denzinger’s entry #460:
Gregory X 1271-1276 Council of Lyons II 1274
…The most holy Roman Church
#464
We believe that the true Church is holy, Catholic, apostolic, and one in which is given holy baptism…This is the true Catholic Faith, and this in the above mentioned articles the most holy Roman Church holds and teaches.
#465 The same holy Roman Church…
The same Roman Church…
# 466 Also this same holy Roman Church holds the highest and complete primacy and spiritual power of the universal Catholic Church…
…she receives the other churches to a share of her solicitude, of which many patriarchal churches the sameRoman Church has honored in a special way…
Nowhere in there will you find “Roman Catholic” – that’s the point I was making. If you know the history, RC was an invention of the Protestant Reformers to push their branch theory, that the Roman is but one branch of the Catholic Church – cf e.g. the Anglo-Catholics are another equally valid “branch” – it’s a heresy. The NAME of the Church, as evident in the earliest writings of the saints, is the Catholic Church.
As in the creed, we believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church and if you read the article carefully, you will see the proper use of “Roman”. I’m a Scots Catholic. Only those born in Rome are Roman Catholics.
Oops. then the prots seized control at Vatican 1…
Dogmatic Constitution “Dei Filius”
Vatican Council I
1870
Chap. 1. God, Creator of All Things
The holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church believes and confesses that there is one, true, living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect and will, and in every perfection; who, although He is one, singular, altogether simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, must be proclaimed distinct in reality and essence from the world; most blessed in Himself and of Himself, and ineffably most high above all things which are or can be conceived outside Himself.
You are not getting it! Read the blessed article! Yes, we are members of the holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church – just not the ROMAN CATHOLIC Church. Sorry to “shout” but you are not understanding. If you read the EWTN article, the penny will surely drop.
Now, goodbye!
For the history of “Roman Catholic” visit https://www.ewtn.com/faith/tea…
A Protestant coinage, no Catholic should ever use it.
Mmmm, and yet an Infallible Council did 🙂
I don’t know why you say, Goodbye, I say hello
You’re not understanding, Sweetie Pie. Last attempt: it’s the putting together, as the name of the Church, “RC”, that is wrong. Yes, it’s Roman, yes, it’s apostolic, yes it’s Catholic – it’s just not “The Roman Catholic Church” – can you see the difference? That name has never been used by any Council – not even the entirely fallible Vatican II! Even in the earliest days of the Church it was referred to as the Catholic Church. But,shucks, if you want to promote the idea that the Roman church is a mere part of the Catholic Church (just like the Anglo-Catholics) go ahead, Honey Bunch.
Oh and I say goodbye, Sugar Plum, because I’m up to my eyes with important thingumyjigs… and I know from hard experience that if someone is determined to believe something, no matter the evidence to the contrary (think evolutionists) there’s nobody on the face of the earth can help them, not even moi…
So enjoy life as a Roman Catholic. I’m sticking to being a Scots Catholic, committed to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed.
O, schnookims, don’t run oft because I do not accept your dogmatic instructions regarding language.
If you took some time to read the entry “Roman Catholic” in the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia, you’d see that even a Roman Catholic Cardinal used that description of himself.
There is a sentence in the entry on St Augustine in the same Encyclopedia which reads –Luther and Calvin were content to treat Augustine with a little less irreverence than they did the other Fathers, but their descendants do him full justice, although recognizing him as the Father of Roman Catholicism.
And then there is our dialogue with Lutherans in which we, collectively, refer to our own selves as Roman Catholics:
1.The doctrine of justification was of central importance for the Lutheran Reformation of the sixteenth century. It was held to be the “first and chief article”[1] and at the same time the “ruler and judge over all other Christian doctrines.”[2] The doctrine of justification was particularly asserted and defended in its Reformation shape and special valuation over against the Roman Catholic Church and theology of that time, which in turn asserted and defended a doctrine of justification of a different character. From the Reformation perspective, justification was the crux of all the disputes. Doctrinal condemnations were put forward both in the Lutheran Confessions[3] and by the Roman Catholic Church’s Council of Trent. These condemnations are still valid today and thus have a church-dividing…
Trying taking a lovely powder and calm down before the vapors do to you what Parkinson has done to Clinton 🙂
Priceless.
Listen, I know that cardinals all over the place are using it – goodness every Catholic diocesan website across Christendom is emblazoned “Roman Catholic Diocese of X Y Z”
So, listen, you keep on using the term if you like it so much. I’m NOT a Roman Catholic, I know that the Council of Trent Fathers went out of their way not to use it, since it had just been coined by the Protestant rebels, and it is nowhere to be found EVEN in the documents of Vatican II, but hey, if it’s used here and there by people ignorant of its origins and you can’t see any problem with it, on you go. I am a Scots Catholic who gave you a link to a very short history of the term, but if you still want to use it, good luck to you.
As for your insulting instruction to me to “calm down” – it’s always a weakness when you make nasty personal remarks. I’m perfectly calm to the point of being hysterically amused (so to speak!) at all the research you are doing on this – you seem to be reading anything and everything except the article I originally posted with the indisputable history of the term! “Calm”? I can’t keep a straight face!
‘Bye now – no need to reply to this as I’ve got your drift. Enjoy your Roman Catholicism in, er, whichever part of the world you are living! Right now I’m off to work on a piece on the USA election candidates for our blog, with a view to discussing Catholic principles for voting but given that so few can even get the name of their Church right, I’m not holding out much hope for the next Government of the US! Laugh? I thought I’d never start!
God bless!
Ha. You started the name calling, Sweetie Pie, Sugar Plum, and yet you are swooning over my reponse asking you to calm down.
Notice the complete sentence with its use of “powders’ for then you can get really upset because powders were used by old women a long time ago.
I was having sport with your pedantry but you are too tightly wound to enjoy some rhetorical sparring.
I get it, the end his near
pax tecum
O, I am also a member of the new israel and my Capital is in Rome but I understand your nationalism vis a vis Scotland because scotch and salmon.
Adios, my friend, from a Roman Catholic 🙂
The Akita apparition has been proven to be NOT approved. I don’t have the article to hand but if you Google, you will find it.
God gives His grace where he wills and when He wills, Long-Skirts. It’s not fair to say the FFI “caved”.
“The knock-out blow of Satan
has been to cause disobedience
in the name of obedience.”
…and that’s exactly why Hilary White nailed it in this piece. But if it is God’s will that the Society be crushed and forced to rebuild, so be it.
But crushed how? They own their chapels and their seminaries. They still have their bishops. They run everything autonomously now and have done so for decades. What sort of “trap” would prevent them simply from falling back to the status quo ante? And if they could really get all that Bishop Fellay said was on the table how could they reasonably refuse?
Unless someone can present a reasonable picture of what “trap” would be so effective that it would prevent the SSPX from simply reverting back to their current status, then I think the naysayers are being too paranoid and timid by half.
I don’t care to predict that beyond what Hilary already laid out. I have a feeling that the unexpected is becoming the norm.
Think about it: the flourishing of traditional monasticism in Norcia is one of the best things that has happened in the post-conciliar Church. It was becoming an absolute refuge for people from all over who were seeking the literal Benedict option.
Two weeks of earthquakes have shattered that reality. There is no sacramental life left in Norcia. The monks are scattered. Politics is working hand in hand with natural destruction to suppress a revival.
Nothing is certain. The devil is running amok and God seems withdrawn, for reasons only He knows.
Who shall crush who?
Let these good and holy priests of SSPX come and be regularized.
If the SSPX order is truly an order of priests for Christ and His Church, which I believe it to be…..then would it not be good for them to in communion with Rome?
If they are done a dirty deal, let the laity in large see for themselves.
I wonder if the pope underestimates the zeal of this order and of the laity that will follow.
Steve:
you make an excellent point, and it is true, Rome could try to crush them. But we have all been given crosses. H.E. Lefebvre’s constant cry was simply a call to let him make an “experiment of tradition”. That’s all he wanted.
He did not ask to be allowed to open chapels in dioceses without permission. Rome offers this now.
He did not ask to be allowed to form new orders independently. Rome offers this now – independent of the new regulations.
He did not ask that laymen be allowed to associate themselves with the SSPX. Rome is now offering this through a Prelature.
He did not ask to be allowed to incorporate current orders under the SSPX. Rome offers this now.
He did not ordain Bishops intending to provide them jurisdiction, and in fact, put a Priest in charge of the SSPX. Rome offers real jurisdiction now.
He did not ask for any of these things. They are now being offered. It is more than Lefebvre ever requested.
We have all been asked to carry crosses, and they will hate us, because they hated Him. Unity with Peter is essential. I would argue that the SSPX are already in union with Peter. However, Peter wants to regularize this situation, evidently providing the SSPX protections.
In point of fact, what is being offered is in complete capitulation to the SSPX’s three demands dating from 2012. 1. Freedom to criticize the teachings; 2. Exclusive use of the 1962 rite, and 3. commitment of at least one Bishop.
Rome is giving the SSPX exactly what they demanded as their three preconditions.
If the SSPX does not accept this, I find it hard to believe they were ever negotiating in good faith.
And, this is from someone who grew up near Ridgefield, CT, has known the SSPX his whole life, attended their masses (though infrequently) in the past, and sends my kids to HFA.
They are now being offered more than Lefebvre ever was.
That’s certainly true, based on information released to date. Had this deal been offered to Lefebvre….well at any point in the 70’s, and probably into the late 80’s, I think it is very hard to believe he would not take it. It’s even possible he might have taken it at certain points in 1988-1991.
The obvious rebuttal is that this is 2016, not 1976 or 1986. Different circumstances, different pope, different people. And Fellay does not command the same kind of moral authority over his people that Lefebvre did. And Fellay needs to be sure that most of his people – clergy and laity – will actually follow him into a new arrangement.
It fulfills ALL of the 2012 SSPX preconditions.
It seems to do so. But it’s apparent – and you can see the posts saying this in this very combox – that many in the Society have been insisting on a larger condition: No deal until Rome returns to tradition. It feels like moving goalposts, but there has been a growing push in the Society toward erecting that goalpost for many years now.
Yes, there has. There are also those who labor under an illusion that this will happen without the help of the SSPX. That of course, inverts the purpose of exactly what Lefebvre wanted to achieve.
Now is the time. They are getting what they requested only four years ago in 2012. If fact, they are getting more than that, because, as Father Thouvenot noted in 2012 in the National Catholic Register there were:
…three other “desirable conditions” for reunification. These are “a separate ecclesiastical court” within the Church’s wider judicial system, the “exemption of the houses of the SSPX from the diocesan bishops” and the creation of a pontifical commission in Rome “for the tradition” that would be directly under the direction of the Pope, with “the majority of the members and the president in favor of tradition.”
To me, it looks like they are also getting the first two of the other “desirable conditions”.
The risk is there, and no one doubts that there are people in Rome who would love to squash the Society like a bug.
But in fairness, the FFI was in a much more vulnerable position, canonically, because they were under the Congregation for Religious rather than Ecclesia Dei (and never established as a formally EF group); and they were undone because priests within the FFI formally protested to Rome. I gather that what is being offered to the Society now is an even more robust arrangement that the Ecclesia Dei groups get. Which would not make them impervious, to be sure. But no canonical arrangement can substitute for a lack of virtue (esp. courage) on the part of those depending on it.
Paul, good to hear from you. Just wanted to comment on a few points that stood out. You wrote, “Frankly, no one in the Society leadership needs to be told, “Communion with the Roman Pontiff is *essential* to Catholicism”.
Correct, which is why I praised Bishop Fellay for stressing the point. As another commented above, “Ecclesial communion is evidently no big thing to [White] but it is for Bishop Fellay. He has expressed his very real concerns of separation from Rome and the consequences it has on those Priests and faithful who are SSPX adherents.”
You wrote: “It is not the Society that created this situation, but the “Vatican II Church”, as *it began to call itself* after the Council (that is not Archbishop Lefebvre’s term). But, you reject that position – that’s relevant to the question of regularization, isn’t it?”
Certainly relevant, but I disagree that the fault lies entirely on the side of the “Vatican II Church”. Interestingly, it was Michael Davies’s biography of Abp. Lefebvre that convinced me of that.
You projected out: “Ten years from now, a substantial number of Society priests are more “loyal” to Vatican bureaucracy than to the Faith. The new wave of Kaspers and Marxes now put their plan in action, severely mutating or suppressing the Society’s work.”
Frankly, after reading this my thought was that you have a rather bleak view of the formation and fortitude of the priests of the SSPX, if a significant number of them can be flipped in just ten years. It also leaves completely on one side the potential positive influence the Society could have on the Church at large over those same 10 years. I have wondered, if the Society had reconciled sooner and the traditional movement had moved forward vigorously with a unified front and reached a much greater degree of normalcy within the life of the Church, whether our present Pontiff would even have been elected. We’ll never know, obviously.
“Society leadership is powerless to stop it without ripping apart the present prelature.”
Certainly having to back out to the status quo ante would be a messy business, with many embittered souls and spiritual casualties. But I don’t think you’ve made the case that 5 or 10 years in the grip of the “Vatican II Church” would render this tactical retreat so certainly impossible that the SSPX is now free to pass up offers from Rome that far surpass anything that Abp. Lefebvre himself ever asked for.
If things are as Bp. Fellay describes them then I think the Society has no choice but to accept and trust in God’s providence.
I think at times we bury our heads in strategy and tactics, as if this truly is a war of flesh and blood. It is not, as has been promised. This is not to say that Providence needs no assistance from us, but for pete’s sake, I think +Fellay has earned the benefit of the doubt. Much has been said behind closed doors, and the notion that someone not privy to all of the details coming to firm conclusions about the future based on incomplete info about past and present is…odd. And regarding Francis, I think it’s important to realize that even Caiaphas was capable of prophecy – and I doubt he could be accused of being a swell guy.
Cheers,
Nathan J. Harder
Now, a part of me says the SSPX is five moves ahead of the snakes in the Vatican. But that only happens in the movies.
Rejecting the offer could give Rome the pretext to enact all the horrors predicted here. If the Society is, as it claims, part of the Church then it is still under the Pope’s jurisdiction. Is it not?
Assuming there are indeed malignant intentions by some in power in Rome, and assuming the canonical arrangements are as Bp. Fellay has described them . . . I am left to wonder – if indeed the Society is not asked to affirm anything more than they’re willing to do – whether they should not just take the risk and take the deal. And go right on saying just what they’ve been saying, at the same volume and pitch they’ve been using all along.
If Rome attempts a unjust discipline, it is only efficacious to the extent that the Society leadership allows it to be.
Meanwhile, the Society gains the opportunity to reach a lot of Catholics it cannot easily reach now.
Circumstances change, of course, and 2016 is not the 1970s or the 1980’s, nor is Francis Paul VI or John Paul II; but there was a long stretch of time where, based on all evidence we have, Archbishop Lefebvre would have taken a deal like this.
He would have taken the deal? No, not under current circumstances.
I think everyone is being paranoid. I understand the concerns I too find AL troubling to say the least. One thing some people don’t realize is that traditional groups are not viewed as a threat they don’t think people are going to flock to these communities or at least they don’t want to see it. They view the SSPX and other such groups like isn’t that “nice” they like the old liturgy. They think its all about aesthetics. I sincerely doubt this is a trap to suppress the TLM they haven’t done so yet they’ve allowed new groups to from and ordained their priests. The SSPX is getting what they asked for without compromising. They can not push female alter servers or “deaconess” they don’t have the authority. and I trust the Holy Spirit with his Church this deaconess commission would be fruitless and a waste of breathe and ink. I think the Pope is being sincere just like he is using the more bee with honey than with vinegar approach with LGBT and the divorced and remarried crowd( I agree this is a bad approach if its at the expense of truth because it does not bring true conversion) he is using the same approach with the Society and l letting them do they’re thing so bring them into the fold. thats just my 2 cents I am sure 90% of you guys disagree and thats fine we won’t know until the society is regularized.
What if the rest of the Novus Ordo part of the Church which constitutes almost 99.9% of the Roman rite of the Catholic Church was “normalized?”
You’ve hit the nail on the head!
We have to keep praying; I red some days ago the conference and I didn´t understand either why he said “this cannot come but from friends”. Who could trust these guys? I have defended him; I don´t know now what´s going on. I have heard many conferences, his and from other priests, stating very clear that any agreement is imposible because of the level to Vatican´s apostasy. How can we trust these guys want something good for Tradition? They hate it. It´s the only wall they could find to stop them from surrounding openly to this corrupt world. I´m not in panic mode, yet, but concerned. What is going to happen to us, who have “burnt our ships” for Tradition? Worse, what is going to happen to the Church?
From 1 Corinthians:. “Do you not know that a little yeast leavens all the dough?
Clear out the old yeast, so that you may become a fresh batch of dough,
inasmuch as you are unleavened.” The real question here is, who is the leaven or who will “leaven” who? Most precarious.
From 1 Corinthians:. “Do you not know that a little yeast leavens all the dough?
Clear out the old yeast, so that you may become a fresh batch of dough,
inasmuch as you are unleavened.” The question is: which is the leaven or who will “leaven” who? Most precarious.
First, I am willing to give Bp Fellay the benefit of the doubt. As you know, much of these negotiations are kept secret so we may not be getting the full story. It is a pity +fellay has allowed this- Archbishop Lefebvre didn’t, and repeated everything ASAP. I believe Rome is exploiting this policy of secrecy to cause confusion and split the SSPX.
Having said that, If Bishop Fellay was a salesman, going by this sales pitch, I’d swear he was selling snake oil!
There are so many holes!
In addition to what Hilary points out, here are some more:
1) what happened to the Superiors Statement of June 29th? This said there wasn’t going to be an agreement until there was a Pope favourable to Tradition. His excellency omits mention of it completely.
2) +Fellay states that he is waiting to see whether Rome reneges on the promise that we don’t have to accept V2. But both Card. Muller and the Pope himself have clarified this already stating that the SSPX WILL have to accept V2. This was pointed out by none other than Bishop Galaretta at the ordinations in Winona this year. Why is his Excellency pretending it never happened?
3) His Excellency says that he is not prepared to place the SSPX under the control of local bishops. Good. Yet, in the 2012 proposal, at the very least he was willing to accept that the SSPX would not be able to open new missions without the local ordinary’s approval. I would have thought this was ‘bishops control’, but since his Excellency has never publicly retracted and/or apologised for this position we are left to wonder if this constitutes meaningful ‘bishops control’ in his Excellency’s mind, and if not, we are left to wonder what does!
4) His Excellency says that he is not prepared to accept that the New Mass is legitimate. But in 2012 he DID say that the ‘New Mass… (was) legitimately promulgated’. It is not exactly the same thing… slightly nuanced… but for practical purposes it means the same. Again, his Excellency has not publicly retracted and/or apologised for this position so we are left wondering if he even realises there is an issue with it. And if he doesn’t realise there is an issue, Is he still willing to accept this position?
I was hoping for a great deal of clarification when I began listening to his talk. I finished up with even more questions than before.
This is not good.
Then why not just stop?
You’re overestimating the intelligence of the Pope. He’s quite capable of bouncing happily from one day “new rules for contemplatives” to the next day “union with the SSPX” to the next day “why do Philippinos breed like rabbits?”
Yes and this is the natural end of a man-centered religion. Utter babble. Tower of Babel babble.
Actually sometimes in the overwhelming sense of foreboding and despair I feel we are overestimating the life expectancy of the Pope.
Look at it this way . May be just maybe this is the SSPX’s best ever chance of full reconciliation. The day after reconciliation, Francis tips over. How’s that for Divine Providence in action?
Not always sure that he’s as dumb as he seems. Here is another case where he seems to be fooling men that seem much smarter.
We must have Faith. As egregious as Francis’ actions oftentimes are, remember we are speaking of the Holy Father.
The Tridentine rite is evidently superior to the NO, but are NO Masses valid? Certainly. Throughout the entire world the Body and Blood of Christ is present in NO Masses. The graces poured out throughout the entire world (which is why in many respects the corruption of the Church is leading to corruption of the world).
Although much has been ruined by licentious life and perverse doctrine on the part of many (most?) of its members we must never forget that it IS the Church. We honor the Pope because of the authority granted to him by Christ. The Church is one.
Regularization of the SSPX will be a powerful bulwark within the Church in the counter-revolution against Modernism. Don’t get me wrong, the heretics within the gates will most definitely attempt to crush Traditionalist (read: orthodox) Catholics but we have God on our side and we WILL prevail.
Let our battle cry be: Christus Vincit, Christus Regnat, Christus Imperat! God wills it!
Of which Holy Father are you speaking?
‘Its a trap’ type SSPX traddies put on spiritual blinders as to the seriousness of being in communion with the Holy Father. Intimately wrapped up with Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus is the ex-cathedra statement that “it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” As stated by other Pontiffs this subjection is not in word only but by deed as well. The watering down of EENS has infected trads to the point that they no longer take this seriously yet it’s a salvation issue. Obviously some distinctions could be made as to what this subjection consists of but if the Pope unilaterally offers the SSPX the opportunity of a canonical recognition, of being subject to the Roman Pontiff in deed and not just word, to reject that offer in my opinion would make things crystal clear; that the SSPX has become (if they aren’t already) truly schismatic. I would welcome that sort of clarity although it’s not the outcome I’m praying for.
Hillary White’s piece seems devoid of this crucial salvation aspect of communion – she seems to see a natural edifice in which one can come and go as they wish without consequence. Ecclesial communion is evidently no big thing to her but it is for Bishop Fellay. He has expressed his very real concerns of separation from Rome and the consequences it has on those Priests and faithful who are SSPX adherents. It is a very subtle line, a very dangerous line, and a substantial number of both SSPX Priest and faithful have stepped over it at times; either to the ‘resistance’, towards ‘independent Chapels’ or even to sedevacantism.
Hillary states:
“What would all the Trads in the world do if there were an SSPX haven to go to that was free of those pesky doubts about jurisdiction or “schism”? They’d flock to it, right? Everyone would. Priests as well as laity. I would. You would. We’d be crazy not to, right?”
One can infer that Hillary does not attend SSPX for one of those ‘pesky doubts about jurisdiction’ yet she desires them to remain in that state of doubt for apparently polemical reasons, of seeing someone confront the modernist facade of the Catholic Church. I highly doubt that being officially recognized within the Church would extinguish the SSPX polemic. In fact Bp. Fellay has already mentioned that they would not tone it down; they are who they are.
At the end of the day it would be best to have some faith in Bishop Fellay’s decision, who has the grace of state, has shown himself to be a prayerfully humble servant of God, has shown himself to be a wise leader, strong enough to handle the internal commotion within his association, and let him do this without spreading fear and distrust by saying he’s falling into a trap. There is already the SSPX Resistance group which had the same distrust and lack of confidence in the SSPX leadership as Hillary is expressing – as wrong as I think they are they at least had the guts to separate themselves. Perhaps Hillary would like to root for them instead? The SSPX is what it is and I trust Bishop Fellay’s direction and would question anyone who thinks he’s some gullible, wide eyed, fool walking right into a trap.
Interesting comment and, much as I admire Miss White’s writing, I tend to agree. But these waters are a bit too deep for me. Certainly I pray for discernment and needed graces for Bishop Fellay.
This sparring has a peculiar, deep character that does not invite. I do feel that they should not hurry to make accommodations to Rome.
To trust Bergoglio is insanity.
+++++++++++++ being quotes++++++++++++
The Roman Catechism
Those Who Are Not Members Of The Church
Hence there are but three classes of persons excluded from the Church’s pale: infidels, heretics and schismatics, and excommunicated persons. Infidels are outside the Church because they never belonged to, and never knew the Church, and were never made partakers of any of her Sacraments. Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted. It is not, however, to be denied that they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, inasmuch as they may be called before her tribunals, punished and anathematized. Finally, excommunicated persons are not members of the Church, because they have been cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent.
Baltimore Catechism
169e. When does a baptized person separate himself from full incorporation in the Mystical Body by schism?
A baptized person separates himself from full incorporation in the Mystical Body by schism when he openly refuses obedience to the lawful authorities of the Church, particularly to the Pope.
Catechism of Pope Pius X
68 Q. Must the faithful be in union with their Bishop?
A. Yes, all the faithful, ecclesiastic and lay, should be united heart and soul with their Bishop, who is in favour and communion with the Apostolic See.
16 Q. Who are schismatics?
A. Schismatics are those Christians who, while not explicitly denying any dogma, yet voluntarily separate themselves from the Church of Jesus Christ, that is, from their lawful pastors.
Schism Today
schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” [Code of Canon Law c.751]
+++++++++++++ end quotes++++++++++++++++
Diabolical disorientation is not limited to liberal liberals, it has also infected the intellects of the liberal trads and as for the protestants in Fiddlebacks, The SSPX, it is now considered by many soi disant trads to not be a schism despite the multimillenial year existence of the definition of schism and its concomitant condemnation.
Yes, Virginia, we Catholics now not only deny a schism is a schism, we identify it as the only way Jesus will preserve His Catholic Church.
Iff the SSPX is right, Jesus, it must be confessed, has failed to keep His promises and the Catholic Church has failed and so one must seek salvation in a schism – even though it isn’t a schism (Who you gonna believe, your lying eyes or a sspx apologist?) because Jesus chose an excommunicated Mons to save His church through Lefebvre’s establishment of a rival episcopacy in his schism.
Yes, this is all beginning to make perfect sense. To save His Church that He has always been the head of, Jesus chose to save it by supporting the man who created a rival Episcopacy to His own Pope and Bishops in His own Church.
As for the Schism of Mons Lefebvre, who established a rival Episcopacy, whatever he did he did for just cause (Even thought St Augustine, and others, taught there can never be a just cause for a schism) according to many in the soi disant trad camp.
So, Communion with the Pope and those Bishops and Laity in union with the Pope, is considered surrender to evil and that just illustrates how it is the sspx has become the new orthodox schism and how the Pope and the Bishops in union with him are heretical frauds.
Well, Mons Lefebvre did say someone the Hierarchy had spiritual AIDS and that Rome had lost the Faith and Fellay said the church had generalized cancer and so the annealed sspx schism can n to be expected to have communion with we sickly and degenerate people(we really are a basket of degenerate deplorables); it must remain a schism of purity, like the Dentists.
This is what has become of Catholic Tradition in the internet age – open attacks on bishops and Pope and full-throated defense of a schism with warnings that it had better not reconcile with Rome.
The sspx has created a monster (three generations of children taught that Rome is the heretical enemy) and it is so deluded it thinks it can cut a deal with the man they consider the main heretic in Rome and those who succor it will go along with the deal peacefully?
Fat chance.
I am not connected to them but I view sspx differently and as not in schism.
Their entire existence and their praxis fit the description of schism throughout the entirety of Tradition but that doesn’t mean they are a schism?
OK, that is par for the course now-a-days
If I’m wrong, as apparantly I am, I’m not the sort to be offended by being told outright.
Me either. In fact, I got used to be told I am wrong so many times that it doesn’t bother me at all.
The Lefevbre Schism was predicted in 1968 by a “Wanderer” Priest LONG before it happened:
“Fr. Richard Ginder, a former columnist for The Wanderer. In his short book, 1968, Thou Art the Rock, when referring to the separation of the “wheat and the tares” that took place between Luther igniting the revolt and the Treaty of Westphalia (1517-1648), Fr. Ginder noted the following:”
It is the old story of the tares among the wheat. It took 131 years to make a separation once before but with the advance in communications media, we shall not have to wait so long this time. But we shall see it. It will come – very likely in the shape of a heretical sect attributing primacy of honour but refusing jurisdiction to the Holy Father, at the same time proclaiming themselves the only True Believers.
Can. 1373 A person who publicly incites his or her subjects to hatred or animosity against the Apostolic See or the Ordinary because of some act of ecclesiastical authority or ministry, or who provokes the subjects to disobedience against them, is to be punished by interdict or other just penalties.
Maybe Hillary White could write some remarks about how she has been able to do what she has been doing without punishment owing to our current state of antinomianism to say nothing about the SSPX itself.
O, but of course that Canon does not apply to the SSPX Hierarchy because emergency
I hope Bishop Fellay asks for 6 Cardinals, for each of the inhabited continents because you just know that if you have just one lowly Bishop…the modernist pope of that day will attempt to execute the FFI manuever or demand one of their own ‘oversee’, for mutual trust they’ll say, but really it will be a worm to eat out the solidness and leave compromised wormwood, AS INTENDED. I went to Jesuit University. Every traditional/conservative club always had a requisite professor who always found a way to stop or put a “governor” on any and all activities designed to reach out to the rest of the student body in a unique,effective and many times, events that would amuse and shock others to admit the status quo absurdity. Invariably, the event, the free speech, the appeal to just listen in a unique was stopped entirely, modified to the point of ineffectiveness or interrupted in the middle of the event saying that it/we were offending sensibilities and good taste. When our Catholic Club (which was formed to be an alternative to the leftist, feminist, milquetoast Administratively Approved “God Squad’ aka the Catholic Counseling Team. It never worked. Our ideas were changed, modified or completely ruined by their minutia. For instance, we had 5 or 6 women who were going to be relaying the horrors of abortion and their experience in the street when they did. It shocked the senses with accurate picture, posters and banners showing the handiwork of abortionists. We even had a woman who had survived her mother’s attempt to abort her. She was there with her reconciled mother. BUT, the ADMINISTRATION had other ideas! Our Professor/Advisor had sabotaged the event!! Counter protesters from NARAL there with their bullhorns and the aggressive physicality against anyone who tried to speak. It turned into a “freaking” disaster. No one was convinced of anything except that the Right to Life People and the ‘Pro-Choice’ people were equally shrill, aggressive, looking for a fight kind of people: ZEALOTS who could not possibly have the truth. The harder we fought to get our message our, the harder they worked to disrupt. Finally, the University Official sent the Campus Police to shut the entire thing down as public nuisance. It didn’t matter by then, anyway. The crowd, which initially seemed receptive to listening was turned off and convinced the we, the Catholic Pro Lifers, had amped up the confrontation and were the real problem. Some of us got arrested. None of them did.
I say this as a friend. Beware. Promises are sweetness and light when made, but predictable when they are broken by people who NEVER intended to honor your agreement. The modernist crowd, led by their lying, deceiving, willing to subvert or suppress tradition in a nanosecond leader, Pope Francis has not dealt fairly with traditionalists, EVER, and is constantly trying to change doctrine or put men like Cardinal Blaise Cupich in key positions while sowing darkness, confusion and calculated treason during the Synod on the Family. I have been attending both the SSPX and FSSP Masses for some time, depending on my locale. More needs to be given by Pope Francis I and more assurances demanded by Bishop Fellay, especially non-interferance. Hillary is right…as always. She has great instincts. You get these instincts are fighting lefties, rabid atheists, delusional utopians, angry feminists and strident, non-sensical, violent communists.
I am disappointed in how many people urge +Fellay to refuse an offer from Francis.
+Fellay is no fool, he is patient, cautious and pragmatic. He has already said “no” to the Vatican before, so we know already he is not desperate to accept a deal. He has recently said again that a formal canonical status is not the main preoccupation of the Society, rather it is to form priests.
I do not see any danger in the SSPX accepting an offer. If the nay-sayers were proved right, and the offer was a trojan horse designed to allow modernists to try to suppress the SSPX, then the Society could simply revert back to the current situation.
As it turns out, I do not think the offer is a trojan horse. I think the approach of Francis is to be open to anyone and everything – look at his “nod and wink” approach to allowing adulterers communion. I think his view is (to his own mind) even handed – if he is open to those who break rules and scorn ideals, he must be open to those who value rules and ideals. In most cases, his approach is catastrophic for the Church, (as per communion for adulterers), but in the case of the SSPX, it may prove beneficial as well as deliciously ironic.
The only possible dangers to the SSPX in my view are:
– any scenario where they lose control over their own assets (churches, property, schools, funds etc). However this does not seem likely, give the offer grants them autonomy from local diocesan structures. I do not think +Fellay would accept loss of control of assets as a condition of a deal anyway.
– entryism where modernists join the Society and then attempt to subvert it from the inside. This does not seem likely either because (i) the men who run the SSPX are not naive fools and (ii) any such scheme would likely result in the modernists being converted (through exposure) to the true faith, rather than vice-versa.
Any agreement in life includes both parties exposing themselves to a double-cross, I think the SSPX should move forward with good intentions, but with their eyes wide open.
“Modern” Catholicism is a puerile empty vessel. It has the blind leading the blind and is every bit as superficial as the protestantism it tries so hard to mimic. In a confrontation with the authentic Catholic faith, it will be the faux-Catholicism of the post-conciliar era which will be crushed, not the SSPX.