Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: LordPhan on September 19, 2011, 10:24:15 PM
-
This article was posted by John Vennari Editor of Catholic Family News, he is a very intelligent man, I have been at a conference of his held at my SSPX chapel.
Society of St. Pius X “Regularization”
Not as Easy as You Think
By John Vennari
The September 14 letter from the Vatican to the Society of St. Pius X has launched a wave of premature celebration.
Though the contents of the “doctrinal preamble” sent by the Vatican are still under wraps, Bishop Fellay indicated in his September 14 interview that it contains some sort of doctrinal statement the SSPX will be expected to sign, and an invitation to proceed to the next step toward canonical recognition.
The proposed recognition for the SSPX appears to be that of a personal prelature along the lines of Opus Dei.
When Bishop Fellay requests at the end of his interview that we increase our Rosaries and prayers for the SSPX for “the graces of light and strength that we need more than ever”, he is not uttering a mere pious platitude. In the court of public opinion, the pressure on the Bishop Fellay and the SSPX is colossal.
From all sides, we hear calls for Bishop Fellay to take this “deal” and run with it, on the false premise that it is now-or-never for the SSPX, as conditions may never be so favorable again in the foreseeable future for “regularization”.
Those who urge this hasty approach have not thought the matter through. The last thing Bishop Fellay and the SSPX will sign is an Obamacare-styled “we have to pass the bill so we can see what’s in it” agreement. No, the steps towards proposed regularization have to be approached with great caution – a caution that will necessary take more than a couple of months of deliberating.
The SSPX will have to make sure it has examined the matter thoroughly, scrutinized all the implications of regularization, and be prepared to say ‘no’ – against tremendous pressure – if all details are not sorted out in advance.
We should not be surprised if Bishop Fellay approaches any type of canonical proposal with caution and reserve. I speak as one who has been directly involved with the traditional movement for over 30 years, and who has seen a number of regularization agreements turn sour. Though Catholic Family News does not represent the Society of St. Pius X in any way, we fully support Bishop Fellay in this cautious approach.
Here are just some of the 1,001 questions that need to be answered before any canonical agreement is reached:
• How will diocesan bishops react in the long term to SSPX bishops regularly stepping into their dioceses to perform the sacrament of Confirmation, especially when the bishops knows the congregation wants the SSPX prelate because it trusts neither the new rite of Confirmation nor the diocesan bishop himself?
• What about opening new Chapels and Mass centers? New schools? New seminaries, as the seminary soon to be constructed in Virginia? Will the Society have to first receive permission from the diocesan bishop – who in many cases is hostile to Tradition? And if so, does this not greatly endanger future growth for the Society?
• How will a Vatican hierarchy, still weakened by modernist thought, withstand the complaints of diocesan bishops – who will see the SSPX as a threat to their power – without compromising the SSPX?
• What about the independent chapels the SSPX are now friendly with, and for whom the SSPX performs Confirmations?
• Will Rome expect the SSPX to cease performing Confirmations in these independent chapels? Will the Vatican expect the SSPX to effectively shun those who have been life-long allies? What kind of guaranteed freedom and protection will the Vatican give the SSPX to continue administering Confirmation to those chapels, the chaplains of which believe in conscience they cannot yet make a canonical agreement with the local bishop?
• How will autonomy of education in SSPX schools be absolutely guaranteed?
• How will autonomy of the counter-revolutionary formation in SSPX seminaries be absolutely guaranteed?
• What are the exact provisions for Consecration of future SSPX bishops?
• What about the religious orders connected with the Society of St. Pius X? What about the SSPX’s relations with the traditional Benedictines? The traditional Dominicans? The traditional Capuchins? The traditional Carmelites?
• Under the proposed “personal prelature”, will the SSPX still be able to support and ordain men for these groups?
• Will these SSPX-affiliated Orders have to change their names and cease calling themselves Dominicans, Benedictines, Carmelites under such an agreement? (When the traditional Transalpine Redemptorists accepted regularization three years ago, the first thing they were forced to do was change their name to “The Sons of the Most Redeemer”, since the Novus Ordo Redemporists would not allow them to use the name “Redemptorists”. Rome immediately backed the modern Redemptorists against the Transalpines).
• What about the Dominican Sisters who teach at SSPX-affiliated schools, two of which are in the United States? Will the SSPX be allowed to continue this affiliation? Will these Dominicans be permitted the same autonomy with the local bishops as the SSPX supposedly will have, and will the traditional Dominican nuns be allowed to retain the “Dominican” title?
• Do not the same questions apply to the SSPX’s affiliation with the Franciscan Sisters in Kansas City?
• Does not the SSPX’s affiliation with the traditional religious orders also entail getting the Vatican’s Sacred Congregation for Religious involved, which will further complicate regularization?
• What about possible ιnѕυrrєcтισn in the ranks if many believe the Vatican is proceeding with a regularization agreement too quickly?
• Do we really believe that any sort of discussion about the legitimacy of the Vatican II will continue after the SSPX is regularized, when the Vatican may then say to itself: “The chase is over, we’ve bagged the game”?
• In any election of a new Prelate for Opus Dei, the Pope must confirm the appointment. If an SSPX prelature is modeled along the lines of Opus Dei personal prelature, will a pro-Vatican II Pope approve a new SSPX leader that most resembles Archbishop Lefebvre, or rather hold out for a leader after his own heart?
• Will a “regularized” SSPX be expected to obtain an Imprimatur for any books it publishes? How will an Imprimatur be obtained for books such as John Paul II – Doubts About a Beatification which questions the beatification of Pope John Paul II; Father Dominique Bourmaud’s superb 100 Years of Modernism; or even yet-unpublished writings of Archbishop Lefebvre that sharply criticize Vatican II and the progressivism of the post-Conciliar hierarchy?
• France’s District Superior of the SSPX just published an honest, necessary and blistering critique of the upcoming pan-religious Assisi meeting – a critique squarely based on the traditional teachings of the Church. Will such public critiques actually be tolerated by Rome if the SSPX is regularized?
• Archbishop Lefebvre said, “If Rome wishes to give us a true autonomy, the one we have now, but with submission, we would want it.” What happens when the SSPX’s understanding of “true autonomy” conflicts with the Vatican’s understanding of “true autonomy”?
• Is there a danger of the SSPX ending up as just another Ecclesia Dei group that is directly or indirectly coerced into just keeping to the Old Mass and shying away from publicly defending the Catholic Faith “whole and entire” against the present modernist onslaught unleashed within the Church for the past 50 years?
• Can Tradition fully operate under a Novus Ordo hierarchy?
These and countless other questions will have to addressed by Bishop Fellay and the SSPX before any sort of realistic canonical agreement can be reached.
The Society of St. Pius X has never taken a pragmatic approach, but has always argued from doctrine, which means it argues from a position of strength. I believe the SSPX will continue its discussions along this strong, doctrinal line.
Bishop Fellay knows the charism of the SSPX is that of its founder: to defend the Faith “whole and entire” without compromise, especially regarding the current errors of the day. He knows the duty of the priest requires nothing less.
It is primarily the priest’s obligation to lead us in the battle to defend the Faith. Saint Thomas Aquinas did not leave it to the laity to combat the Manichees. St. Francis de Sales did not leave it the laity to combat Protestantism. We laity have our part, but it belongs to the nature of the priesthood to publicly defend the Faith.
This is why we loved Archbishop Lefebvre. He led us in the battle.
Of course, every sermon does not have be an assault on Vatican II and the New Mass, but it is the priest’s responsibility to warn his flock against prevalent errors that undermine the Faith and destroy souls. And tragically, the greatest assault on the Catholic Faith in our day comes from Vatican II, the contemporary hierarchy, and the revolutionary Polish Pope whom Benedict just beatified.
How will a “regularized” SSPX be guaranteed the ability to fight this counter-revolutionary battle unimpeded?
This myriad of questions now weighs on Bishop Fellay and on the Society of St. Pius X. A consideration of these questions helps us better understand why Bishop Fellay closed his interview requesting increased prayers and Rosaries for the SSPX for “the graces of light and strength that we need more than ever.”
-
I have posted this in the general forum, because I would like this to be a discussion for those in the SSPX only.
-
I generally agree with what John has said here, I had many of these thoughts myself especially in regards to the Dominicans affiliated with us, also I believe S2SREA made me think about the Independant chapels affiliated with us, at Corpus Christi not only did all of the SSPX chapels in Southern Ontario get to together at St. Catherines but Father Gruner and his Fatima Crusaders from Ft. Erie were there aswell in solidarity.
http://www.cfnews.org/1001questions.htm This is the original link I forgot it.
-
I have posted this in the general forum, because I would like this to be a discussion for those in the SSPX only.
Being a sede doesn't mean one cannot discuss such matters. Discussion of sedevacantism is forbidden, not being a sede.
There is absolutely no reason for these negotiations to be secret.
Bishop Fellay is a Machiavellian character. He says things to keep people placated until the fait accompli of his objectives.
-
Archbishop Lefebvre:
"The Vatican is a masonic lodge"
-
I have posted this in the general forum, because I would like this to be a discussion for those in the SSPX only.
Being a sede doesn't mean one cannot discuss such matters. Discussion of sedevacantism is forbidden, not being a sede.
There is absolutely no reason for these negotiations to be secret.
Bishop Fellay is a Machiavellian character. He says things to keep people placated until the fait accompli of his objectives.
Obviously I asked that Sede's not enter because a) It dosn't concern you and b) I'm not interested in your opinion on the matter.
-
I have posted this in the general forum, because I would like this to be a discussion for those in the SSPX only.
Being a sede doesn't mean one cannot discuss such matters. Discussion of sedevacantism is forbidden, not being a sede.
There is absolutely no reason for these negotiations to be secret.
Bishop Fellay is a Machiavellian character. He says things to keep people placated until the fait accompli of his objectives.
Obviously I asked that Sede's not enter because a) It dosn't concern you and b) I'm not interested in your opinion on the matter.
That's incorrect.
You seem to be seriously lacking in the ability to think. Discussion of sedevacantism and being a sedevacantist are two different things.
But why is that SSPXers are always confusing things? Maybe because that's how they're told to think? It makes it easier for those in charge to run things?
It does concern sedes. Because many SSPX mass attendees are sedes. And probably many priests.
"The Vatican is a masonic lodge."
-Archbishop Lefebvre.
If a masonic lodge is swallowing up a large group of traditional Catholics it's of concern to everyone.
-
Tele, excellent posts.
Like I said before, I hope that all the indications do not lead to their probable conclusion and that Bishop Fellay does not accept the deal. But the SSPX will still have the serious problem of the new orientation -- directed by Fellay's administration and desire to play politics -- with which to deal, even if the Roman docuмent is rejected. Krah will still be in place, the liberalisation of the Society and its distancing from the integrally counter-revolutionary spirit of the Archbishop will not have been halted, and there will be even more odious pressure on the whole Society coming from the struggles with the German apostolate in its sad attempt to placate the Masonic and anti-Catholic German government.
Will Menzingen reject a deal and then also repent of its persecution of Bishop Williamson and its embrace of the chief enemy of the Mystical Body of Christ, the perfidious Jєωs ? One is inclined to doubt the latter regardless of the outcome with Rome. No matter how many concessions from the Vatican, undoubtedly the worst part of any deal with them is the placement of orthodoxy and heresy on the equal footing of "legitimate theological opinions." Shame on anybody who accepts all of the Romans' gifts in exchange for defection on the crucial principle that the Faith is exclusively true and non-negotiable, especially if they are motivated by the low motives of politics in such a betrayal.
-
With how many privileges in the face of the the dioceses would it be necessary to endow the new prelature in order to win Menzingen's coöperation ? If Rome gave thirty such concessions on what can be publicly said and the type of canonical immunities from diocesan interference, would that be enough ? Would the reunion be heralded with the kiss of another Te Deum ?
-
What it all *really* boils down to is this:
By John Vennari
• Can Tradition fully operate under a Novus Ordo hierarchy?
According to the Novus Ordo hierarchy, that answer has always been "no" since +45 years ago - nothing has or even remotely shows any signs of changing far as that goes so why would they want to sign anything?
I find it very hard to understand why on earth the SSPX would sign or join the NO. I mean the NO not only shows no interest whatsoever in anything traditional, they fail to even to acknowledge, let alone admit that there are any problems with the NO. The only problems the NO admit have to do with anything traditional - not a place many trads, let alone the SSPX are even welcome at.
The whole thing seems like a waste of time imo.
-
I can't help but look at what's going on in the SSPX right now and feel concerned. I disagree with Telesphorus on a LOT of things, but he is right about one thing. Archbishop LeFebvre said that if the SSPX were to be excommunicated, it would only mean they are excommunicated from Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. Yet here we are 20 years after the Archbishop's death, watching Bishop Fellay inch closer to accepting a deal with the very people Archbishop LeFebvre said were the ones really outside the Church.
I have supported the SSPX since about the time I became a Traditional Catholic. But for the first time since then, I'm thinking that maybe I should withdraw my status as an SSPXer. I have definitely lost some respect for Bishop Fellay the past year. He silenced his own fellow Bishop and says that sedevacantists are "on a plane with no pilot" but proceeds to say we shouldn't be against the Jєωs? SSPXer or not, you must admit that is illogical.
When I look at what Fellay has done the last year, I can't help but think of how Vatican II slowly took away the parts of the Traditional Latin Mass. They took away the chapel veils, then the altar rails, kneeling for Communion, etc. until they presented the Novus Ordo. Fellay threw Bishop Williamson under the bus for his comments on the h0Ɩ0cαųst, then removed all anti-Jєωιѕн content from the SSPX web-site, tried to get the sedes out of the Society, silenced Bishop Williamson, and now appears to be near a deal with Rome. A striking similarity indeed. According to the preamble, they would have to accept Vatican II and its Magisterium as valid, they could just have the freedom to accept and reject what they wanted to. Should Fellay accept the deal, it would basically be like having a second Fraternity of St. Peter only they wouldn't be quite as soft spoken about the crisis in the Church.
It's obvious why +Williamson was silenced. Fellay knew he would oppose the "regularization" with Rome. And he does. On his blog, +Williamson said he predicted something like this would happen, that Rome would dangle an attractive carrot in front of the Society's face by letting them pick and choose parts of Vatican II. And the reason Rome didn't want Bishop Williamson expelled just yet is quite simple. Their thinking is "Hey, if we're gonna have a one world religion we need to bring everyone in!". That's really the basis behind Benedict lifting their excommunication in the first place.
Looking at Fellay's actions the past year, you can see how things lead up to this offer. It's quite shocking how Fellay went from saying there are four Freemasonic lodges operating in the Vatican, to being close to "becoming one of them" 12 years later. It only shows that at some point he lost his marbles. It is very shocking and sad, and the Society needs our prayers.
-
The Society is a mixed bag of covert sedevecantists, liberal nostalgics and a central core which will go wherever the leadership takes it. That is why there are so many different views around. Regardless of whether it signs or not this time, it will continue on its modernisation path for it to be easier to sign next time. The German zone is already a fan of Rome against its dioceses and along with France has seen a generational drift. One must not be blind to a trend taking place; one intended to integrate better with mainstream religious and political life than in the past. The counter-reformation has run out of steam. Was Lefebvrism really that much of a rebellion or a half-hearted piece of drama in several acts? The finale may not be far off.
-
I can't help but look at what's going on in the SSPX right now and feel concerned. I disagree with Telesphorus on a LOT of things, but he is right about one thing. Archbishop LeFebvre said that if the SSPX were to be excommunicated, it would only mean they are excommunicated from Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. Yet here we are 20 years after the Archbishop's death, watching Bishop Fellay inch closer to accepting a deal with the very people Archbishop LeFebvre said were the ones really outside the Church.[/quot]
You're taking ABL's figurative, but meaningful language, and turning it into a literal statement. ABL never asserted anyone was "outside the Church." He realized, unlike you and many, the import of such an accusation. And need I remind you that ABL held conversation and contacts in Rome for the duration of his ministry. He had private meetings with Popes and other prelates as well. He was certainly open to legal recognition because he understood it would be a great good for the Church. I think you are caving in to a certain characterization of Bishop Fellay that is as unjust as the treatment of ABL was when he was living; a small but vocal body of discontents who never cease looking for an opportunity to spin anything in a negative light. The idea of fraternal charity has given way to an odd sort of tone akin to modern ideological political commentary. Utterly lacking from such commentary is the demands that justice and charity require of Catholics. Even as moral theologians have disagreed about concrete solutions to moral questions, so too will men vary in opinion with regard to the prudential order. Yet, those same theologians would never dream of impugning the character of an equally reputable theologian for coming to a different concrete conclusion. The rashness and sweeping statements made here and elsewhere only serve to injure the very men who are helping the Church; these men are your brothers and fathers. To cast an evil eye upon one for the slightest indication is rather a testament to your own disordered intellect and will.
So if you are going to stick with these inane accusations, at least be precise and specific, not relying upon vague innuendo.
-
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_three/Chapter_68.htm
...Next Tuesday I am to meet Cardinal Ratzinger, who is without a doubtone of the cardinals closest to the Pope. Why am I going to Rome? Why am I going to see Cardinal Ratzinger?
The Pope has appointed him as successor to the late Cardinal Seper. Cardinal Ratzinger's duties include liaising with me, with the Society, not as Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith, but as personal delegate of the Holy Father. When someone says to us, "You're against the Pope. You don't want to be in union with the Pope," they are wrong. We are working only to re establish Tradition in Rome. All my activities have only one purpose : that the Church may go on, that there may be no division in the Church.
But how can we be certain that we are the ones to help the Church carry on? As Our Lord says, "A tree is judged by its fruit." What are the fruits of prayer? The most beautiful fruit of prayer is religious vocations. These souls who come to pray in our chapels are so drawn to Our Lord Jesus Christ that they think, "I've had enough of the world, I no longer want to live in the world, I want to live with Our Lord Jesus Christ, I want to give myself to Jesus forever. I will shut myself up in a convent and give my soul to God."
Where are the real vocations? Where do they come from? Well now, these souls have found their vocation in traditional places of prayer, that is, in the Catholic Church. On the other hand, in the beautiful churches, in the grand cathedrals, there is now a sterility where vocations cannot take root. Or if there are some that take root, they are badly formed, they do not grow as Jesus wishes, as the Church has always wished. Consequently, where the fruits are, there is also the Church, the fruits of sanctity in the Church. For this reason we are sure that the day will corne (God alone knows when) when the Church will see that we are right and congratulate us for maintaining Tradition.
This is why I am going to Rome next Tuesday. After so many visits, will this one be more fruitful than the others? I do not know. But I am doing it as a duty of conscience, so that, when the Good Lord calls me, He will not say that I have done nothing to help re establish Tradition. I am doing all that I can toward this goal. If it is the Good Lord's will that our leaders should in a sense desert us, well, that will be a great tribulation of the Church. But we do not have the right to be discouraged and say, "Since they are not listening to us, let us break with the bishops; there is no longer a Church, it is finished." No, the Church is still with us. If those in positions of leadership are not doing their duty, if they are bad shepherds, that is no reason for us to abandon them. We must trust in Providence. The Good Lord is with His Church; we have no right to abandon the Roman Catholic Church. And in doing everything we have a duty to do, we can be at peace.
Let us continue to pray, to sanctify ourselves and to entrust ourselves to the Blessed Virgin Mary: she is our Mother in heaven who has already overcome all heresies. She will overcome this one too. Let us be confident!
-
You're taking ABL's figurative, but meaningful language, and turning it into a literal statement. ABL never asserted anyone was "outside the Church." He realized, unlike you and many, the import of such an accusation.
Actually, he said that those who called him and the Society schismatics were the real schismatics. ABL was never afraid to speak the truth. And the truth is the Vatican broke away from Tradition in the first place, not the Society.
He had private meetings with Popes and other prelates as well. He was certainly open to legal recognition because he understood it would be a great good for the Church.
But there is a difference. Archbishop LeFebvre said he would never compromise his position, his mission was to convert Rome. Yet here you have Bishop Fellay seriously considering an offer that would require him to accept Vatican II. ABL would never accept such an absurd offer.
I think you are caving in to a certain characterization of Bishop Fellay that is as unjust as the treatment of ABL was when he was living; a small but vocal body of discontents who never cease looking for an opportunity to spin anything in a negative light. The idea of fraternal charity has given way to an odd sort of tone akin to modern ideological political commentary. Utterly lacking from such commentary is the demands that justice and charity require of Catholics.
Unlike most of the critics of ABL and the Society, I support the SSPX and don't dislike Bishop Fellay. I'm only stating the obvious, which is Fellay shouldn't compromise his position just so more laypeople will recognize him. The SSPX was never really "outside the Church" anyway, so why should he care if Novus Ordites think he and the SSPX as schismatic?
-
Stevus, thanks for posting that, but I'm not saying it's wrong to meet with Rome and try to convert them. What I'm saying is Fellay shouldn't accept the offer.
-
Stevus, thanks for posting that, but I'm not saying it's wrong to meet with Rome and try to convert them. What I'm saying is Fellay shouldn't accept the offer.
Et tu , Brute?
PM sent
-
Just came across this oldie but goodie from BXVI. I must admit there is a doubt in my mind as to whether this deal is a trap.
Consider:
"I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole." - Benedict XVI
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html
LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
CONCERNING THE REMISSION OF THE EXCOMMUNICATION
OF THE FOUR BISHOPS CONSECRATED BY ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE
Dear Brothers in the Episcopal Ministry!
The remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated in 1988 by Archbishop Lefebvre without a mandate of the Holy See has for many reasons caused, both within and beyond the Catholic Church, a discussion more heated than any we have seen for a long time. Many Bishops felt perplexed by an event which came about unexpectedly and was difficult to view positively in the light of the issues and tasks facing the Church today. Even though many Bishops and members of the faithful were disposed in principle to take a positive view of the Pope’s concern for reconciliation, the question remained whether such a gesture was fitting in view of the genuinely urgent demands of the life of faith in our time. Some groups, on the other hand, openly accused the Pope of wanting to turn back the clock to before the Council: as a result, an avalanche of protests was unleashed, whose bitterness laid bare wounds deeper than those of the present moment. I therefore feel obliged to offer you, dear Brothers, a word of clarification, which ought to help you understand the concerns which led me and the competent offices of the Holy See to take this step. In this way I hope to contribute to peace in the Church.
An unforeseen mishap for me was the fact that the Williamson case came on top of the remission of the excommunication. The discreet gesture of mercy towards four Bishops ordained validly but not legitimately suddenly appeared as something completely different: as the repudiation of reconciliation between Christians and Jєωs, and thus as the reversal of what the Council had laid down in this regard to guide the Church’s path. A gesture of reconciliation with an ecclesial group engaged in a process of separation thus turned into its very antithesis: an apparent step backwards with regard to all the steps of reconciliation between Christians and Jєωs taken since the Council – steps which my own work as a theologian had sought from the beginning to take part in and support. That this overlapping of two opposed processes took place and momentarily upset peace between Christians and Jєωs, as well as peace within the Church, is something which I can only deeply deplore. I have been told that consulting the information available on the internet would have made it possible to perceive the problem early on. I have learned the lesson that in the future in the Holy See we will have to pay greater attention to that source of news. I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility. Precisely for this reason I thank all the more our Jєωιѕн friends, who quickly helped to clear up the misunderstanding and to restore the atmosphere of friendship and trust which – as in the days of Pope John Paul II – has also existed throughout my pontificate and, thank God, continues to exist.
Another mistake, which I deeply regret, is the fact that the extent and limits of the provision of 21 January 2009 were not clearly and adequately explained at the moment of its publication. The excommunication affects individuals, not institutions. An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope. Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment – excommunication – with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity. Twenty years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return. This gesture was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council. Here I return to the distinction between individuals and institutions. The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.
In light of this situation, it is my intention henceforth to join the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" – the body which has been competent since 1988 for those communities and persons who, coming from the Society of Saint Pius X or from similar groups, wish to return to full communion with the Pope – to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes. The collegial bodies with which the Congregation studies questions which arise (especially the ordinary Wednesday meeting of Cardinals and the annual or biennial Plenary Session) ensure the involvement of the Prefects of the different Roman Congregations and representatives from the world’s Bishops in the process of decision-making. The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.
I hope, dear Brothers, that this serves to clarify the positive significance and also the limits of the provision of 21 January 2009. But the question still remains: Was this measure needed? Was it really a priority? Aren’t other things perhaps more important? Of course there are more important and urgent matters. I believe that I set forth clearly the priorities of my pontificate in the addresses which I gave at its beginning. Everything that I said then continues unchanged as my plan of action. The first priority for the Successor of Peter was laid down by the Lord in the Upper Room in the clearest of terms: "You… strengthen your brothers" (Lk 22:32). Peter himself formulated this priority anew in his first Letter: "Always be prepared to make a defence to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you" (1 Pet 3:15). In our days, when in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel, the overriding priority is to make God present in this world and to show men and women the way to God. Not just any god, but the God who spoke on Sinai; to that God whose face we recognize in a love which presses "to the end" (cf. Jn 13:1) – in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen. The real problem at this moment of our history is that God is disappearing from the human horizon, and, with the dimming of the light which comes from God, humanity is losing its bearings, with increasingly evident destructive effects.
Leading men and women to God, to the God who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith – ecuмenism – is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light – this is interreligious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love "to the end" has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity – this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical Deus Caritas Est.
So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church’s real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who "has something against you" (cf. Mt 5:23ff.) and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents – to the extent possible – in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim him and, with him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?
Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things – arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.
Dear Brothers, during the days when I first had the idea of writing this letter, by chance, during a visit to the Roman Seminary, I had to interpret and comment on Galatians 5:13-15. I was surprised at the directness with which that passage speaks to us about the present moment: "Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’. But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." I am always tempted to see these words as another of the rhetorical excesses which we occasionally find in Saint Paul. To some extent that may also be the case. But sad to say, this "biting and devouring" also exists in the Church today, as expression of a poorly understood freedom. Should we be surprised that we too are no better than the Galatians? That at the very least we are threatened by the same temptations? That we must always learn anew the proper use of freedom? And that we must always learn anew the supreme priority, which is love? The day I spoke about this at the Major Seminary, the feast of Our Lady of Trust was being celebrated in Rome. And so it is: Mary teaches us trust. She leads us to her Son, in whom all of us can put our trust. He will be our guide – even in turbulent times. And so I would like to offer heartfelt thanks to all the many Bishops who have lately offered me touching tokens of trust and affection, and above all assured me of their prayers. My thanks also go to all the faithful who in these days have given me testimony of their constant fidelity to the Successor of Saint Peter. May the Lord protect all of us and guide our steps along the way of peace. This is the prayer that rises up instinctively from my heart at the beginning of this Lent, a liturgical season particularly suited to interior purification, one which invites all of us to look with renewed hope to the light which awaits us at Easter.
With a special Apostolic Blessing, I remain
Yours in the Lord,
BENEDICTUS PP. XVI
-
That text you quoted Stevus is followed by this
"Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim him and, with him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?
These sections caught my attention as well..
"The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life. "
"Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things – arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint. "
I'm not convinced BXVI is up to no good. There are certainly those who will grind the enamel off their teeth if the SSPX accepts though. The next pope is the concern imo. And of course, we won't know until he is elected. And BXVI isn't a trad, nor even orthodox.
I dunno. I've always thought the Society can do more good after a reconciliation, at the very least for the fact the stigma will be lifted and some who won't send their children to their schools now, will then feel free to do so. And certainly their parishes will grow.
So, is snatching a few souls from the grip of modernist Rome worth it ? That's the question in my mind.
-
One has to see these actions with regard to the remnant as part of the reforming work needed to complete the conciliar mission. All doubts concerning the divine nature of Vatican 2 have to be extinguished and its critics gently re-educated. Why is it that the Society is so uncertain of its position that it waits on Rome to guide its future? One hopes the next regime in Rome will be progressive enough for the Society to regain its strength of purpose.
-
I'm not convinced BXVI is up to no good.
This is a letter explaining his actions in which he represents himself as the average person sees him, as someone who is very conservative, authentically Catholic, keeping firm to the teachings of the Church. That's what your typical conservative in the pew believed until very recently. Probably most still do believe it, those who still have the Faith.
I dunno. I've always thought the Society can do more good after a reconciliation, at the very least for the fact the stigma will be lifted and some who won't send their children to their schools now, will then feel free to do so. And certainly their parishes will grow.
Everything that Archbishop Lefebvre worked for will be under the control of modernists.
-
One of the main problems with the SSPX is that it's totalitarian in a way the Church never was. A single bishop without a see enforces public conformity on all sorts of issues on which Catholic teaching is not particularly cut and dried - otherwise you're OUT. Priests are simply thrown out. Now the Church was never like that. When decisions on controversies were made - they were made with real authority.
The machiavellian Bishop Fellay has a tight grip on the Society. It's up to the good priests to stand up to him when the time comes. Many have.
Lay people may have to take extraordinary actions if things get too far out of hand.
-
The tree of arrogance yields very bitter fruits indeed, I wouldn't want to have to eat them. I don't think some of these characters understand what kind of supper they're laying out in front of themselves.
-
I happen to believe the Holy See currently vacant, so those who desire may skip my comments.
* * *
Mr. Vennari has identified a long list of concerns, a very long list. It would take me a long time to add to this list if it was even possible for me to do so. Mr. Vennari was able to come up with these concerns even though he is, as is the rest of the world, ignorant of the contents of the "Preamble". Imagine what he could have suggested had he known what is in that "confidential docuмent". I hope his comments are taken into consideration by the SSPX leadership council.
The SSPX leadership does not seem to trust anyone except its own inner circle and they seem to think that they must do everything in secret when they deal with Rome. I don't know what is going to happen. I've heard a number of SSPX priests say that there won't be any compromise by the bishop, but they don't seem to know what will happen either.
Telesphorus has a good insight about how the Society seems to work. Whether it is the best way to operate or not is open to debate. But it does lead to a lot of concern on the part of a great many people and it limits the advice that open communication can generate. On the other hand, complete openness could generate a lot of unsolicited advice that could cause problems, but it would stop rumors.
What causes the trepidation on the part of so many is Bishop Fellay's track record--e.g., concerning expulsion of priests, treatment of Bishop Williamson, the excising of some of Archbishop Lefebvre's online archive, and comments that sound suspiciously like the Conciliar church (e.g., Jєωs as elder brothers, etc.).
-
I completely agree, TKGS.
-
Everything that Archbishop Lefebvre worked for will be under the control of modernists.
Well, that is true. Are the modernists as much in control today as they were when JPII was still alive ? Or has modernism poisoned so many of the clergy it doesn't matter ?
And just to speculate......
Last time Rome made an offer, it was more an ultimatum and the Society said no. What happens if they say no this time ? A schism declared ?
Also, what if they sign, and then for whatever reason see it as a mistake, and pull back out ? Is that even possible ? I haven't seen that scenario discussed.
-
Thanks for sharing this article. :cheers:
-
Who knows, maybe the unpleasant fact that the only way to join Rome is to sell one's soul through doctrinal compromise in exchange for the world having a higher opinion of the Society is what is necessary for the wool to be removed from Bishop Fellay's eyes ? Archbishop Lefebvre saw more clearly in a smilar dilemma, when Rome set the perametres of the fight out for him and he realised they were uninterested in the Catholic Faith. I wouldn't count on it, but at least we know that Bishop Fellay must feel quite a burden in making this decision, since the situation is the fruit of his labour and efforts over the past few years -- rotten fruit, as we all hope he sees.
-
There is no point in making an agreement if feel you can not carry most of the faithful with you. You would sound out your hand-picked superiors as to the thoughts of their priests and parishioners on the subject of doing a deal. The strength of reaction to a number of issues including Bp. Williamson, criticism of Rome, censorship and litigation has already neen tested and maybe the leadership now feels the bulk of the Society is ripe for a deal if Rome can prepare an easy passage.
-
Three observations, Tele wouldn't last two days in any religious order (nor would Matthew apparently), there seems to be an amazing ability among some to mind-read (while not surprisingly the most "evil" thoughts are read, interpreted and broadcast) and finally the subjective intentions of individuals do not affect objective reality. Let's face it, it's not a lack of trust in Rome, it's a simple lack of trust in the priests of the SSPX. Mr. Vennari's observations amount to a series of hand-wringing "what-if's".
Whether you like it or not, the problem began with Rome and it will end with Rome. To give up on the Romans and juridical recognition is to turn one's back on the Church, for there can be no contradiction between the charity and law as it stands today; between the integrity of the faith and legal rectitude of succession. The sede's are in a real predicament, though they don't see it because they are blinded by their unscientific opinions. I have detailed the very serious theological problems elsewhere.
-
I have detailed the very serious theological problems elsewhere.
Do you have a link to it?
-
Whether you like it or not, the problem began with Rome and it will end with Rome. To give up on the Romans and juridical recognition is to turn one's back on the Church, for there can be no contradiction between the charity and law as it stands today; between the integrity of the faith and legal rectitude of succession. The sede's are in a real predicament, though they don't see it because they are blinded by their unscientific opinions. I have detailed the very serious theological problems elsewhere.
Dear friend, you speak with such sophistry and pride. It seems that since you know (and I'm sure you do know) and are so well learned in theology and may know how to think like a theologian, that those who do not, are simply unable to obtain the truth and see what indeed lies in the road ahead. I've pointed this out before. You place so much trust in jurisdiction and recognition of those who have, themselves, destroyed it.
That doesn't make sense to me. You might emphasize this point. But I believe in the words of our Lord, "become as little children,." I would rather see this and view it simply, like a child would, than someone who thinks Christ will work only through theology and Cannon law. He is above that, and to that there is no response.
The sede's are in a tight predicament, and you act as if the SSPX isn't. Who isn't in a tight predicament?
-
I do speak as a child, a child and son of the Roman Catholic Church; a child and son who knows that his Mother is sick with a terrible disease and sees the remedy sitting on the shelf in a dusty corner while She is too delirious to comprehend its presence or effect. This Mother, our Roman Mother, must be the same as before, that is She must possess identity through succession and jurisdiction, the very thing that Our Lord gave to Our Mother in order to teach, govern and sanctify, that is, to carry out His mission in nursing and raising His children. Jurisdiction is no light matter, identity, succession, continuity are no light matter.
Any simple child can tell who is his own Mother, albeit ill, and an entirely new creation raised from the ashes that sedevacantism presents at some point in the unknown future, from whence it is anyone's guess; demanding that authority has ceased to exist, whilst having us believe that its re-emergence is perfectly congruous with Catholic thought; tagging us along, with a carrott on a stick, presumptuously expecting a miracle and specially infused knowledge to perfectly discern the identity of a true Pope and Bishops somewhere off in the distant future. But one cannot give what one does not possess; the principle of continuity and jurisdiction is annihilated; the very thing that gives the Church its legitimacy among the myriad of sects. And any Roman child would hold as abhorrent any pretended Roman Mother who arose from an unknown root, even though She appeared as an angel of light. If this be admitted, then any sect could claim legitimacy. The entire notion is repugnant and any child can see that; he can discern his Mother, though ill and sickly, from a substitution, though beautiful and apparently sound.
Christ's face was disfigured, so too the Church's face, yet, not a bone was broken and this signifies the fundamental jurisdiction that holds the body intact. That is why I say that the problem began in Rome and must end in Rome as Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta recently noted.
-
I do speak as a child, a child and son of the Roman Catholic Church; a child and son who knows that his Mother is sick with a terrible disease and sees the remedy sitting on the shelf in a dusty corner while She is too delirious to comprehend its presence or effect. This Mother, our Roman Mother, must be the same as before, that is She must possess identity through succession and jurisdiction, the very thing that Our Lord gave to Our Mother in order to teach, govern and sanctify, that is, to carry out His mission in nursing and raising His children. Jurisdiction is no light matter, identity, succession, continuity are no light matter.
Any simple child can tell who is his own Mother, albeit ill, and an entirely new creation raised from the ashes that sedevacantism presents at some point in the unknown future, from whence it is anyone's guess; demanding that authority has ceased to exist, whilst having us believe that its re-emergence is perfectly congruous with Catholic thought; tagging us along, with a carrott on a stick, presumptuously expecting a miracle and specially infused knowledge to perfectly discern the identity of a true Pope and Bishops somewhere off in the distant future. But one cannot give what one does not possess; the principle of continuity and jurisdiction is annihilated; the very thing that gives the Church its legitimacy among the myriad of sects. And any Roman child would hold as abhorrent any pretended Roman Mother who arose from an unknown root, even though She appeared as an angel of light. If this be admitted, then any sect could claim legitimacy. The entire notion is repugnant and any child can see that; he can discern his Mother, though ill and sickly, from a substitution, though beautiful and apparently sound.
Christ's face was disfigured, so too the Church's face, yet, not a bone was broken and this signifies the fundamental jurisdiction that holds the body intact. That is why I say that the problem began in Rome and must end in Rome as Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta recently noted.
That was quite inspired Caminus, well done :)
-
The Church can't be "sick" or have "cancer." That's a flagrant theological error. Of course Caminus will say he's speaking "figurative" and claims (being a mind-reader) that (for example) Archbishop Lefebvre couldn't possibly have really meant that those who excommunicated him were excommunicated themselves.
I guess saying what you mean and meaning what you say have become foreign concepts in this time.
-
Admitting that the sins and errors of Catholics, i.e. the human element, can injure the Church, disfigure or harm the Church, is not only theologically permissible, the doctrine is taught in the Sacred Scriptures and the Fathers. You are confounding the Spotless Bride, whose perfection is to be found in the Church Trimphant and the human element of the Church Militant, thus creating an erroneous picture of the Church, much like Calvin did with his ecclesiology of the elect and the Donatists who refused to admit such blemishes.
In fact, members of the Church can become more perfectly united to the Mystical Body within, the Saints being the exemplars of this truth. If that is true, the converse is also true, that such intrinsic spiritual union that is to be perfected, can be lessened, imperfect or in some manner defective.
-
As exilenomore posted
During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly."
Mortalium Animos
So much for saying "the Church is sick"
"The Church has cancer"
(Bishop Fellay)
Or as Bishop Williamson lamentably made the comparison to a rotten apple.
Uncontaminated means uncontaminated.
Ultimately you have to ask why groups like the SSPX hedge everything they say, so if they say one thing they turn around and say you can't take it that they really meant it.
It's evident that the current hierarchy accepted by the SSPX does things that the Catholic Church cannot do. If Archbishop Lefebvre called the Vatican a masonic lodge and said those in Rome excommunicated themselves, I take him at his word. I don't say "oh that's not what he "really" meant." The contradictions are reaching the point of absurdity now.
78. The prescription of the synod about the order of transacting business in the conferences, in which, after it prefaced "in every article that which pertains to faith and to the essence of religion must be distinguished from that which is proper to discipline," it adds, "in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burden-some for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstitution and materialism"; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,—false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.
Auctorem Fidei.
-
During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly."
This refers to the Church's divine constitution, Her holiness in doctrine, in the Sacraments, in Her intrinsic, mystical relation with Our Lord Jesus Christ. On the other hand, this does not prevent individual members from becoming sinners and marring the Church according to Her human element. Therein lies the distinction that you are missing and consequently are perverting Catholic doctrine reducing it to absurdity. If your understanding is correct, how do you account for the evil that Catholics do? Do you seriously assert that it has no affect on the Church, its internal unity, its activity and its very existence? The errors that Mortalium Animos addressed were errors that touched upon the very essence and nature of the Church and that is why Pope Pius IX made such reference to Cyprian's statement. The quote from Auctorem Fidei refers to traditional discipline established by authority and antiquity, therefore it is not applicable to a non-authoritative, experimental discipline that is binding upon no one; reforms that did not come from the "Church" properly speaking, but from a commission of errant men. Therefore the quote is immaterial.
Regarding language, unless you would accuse ABL of a terrible schizophrenia, you must take it in a certain sense. The Vatican obviously was not literally a "masonic lodge" and therefore he used figurative, descriptive language that described a certain reality. But if you don't have the patience to discern the sense of a man's words, then I suggest you get out of this debate altogether as the temperament of your mind won't allow you to engage in serious discussion.
-
therefore it is not applicable to a non-authoritative, experimental discipline that is binding upon no one;
The Second Vatican Council, the encyclicals, and yes, the new rites of the sacraments are binding if one accepts them as coming from legitimate authority.
Saying that the "Church has cancer" is referring to these errors being spread from "inside" the Church, by the men accepted as the hierarchy by the SSPX.
Regarding language, unless you would accuse ABL of a terrible schizophrenia, you must take it in a certain sense.
No, I don't, I accuse the neo-SSPX of schizophrenia. Archbishop Lefebvre was pretty clear about the attitude to take to men such as Cardinal Ratzinger when he was alive. Which is why Bishop Fellay is asked about the society no longer mentioning much Archbishop Lefebvre. (and his answer didn't say "on the contrary we talk about him a lot" - no, his answer gave excuses for not talking about him)
-
Caminus said:
This refers to the Church's divine constitution, Her holiness in doctrine, in the Sacraments, in Her intrinsic, mystical relation with Our Lord Jesus Christ. On the other hand, this does not prevent individual members from becoming sinners and marring the Church according to Her human element.
Holiness in doctrine, you mean such as saying that false religions have seeds of the Word?
Holiness in the sacraments, you mean in the bastardized and invalid New Rite of Consecration? Or how about the Mass without any consecration at all entirely approved of by JPII? I won't speak about the "for all" in the Novus Ordo Mass because you will say that it isn't the official Novus Ordo Mass, and apparently you think that the true Church is kept alive by a rubric preserved in glass somewhere that is never used...
As for individual members being "sinners," it is now nigh-on two years since I've been here that you refuse to address the real issue which is that heretics are not just sinners, but non-Catholics. They are not members of the Church. What does it say about you that you are TRYING to confuse people, to make them equate those who commit mortal sins of the flesh or whatever, with heretics? You are intellectually dishonest. You know very well that mortal sinners are dead members of the Church; and heretics are not in the Church at all. But in your posts, you blur the difference -- now why would someone who wants the truth do that, hm? The irony of you always talking about distinctions is so very rich... You are the last person who should accuse anyone else of not making distinctions. All I can say is that for someone who wants to be the lay version of Garrigou-Lagrange you certainly aren't very rigorous in your arguments, relying on a bunch of sophistry and hedging.
If a heretic could be Pope, when the Holy Ghost has promised the Pope would be infallible on faith and morals, how would we ever know where the truth is? If a Pope could disfigure the Deposit of Faith, Christ's Church has no meaning, no sense. Your "Peter" doesn't have the keys; he is a latchkey kid whose mommy is Bishop Fellay, and who can have his privileges -- like infallibility -- revoked for bad behavior, then given back to him when he's good... Which in effect makes this totally random out-of-nowhere figure Bishop Fellay the Pope... He is the one who decides when what the Pope says is true or not, instead of God. Everything is backwards; we can no longer trust the Pope to teach us correctly on faith and morals, we just pick and choose what we like among his various teachings. This is what you call a rock? It's more like moldy Swiss cheese.
The logical consequence of the SSPX position is basically a subtle form of Old Catholicism -- you have, in effect, established a democratic form of Church government and effaced the papacy. It's yet another form of revolution, naturalizing what is supernatural, taking the Holy Ghost's supernatural protection of the Pope and replacing it with a purely natural and man-made ( and thus precarious and doomed ) protection in the form of Bishop Fellay.
-
Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger in 1987
Eminence, even if you give us everything--a bishop, some autonomy from the bishops, the 1962 liturgy, allow us to continue our seminaries--we cannot work together because we are going in different directions. You are working to dechristianize society and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them.
Bishop Fellay in 2008
In the present circuмstances, an agreement with the conciliar authorities would be suicidal.
-
Holiness in doctrine, you mean such as saying that false religions have seeds of the Word?
Is that a doctrine of the faith, taught by the Church or Scripture, found anywhere in the sources of revelation? Has it been taught with authority? Even if I granted such a notion, what does it really mean anyway? That truth is found in false religions and all truth is referred ultimately to the Word?
Holiness in the sacraments, you mean in the bastardized and invalid New Rite of Consecration?
The liturgy that surrounds the Blessed Sacrament and the Blessed Sacrament itself are two entirely different things. The gratuitous claims of invalidity can be gratuitously denied. Why do you people continue to parrott such unproven mantras? Do you think it somehow justifies your opinions?
Or how about the Mass without any consecration at all entirely approved of by JPII?
Again, an entirely separate question. Arguing that a particular consecration form is valid or not does not touch upon the notion of the holiness of the Sacraments themselves. Be that as it may, the opinion to which you refer is merely that, a non-binding opinion issued by a Congregation. Such judgments are not irreformable and consequently essentially fallible. Your citation of this case merely demonstrates that modern clerics lack the theological training to deal with these questions in a sound manner. Certainly injurious to Catholics, no?
I won't speak about the "for all" in the Novus Ordo Mass because you will say that it isn't the official Novus Ordo Mass, and apparently you think that the true Church is kept alive by a rubric preserved in glass somewhere that is never used...
It has been demonstrated that "for all" does not invalidate the form. I'm not sure what you mean by "keeping the Church alive." In fact, it is dying before our eyes.
As for individual members being "sinners," it is now nigh-on two years since I've been here that you refuse to address the real issue which is that heretics are not just sinners, but non-Catholics.
You beg the question by stating this truism. But in fact, it is generally agreed that occult heretics retain membership in the Church. Pretty injurious to the Church, no? There are varying degrees of error as well, a fact that you simply refuse to deal with because it throws a wrench in your opining.
They are not members of the Church. What does it say about you that you are TRYING to confuse people, to make them equate those who commit mortal sins of the flesh or whatever, with heretics? You are intellectually dishonest.
I'm not trying to confuse people. I'm driving the point home that the Church can be injured by sinners of all kinds. You brought up heretics. Even one Catholic in a state of mortal sin is harmful to the Church. Do you understand this?
You know very well that mortal sinners are dead members of the Church; and heretics are not in the Church at all. But in your posts, you blur the difference -- now why would someone who wants the truth do that, hm? The irony of you always talking about distinctions is so very rich... You are the last person who should accuse anyone else of not making distinctions. All I can say is that for someone who wants to be the lay version of Garrigou-Lagrange you certainly aren't very rigorous in your arguments, relying on a bunch of sophistry and hedging.
Well, that's true if my opponent injects superfluous statements into my points and thereby chastizes me for not making proper distinctions, then I concede your point. :laugh1:
If a heretic could be Pope, when the Holy Ghost has promised the Pope would be infallible on faith and morals, how would we ever know where the truth is?
Your begging the question. An heretic cannot be Pope. Whether this or that man is an heretic is a question of fact. That is what begging the question means, assuming something is true that is yet to be proven.
If a Pope could disfigure the Deposit of Faith, Christ's Church has no meaning, no sense.
Why? If a single bishop could disfigure the deposit of faith, or even a large body, and yet admit that Christ's Church still has "meaning," where do you draw the line?
As to the rest of your comments, I have directly challenged your notions in several threads. Until you deal with them, I have nothing more to say regarding your "logical conclusions."
-
Mr. Vennari's observations amount to a series of hand-wringing "what-if's".
I am at a complete loss in understanding you. Though I think you are fundamentally mistaken, your post was, except for this point, a reasonable post. I realize some may disagree with me about that statement, but it was. It is an honest assessment of your thoughts.
The above statement, however, is merely a gratuitous calumny of a man who has done much to bring many Catholics to tradition, who makes well-reasoned and convincing arguments on numerous issues of interest to traditional Catholics, and who essentially agrees with you on virtually every thing concerning the Society.
Mr. Vennari has written in favor of contacts of the Society with Rome and, should Bishop Fellay accept some sort of understanding with Rome, he will not abandon the Society.
What he has done in this article is not to warn Bishop Fellay of anything, but rather he is identifying some of the "minor" issues that have impacted traditional Catholics when they "returned to Rome" in the past that the Society leadership may not always have in mind.
I do understand your comments. The one thing the Modernists in Rome do is to foment division within the ranks. I am not saying that this doesn't happen is some traditional ghettos, but there is no unity anywhere in the Conciliar church in government or faith.
-
Caminus, the 1968 order of episcopal consecration can be deomnstrated as invalid based on this fact:
1. They used an "eastern form."
2. This "eastern form" come from the maronite rite of the enthronement of a patriarch.
3. A patriarch is already a Bishop!
Therefore, the rite has, at its basis, prayers which are substantially different and not the same as prayers of episcopal consecration.
Therefore the rite cannot be valid.
A scrament must signify what it effects, and effect what it signifies (Pope Leo XIII). None of the essential prayers signify the effect: The elevation of a man into the episcopate and its duties.
Therefore, it is invalid.
If you want a detailed answer, say so.
-
Mr. Vennari's observations amount to a series of hand-wringing "what-if's".
I am at a complete loss in understanding you. Though I think you are fundamentally mistaken, your post was, except for this point, a reasonable post. I realize some may disagree with me about that statement, but it was. It is an honest assessment of your thoughts.
The above statement, however, is merely a gratuitous calumny of a man who has done much to bring many Catholics to tradition, who makes well-reasoned and convincing arguments on numerous issues of interest to traditional Catholics, and who essentially agrees with you on virtually every thing concerning the Society.
Mr. Vennari has written in favor of contacts of the Society with Rome and, should Bishop Fellay accept some sort of understanding with Rome, he will not abandon the Society.
What he has done in this article is not to warn Bishop Fellay of anything, but rather he is identifying some of the "minor" issues that have impacted traditional Catholics when they "returned to Rome" in the past that the Society leadership may not always have in mind.
I do understand your comments. The one thing the Modernists in Rome do is to foment division within the ranks. I am not saying that this doesn't happen is some traditional ghettos, but there is no unity anywhere in the Conciliar church in government or faith.
How do you get 'calumny' out of that statement? It was certainly not intended as an insult to the man, let alone could it qualify as calumny. If the SSPX retains complete independence these "what if's" become moot. My position is predicated upon complete juridical independence; anything less would not be acceptable. In the minds of the men who occupy Roman offices, there is simply no valid reason not to offer such independence, in light of their own principles of "plurality" and "freedom." If it is not offered, then the SSPX ought to refuse any lesser agreement.
-
Caminus, the 1968 order of episcopal consecration can be deomnstrated as invalid based on this fact:
1. They used an "eastern form."
2. This "eastern form" come from the maronite rite of the enthronement of a patriarch.
3. A patriarch is already a Bishop!
Therefore, the rite has, at its basis, prayers which are substantially different and not the same as prayers of episcopal consecration.
Therefore the rite cannot be valid.
A scrament must signify what it effects, and effect what it signifies (Pope Leo XIII). None of the essential prayers signify the effect: The elevation of a man into the episcopate and its duties.
Therefore, it is invalid.
If you want a detailed answer, say so.
I'm not even sure if this merits a response. :facepalm:
-
It's not a calumy to criticize Mr. Vennari's writing.
Mr. Vennari seems like a nice man (I always thought Catholic Family News was a good read), but this is a hack-job, especially considering the importance of the topic
Bringing up the issue of an imprimatur for the "superb" 100 years of Modernism in the same list as the question to whether future superior generals would be like Archbishop Lefebvre shows something on an egological ontology, (or perhaps the hopelessly parochial and mindless confusion of someone stuck in the SSPX orbit)
The actual fundamental disagreements on theology and philosophy are secondary to a purely formal recognition and a meaningless imprimatur? And a meaningless imprimatur ranks up with the question as to who will lead the society and how will bishops be consecrated?
There is no sense of proportion in this essay, but anyone who would follow the SSPX wherever they go cannot have any sense of the relative importance of things.
-
I spoke with the District Superior of Canada today, and I asked him if all the Bishops would be at the meeting and he stated he thinks so. His Sermon today involved the Preamble and that it would be rejected if it had conditions.
On AngelQueen someone posted that the USA District Superior stated something similar in St. Mary's.
-
Caminus, the 1968 order of episcopal consecration can be deomnstrated as invalid based on this fact:
1. They used an "eastern form."
2. This "eastern form" come from the maronite rite of the enthronement of a patriarch.
3. A patriarch is already a Bishop!
Therefore, the rite has, at its basis, prayers which are substantially different and not the same as prayers of episcopal consecration.
Therefore the rite cannot be valid.
A scrament must signify what it effects, and effect what it signifies (Pope Leo XIII). None of the essential prayers signify the effect: The elevation of a man into the episcopate and its duties.
Therefore, it is invalid.
If you want a detailed answer, say so.
I'm not even sure if this merits a response. :facepalm:
Caminus, if anything the sedes here should be saying that to you... YOU are not really worthy of any responses due to your dishonesty in this argument and in general towards promotion of the SSPX.
How dare you say that Gregory's valid topic and post is not worthy of a response.
-
P.I.O., why did Fr. Cekada write such a long and detailed essay attempting to demonstrate the invalidity of the ordination rite when he could have easily proved it by a three sentence syllogism? Does that make sense to you? Neither you, nor Gregory, understand that which you speak about.
-
FLUB
-
P.I.O., why did Fr. Cekada write such a long and detailed essay attempting to demonstrate the invalidity of the ordination rite when he could have easily proved it by a three sentence syllogism? Does that make sense to you? Neither you, nor Gregory, understand that which you speak about.
What does that matter?
Why did God allow 27 books to be in the New Testament for the end result of humans knowing what was needed for salvation? Couldn't He just have allowed 3 sentences saying Jesus is God, whole in the Trinity and if you are in His Church with baptism and a state of grace, you will attain Heaven.
A bunch of extra FLUB in those extra words of the New Testament, I know .....
-
P.I.O., why did Fr. Cekada write such a long and detailed essay attempting to demonstrate the invalidity of the ordination rite when he could have easily proved it by a three sentence syllogism? Does that make sense to you? Neither you, nor Gregory, understand that which you speak about.
Then explain to me, why am I WRONG?
Your disdain is neither the magisterium, nor is it proof. It is just the sounding of a gong, and the clanging of a cymbal, as are the words of all who presume and have not charity.
Prove me wrong.
-
And SANTO you miss the point JPII is not a heretic because he utilized the extraordinary magisterium to promote heresy, he is a HERETIC because in his "magisterial" writings he REVEALS in a public, manifest and notorious fashion his heretical understanding of various issues of the faith.
His promulgation of the heresy for others to believe is irrelevant: What matters is the manifest and public nature of the heresies he espoused.
THAT is what makes him a heretic.
-
G-1, never mind that Wojtyla prayed with and for pagans. He opened Church property, including consecrated chapels, for the use of these heretics in their false religions.
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/new_JP2_photos.php
The funniest thing I have read in a VERY long time, however, had to be that quote from Ratzinger about how the Vat-2 types embrace the entirety of tradition.
HA!
So, that little "oopsie" in Quo Primum, you know, the one about the Tridentine Mass being irreplaceable and VALID FOR ALL TIME AND NEVER TO BE ABROGATED... does Joseph Ratzinger embrace THAT, too? I hardly think so.
Fellay is going to play whatever political games he needs to in order to stay afloat. The only thing he should be having 'dialog' with Ratzinger about is Ratzinger's confession of the heresies he has promoted, the crimes he guilty of and the multitude of other offenses he is party to because of his status in the NO.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.