Sorry here's the link for the above.  http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/

The New Paradigm -- SSPX & Rome Reconciliation



The New Paradigm -- SSPX & Rome Reconciliation

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: I have it on fairly good authority that the impasse between Rome and the SSPX will soon be bridged, and the Society can soon look forward to regularisation as a Personal Prelature of the pope within the Catholic Church. What I don't know is how many of the four SSPX bishops will accept this regularisation. It is certain that one (Bishop Fellay) will accept it, while it is almost equally certain that one (Bishop Williamson) will likely reject it. We do not know of the other two, who will accept and who will reject, as it cannot be foreseen at this time. Even if, however, three of the four SSPX bishops reject the regularisation, leaving only one to accept it (Fellay himself), this will be enough to permanently change the paradigm both in the SSPX and in Rome itself. For the regularisation of just one SSPX bishop can only mean one thing. Rome has officially conceded that the Modernist interpretations of Vatican II are false, and the faith of Catholics within the SSPX is perfectly valid. In other words, Catholics are free to dissent from the Modernist interpretations of Vatican II, (we have always been free to do so), particularly those briefly outlined in the video above, and still remain Catholics in perfectly good standing within the Church.

This will come as no news to the regular readers of this blog, for yours truly has been pointing out for the last six years that this is precisely how the Holy Father interprets Vatican II within the "hermeneutic of continuity" verses the popular "hermeneutic of rupture." Essentially, what that means is this. Vatican II is a subordinate Church council, totally pastoral in nature, and it is subordinate to Vatican I and Trent. Everything written within Vatican II must be interpreted solely in the context of Vatican I and Trent, as well as previous councils. This is the "hermeneutic of continuity." In contrast, the popular "hermeneutic of rupture," a means of interpreting the council that is flat wrong and developed in the 1970s, proposed falsely that the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) is a "super-council" that cancels out all previous councils, resetting Church doctrine and practice back to zero and starting over from scratch. Such an erroneous interpretation has caused many to embrace the so-called "Spirit of Vatican II" which is a series of ideas and innovations that have no basis in the council itself, but for whatever reason, people tend to think the council intended for them to happen. Liturgically, they consist of such things as; outlawing the use of Latin entirely, tearing down old high altars and replacing them with low table altars, eliminating the communion rails, celebrating mass ad populum exclusively, eliminating communion on the tongue, dispensing of Gregorian chant, introducing such things as liturgical dance, pop music, holding hands and other innovations. Doctrinally, it consists of such things as synchronism, feminism, and moral relativism. These notions centre around the problematic texts of Vatican II outlined in the video above. Thus it will become necessary in the months and years ahead for these texts to be further defined (clarified) either by the CDF or by the pope himself. Regular readers of this blog probably have a good understanding of what these texts are supposed to mean anyway, but for the general edification of the entire Church (ourselves included) such clarifications will need to be officially proclaimed by Rome. The regularisation of the SSPX (even just one bishop) will officially state such clarification in a defacto way already. We only need wait for the official follow-up in black and white.

Once the SSPX is regularised, there will be an immediate need for new bishops to be consecrated within this new prelature structure. How many will depend on how many of the original four assent to the regularisation. Those who remain outside of this structure will ultimately be marginalised to the point of irrelevancy, effectively becoming FUNCTIONAL sedevacatists regardless of their doctrinal take on the Chair of Peter. Of course, I would expect the prelature to maintain an open channel of communication with these dissenting bishops regardless, as it would be within the mission of such a prelature to do so. As Bishop Fellay said in the video above. The situation within the Catholic Church is far from ideal, but this is what it is, and it is what we have to work with. For any Catholic knows that reform of the Church is more likely when working from within it, rather than from the outside looking in.


UPDATE 5/16/2012...


THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The official Vatican press release and accompanying reports from various sources can be read HERE.  At first glance the whole thing looks rather confusing, creating more questions than it answers.  This is likely because of the defensive (somewhat secretive) posture Rome is taking in all of this.  Remember, Rome has been burned on these things before.  Thus the Vatican is being extra cautious.  However, I believe everything has unfolded according to plan.  The CDF has officially reviewed the revised doctrinal preamble signed by Bishop Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX.  Some reservations were noted by some within the CDF, however these are non-binding.  Their review is now being forwarded to the Holy Father, and will likely be placed into his hands personally tomorrow by Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the CDF.  Tomorrow is the Feast of the Ascension (Proper).  Now it appears the CDF, perhaps prompted by the Holy Father, has decided to deal with the individual bishops of the SSPX separately.  This may have been the plan all along, but the private letters that have surfaced recently, between Fellay and the other three bishops, highlighting the schism that appears to be developing within the SSPX over this reconciliation prospect, seems to have made such a modality of individual episcopal reconciliation absolutely necessary.  Each of the four bishops has his own concerns, so each bishop will be dealt with individually.


I am convinced the Holy Father will soon regularise the SSPX, starting first with the Superior General Bishop Bernard Fellay.  The pope will approve the revised preamble, or some slightly modified version of it, and probably have a private audience with Bishop Fellay.  Upon signing the final draft of the preamble that is pre-approved by the pope himself, Bishop Bernard Fellay (along with all those in the SSPX who follow him) will instantly be regularised as a Personal Prelature within the Church.  This will likely include most (or all) of the SSPX parishes within the United States and Canada.  At that point, negotiations will begin with the other three bishops individually.  Regardless of their response to the Holy See's invitation, the new Prelate (I assume Bernard Fellay) of the Personal Prelature of St. Pius X, or PPSPX (and I'm just guessing on name here as there is no way I could know), will need more bishops to assist him.  I expect consecrations will begin within a year or two, regardless of the response of the other three bishops.  I suspect, the response of the other three bishops will only determine "how many" PPSPX bishops would need to be consecrated.


I suspect some back channelling is going on between Bishop Fellay and the pope himself.  There appears to be an unusual amount of confidence in Bishop Fellay in recent weeks, and he's dropped some clues that his relationship with Pope Benedict XVI seems to be more than official.  He speaks of the "sincerity" of the pope, as if he's personally witnessed it.  Some have speculated that the Holy Father already has a copy of the revised preamble, and that it was sent to him personally by Bishop Fellay through his own back channel with the Holy See.  Thus, His Holiness already knows what is in the revised preamble, and may have already made his decision about it, while he allows the normative Vatican processes with the CDF to unfold.  This of course is speculation, but I think it's reasonable speculation, since this is how most State Departments conduct business between nations.  There is usually a back channel between the heads of state that operates independently of the normal diplomatic processes.  It's reasonable to assume something similar is happening between the SSPX and Rome.  


Now we wait and see.  I am going to request that all my readers pray a single rosary for Pope Benedict XVI tonight in regards to this monumental decision, and I would also like to ask you to request this of other Catholics in the days ahead.  We are on the cusp of something potentially VERY BIG.

This cardinal has met with SSPX faithful. The SSPX priest visits the Sri Lanka chapel for a week every month. When the faithful told Cardinal Ranjith that they pray the Rosary whenever there isn't Mass, he urged them to go to the Novus Ordo.
Over a year ago he is supposed to have asked the SSPX to train his priests to celebrate a Latin Pontifical High Mass. Till today, this training has not taken place even though the SSPX priests were available.

I read this article over on Father Zuhlsdorf's blog.  I don't read his blog often because I just can't stand it, but I found this link.  

You should really read some of the comments about it.  Here's one I am linking for you.  Apparently this man was a seminarian in the 80s in Winona.  So it is pretty telling what the Neo-Caths think.

SSPX seminarians need to be re-educated.

What a huge mess Arbishop Fellay is about to get the Society into.

I believe, now more so than ever, that the end is closer than we think.

I read this article over on Father Zuhlsdorf's blog.  I don't read his blog often because I just can't stand it, but I found this link.  

You should really read some of the comments about it.  Here's one I am linking for you.  Apparently this man was a seminarian in the 80s in Winona.  So it is pretty telling what the Neo-Caths think.

SSPX seminarians need to be re-educated.

What a huge mess Arbishop Fellay is about to get the Society into.

I believe, now more so than ever, that the end is closer than we think.

They have silly opinions, yes, but that doesn't mean they will be enforced into law.

Quote from: CathMomof7

I read this article over on Father Zuhlsdorf's blog.  I don't read his blog often because I just can't stand it, but I found this link.  

You should really read some of the comments about it.  Here's one I am linking for you.  Apparently this man was a seminarian in the 80s in Winona.  So it is pretty telling what the Neo-Caths think.

SSPX seminarians need to be re-educated.

What a huge mess Arbishop Fellay is about to get the Society into.

I believe, now more so than ever, that the end is closer than we think.

They have silly opinions, yes, but that doesn't mean they will be enforced into law.

Silly, sure.  But worse than silly is the complete lack of reflection.

Can we not look at history and see what's happened in the other "traditional" seminaries that are under the fist of the Vatican? Let's take, for example, the Institute of Christ the King and the Fraternity of Saint Peter. They have to say that the Novus Ordo is just as good as the Immemorial Mass to be able to stay within it.

I've been told in the confessional by a FSSP priest (very recently ordained) that the Novus Ordo is perfectly valid and that I couldn't criticize people who found it spiritually edifying and got fruit from it - however, I was under no obligation to receive Communion or participate if I did not feel that the environment was conducive to my spiritual growth. Obviously he believes that the Novus Ordo fulfills sunday obligation.

But at the same time, when meeting privately with him out of the confessional, he had no problem criticizing the Novus Ordo. Or rather, the liberties that priest and faithful take while attending it.

I've even heard that they have to concelebrate just ONE Novus Ordo to prove the statement they have to make in this regard.

This is probably false - if it is true, then it is certainly not a part of the official requirements.

Quote from: CathMomof7

I read this article over on Father Zuhlsdorf's blog.  I don't read his blog often because I just can't stand it, but I found this link.  

You should really read some of the comments about it.  Here's one I am linking for you.  Apparently this man was a seminarian in the 80s in Winona.  So it is pretty telling what the Neo-Caths think.

SSPX seminarians need to be re-educated.

What a huge mess Arbishop Fellay is about to get the Society into.

I believe, now more so than ever, that the end is closer than we think.

I posted on that link and was pretty disappointed with the shallow commentary and the snide remarks about the SSPX.  And Fr. Z's blog is considered "super conservative" in novus ordo-land.  

I don't normally read Fr. Z's blog either because it makes me pull my hair out, and there isn't much left to pull out anymore. HAHAHAHA

But after reading these, I had to take a peek. So then I saw this:

Centristian says:
16 May 2012 at 2:11 pm

Well, I wouldn’t necessarily get too carried away with those daydreams, Father, to be honest. [Have I? Have you seen me posting about it all the time? No, it only pops up occasionally, and as a matter of fact always in terms of the anguish it would cause liberals. o{]:¬) ]

Keep in mind, that the SSPX clergy have been formed and educated by each other, not by renowned professors, theologians, and scholars with vast credentials. Their guest lecturers will have included various conspiracy-theorists and revisionist historians. The formation of SSPX clergy may be “traditional”, but that doesn’t mean their formations do not suffer from significant deficiencies. There are, of course, alot of SSPX priests running around out there who were formed, selected, and ordained by Williamson and by others like him.

I think that alot of the clergy of the SSPX could use some re-tuning from (solid) Catholic academia once they return to the fold, to be honest. [I agree wholeheartedly. The point I made, above, is that if Card. Ranjith said that, it was - at least - a nice gesture. Even if it doesn't actually happen, it is a signal that he would welcome greater unity, and must surely be encouraging. It was encouraging enough that the SSPX preacher, thinking it was true, mentioned it.]
Elizabeth says:
16 May 2012 at 2:37 pm

Centristian: “not by renowned professors, theologians, and scholars with vast credentials. Their guest lecturers will have included various conspiracy-theorists and revisionist historians. The formation of SSPX clergy may be “traditional”, but that doesn’t mean their formations do not suffer from significant deficiencies.” And this you know, how…?
Centristian says:
16 May 2012 at 2:52 pm

Because I was an SSPX seminarian, Elizabeth.

[Our friend Elizabeth left that one hanging over the plate. o{]:¬)
]
Liam says:
16 May 2012 at 3:20 pm

I was an SSPX seminarian at Winona in the late 1980s and I can concur with Centristian’s claims.

Many clergy of the SSPX will need remedial academic formation and some even a detoxification and remedial priestly formation following a reconciliation. This is not meant as a snarky attack on the SSPX, but simply a fact of reality. They are good guys and will need help adjusting.

Pray! Pray! Pray! for ecclesial unity!

Here is the reality.
And some posters here have already said as much but I need to say it with my own words, okay?

Bishop Fellay is preparing to send his priests into the SNAKE PIT. And the snakes are venomous.

Everywhere they go, with assignments to accomplish some goal here or there, they will be faced with new order priests who are utterly bent on reforming them into "better rounded" or "well-tuned" priests. If the SSPX priests hold their own, they will do it under emotionally abusive attacks, and the more successful the good priests are, the more abusive the attacks against them will become. Don't be surprised if we start seeing physical violence to them.

In 1998, Father Alfred Joseph Kunz was brutally murdered in his own parish school. His friends had known that he had enemies, because Fr. Kunz had been telling about the death threats he had been receiving. He was a priest who stood up to the deviance of corruption and the deviants and corrupt did not appreciate being identified.

Let him be our model of the courage we need to practice in the face of evil in these diabolical times.